Canadian HR Strategy

25 get whatever they want — no matter how crazy it might seem, he said. "Whether they want a walking desk while they're coding, they can get that. Do they want to get a massage two or three times a day at their seat? ey get to do that. Whatever the engineers are com- fortable working in is what's important." Some of the employee perks at the Toronto offi ce include a putting green, tent and swing, said John Roberts, Cana- dian director of architecture and design at Herman Miller, a work space design fi rm in Toronto. To boost productivity, it's important to create a space that is comfortable, safe (both psychologically and physically) and gives people end-user control, said Rob- erts. e Google campuses also include a variety of deliberately designed spaces that encourage certain types of behaviour. " e spaces are a trigger, so when I walk into a space that is a creative trig- ger, this is a place where I can sit and have some me time and think deeply about something because it's set away from the rest of the world," said Hurwitz. "But here's a place where I can bond and do things with my peers." And Google does not use its facilities as a reward system — the whole offi ce is available to the whole offi ce, said Roberts. " is is kind of radical in work space design because we've always done that — assigned spaces to people because they have done better and it's a really hard thing to get away from," he said. "Google has created a space that is relevant to their business, relevant to the people that work there now and relevant to the people they want to come work for them." Ev ery firm can afford Google's talent approach (Strategic Capability) By Dave Crisp W hat really made this session was not only hearing Google confi rm it actually does the stuff we read about, but hearing from Marc Hurwitz about why it works. What emerges is a growing new picture of what's strategically important. Of course, the big question will always be whether com- panies less fi nancially successful can aff ord these things but, really, the question should be: Can they aff ord not to try? Google spends time and money statistically measuring aspects of its HR operations that others don't take the time to analyze. Not only did it zero in on the best ingredients for eff ective leadership by as- sessing the diff erences between eff ective and less eff ective teams (try googling "Google Project Oxygen"), it has measured a key aspect of its hiring process — something others try to copy. Intent on hiring only the best, Google would send candidates for eight or more interviews with peers and bosses and o en one of the co-founders. At other companies that have tried this, candidates complain furiously they feel abused to be asked to endure so much grilling with no assurance of employment — they get turned off . Google fi nally realized this and statistically showed the optimum number of interviews was four — enough to get at pretty much ev- erything interviews can show without upsetting people. is is the sort of focused, strategic information that makes processes more ef- fi cient, and you don't have to be Google employees to realize it, nor do you need outside experts to do these surveys and calculations. When we say HR needs to develop much better metrics, every- one agrees. But it seems everyone thinks about "big stuff " — mas- sive projects — rather than taking key pieces of process and fi nding the best solutions. Moreover, we may not have to reinvent the wheel completely. My guess is most companies would fi nd the same inter- view process as Google better than whatever they're currently doing. It's information like this and the surrounding bits — too lengthy to describe here — that make such sessions so worthwhile. Knowing the brain science behind why multitasking doesn't work, why we need to "sleep on it" to maximize creativity and how that can help set agendas for better meetings — and more — are some of the nuts and bolts ingredients to becoming more innovative at organizations. Google's stellar success should be seen as confi rming ingredients we've been talking about, yet feeling no one is listening. For instance, it provides solid security and peace of mind to employees, which is necessary for top employee performance, according to Hurwitz. Less wealthy companies can't off er free food and bus service from home to offi ce as elements of security. But they sure as heck can stop capriciously laying people off at the fi rst sign of trouble and then ex- pecting the remaining employees to be highly engaged and produc- tive at anything except producing and updating resumés. Can we aff ord all of it? No, but some of it is just a rearrangement of what we should have been doing already. When common sense isn't all that common, good science and stats can help make it so. Dave Crisp is a Toronto-based writer and commentator on strate- gic capability for the Strategic Capability Network. He has a wealth of experience, including 14 years leading HR at Hudson's Bay Company where he took the 70,000-employee retailer to "best company to work for" status. For more information, visit www.balance-and-results.com. How do you measure up against Google's prowess? (Leadership in Action) By Trish Maguire A s an employer, Google has a pretty good story — which earned it bragging rights as the best company to work for, according to Fortune. Google continues to prove to the world that engagement drives productivity and profi tability. When you listen to its

• Cover