Don’t know if you’ve caught any of Microsoft’s spiffy, new $500 million business-targeted campaign.  Themed “People-Ready” it asks businesses to consider whether they embody that ideal. Or, in other words, whether they have the tools in place to enable their most important resource – their people. Here’s a press release and an article in AdWeek.

The TV spot I saw had a bunch of business people doing business-y things and talking about differentiation. They ask themselves about operations, about marketing, etc. And they find no opportunity for optimization or advantage. Then, they pose a question that goes something like: “so what IS our competitive advantage?” Then one of the business-y guys nods through the glass to the people working at their desks and says “them.”

It’s no surprise that the push is to convince CEOs and the like that “Microsoft technology can help them get their employees to succeed” in the words of the AdWeek article. But my (obviously skewed and probably simplistic) reaction is to wonder if more word-processing software and an upgraded operating system are really what’s going to help drive people to perform.

As a loyal PC user, I’m excited about Windows Vista and the new Office. They look cooler and seem like they will make some computer things easier and more efficient. But will they “get employees to succeed” in ways they haven’t been able to before? Probably not.

It’s very en vogue these days to focus on people. Companies do it in their annual reports, FastCompany’s “Why we hate HR” article spawned volumes of comment and criticism and software vendors like SuccessFactors are gaining popularity as we help organizations manage talent in new ways. “People” is popular in the business world. But let’s take a minute to understand that people + technology can = many different things.

Spreadsheets, databases, operating systems and word processing software help people do tasks better. Talent management software helps organizations do people better. With all the people-talk these days, don’t get confused. Only one type of technology is truly focused on driving success through people. The rest is just marketing.

A Fortune Magazine article discusses the genesis of big ideas and concludes that they don’t come from working hard. 

We all know that when our bodies and brains are overworked, our ability to think creatively is substantively diminished. So why should you care? Mostly because as business shifts to a knowledge-based economy, it is just that sort of big thinking that will ultimately equate to competitive advantage.

Almost 40 years ago, Peter Drucker noted that “All one can think and do in a short time is to think what one already knows and to do as one has always done.”  So in our CrackBerry, Instant Messaging, Multi-tasking universe – doing more little things doesn’t necessarily (or even usually) add up to something consequential.

So if doing more doesn’t get us ahead, what does? How about doing less? If you’ve ever had a great idea while sitting on the toilet or doing some gardening in the backyard, you understand the point. According to the article, a  “team of Dutch psychologists revealed last month in the journal Science that the unconscious mind is a terrific solver of complex problems when the conscious mind is busy elsewhere or, perhaps better yet, not overtaxed at all.”

In other words, big ideas come when you’re not thinking anything that’s obviously productive at all. Maybe the best competitive advantage HR departments can provide for their companies is more flex-time, vacation days and the like. More opportunities to do everything by doing absolutely nothing.

Something to think about, anyway. What do you think?

With March Madness upon us (college basketball’s NCAA tournament for those of us who could care less) there’s a lot of talk about lost productivity due to workday engagement with the games. This is especially true now that the games are being broadcast over the Internet -making it possible for employees to watch from their desktops.

This Washington Post article explains how some companies are simply shutting them off  by blocking access to the tournament site. But in the cat and mouse game that is workplace recreation, some websites like CBS’s SportsLine are offering a “Boss Button.” A simple click while watching a game will switch the screen to a spreadsheet.

In any event, it’s no laughing matter. By some estimates the economy will lose productivity valued at more than $3.8 billion. 

What are you doing, if anything, to curb the enthusiasm?

A financial times article on leadership  (subscription required) argues that “Managers need the S-factor to set workers’ hearts a-flutter.” The s-factor you ask? S is for scary.

Based on research done by a fellow named Roderick Kramer, a psychologist at Stanford, the article makes the case for leaders to use fear and intimidation as a key tenet of their interactions. The gist seems to be that by keeping people on their toes, they will perform better.

My favorite bit is where Mr. Kramer makes some suggestions for being  scary:

• Intimidate people by invading their personal space.
• Get angry. Even if you aren’t really angry that some idiot is wasting your time, then you pretend to be angry, which is easy enough.
• Keep people guessing by acting sullen and silent. This means you can change your mind completely (which leaders do all the time) without losing face.
• Know the facts, and even if you don’t, pretend you do. Make them up when necessary and use with complete conviction. People will go along with you.

It’s an interesting script. And some of it may be valid. It seems to me that great leaders know how to adjust their posture depending on who they are managing. Some employees need to be scared into doing good work. Others may have a violently negative reaction to managers who pretend to know the facts (as in #4 above) when they clearly do not.

I also don’t think great leaders follow fad-ish leadership mantras as in this and the previous post. They know who they are and how to leverage what they have to rally people around them and towards a cause.

An article at CLO magazine takes on the topic of leadership. It’s message: that authenticity is a crucial factor in successful leadership.

The idea that a willingness to be openly human makes people better leaders resonates with me. The people I’ve worked with who attempt to control or hide their humanity usually do it out of lack of self confidence. They are afraid to appear fallible. The effect is worse. Instead of appearing human, they come across as overconfident know-it-all jerks. A characterization that doesn’t breed loyalty or respect.

From the article:

Truly authentic leaders will selectively show their weaknesses. No one is perfect, so the old way of looking at leadership development, to point out good traits yet focus on those that need improving, can make someone forget about traits that make him or her special and encourage frustration as the leader in training chases after perfection, which doesn’t exist. “We all have weaknesses,” Jones explained. “And by weaknesses we don’t mean things that are central to your role performance. We mean that all of us have individual foibles, which in some organizations we’ve been encouraged to hide. Selective revelation of weakness or foible has a humanizing effect, and followers want to be led by a human being. We want people to be able to selectively and skillfully reveal weaknesses, which are real, perceived relevant to context, and which convince followers that they’re being led by a person.

So what if your first interview for a job wasn’t with HR, or the hiring manager, or even a human being? What if you got interviewed by a computer? Enter the Nemesysco HR1 Automated Integrity Profiling/Risk Assessment System.

By analyzing the emotional content of a person’s speech, it purports to pick up on such key personality elements as ethics and morals. Basically, using a telephone handset, the computer asks you questions on topics from “loyalty and honesty to drug usage, theft from a place of employment, bribery, kickbacks, fraud and deceit.”

It’s an interesting presumption – that a computer can pick up on more subtle speech cues than a human by analyzing patterns in the voice. It sounds like a beefed up lie detector to me, but perhaps the future of  the interview, or better yet, the phone screen.

Here’s a link to an article about the device