I guess I’m going to start out sort of moti­vat­ing some of this. And when we talk about per­for­mance and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty, com­pa­nies are so data-driven—probably a lot of your com­pa­nies are so data-driven—when it comes to cus­tomers. And I could ask you ques­tions about where your cus­tomers buy prod­ucts, or what sort of prod­ucts they buy. And you could give me very detailed answers.

But I could ask rel­a­tive­ly sim­i­lar ques­tions about what goes on with­in your com­pa­ny that you can’t answer. So, if you’re an engi­neer­ing com­pa­ny, how much does man­age­ment actu­al­ly talk to the devel­op­ers? If you’re a retail­er, how much should you talk to a cus­tomer at a store? Now, you think about how basic, how fun­da­men­tal those ques­tions are. And one of the rea­sons that we can’t actu­al­ly answer those ques­tions is because we don’t have very good data about what actu­al­ly goes on inter­nal­ly. And in fact, there’s real­ly only one indus­try in the world that is total­ly data-driven about the way its peo­ple behave at work, and uses that data to make deci­sions. And those orga­ni­za­tions are base­ball teams.

Photo: Philadelphia American League Base Ball Team via Library of Congress

For 150 years the way you built a base­ball team is you had a bunch of old guys who knew a lot about base­ball watch peo­ple play base­ball, and then based on their sub­jec­tive eval­u­a­tions they’d build a team. Now, some­times they’re right, some­times they’re wrong…that was viewed as the best way to do things. And I’ll point out for those of you who are not famil­iar with the game of base­ball, it’s a game where you hit a ball with a stick, and it’s a game that’s a lot more fun to watch if you’re drunk. So, here we go.

What’s fas­ci­nat­ing is this very sub­jec­tive way of man­ag­ing these teams con­tin­ued into 2001. And then one day you get this guy Billy Beane (or Brad Pitt, if you like) who said, No, we’re going to use behav­ioral data to build our orga­ni­za­tion. We can use data about what peo­ple do on the field—” and every­one thought he was crazy. But if you saw the movie Moneyball, if you read the book, they went on a record win­ning streak, they made the play­offs. An now every sin­gle orga­ni­za­tion builds their team in this way.

The ques­tion is what is the equiv­a­lent of that in indus­try? Because of this I’ll put up one ques­tion here which might seem a lit­tle strange. Why is orga­ni­za­tion­al change hard?” The thing is you know, things like M&A, restruc­tur­ing, we know they’re hard. But we fail a lot at those things. I mean, M&A fails con­ser­v­a­tive­ly about 60% of time.

Slide depicts a company organization chart on the left, and two people chatting at a water cooler on the right

And a big rea­son is because we focus on the stuff that’s easy to cap­ture. We focus on the stuff over there, the for­mal stuff. Because it’s easy to under­stand. I can point to the per­son at the top and I can say that’s the most impor­tant per­son in the com­pa­ny.

On the oth­er hand if I ask you, again, how much does man­age­ment talk to a divi­sion? If I ask you who’s the social cen­ter of a com­pa­ny, that’s much hard­er to answer. Because we use sur­veys or con­sul­tants, which are use­ful for cer­tain pur­pos­es but can’t give us the same gran­u­lar­i­ty dai­ly, even month­ly, about what’s actu­al­ly going on. But now because we have sen­sors, we’re wear­ing next-generation ID badges, we have dig­i­tal data, email, IM, phone calls, all of a sud­den we can under­stand at a mil­lisec­ond lev­el what is actu­al­ly going on with a com­pa­ny. And then we can use that to first, actu­al­ly under­stand what hap­pens, but also under­stand what actu­al­ly dri­ves the out­comes we care about.

And this kind of data gives rise to this whole area of peo­ple ana­lyt­ics. And I’ll have the stan­dard plug for my book, which it makes a great gift. You can go buy mul­ti­ple copies. But the idea behind peo­ple ana­lyt­ics is real­ly using behav­ioral data to under­stand what’s going on and chang­ing the way your com­pa­ny is man­aged. I’m hap­py to say that now there are well over a hun­dred com­pa­nies that have peo­ple ana­lyt­ics divi­sions. What they do is they take the lessons we’ve learned about ana­lyz­ing cus­tomer data and applied it inter­nal­ly.

I want to give you a fla­vor of what that actu­al­ly can look like. So, one of the things that we do is we use sen­sors, sort of next-generation ID badges, to mea­sure how peo­ple talk to each oth­er, using a micro­phone. Who talks to who. And where peo­ple spend time, and how they move around. We don’t record what peo­ple say. We don’t give indi­vid­ual data to com­pa­nies. And I know we’re going to talk lat­er about some of the pri­va­cy impli­ca­tions of this kind of tech­nol­o­gy. But what I want to show you is data from a major European bank.

What we did is we deployed these sen­sors across actu­al­ly hun­dreds of loca­tions. These are retail loca­tions, where have peo­ple sell­ing loans to cus­tomers. And they have some loca­tions where they real­ly out­per­form the pro­jec­tions that the com­pa­ny made, and they have oth­er loca­tions that real­ly don’t do such a good job. From a for­mal per­spec­tive, they’re exact­ly the same. People are trained in the same way. You have sim­i­lar employ­ee demo­graph­ics. Just very dif­fer­ent per­for­mance.

