Disqus Removed

I noticed that since I added Disqus for comments that no one comments on the blog itself anymore. I do receive quite a few emails and some comments on LinkedIn but nothing here. So as an experiment to see if it was having to register for Disqus that stopped people from commenting directly I have removed it.

Let me know what you think.

Boxes and Labels-Occupy?

My original plan was to write something about the Occupy protests mostly because so many articles, tweets, videos and photographs showed up in my reading over the weekend. But then I watched this video that Bruce Mol sent out via Twitter today and I shifted a little.
http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html

Occupy is still in my mind but rather than pretend I understand it any better than anyone else does I am going to focus on an aspect that has received little attention so far. Do we really want things to change, or have any realistic sense of what that change will look like and more importantly who precisely is “we”?

Occupy: http://occupyvancouver.com/ has done exactly what happens all too often-the people who are driving it have slotted us all into two opposing camps-according to their statement you are either in the 1% or the 99%, dividing us along an arbitrary financial line. There are close to seven billion humans on earth and the way we relate to or identify with money is far more diverse than this simple concept of 1% vs. 99% suggests.

Is the growing income gap problematic? Focusing on a ‘gap’ is a simplistic way of looking at a complex situation. It isn’t the gap that is the problem.

It is the level of difficulty in having sufficient housing, food, education and health care for everyone that is becoming problematic.

It is significant that advances in technology mean we can extend and improve the well being of people beyond anything imagined when medicine meant that you visited a general practitioner or what is known today as an “alternative” health care provider. It is significant that all of this technology costs large sums of money as does the education and training of the practitioners that know how to use it.

It is significant that advances in technology mean we can share and learn from a far more diverse population than ever imagined when the current education system was devised.

It is significant that in light of all of this wonderful technology our education system does not teach systems thinking early on, indeed that it is rarely taught at all anywhere in the education system.

It is irrelevant if a small proportion of people have large sums of money.

It is relevant that the governments of the world gather many billions of dollars yet constantly claim that there isn’t enough to meet the needs of the constituents the money comes from. It is relevant that these governments can create and manipulate money and thus manipulate the population of their countries (and other countries if we consider the IMF). It is significant that we are so focused on money as the problem when it is our relationship to money that is the problem.

It is relevant that at some point over the last 30 years we began to demand more and more services from government bodies while taking less and less responsibility for enacting change or taking action ourselves.

It is relevant that in wealthy western nations a significant percentage of the population do not exercise their right to vote.

It is significant that rather than collaborate, to work together to build the society we claim to want that instead we put people in a box and then apply a label to that box.

It is significant that we go into defensive mode, protecting what we are familiar with while warding off with angry words a different perspective if it threatens that comfort of familiarity.

It is significant that there are people, many people, enacting change, taking action-they do not hold the 1% responsible, they simply figure out what they can do and off they go.

And there are people who at some point in their life, need you to take action, to figure out what you can contribute and to act, and it is important to know the difference between need and want.

I am intrigued by the people participating in the Occupy protests and the people who are opposed to them and the people who are sitting on the careful side of the political fence. All circling about looking for that opportunity, that advantage, that understanding. And it isn’t as simple as 1% vs. 99%-not even close.

Vision Is Where It Starts

I do respect what Steve Jobs accomplished, especially in that it went beyond producing things in exchange for dollars. He didn't just mass produce stuff that got the job done "good enough" but that offered one the opportunity to get the job done in ways they may not have thought of.

It is called vision.

Every really great invention or advance in the world started with someone, somewhere having a vision. Mr. Jobs' "ding in the universe" is not the rather elegant Mac I am writing this on, it is that because of the way it works and the way it works with other devices and allows me to work collaboratively with people that are not even in the same geographical location-that is the ding. Not the device, but the opportunities the device opens up to me. Sure, I could also do this on my old PC, but not as much, as easily and as well as I can on this device.

