A view from Las Vegas…

las vegaAs the week draws to a close and the last of the jet lag ebbs away, I’m compelled to put finger to key and share some initial thoughts from my trip last week to the HR Tech Conference in Las Vegas. I have more to say on some of these highlights but for now, this is my reflective round up, in no particular order.

End to end is coming to and end – I recently sat listening to a panel of investors who had been posed the following question by an audience of HR Tech start up hopefuls: “What do you look for in a potential HR tech start up? Their answer was “an end to end solution, a one stop shop.” That may be true, but from where I’m standing, the HR tech landscape is awash with enterprise “end to end” solutions and they are failing to deliver on the promise, especially when you look through a lens of usability and innovation.  The major ERP vendors built their position in the legacy client server market and they struggle to meet the increasing demand for agile, simple and intuitive solutions that will ultimately win the usability war. I see a tipping point coming…

Personalisation: Where’s the personality? – Personalisation has been one of the biggest drivers of the web for the last decade or more. On the consumer side, things are becoming very advanced; you cant tread anywhere online these days without the algorithms second guessing your next potential purchase, trying to guess if you are pregnant/suffering from herpes/about to commit a murder* (*Delete as appropriate!) Whilst this is getting ever more sophisticated, it’s largely personalisation around habit, history, similarity or preferences. In a conversation with TMP, they talked about their goal to breathe new life into career sites by “personalising” content. “Career sites should deliver a ‘personal experience’ said Fred Pratt, Vice Resident, Digital Platform Sales of TMP. True, delivering relevant content to the candidate is a good idea. But who decides what this relevant content is? Not the candidate it seems. We are becoming so obsessed with serving up something more interesting than the life sapping generic career content that we are in danger of assuming that “rich multimedia approach” is a panacea. It isn’t. I don’t see anyone in this space tailoring or personalising content to reflect the users ‘personality profile’. This, in my view, is far more relevant.

Software with soul – over the course of the Conference I met with many vendors. Most I knew, some I didn’t. And along the way there were some interesting propositions. In a very small number of cases there was a glimpse of something really interesting – more on those later. But one stood out. They stood out not because they had some ground breaking functionality or killer app. They stood out because they had ‘soul’. They had vision. Real vision. The strangest thing is I’d never heard of them – www.Haufe.us. I met their rather charismatic CEO Kelly Max. Just diggin’ that LinkedIn photo dude ;). He didn’t talk to me about software, he talked to me about the potential of human beings. He talked culture, not technology. There’s no doubting his passion. He was the only person I met who asked me more questions than I could ask him. I’ve had a brief look at their tech when I visited the stand. I need to look deeper. It might be no better than anyone else’s of course. But with that kind of vision, i doubt it.

The ERP integration wars – Despite several attempts to track her down, the only way I could catch up with my stateside friend Trish McFarlane, VP HR Practice and Principal Analyst at Brandon Hall Group and author of the HR Ringleader Blog was to attend her session entitled “How HR Leaders can prepare for Technology Solution Implementations.”  Sounds painful already right? What is going on with our attitude to implementing technology? One guy I met was taking a “career break” after completing a workday implementation in Australia! We talk about these implementations like they are some form of internal war of attrition. Those experienced in delivery sound like veterans. This has got to change. Things are moving so fast, that 6,9 or 12+ month lead times for implementation are just too slow and the complexity of the projects way too high. “Yes, but…” I hear you cry. No but’s. Im sorry. We are not trying hard enough to drive for simplicity – complexity is too easy. And we wear this complexity like a badge of honour.

“We are really a big data play” – There’s no doubt about it, the theme of the conference this year was data. Anyone who is anyone is making a ‘big data’ play. Even some of the most run of the mill solutions are pitching it – “We may look like a time and attendance system but really we are a big data company”! Oh really?! Despite the hype, this focus is a good thing and for the first time I can see the HR function getting with the data program. Of course, we are a long way away yet, but with a serious shift towards predictive analytics and evidence of new solutions blending much wider and previously inaccessible data sources to challenge existing ways of, for example, predicting behaviour or identifying potential, things are starting to look interesting. Unfortunately There are still a significant number of doubting Thomas’s in the HR profession, even at senior level. My advice to them is to look outside of the profession, into the consumer world. One of the best sessions of the conference was from Andrew McAfee from MIT (Smart guy) who talked about the Second Machine Age. New sources of data and processing power on a massive scale, combined with machine learning are creating mind blowing new insights. It might take time, but these approaches will eventually make it into the world of the human at work.