So what do they do dif­fer­ent­ly? I’m going to show you data from three branch­es. I added some noise to the data so it’s not actu­al­ly the orig­i­nal data. But it gives you a fla­vor for what you can see. And I’ll show you just a very sim­ple cut of the data.

Wee see three branch­es here. Each dot rep­re­sents a per­son. The lines between them rep­re­sent how much they talk to each oth­er face to face, which we can detect with these devices. So we see some­thing very inter­est­ing. There’s a num­ber of branch­es like Branch 1, where pret­ty much every­body talks to every­body else. We see branch­es like Branch 2, where we have these two clus­ters here, which is sort of inter­est­ing. And then you’ve got branch­es like Branch 3, where you’ve got a real­ly tight knit core, but you’ve got three lone­ly peo­ple on the out­side.

And so the ques­tion is which branch has the high­est per­for­mance? They look very dif­fer­ent. We found hun­dreds of branch­es that clus­ter into these dif­fer­ent areas. So we’re going to have a lit­tle vote here. These peo­ple all have the same job; they’re sell­ing small busi­ness loans. And I can mea­sure their per­for­mance very con­crete­ly: how many loans did they sell per per­son? Alright, so who thinks Branch One had the high­est per­for­mance per per­son? Alright. Branch 2? And Branch 3.

Okay, pret­ty close. You guys did pret­ty well. So, Branch 1 did have the high­est per­for­mance. And to give you a sense of the order of mag­ni­tude of that effect, Branch 1, the aver­age employ­ee there would sell about 250% times the num­ber of loans as some­one in a branch like this, like Branch 2.

Now, Branch 3 was also quite close, but these out­liers brought everyone’s per­for­mance down. So what’s hap­pen­ing? Why does this hap­pen? Well, now we’ve iden­ti­fied that there are behav­ioral dif­fer­ences in these dif­fer­ent kinds of branch­es. So we can actu­al­ly start to zoom in, and the bank sent peo­ple to see what do they do dif­fer­ent­ly. People are paid based on how much you sell. But it turned out that at branch­es like Branch 1, man­agers had imple­ment­ed an infor­mal bonus sys­tem. They had a tar­get for the whole branch, and if you hit it every­body got a bonus. They incen­tivized peo­ple to share, and they do.

Branches like Branch 2, we saw lots of them like this. Exactly two groups, and every time it was two groups. Any hypothe­ses about why that would be? First floor, sec­ond floor. We timed it. It takes less than ten sec­onds to walk from one floor to anoth­er. But nobody does it. And it had a huge effect. You save mon­ey on rent, you lose it in per­for­mance.

Branches like Branch 3, any guess­es for these out­liers, who they are? Work from home? Not quite. Bosses. I wish; no. These are new employ­ees. But they’d all been in the branch for over a month, and they still only talk to their man­ag­er. Actually, they only talk their man­ag­er.

Now, what they did is they ran tests. Took this group per­for­mance sys­tem, rolled it to out to half of their branch­es. They start­ed switch­ing people’s desks, first floor and sec­ond floor, in two-floor loca­tions. And now they give €100 a week to man­agers to take their new employ­ee out to lunch with some­body else. We can get into the details lat­er. Long sto­ry short, with con­trols, that increased sales by over 11%. This is worth over €1 bil­lion a year. Using rel­a­tive­ly sim­ple changes.

And so the future of this tech­nol­o­gy, a lot of peo­ple think of Star Trek or Star Wars, and I like to think about some­thing a lit­tle dif­fer­ent. I like to think about Harry Potter. If you remem­ber the Harry Potter movie, they have these stair­ways that move on their own; I always real­ly liked that idea. And imag­ine with this kind of data com­ing in all the time that you can get into an ele­va­tor, and you don’t press any but­tons but you get offered a cer­tain floor, an algo­rithm lets you off there. Because you’re prob­a­bly going to have an inter­est­ing con­ver­sa­tion there.

Imagine the cof­fee machines move around at night; they’re robots, and actu­al­ly do that to change the inter­ac­tion pat­terns in an office. And lit­er­al­ly one of our cus­tomers does that, so I actu­al­ly have data from this. Groups in the Netherlands are mak­ing robot­ic walls. And even­tu­al­ly, of course it’s going to apply to real­ly big busi­ness­es. But it could even­tu­al­ly apply to small busi­ness as well, where you could under­stand what makes my restau­rant effec­tive, and how can I com­pare that to the best restau­rant in the world? Or what could I learn from a gro­cery store in Africa?

And then how could I not just learn from those com­pa­nies, but big com­pa­nies learn from small com­pa­nies? Companies in Russia learn from com­pa­nies in the US. And real­ly rather than wait­ing a decade for an HBR case study to come out, being able to do this lit­er­al­ly in a mat­ter of days. So real­ly that’s the poten­tial. And I appre­ci­ate every­one for lis­ten­ing. Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2016 at the World Economic Forum site


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.