My respect for the accomplishments of Mr. Jobs isn't really all that emotional. It is respect for staying on course to see his vision grow, to be able to recognize the talent that others had to make his vision possible, to withstand the slings and arrows that inevitably come with enacting any really big vision and for being human and having flaws. So, well done Mr. Jobs, you did make a ding in the universe but you always acknowledged that you did so because you had people with great talent working with you to make it happen. And that matters.

Ads Are Removed-A Change

I experimented with AdSense on my blog over the past several months and decided it wasn't contributing anything to my blog, my finances or my sense of what I intend to achieve with my posts. So, today the ads are removed and I think it just looks better overall. And since the ads were not chosen by me some (the dating one) didn't make sense to any of the content, and some were for businesses that I don't necessarily want to promote.

What do you think?

Social Behaviours and Brand Identification-My Intrigue Today

(1) A Social Network company’s email error

This morning an email from A Social Network Company’s landed in my email box. The salutation was odd *|FNAME|* *|LNAME|* , clearly there was a glitch in the mail out that substituted that where the recipients first and last names would usually go. Subsequent to that I noted on Twitter that a number of people directed tweets to A Social Network Company’s’ to complain about receiving this. A couple of thoughts came to mind when I saw those messages:

(a) When we receive messages from an email newsletter or promotion and our name is in the message, it ‘feels’ personal but it isn’t really, thousands of people received that same email with their name in it. It is simply technology taking the information you provided when you signed on and ‘personalizing’ the message. To my mind, real personalization comes from an individual sitting down and thoughtfully crafting a message to me. A mass mail out isn’t personal, whether my name is in there or not. Yet the wording of some of the tweets gave the impression that people actually felt slighted because this time there was an error where their name should have been. Have we gone too far in blurring the lines between what is truly personal and what is simply mass marketing? Do we identify too closely to a brand or a business?

(b) A Social Network Company’s’ employee responded to the messages noting it was a “wee” error, which essentially it was. However, as someone who has worked in HR for decades I do know that people are sensitive to how and when their names are used. A misspelling or worse a wrong name being used in a written or verbal message will understandably upset people. So while the error A Social Network Company’s’ made was in the big picture, really quite minor, it unfortunately targeted the one thing in that message that was bound to create some frowns.

(c) What do you think: did A Social Network Company’s’ get it right by referring to it as a small error and providing a simple apology?

(d) A few people that sent tweets crossed the line into rudeness or overstated the issue in their messages-is this something you would like to see less of in Social Networks?

(2) Apple announced a new product today. Usually, for the two weeks prior to an Apple announcement the rumours start flying around the tech sites, yet we know that Apple never reveals what they are about to announce until they are ready. Perhaps some writers enjoy the guessing game.

What I find more interesting than whatever it is that Apple (or any company) is announcing as a new product or service is the reactions of people on Social Networks and in subsequent face-to-face conversations. The commentary around Apple vs. their closest competitors is interesting not so much based on the technical points discussed but on the level and type of emotion that is expressed. It used to be that we chose what products or services we bought based on what we needed and what we thought provided the best quality we could afford.

(a) Now, it appears that there is a fair bit of emotion that goes into these purchases although often people seem unable to really explain that emotion in a way that is identifiable. I find it relatively easy to understand someone stating that they don’t purchase products from a specific business because there is proof that the business is having products manufactured in factories that engage in abusive and dangerous employment practices.

(b) It intrigues me when someone states they will not buy a product, not based on the quality of the product, the price of the product or egregious business/employment practices but because someone irritated you by an overenthusiastic rave about why they like their (insert product), or you have a negative concept of who buys (insert product) and don’t wish to be seen as part of that group of people, or because ‘cool’ people buy (insert product).

Which brings me back to my question in (1) (a) Do we identify too closely to a brand or a business? What does this mean to our individuality, our ability to innovate and create and our sense of self? I have used Apple as an example here simply because they so conveniently made an announcement today and the social networks comments that followed were pretty much in line with what we see each time, however, this applies to many different brands and industries.

I have posed a couple question here that intrigue me but I am really curious as to how people feel about the level of brand promotion and our approach to choosing what and where to purchase necessary items. What do you think?