The startups move in –  A welcome sight this year was the introduction of the ‘start up pavilion’, a dedicated space for up and coming start ups in the HR technology space. Against the backdrop of the of the established market leaders, they did feel a bit like a bunch of traveler’s moving onto a well manicured country park. Nonetheless it was good to see them there. I realise “Enterprise” is the core market for an event such as this, but given where the market is going and the speed at which it is travelling, there is a compelling need to put start ups front and centre. Next year it would be good to go further; let’s have them in the centre of the expo, in a collaborative space that rocks, not a collection of high tables that would look more at home in an airport Starbucks. It’s important that the HR buying community is aware of these new technologies and that real alternatives to the existing “one stop shop” enterprise players exists.

Network and backchannel – If you still don’t get social media as an HR pro then my advice would be to resign and go get a job as a chef. The food industry probably moves at a better pace for you… However, if you do get it then hopefully you would have explored and exploited the “backchannel” and resulting face to face network, which I have to say was smoking this year. For those who are relatively tech savvy, it is the physical networking and insight that comes from the twitter/blogger spheres that add the biggest value. The sessions themselves, by definition, have to be aimed at the most common denominator in terms of knowledge and understanding, hence if you are an early adopter of any sorts, some of the sessions will be of little value to you. However this is actually good news as it means you can devote more time to exploiting the value of the network.

Special mention – has to go to an amazing guy by the name of Broc Edwards. I met Broc via twitter some 3 or so years ago but like so many of my non UK online contacts, we had never met. In the run up to the Conference, Broc announced that he wasn’t planning on attending the conference, but would “drive down to Vegas” for the chance to meet in person. This, ladies and gentlemen, was a journey of 7 hours! Even by US standards, I’m led to believe this is an unusual trip to make, just to say hi! But do it he did and I’m so glad, and a little bit humbled, that he did. If you don’t know Broc, connect with him via twitter and his excellent blog Fool With a Plan. He’s a great guy, an unassuming strategic thinker. A conscientious objector in the war of corporate pointlessness. A great guy. We had dinner, put the world to rights and sealed our friendship. Job done.

Thats it! Thanks for reading my round up. I will be expaning on a couple of these themes on future blog posts over the next week so look out for them. And finally, the usual disclaimer – I don’t get paid by anyone to think or write anything so the thoughts and mentions are entirely personal.

Marketing is the new HR: No it’s not…

barking up the wrong treeDrawing parallels between HR and Marketing is not new. David Fairhurst recognised this when he ran resourcing for GlaxoSmithKline back in the late 90’s and was one of the first people in the HR profession to acknowledge and put into practice the beneifts of learning from your marketing colleagues when developing the employer value proposition.

In reality, little has changed in those 15 years since although the focus on talent and the emergence of social media especially, since the late 00’s has pushed the subject back onto the features list of journalist and bloggers alike.

One of the more recent examples comes from Jason Averbook, consultant, commentator and future thinker on HR and technology. I like Jason, he is an entertaining speaker and he is on the money in terms of the future of HR. Alongside Josh Bersin, he is one of the few industry spokespeople I follow and respect.

Like me, In his latest piece on the subject, he thinks it’s a bit radical to say that the role of the HR Director will disappear by 2015! It needs to change for sure, but given where we are still with people strategies in organisations, HRD’s can rest easy in their beds for a while ;)

I also agree when he says that the role definitely needs to change, because it does. However, what needs to change and how, is where we differ. In my view, whilst I fully agree that the way we market a business needs to be consistent across customers and employees, I see the current proposals around how it should be done as fundamentally flawed.

There is no doubt that the roles and skills that Jason talks about are needed within the HR function. However, to embed roles and skills into the function to address the issues around the employer brand and value proposition by ‘upskilling’ the HR function is simply adopting an approach that has its roots 90’s marketing. “New initiative, new channel, add a person to do it.”

This approach ignores the one key driver that is forcing this change from the outside – the reality of social business. The bottom line is that the HR function (or the marketing function for that matter) doesn’t need a social media manager. It needs an HR team that is social. It needs a leadership team that is social. And it needs an organisation that is social.

