The oft-repeated comment that social media/networks are time wasters is one that needs to be dispelled with facts. When employees waste time it is not the tools such as social networks that are the culprit. It is a symptom of ineffective management. Employees have found a myriad of ways to waste time long before social networks, or emails, or the internet ever existed and they will continue to do so when they are not fully engaged, are not committed to the success of the organization, are not a good fit for the culture of the organization, do not have enough to challenge them in their work period, or have not established a solid work ethic. None of which requires a social media tool to create a problem, but all which does require good management and leadership skills to fix.
Internal social networks are used very effectively by several organizations to share information about products and services and projects; to share knowledge among co-workers that enhance customer service and enhance employee skills; to retain knowledge in the organization when employees move on; to improve overall communications especially in geographically diverse organizations. External social networks are used for marketing, resolving customer issues, sharing promotions/sales etc.; establishing a brand etc.
The thing about 'social' as a business or organizational tool is that it requires research and education to fully understand what it is and in what ways it can help or potentially harm an organization. I strongly recommend that people really do explore it carefully in order to understand it. The potential is amazing-and whether a business ignores it, bans it or embraces it-it will affect the sustainability, reputation and success of the business.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The Dual Twelve Days of HR
As we are about to leave 2011 behind us I thought to write a few thoughts on HR and Leadership from the past which is a place I rarely go and then in a second post some thoughts for 2012 and perhaps beyond-we shall see how well I predict but it might depend on if there are any new app updates for my crystal ball.
The role of HR is often described in terms of functional responsibilities: recruiting, hiring, compensation, employee development, performance management etc. Yet most of what HR does involves problem solving for which there is no magic formula but can have far reaching implications if the solution doesn’t effectively resolve the problem. Some problems are straightforward and relatively easy to resolve, some types of problems are more complex and come with strong emotions. The first twelve days are just a small sampling of the problems that HR practitioners often encounter; the second twelve days are the ones that keep us going through the first twelve.
The Not So Great Twelve Days
1) employees experiencing domestic abuse
2) complaints of a manager, suppliers or customers harassing or bullying an employee
3) claims of discrimination over a missed promotion
4) employee to employee harassment, bullying, intimidation, physical assault
5) allegations of unethical conduct by senior level managers; allegations of unethical conduct by an employee from a customer or supplier
6) employees who discovered their great new ‘friend’ was a member of a violent and vengeful gang and did not know how to extricate themselves safely
7) sudden death of employees and/or employees who lose loved ones
8) drug, alcohol and gambling addictions
9) mental health concerns and catastrophic illnesses
10) employees under investigation by police for serious crimes
11) employees selling illegal drugs to co-workers and clients
12) employees using social media/networks that damages the reputation of the organization or another employee
The Happy Twelve Days of HR
1) that group of newly hired employees that hit the ground running-all hired after HR started using the newly designed recruiting and hiring program
2) the employees who took advantage of the employee development program to earn a degree or upgrade their skills and then earned a coveted new role
3) the co-workers who worked together to help a colleague with a serious illness get through it with huge support
4) the team who with a little push pulled together to create an excellent improvement project that reduced costs and improved safety
5) the employees that enthusiastically got behind a project to help improve their community
6) the employees that are great role models for the work ethic and desired culture also know as ‘leaders without titles’
7) the employees that seem to find new ways to make a great customer experience even better
8) the employees that bring ideas for problem solving or improvements whether it is in their job description or not
9) the managers that both intuitively and practically know how to build and maintain strong, creative and productive teams
10) the peer coaching and mentoring programs that increased knowledge retention and sharing by a significant percent
11) the managers who understand that HR is not the dumping ground for stuff they don’t want to deal with; are able to ask for and utilize coaching when needed
12) that HR contributes through leadership, commitment, continuous learning and resilience to all by what they do every single day
The role of HR is often described in terms of functional responsibilities: recruiting, hiring, compensation, employee development, performance management etc. Yet most of what HR does involves problem solving for which there is no magic formula but can have far reaching implications if the solution doesn’t effectively resolve the problem. Some problems are straightforward and relatively easy to resolve, some types of problems are more complex and come with strong emotions. The first twelve days are just a small sampling of the problems that HR practitioners often encounter; the second twelve days are the ones that keep us going through the first twelve.