Values Based Business

Does it help build sustainable business or is it another bit of fluff? I believe it contributes to building sustainability.

One story often heard when people are discussing their challenges at work is that the managers they report to or work with are not consistent in the way they make decisions and in the way they require employees to approach their work.

These three situations are drawn from experience in three different organizations. (These scenarios are also included in a previous post about Learning from Leadership http://bit.ly/rgaexb).

(1) A senior level manager makes a decision that affects the way many people conduct their day to day tasks but refuses to discuss the change before implementing it; aside from alienating those involved there was a financial cost to making needed adjustments that would have been accounted for had he taken the time to consult with those affected first. This behaviour was typical of this manager and created similar issues over a number of years.

(2) A mid-level manager repeatedly makes “jokes” about various people in the organization and when advised that these “jokes” were inappropriate and disrespectful, responded that it wasn’t his fault people didn’t have a sense of humour.

(3) Two members of a management team accuse an employee of theft in a management meeting; when questioned by the other team members as to precisely what happened and what proof was evident the accusation fell apart; it became clear after a very long discussion that the two managers had contrived it out of thin air. They had started out demanding that the employee be fired but ended up admitting that there was no evidence any theft had occurred.

In each of the organizations two of the core values included “respect for people” and “integrity” yet members of the management team in each organization exhibited behaviour contrary to those values. There were trust issues between management and employees resulting in productivity, employee retention and quality issues.

Organizations that talk about the core values to candidates and again to new employees in the orientation process, include them on their website and in their annual reports but have managers behaving outside those core values will have a problem with trust and respect in their organization.

Values based business helps to develop and maintain an agile culture that is resilient. Change comes from many sources but no matter what or where change comes from having established core values aids effective decision-making. When all the managers in the organization make decisions based on established core values it helps to reinforce employees trust.

Do you make management and business decisions based on established core values for your organization? Have you ever made a decision that did not meet the core values and regret it? What happened? Have you worked for an organization where you experienced this type of discrepancy? What was it like to work there?

Ten Reasons HR Seems To Have An Image Problem

My response to Susan Popoolas' post about the image problem HR has is below the link. And yes, you can probably think of more reasons but most of them are covered broadly in these ten reasons.

The post can be found at this link: http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2011/08/susan-popoola-tackling-hrs-ima.html

There are a few points in which HR continues to maintain an image problem.

(1) Many employees only come into contact with HR during difficult situations-while unemployed, experiencing disciplinary problems, being fired or laid off, undergoing unhappy life changes etc.- sometimes HR can help and sometimes they have a role to play that won't feel like help to an employee. As in any profession, some practitioners have good interpersonal skills that allow them to do their jobs without angering or frustrating the employee further, and sometimes they don't. People are much more likely to speak out about the bad experiences they have than they are the good experiences.

(2) Because HR is often understaffed they tend to take shortcuts that look like efficiencies to them but come across as uncaring to others. And those people are experiencing difficult situations-so they are at an increased sensitivity to anyone perceived as contributing to that difficulty. For example-job seekers complain that HR never acknowledges applications and they also complain when they receive an automated acknowledgement that their application was received. They want a personal interaction and are unwilling to concede that the HR person may not be able to comply.

(3) HR professionals don't operate in a consistent fashion, so when people are interacting with them, it is quite literally a guessing game as to what all the *right* things to do are. Even seemingly simple things-like what to wear to an interview gets a rather diverse set of opinions that the poor applicant doesn't know who to believe.

(4) HR professionals make hiring screen out decisions that are often perceived as ridiculous (because they mostly are) as part of the "I have to eliminate people because we get so many applications" excuse. It is little wonder that people see HR as unable to understand the business or the jobs they are screening for when they eliminate people based on personal bias.

(5) HR professionals need to have respect for diversity and seeks ways to gain a global outlook-too many fail to do so.

(6) HR professionals should be required to have both education and work experience in fields outside of HR at some (or several) stages of their career. Some do and some don't.