The employer brand can no longer be credibly crafted by “branding experts” either inside or outside the organisation and unleashed on an unsuspecting population. Organisations need to be social because every employee is a potential recruiter. Every employee is a potential brand ambassador and evangelist (or not). Employees are already crafting your EVP, you just don’t know it yet. It is enabling the social organisation that will revolutionise talent management, not hot swapping skills around the organisation which we have been doing for decades.

This piece from December last year from the Wall Street Journal blog hits the nail on the head, albeit when talking about managing customer expectations via social channels. Whilst the author calls for socially skilled customer service teams to avoid the reputational damage on social channels, he goes further and says that the best strategy is to make sure that every employee is socially customer aware. Organisations need to encourage and empower everyone in the organisation to champion customer care.

In my view it is no different for any other corporate functional activity, including HR.

Grafting marketing skills – even new areas like social and data/analytics – onto the HR function will not work long term. It’s a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. It’s faster horses, not a new form of transport altogether.

Social recruiting technology grows up…

keywordsBack in November I blogged about the biggest language and personality study ever undertaken and the fact that researchers confirmed they were able to assess your personality by scanning your Facebook likes and status updates. At the time, the research findings got very little coverage and those that did hear about it were very sceptical. I said I would follow this theme on my blog and so, a little later than originally planned, an update!

Last summer, Marc Mapes, updated me on his latest adventure – eiTalent which is, co-incidentally a values based applicant screening technology start up that used very similar natural language based assessment techniques to improve applicant screening accuracy, based purely on the contents of the CV. Yep, thats right. Simply scanning the text included on the CV was, he said, good enough to be able to identify candidates who would be a good ‘fit’ for the organisation and with highest potential to succeed in role.

Now this was news. My day job sees me explore the notion of predicting potential. It’s our bread and butter at Chemistry. In doing so we use traditional and proven assessment techniques yet here, hot on the heels of the PLOS research, was another organisation using non structured language techniques in assessment. I caught up with  Marc recently to see how they were doing and he ran me through the case study that put them on the map:

“We worked with a major retailer and as a starting point identified 10 key values across the business. The retail resourcing team gave us 200 anonymised CV’s, broken into 4 groups:

  • 50 high performers who had been promoted within the first 12 months of being hired,
  • 50 poor performers who had been fired,
  • 50 CV’s of individuals who were interviewed but not hired due to cultural fit
  • 50 random CV’s of candidates that were not hired

The CV’s were not identified to us in any way. In our first analysis we were able to identify 37 of the 50 high performers. Not bad, but not great. Further analysis showed that the CV’s that we missed contained only names of employers and dates. The narrative was missing which is a key element. The exercise was monitored by an independent psychologist and our technology was scrutinised by the clients own data science team. We won the deal. In our next client, a major law firm, we were able to improve our first pass strike rate to 87%. We won that deal too.

Since our first conversation last summer, Marc and his crew have already extended functionality to include LinkedIn profiles and will soon be adding… yep you got it, social profiles including Facebook and Twitter. They also plan to include video interview transcripts and email.

This has huge implications for the resourcing technology industry. Over the last 15 – 20 years the recruitment software industry has poured £m’s into developing tools that can scrape CV’s and LinkedIn profiles to identify individuals with the most relevant ‘key skills and experience’. Whether it be the ATS providers, specialists like the ill fated “iProfile” or pure plays like Daxtra, these guys try to outdo each other by making their technology ever more sophisticated, identifying key words and phrases and contextualising them against dates and job titles, all in an attempt to convince you that this tech is so smart, it will deliver you the perfect candidate from the volume of crap that resides in your ATS.

Turns out they have got it all wrong. The problem is that no matter how many coding geniuses you throw at this approach, its never gonna work and thats because fundamentally they are measuring the wrong thing. Previous Experience – the very focus of the programming effort – is the least reliable predictor of potential and performance in a role. What makes technology plays like eiTalent so interesting is that they focus on the language that traditional technology works so hard to eliminate from the parsing process – non work or skills related dialogue. Words and phrases that say more about who you are than what you have done. What’s important here is that these words say a lot about your personality or more specifically, give and insight into your values, motivations and likely behaviours – they key predictors of potential.

I firmly believe this kind of analysis will dictate how we assess in the future. It’s no co-incidence that a public form of the work based on the original PLOS research has emerged – see www.labs.five.com. They are going offline temporarily on the 20th of July but watch out for more from them later in the year.

