Category: Play

Worth Reading: This Is Water

howth-pier
In chatting tonight with The Doctor, we both remarked on a number of essays or articles or other pieces of wordsmithery that we found rewarding to go back and read again, in a different time, for a different sort of reward. I’m going to go ahead and share those works here, when they arise, and when they seem especially important to my life or to events that involve us all.

Or, maybe, for no reason whatsoever.

The first is an essay that I first read thanks to Tim Kreider, about the way we think. I’ve since given it to anyone who will have it, including over one hundred philosophy students at CCRI (who I guess technically I was forcing to read it). What can I say about David Foster Wallace that hasn’t been said?

Whether you know him or not, you should read This Is Water, especially in times where it feels like negativity is starting to outpace positivity in your brainpan. It’s a graduation speech, and it’s worth reading, and re-reading.

Customer Experience Analyst

tumblr_niyki1GD161qfirfao1_1280

Check out this job posting at New Relic.

How cool is that? A data scientist, working specifically to ensure that the customer is having the best possible experience – how is that not revolutionizing hospitality? Using modern tools, bringing in knowhow from statistics, data analysis, and scripting languages to move the envelope forward on hospitality. That is inspiring.

I won’t be surprised if we see more postings like this pop up.

If, like me, you’re curious about some of these terms, here are some handy Wikipedia links:

Logistic Regression
Naïve Bayes Classifier
Support Vector Machine
Decision Trees
Artificial Neural Network
Net Promoter Score

Small Data: A Case Study

foodiesfeed.com_DSC_0001-7

 

Big Data is a Big Thing, an idea that often goes hand in hand with words like “Enterprise” and “scientist.” Today I’d like to share a story from my past to illustrate that data, experimentation, and testing, are entirely accessible to business owners of all flavors and sizes, not just massive corporations with a dedicated team of growth hackers, data scientists and an in-house barista.

Two jobs before Automattic, I worked for a small chain of artisan bakeries in Providence, Rhode Island, called Seven Stars. There are three locations (very small chain), and it is owned by a lovely couple who brought me on to design and execute an improved employee training system. Once that was up and running on its own steam (after about 18 months), I became a bit more of a general utility player for them – finding problems and then solving them. It took great trust on their part, but I like to think I earned that trust, in efficiency gains, improved revenues, and tastier coffee.

During a conversation with one of the owners, he mentioned that he had a real gripe with muffins – not only were they one of the more involved pastries that we sold, they also had the slimmest margins. A situation fraught with possibility. I asked him a few more questions, and headed back to my shared office to dig through some of our historical point of sale data. I didn’t know it at the time, but what I was about to embark on was the retail bakery version of growth hacking.

At the time, we offered three different muffins every day, with the selection rotating from day to day – Blueberry, Corn and Pumpkin, say, on Monday, then Chocolate, Bran and Blueberry on Tuesday, etc etc.

After establishing a baseline (easily done with today’s computerized point of sale systems), I proposed an experiment: we would produce only 2 kinds of muffins per day, and only produce the ones that had the strongest current sales. We’d do this for six weeks, then take a look at the data, and decide from there – or, as I’d say today, we would then iterate on the process.

And, thankfully, since this is a case study, it worked! After six weeks, the sales at of each store had retained its pre-experiment growth percentage. Now, this may not sound like a success – sales growth had not changed? How can an experiment be a success if sales growth had not improved?

Sales growth may not have changed (up or down), but the numbers behind the sales growth had shifted; muffins fell significantly, but other areas (specifically scones, which interestingly sat next to the muffins in the display) grew to match the decrease in muffin sales.

If I were to guess, I would suggest that this indicated that folks who were at one time buying a muffin (perhaps the third, dropped, variety), were not simply abandoning their purchase, but rather purchasing another item, possibly even at the same price point. However, since muffins were the worst-producing item, revenue-wise, anything else represented a greater revenue for the bakery. Additionally, moving bakery labor from muffins to another product represented a second win, since muffins were the most laborious and frustrating product.