(7) HR professionals work with humans for the most part. Humans are diverse, unpredictable, predictable, puzzling, amazing, awe inspiring, smart, silly, have good days, bad days and mediocre days. Including the humans that are HR professionals. But we deal with humans in difficult situations and they remember when we don't meet their specific needs in the way they want at the time- and say so to anyone who will listen. You need a teflon exterior to work in this field for any length of time.

(8) HR professionals need to be the best at collaboration and change resilience-but they don't tell you that in school and for the most part it requires learning from on the job experience and seeking knowledge and resources consistently.

(9) HR professionals are perceived to have either great power over ones career or no power at all. Take your pick because the perception is situational.

(10) HR professionals would benefit from remembering that regardless of how overwhelmed they are by their workload, no matter how many people have yelled, insulted, swore, threw things at you, threatened you, cried, blamed, done something perverted or disgusting to a colleague, that your role is to remain neutral and objective in the way in which you handle those situations and every other situation. That doesn't mean you have to take abuse-you absolutely must never let that continue. It does mean the decisions you make or the advice you give has to be objective, wear that teflon shield while decision making. You can vent privately, later.

It isn't easy. You will never get everything just right every time. Every successful leader will tell you the same thing.

The Sustainability Factor for HR/OD

When Steve Jobs announced he was stepping down from his position as CEO of Apple on August 24, 2011 the articles, comments, blogs and tweets began immediately and will likely continue for some time. In The Harvard Business Review (August 25, 2011,Joshua Gans wrote about whether or not buying Apple stock was a good idea. I did want to link to the article but it appears that the link is no longer available. However, I believe the quote below includes enough context.

While the article focused on the stock, Gans makes a key point that all human resources and organizational development professionals should take note of and ask if they are making a contribution to sustainability in their organizations.

“First, there is every reason to expect that Jobs second tenure at least in part has focused on baking innovation into the organization. A couple of months ago, Adam Lashinsky in a Fortune magazine article (sadly, only available behind a paywall, but it will be the best 99 cent purchase ever on your Kindle) described the cultural transformation inside Apple. The last 15 years have been all about establishing an internal culture for innovation and a set of norms of behavior and expectations. While the culture came from the drive of Steve Jobs, it is a reasonable expectation that he infused it into the organization itself.”

The concept of “baking innovation”, “establishing an internal culture for innovation and a set of norms of behavior and expectations” is generally considered to be a top down responsibility. Yet human resources and organizational development professionals are in a powerful position to ensure that the organization achieves these goals. It is a concept that must be imbedded in each and every program, policy, system and task that you do or drive in your role. The sustainability of companies lies with the ability of the people who work for them to create and innovate, with flexibility and agility and to measure the performance of employees based on their ability to make their contributions with those factors in play.

The ability to create, innovate, have flexible systems and agility is critical to the long-term success of companies in technology, education and health care industries right now. In the near future this will become a factor for those organizations that are operating in low-tech fields.

When you look at the core competencies for your organization, do they include creativity, innovation, flexibility and agility? If so, how well are they integrated into the organization? Does your attraction, retention and development system reliably “bake” those competencies into the culture? Does the culture in your organization embrace these competencies? If so, how do you know?

My New Book Is Now Available-A Social Media Primer

The intent of this book is to avoid the hype and conflicting information surrounding the use of social media in organizations and to point you to resources that have been researched and provide the most reliable information. The content of this book avoids promoting or pushing any specific tool, as all social media technology tools are evolving and frequently updating with new features. What is right for one organization is not necessarily right for your organization.

This book is a starting point for general management, human resources, and organizational development teams that have not yet embraced or fully incorporated social technology tools into the organization.

What you will find in this book:

-Back-to-basics discussions about what "social" means in the context of organizations and what you should consider before adopting social technology into an organization.

-References to resources that provide charts, graphs, statistics, case studies, and information on how to use the tools, as well as the books that my research has shown provide practical and reliable information.