In the meantime, if you are in the resourcing technology arena take a tip from me and start looking at the potential of unstructured social content before its too late. Mark my words, the days of sifting candidates by skills and experience are numbered.

*Disclaimer – Just to be clear I do not accept brown envelopes full of cash, cuddly toys, free massages or any other form of bribe or incentive to write about technology or specific technology companies so my thoughts and views are completely my own ;)

The Individual Advantage: It’s the new black…

Long standing research shows that corporate change initiatives fail 70% of the time. All of the time. Have always done. And are likely to continue to do so unless something fundamental changes. Why is this? My personal view is that change is rarely led by leaders and organisation’s. Real, permanent and impactful change is, instead driven by individuals.

The chart below (Taken from a presentation by an SVP of Kimberly Clark some years ago) shows how technology change and the role of digital has shifted from the “organisational advantage” to the “individual advantage”. In other words, the individual consumer became to driving force in the role of technology and digital strategy. This shift has been significant and has, over the last 10 years, redefined the technology and digital landscape.

Role of Digital

The important thing here is that this change was driven by the individual user – you and me – and not by the technology companies themselves. As connected individuals we shared our frustration with existing technology and collaborated to drive change. The smart organisation’s tapped into this conversation and the digital agenda was shaped accordingly.

Why is this relevant? Well I believe this “individual advantage” is coming to an employee near you sometime very soon. In the same way that we challenged the way organisation’s delivered products and services as customers, I believe we will challenge those orgaisation’s on the way we are led and managed as employees. To illustrate the point I made a few subtle changes to the chart – see below:

As individuals we will drive the corporate agenda, not the leaders. And as with technology, this agenda will become mainstream, not limited to a select few who “get it”. The only material difference between the two charts is the timing of the tipping point. We are not there quite yet with the role of people, but we are very close.

So what are the implications for todays organisation’s and the CXO’s that lead them? Will the FTSE 250 become the epicenter of modern industrial democracy? Will the CXO role be dispersed throughout the organisation?

Well, no. I doubt it. And whilst I don’t expect that within 20 years “They” (The collective leadership noun for all employees that don’t hold CXO status) will be running the corporate asylum, change is definitely coming, and it’s one that you, as a ‘leader’, are unlikely to drive.

The recent outing of Brendan Eich from the CEO role at Mozilla is a real example of “individual advantage” in action, the implications of which are captured nicely in this post from the Harvard blog.

The “individual advantage” will demand a fundamental shift in the way existing stakeholder groups within an organisation communicate with each other and, more importantly, hold each other to account.

Facebook: The new Aol…..

AOL-main1Sadly, I’m old enough to remember the dawn of the Internet. If you are too, then you will remember the rigmarole involved in actually getting online. IF, and it was a big if, you could afford a computer at home – mine cost me £3000! – getting online involved completing a paper card form (yep yep, with a pen) and posting it off, in the hope that within a few days you would receive a CD rom from AOL or Compuserve, the other emerging player at the time.

But that was just the start. Before you could actually get online you had to load the disk, then the software and register. Oh, and don’t forget that pesky cable connection, via a modem, into your phone socket. Once you were over that lot, you were then ‘free’ to roam the best of what the Internet had to offer. Which wasn’t actually much, but it was new and exciting so people like me didn’t care. At its peak, AOL alone had over 30 million ‘subscribers’ – which was considered a huge number back then.

Fast forward to the social era. Connecting to the internet is now something we do unconsciously, with the exception of finding a ‘wireless’ signal when we are out and about. Connecting to the internet is no longer ‘theatre’. It’s ubiquitous. We take it for granted. The Internet Service Provider – or ISP as they were known – is no longer the purveyor of connectedness. As a result, AOL’s market dominance has collapsed, falling to just under 3m today. It ceases to occupy the slot that it once did.

In today’s world, ‘social updating’ is the new ‘connecting to the internet’. And the gatekeepers are entities like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. But for how long? There are many online debates about Facebook et al being so big and so pervasive in market reach, that it is impossible to think that they might slip from our consciousness. But history might suggest otherwise.

A little over 2 years ago @johnsumser the HR technology analyst said the following in a 2012 Forecast post on HR Examiner:

“We are in the Compuserve–Prodigy–AOL stage of social media evolution. It’s after Netscape and before Google in equivalent Internet time.”