I like to think of this kind of data implementation as Small Data – using the information that you have to run experiments that are within your grasp for small, consistent wins. You don’t need a data scientist on staff, you don’t need a degree in statistics, you just need to know your business and have a curious mind. Data can work for everyone – all you need is a willingness to experiment.

 

 

Barcelona 2015

5 Arguments Against Salary Transparency

14348835516_1438e862d2_b

Or, SAO Thinks About Buffer, Part Two. Here’s Part One.

In chatting with folks about Buffer’s approach to salary (making not just the process of assigning a salary, but the final number for each employee) transparent both internally and externally, there have been some common arguments against it. I’d like to talk about them a little, and discuss my thinking about each.

You’ll recall from Part One that I think that the transparent salary system is a great one, though I would impress upon the skeptical reader that my primary philosophical approval is for the transparency of the process – the actual visible list of salaries at the end is, in my view, a pleasant side effect of a much bigger, and more important, piece. The process being transparent is really the lynch pin here, I reckon.

Here are some arguments I’ve heard against salary transparency, and my thoughts on them:

“I think salaries are a private and personal thing.”
I’d suggest that this is a cultural artifact that holds us back. Seeing how salaries are assigned takes something that is currently invisible, and makes it visible. The final numbers are much less important than the fact that the process that results in those numbers is visible and accountable – making the actual salaries visible is simply a check on that process, a verification that it works as intended and displayed. Invisible salaries (and salary assignation processes) open the door for unjust practices that have become endemic, and are likely often simply the result of unknowing implicit biases – women being paid less, minorities being paid less.

I think transparency around salary processes and final salaries may place some tension on our traditional ideas of what should be private, that is certainly true. But, I think that making them public and visible is much better for us, as workers and as a society that desires equity, in the long run.

“I trust our HR department to take care of that.”
That’s great! I also am lucky to work in a place where I truly believe that our HR department has the best interests of the employees in their hearts, and I trust them completely. That being said, I don’t have to trust anyone else I work with – because their work is visible and available and under review from the rest of the company. This black-box nature of salary assignation is not only bad for non-HR employees, it’s bad for folks in HR – it means that they can’t have open and frank conversations about issues that might concern them, it means they’re denied the usual diversity of perspective and insight from their comrades with particularly tricky issues.

As well, it’s worth noting that the Buffer system is entirely self-contained – the questions of salary exist entirely within a box of particular questions and qualifications. During interviews and salary discussions, it becomes much easier and less stressful for the HR staff – no more fuzzy edges or uncomfortable conversations. It’s all in the spreadsheet.

“This is a non-issue. If you’re happy with your own salary, then stay where you are. If you aren’t happy with your salary, then find a new job.”
This mistakes the final result for the process – the question isn’t about the particular salaries of employees, or my salary specifically, but rather visible assurance that everyone’s being compensated fairly. That’s it – whether or not I’m happy with what I’m paid has no impact here. In a more transparent system, I’d at least be able to ask questions about why I’m paid what I’m paid, and how to make moves in the right direction (“So, how can I move from Rookie to Journeyman?” etc).

“I have absolutely no interest in seeing salaries.”
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that it would be mandatory reading – I’d be curious to know how many folks actually do review the pay sheet, internally, at Buffer.

“Public employers have had transparent salaries for a long time, and they’re famous for being inefficient and having stagnant promotion patterns.”
True as this may be, I think we can acknowledge that there is an essential and important distinction between government employees and folks working at cutting edge tech companies. New companies doing business in new ways bring all sorts of interesting iterations on longstanding traditions that can often bear excellent organizational returns – I’d argue that transparent salary assignation processes is a great example of this. Just because transparent salaries are a property of a class of organizations we do not want to emulate does not mean that it won’t really shine when we try it in a new class of organization. So, let’s do it!

What do you think? Do you have an argument against fully transparent salaries and salary assignation processes?