What you won't find in this book:

-Charts, graphs, and statistics.

-Case studies.

-Details on how to use social media tools.

This book: A Social Media Primer: The Starter Guide for People In Organizations is now available for $9.99 at:
https://www.ebookit.com/books/0000001007/A-Social-Media-Primer.html

The book will also be available at Amazon later this week and through several other eBook retailers over the next 4 weeks.

My venture into writing about Social Media started in early 2010 and after many twists and turns and learning adventures is finally ready for purchase-one year later than my original plan, so it really does feel like a long term project!

toonlet: Small Business Needs HR?

toonlet: Small Business Needs HR?

Small Business & HR-Proactive Is The Way To Go!

Starting and growing your business is time consuming and there are so many different administrative details to manage. As your business grows such details become more burdensome and at some point you will need to start hiring staff or outsourcing to agencies to help with those tasks. Too often the human resources and organizational development aspects of the business are left until ‘later’ because they are not causing any apparent problems at the moment.

Leaving human resources issues until later will ultimately cost the organization more money and use far more of your time than would be the case if you set up a straightforward infrastructure to manage human resources issues proactively.

HR Concise provides a package (Proactive Basics) that covers the legal requirements (what you must do by law) and includes some ‘very good ideas’ that may not be legal requirements currently but can mitigate problems down the road.
Many small business owners are reluctant to bring in policies or practices that feel bureaucratic and may feel counter-intuitive to the culture you wish to develop for your business. However, the legal requirements are not optional and ensuring that you have at least those minimum policies in place will ensure that you do not derail your focus on growing your business dealing with fines, lawsuits or workplace shutdowns.

Consumer Power via Social Media

Since the growth of social media tools available to post or discuss anything has been so prolific over the past few years a number of topics have become common. One of those is the use of social media tools to promote, praise or express dissatisfaction with a company or organization that we have interacted with. It is true that using social media to ‘engage’ with customers or donors was one of the original uses of many of the tools and managers in organizations are encouraged to respond to both negative and positive postings.

Have we as individuals become too quick to angrily react by posting very negative comments about an organization immediately after an interaction that did not go well? Is there a better way to resolve problems with organizations? Is it always the better choice to jump to the ‘viral’ process when attempting to resolve a problem when some other way may be more beneficial? And are we always being fair to the organization and the people who work there?

When we deal with any organization at some point in time we are likely to encounter a glitch. Organizations are made up of humans and we all make mistakes, handle things badly sometimes and take a bad day out on someone who doesn’t deserve it. So why are we so quick to slay the reputation of an entire organization based on one bad interaction? How would you feel if that was a company you worked for and either you or a co-worker had messed up?

At what point do you decide to go to your social networks to complain about a bad customer (or donor) experience? How many attempts to resolve a problem or bad experience with an organization do you make before going public with your issue?

One Size Does Not Fit All

Actively participating in online forums as well as reading several blogs and 'authoritative' articles on various HR topics has reinforced my long-held opinion that much of HR is really an "it depends" kind of profession. When I have worked amidst large scale change efforts, conducted research and also written about change in organizations I find myself repeating the "one size does not fit all" comment frequently.

Often when various professionals jump into online discussions with their belief on a given topic you will see responses that are distinct from one person to the next. Some try to validate their belief with their reasoning as to why they act on those perceptions but often those reasons are the outcome of ones personal mental models and likely will not hold up under scrutiny.

Humans are an interesting species and HR professionals are no exception, the reality is when you are seeking a professional opinion on an HR related topic it is wise to read as many different opinions as you can find. Then check out the organization you are hoping to work for (or are working for if it is an internal matter) and see which of those opinions actually are in play at that organization. Because it depends and Rule Number 2 still applies.

Next Shift In Blog Direction

My post on the Netflix HR job posting yesterday is the last time I will post on this topic. I thought I was finished with that several months ago but several things I have read recently prompted me to put up my thoughts just one more time. Done, that feels great because I am at an end point with seeing exactly the same issue arise every year for at least the last 12 years. Either HR changes radically and quickly or it will become something else altogether and I am not talking about a name change.