And he was right. 2 years on and whilst it’s still hard to imagine any of the majors falling from grace, what is clear to me is that “facebooking’ and ‘tweeting’ will ultimately become just ‘updating’ on our mobile devices. Brandnames will increasingly become meaningless much as they did for ISP’s. Take a quick browse through hbr.org and the tech press and you will quickly find articles raising concerns about the ‘sluggish’ user adoption numbers and user fatigue. Latest reports seem to suggest Facebook is even beginning to behave like AOL and start to create a ‘walled garden’ around social activity – see this post from Techeye.

That doesn’t mean I don’t recognise things are very different now. Facebook alone is so intricately intertwined with our personal and work lives on a scale that AOL couldn’t have imagined in their wildest dreams. This ‘dependency’ means that they may continue to be our ‘operating system’ long after the brand fades. But todays 1bn super connected and integrated social consumers are yesterdays 30 million connected to the internet. Tomorrows 7bn whatever’s (insert incredible, mindblowing “never thought it would be possible” statement here.) will simply be todays 1bn. It’s all relative you see.

The scale of change in the online landscape between 2000 and 2010 was enormous. Incredible even. Do we really expect it to be any less significant over the next decade? I think not…

Gamification: It’s not a game…

ramificationMan at back: “Yes, id like to take issue with what that guy sitting at the front said”.

For reference purposes, I was the man at the front and this is the reaction I get more often than it should when you get me started on ‘Gamification’ in HR and Resourcing.

Gamification, is fast becoming the latest “must have” despite the fact that in my experience, many who want it have little idea what it really is, how they should use the principles and perhaps most importantly the implications of doing so.

So what is this ‘gamification’ we speak of, and why is it so important to get it right? Here’s my definition for gamification:

“The use of game mechanics or principles to influence behaviour.”

There you go, that’s it really. Despite what many may tell you, it’s not that complicated or even new. As unwitting consumers, organisations have been using “gamified” processes and services for years, nay decades. Loyalty cards and schemes, service sign up rewards and bonuses, recommend a friend – these are all examples of where game mechanics have successfully been built into our daily routine as a consmer. If you have kids at Scouts or Guides like me, then they are participating on one of the oldest gamified processes of the post Victorian era.

Yet when we apply the same principles to the internal organisation – for employees or job applicants – which was the subject of the event mentioned above – we often make a pigs ear of it. In my experience this is both because we do not understand it fully (we rush head long into the latest fad) and we lack the skills to make it work.

Back to the event in question. The speaker had spent 15 minutes outlining a game they had proposed to build for a client that would measure the behaviour, values and motivations of job applicants. Ultimately this was an assessment, but with game mechanics built in to make it appear like a game. This included problem solving mechanics and so on which, again, are absolutely fine. So far so good.

The glaring issue was the fact that they were proposing to build in social sharing and competitive leader board mechanics into the game. The implication here was that as a candidate, you could do this game more than once, try and improve your score and openly compete with others in doing so. Eerr.. Stop right there!!

As a specialist in assessing behaviour and predicting performance, this is a no no. When assessing an individuals’ personality, intellect or behaviour, the assessments for these elements should only be done once, and only once.

If you were assessing a candidate for a job, or an internal employee for development purposes would you allow them to take a personality test multiple times until they are happy with the outcome? Would you interview them over and over again until they displayed the right behaviours? Would you allow them to take intellect assessments over and over to get the highest score possible? No, of course you wouldn’t. So why all of a sudden are we proposing to do this in online assessments?

Don’t get me wrong, game mechanics have a huge role to play in enhancing an organisations people strategy and processes. Using these kind of mechanics – social sharing of content, endorsing positive behaviours, reward mechanisms, Leader boards, problem solving and so on – can dramatically increase the success of behaviour change programs or the levels of employee engagement around their development. There is also a place for them in resourcing too, but it has to be in the right place.

If you are thinking about the whole area of game mechanics and gamification, or one of your colleagues/bosses/team is starting to bang on about it then here’s a few important points for you to consider:

Look beyond the hype and do some proper research

Don’t get caught up in the madness. Do some proper research and start by looking into the term “game mechanics” rather than ‘gamification’. That way you are more likely to get to the factual information and science behind game principles than lots of articles talking nonsense.