I will still talk about HR stuff though, when someone asks me a question I will respond, when I encounter a situation that someone asks for help in resolving, I will respond; I just won't post about HR as a profession needing to change anymore. It has been said too much already.

Here is a question I was asked a couple of weeks ago and the topic has come up a few more times since then: Do you think companies in Canada are practising ageism? The first person who asked me felt that she had been turned down for at least 2 jobs she had interviews for based on her perceived age once she arrived at the interview.

Yes,human beings that do hiring as part of their role in companies are practising ageism; not all of them but more than you might think given our Human Rights Act. It isn't hard to 'get away with it' either. So, is there a solution to this? The simple answer is yes: stop it, just stop it. Unfortunately the solution needs a solution, because people do this based on ill-advised beliefs and often are so convinced of just how accurate or relevant those beliefs are that there is nothing you can say to change their minds. Which leads to the next solution, conduct research on companies you are interested in working for and find out if they practice ageism (or any ism for that matter); if they do not, then apply there. If they do, they don't deserve your awesome contribution, they just don't.

Is It Too Late for HR? Maybe Not

It is time to speak up and share what you are doing if you are one of the HR people that are reflected in the 'want' list rather than the 'don't want' list.

I read a job posting for a management position in human resources with Netflix recently, this is the text of the posting:

“We are looking for a very Senior HR Business Partner at Netflix. This role will report to our Chief Talent Officer and will be an essential part of our success as we expand globally.

What we are looking for:

Someone who thinks business first, customer second, team and talent third. Someone with a profound understanding, respect and admiration for the craft of engineering and analytics. This person must be extraordinarily candid and possess demonstrable common sense. They will have read the Netflix culture deck and been drawn to the concepts. They will ponder and be able to discuss how they might put those concepts into action from an HR perspective (and consider what traditional HR practices may not apply).

The position(s) support several Technical Vice Presidents and their respective teams. The focus of the job is to define, coordinate and manage the talent in those teams to efficiently affect the business and customer goals. Leading, demonstrating, redefining and modeling the Netflix culture is job one. In addition there will be plenty of hiring, firing, coaching and organizational alignment work.

Candidates will likely have had experience in a large, global company as well some start up experience. Must have influenced management at the VP/C level.

What we are not looking for:

A Change Agent, an OD Practitioner, a SHRM Certificate, a People Person, a policy or guideline writer.”

The list of what they are looking for is important to Netflix, but the list of what they are NOT looking for is important to human resources practitioners. This will increasingly become a familiar list of wants and don’t wants in positions for human resources practitioners. Several people tweeted out comments regarding this posting in which they clarified that “they” meet the above criteria and some reiterated the old “HR doesn’t get it” theme.

Then a few days later I read a blog posting by Lance Haun who blogs about human resources in which he discusses why you should rethink your career if you want to get into HR because you are a people person. http://rehaul.com/love-helping-people-dont-go-into-hr/ The comments below this post are somewhat amusing as several people jump in to say that “they” of course are both people persons as well as business focused people; or ensuring that all readers know that this blog doesn’t apply to them, without actually adding anything helpful to the discussion. And no discussion about HR can escape the inclusion of at least some of the assertions that: HR people are bullies, siloed, not business oriented, bureaucratic and more and this commentary is no exception. Okay, that last sentence while accurate is not one that I agree with, as in any profession there are people that will display all of those characteristics, and your encounter with one or two like that are not indicative of everyone in that professional group.

Yes, I have been known to post about human resources practitioners needing to step it up and make the necessary changes to start providing the type of service that the businesses require and that the profession is simply too slow to change. What I think now is that the executives have decided they are tired of waiting for human resources to make the changes and so they are going to make the changes. They are going to start hiring people that can do what needs to be done and it is quite possible that many practitioners will find themselves left out of the playpen.

So, what are human resources practitioners going to do? Some are going to find they are working with career coaches to determine what career is best for them; maybe a lot of practitioners will be doing this. Others are going to continue doing the ‘right’ thing because they already are and some are going to find they are increasingly feeling like they are being pushed out. Just like everyone in any profession that doesn’t adopt a continuous learning + application of learning perspective and that doesn’t adapt their current thinking to what they really need to do. Oh, and by the way, if you are in HR you really, really need to start bouncing ideas around and looking for resource materials outside the HR realm-that is where your clients are and you can’t provide what they need unless you know what they need and how it will work best in their business.

So, don’t put your hand up and say “not me, not me” but do share your most brilliant ideas that demonstrate how you, in your HR practice are making the kind of difference in your organization that companies like Netflix are demanding. In other words, share your leadership.

HR & The Seat At The Table Conundrum

I just really wanted to use the word 'conundrum' in a post although the whole HR identity crises is a conundrum. On the one hand articles stating that HR wants "a seat at the table" (translation: they want to be seated at the boardroom table with the "C" executives) have been popping up pretty consistently over the past dozen years; on the other hand employees and employees that are managers often comment that HR spends too much time in their seats and not enough "out there"-taking in what is happening operationally.

It is true that the profession is changing albeit slowly but the question is: Is HR on the right path? Is the profession chasing after the right goals?

Consider that a couple of recent articles based on surveys (Price Waterhouse Coopers) of CEO's indicate that while said CEO's are clear about what they want from HR-that HR still isn't getting it and thus still are not providing the deliverables. So where exactly is the disconnect between the CEO's and HR coming from? How is it that two roles that require "excellent or strong" communication skills can't seem to get the service wanted/provided discussion on track?

What needs to happen to get Human Resources professionals and Chief Executive Officers talking with each other? The fact that this same disconnect has been going on for so long leaves the question open as to why the CEO's aren't demanding that HR deliver or take action to ensure they are getting what they claim to need for the future of the business. What do you think? What are you doing in your organization to meet the needs of the business going forward?

Do Lists Make Life Simpler?

I used to work with someone who, when asked what his plans for the weekend were would respond with a list-yes- every minute of his weekend was planned out and each item was listed in the order it was to be accomplished, including the fun stuff. Even though I have met many more people that like lists I think he might be the most dedicated yet.

A business manager I once worked with was known as the ‘checklist’ manager; as long as each item on his list was checked off he considered the project successful, whether or not it really was. The checklist prevailed.

I have made the odd list now and again although they usually end up in the recycling bin long before any of the items get checked off-the lack of spontaneity in lists doesn’t fit too well with my personality. Yet, I have never missed a deadline in my life-ever; and I don’t forget to do things no matter how much stuff is floating around in my non-list brain. I have a feeling that Terry Small (http://www.terrysmall.com/archive.asp) could provide some insight to why that is but for me just knowing it works is good enough. I will make lists for other people if they let me know that is what they need from me, other than that my lists tend to be incomplete and rarely revisited.

As some of you know I have been doing volunteer work only for the past few years but have now decided that I miss getting paid (more than I thought I would) and have decided to get back into consulting on a fee/project basis. When I first came to this conclusion back in January there was the question of what, when, how, who; but the only ideas that were coming up were met with a strong resistance that I could not identify. So, off I went in search of answers, talking to trusted friends, reading whatever I could get my hands on etc. And you know what I kept encountering? Lists- yes, lists of what I should do to figure things out and some of those lists emphatically stated that I needed to make lists. No wonder it has taken me six months to figure it all out. But it is figured out and not a list in sight.

So, what works for you? Do you use lists to guide you through life or does spontaneity work better for you?

Do Lists Make Life Simpler?

I used to work with someone who, when asked what his plans for the weekend were would respond with a list-yes- every minute of his weekend was planned out and each item was listed in the order it was to be accomplished, including the fun stuff. Even though I have met many more people that like lists I think he might be the most dedicated yet.

A business manager I once worked with was known as the ‘checklist’ manager; as long as each item on his list was checked off he considered the project successful, whether or not it really was. The checklist prevailed.