Avoid inappropriate use

To my point above. Whilst there may be an argument for building in some social sharing mechanics particularly if you want to incorporate the assessment as part of an attraction strategy, do not under any circumstances let your strategy be led by “it will be engaging and cool and funky”. Assessing an individuals potential is not a game and should not be treated as such.

Don’t try and dress up a turd

It is quite incredible how much an organisation is willing to invest in a “game” when the rest of their candidate facing career presence – their online career site and job pages, their application process – is frankly a mess. Don’t believe me? Ask your candidates! Fix the basics. Don’t drop the finest chocolate brownie onto a plate of turds and assume that will make eating the whole thing more palatable. They are not that stupid.

Cost

Building a relatively simple interactive animation or multimedia type “game” or simulation will cost you tens of thousands of pounds. To build a more sophisticated assessment, with some proper science built in will cost you 6 figures easy. In many cases it is far better to build in some simple game mechanics along the whole of the applicant journey to make the overall experience a better one than spend your entire budget on one specific element. Not only can this vastly improve your throughput rate (It works, I can prove it) but it can save you a ton of cash too.

Re think your attraction strategy

In my experience, a poorly executed attraction strategy is the root cause of a lot of the problems you may be trying to address through the obsession with Gamification. Our research shows that success depends on finding the right people with the right behaviours, values, motivations and intellect for your company and role. Ask yourself how well the WHOLE of your resourcing process does this, especially the earliest stages

Facebook: Your personality shines through…

ExtraversionFollowing my recent rant about HR’s ignorance around the power of the social, and unstructured content – “all that crap on Facebook and twitter” to the as yet uninitiated – I figured it would be useful to share some specific examples. So, over the next few posts I’m going to feature three examples that are, in my opinion, game changing stuff for HR and the associated industries.

First up, a subject close to my heart – assessment. I spend most of my waking moments immersed in the field of human behaviour, researching and designing new ways of predicting personality, behaviour and ultimately performance. The stock trade in this field are personality questionnaires, used in large numbers at many stages of the employee lifecycle from resourcing through to development.

These assessments are big business and are sold and used in huge numbers globally. The acquisition of SHL by CEB just over a year ago, signals how commercially important these solutions are.

More recently, alternatives to the stock questionnaire are emerging, including the use of images and or gameplay – examples include VisualDNA who use visuals instead of straight questionnaires and The Knack who claim to be able to predict high performers simply through observation of gameplay.

However, one of the most compelling and interesting approaches was brought to life this year, but not by a traditional vendor or new market entrant/start up but instead as part of the Wold WellBeing Project – an initiative that is pioneering techniques for measuring psychological and medical wellbeing using language in social media.  A summary of the work can be found here, and the detailed research article appears on the Public Library of Science (PLOS) One website. In short, this fascinating initiative is the largest ever study of Language and personality. Using 700 million words, phrases and topic instances taken from 75,000 Facebook volunteers, they undertook to see if they could correlate and predict personality type from an analysis of their social profiles, and they found that they could:

“The “open-vocabulary approach” of analysing all words was shown to be equally predictive (and in some cases more so) than traditional methods used by psychologists, such as self-reported surveys and questionnaires”

For anyone working in HR or the assessment industry, this is BIG news, or should be. Here we have potentially a new and equally predictive way (according to this latest research) of providing insight into personality and behaviour, without asking a single question. Perhaps more interestingly, one that potentially sits outside of the current psychology governance and compliance infrastructure – the BPS, the licensing test providers and the ‘practitioners’.

The fact that your Facebook drivel can predict your personality will be a revelation to many and I suspect will be met with scoffs of disbelief, especially from some of the established players, but this would be very short sighted, in my opinion, and if they are not already neck deep in this research then they should absolutely be.

Think about it. It isn’t so long ago that the de-facto way of assessing and predicting your personality was Astrology (It still is for some!). Then along came science and the field of psychology, which put some well needed rigour into the process, leaving Astrology behind as the psychometric equivalent of a quack cure.

Given the nature of this research, is it really that hard to imagine, in years to come, a bunch of psychologists sitting in a bar somewhere (Ok, so a quiet bar I grant you ;)) and saying:

“Remember when we used to measure personality using those god awful questionnaires? Hahahahahaha!”

I think not….