I have made the odd list now and again although they usually end up in the recycling bin long before any of the items get checked off-the lack of spontaneity in lists doesn’t fit too well with my personality. Yet, I have never missed a deadline in my life-ever; and I don’t forget to do things no matter how much stuff is floating around in my non-list brain. I have a feeling that Terry Small (http://www.terrysmall.com/archive.asp) could provide some insight to why that is but for me just knowing it works is good enough. I will make lists for other people if they let me know that is what they need from me, other than that my lists tend to be incomplete and rarely revisited.

As some of you know I have been doing volunteer work only for the past few years but have now decided that I miss getting paid (more than I thought I would) and have decided to get back into consulting on a fee/project basis. When I first came to this conclusion back in January there was the question of what, when, how, who; but the only ideas that were coming up were met with a strong resistance that I could not identify. So, off I went in search of answers, talking to trusted friends, reading whatever I could get my hands on etc. And you know what I kept encountering? Lists- yes, lists of what I should do to figure things out and some of those lists emphatically stated that I needed to make lists. No wonder it has taken me six months to figure it all out. But it is figured out and not a list in sight.

So, what works for you? Do you use lists to guide you through life or does spontaneity work better for you?

Pondering Social Gaffes-A New Perspective?

There has been quite an upsurge in social media/networking related gaffes lately (isn't gaffes a good word for this as it is defined as a "social blunder"?) and mixed into this is the debate about the online 'outing' of people involved in the riot in Vancouver two weeks ago.

What strikes me about so much of the commentary is that 'social media/networks' are commonly named as the culprits in whatever problem is at hand. Social media/network tools are just that-tools, any gaffes that occur while using those tools are created by the user.

Social media/networking tools can be used in a positive or negative manner-the choice and the responsibility for which way it goes is up to the user. This is why it is a good idea for parents to teach responsible use of social media to their children and provide ongoing coaching; it is also a good idea for managers in organizations to ensure that there is an effective social media policy and that employees are trained, coached and reminded as to appropriate use of the tools. Yes, it is the individuals responsibility but this is still a fairly new tool which is now experiencing rapid growth and change.

The 'how to' of using the tools is a technical training need; the 'what' of the content that one posts falls into the realm of interpersonal skills, reputation management and personal responsibility and accountability. The technical training is relatively easy, the personal development skills are a little more complex but you can start with respect-for oneself and for others.

A Follow Up Thought

How to handle the situation of an employee that is identified via photo or video or a social networking site as a participant in the riot is done on a case by case basis and it will be interesting to see if any of the people fired in the initial days challenge the firing. I think that the strong emotional response to the riots by many, coupled with the photos, videos and social network posts have created a unique situation.

People are applying pressure to some of these employers to fire the involved employee and in concern for the reputation of their business they are responding quickly. In a normal process this is less likely to occur and the employee is more likely to seek professional advice and challenge the firing. This situation isn't 'normal'-the level of public shaming of the riot participants means the employers have evidence that the reputation of their business is at stake in the form of emails and letters from the public. Perhaps the people fired will prefer to avoid as much further publicity as possible while they deal with the justice system and try to figure out how to rebuild their lives, which means they are less likely, in this public arena to challenge the firing. But we shall see. Human Resources professionals should understand the legal perspective of such firings and we also know that outcomes are based on the whole picture.

I would caution employers to use less dramatic means than immediate dismissal until a proper investigation is completed but I think most HR professionals have experienced the 'knee jerk' style of response from a business owner or manager that feels the reputation or security of their business is on the line. We must be able to offer temporary bridging solutions and counsel in considering the situation objectively.

Two of the three fired have publicly admitted their participation in events although both of them seem to be struggling with understanding why their integrity is being questioned.I am saddened that some members of the public are showing the same lapse in judgement in their calls to destroy the lives of these participants, that some are employing threats and bullying to vent their anger.We may see some precedence setting in these cases in the coming months depending on how each person chooses to proceed.