The Not So Great Twelve Days
1) employees experiencing domestic abuse
2) complaints of a manager, suppliers or customers harassing or bullying an employee
3) claims of discrimination over a missed promotion
4) employee to employee harassment, bullying, intimidation, physical assault
5) allegations of unethical conduct by senior level managers; allegations of unethical conduct by an employee from a customer or supplier
6) employees who discovered their great new ‘friend’ was a member of a violent and vengeful gang and did not know how to extricate themselves safely
7) sudden death of employees and/or employees who lose loved ones
8) drug, alcohol and gambling addictions
9) mental health concerns and catastrophic illnesses
10) employees under investigation by police for serious crimes
11) employees selling illegal drugs to co-workers and clients
12) employees using social media/networks that damages the reputation of the organization or another employee
The Happy Twelve Days of HR
1) that group of newly hired employees that hit the ground running-all hired after HR started using the newly designed recruiting and hiring program
2) the employees who took advantage of the employee development program to earn a degree or upgrade their skills and then earned a coveted new role
3) the co-workers who worked together to help a colleague with a serious illness get through it with huge support
4) the team who with a little push pulled together to create an excellent improvement project that reduced costs and improved safety
5) the employees that enthusiastically got behind a project to help improve their community
6) the employees that are great role models for the work ethic and desired culture also know as ‘leaders without titles’
7) the employees that seem to find new ways to make a great customer experience even better
8) the employees that bring ideas for problem solving or improvements whether it is in their job description or not
9) the managers that both intuitively and practically know how to build and maintain strong, creative and productive teams
10) the peer coaching and mentoring programs that increased knowledge retention and sharing by a significant percent
11) the managers who understand that HR is not the dumping ground for stuff they don’t want to deal with; are able to ask for and utilize coaching when needed
12) that HR contributes through leadership, commitment, continuous learning and resilience to all by what they do every single day
Monday, December 12, 2011
Linking Your Employee Experience to Customer Experience
Imagine your business just opened after months of planning, hiring and navigating regulatory requirements.
You oriented and trained your employees emphasizing that customer service is crucial to the success of your business.
You ran a social media campaign offering coupons to a specific number of people that followed you first. Just prior to opening day you sent out the coupons. Opening day arrives!
The First Two Weeks
The first two weeks of business provide a snapshot of what is working well and processes that may need some tweaking so you are busy observing and managing concerns as they arise.
The social media coupon program is paying off. Those followers you sent coupons to are bringing them in for their first experience of your new business. You budgeted for a specific number of coupons and have a list of people you sent them to so the employees can check them off as they are redeemed.
Glitches Happen
There is a glitch with the coupon, some of them are printing off without the identifying number required for redemption. This isn’t the customer’s fault but they are being told they cannot use the coupon without that number. The employee is standing firm-no number, no redemption. Your new business stands to lose a lot of customers over this issue, as it is hardly a welcome experience for the customers who made the trip to try it out. The customers with those coupons came via a social network and they likely will share their experience via social networks. There was another way of verifying that the coupon was valid but the employee was not aware of that.
What Does Human Resources Have To Do With This?
As the business owner you decide what level of autonomy employees will have, and what information to communicate and how often to do so. You determine training needs and the goals and objectives of employees and review and critique their performance. All of these decisions impact the way an employee will perform on the job, whether you are there supervising or out of sight managing other areas of your business. All of these actions are part of the human resources system within your business.
The Customer Experience
The processes and policies that you develop to manage the employee experience help establish the culture of the business. There is a direct link between the culture that is developed within your business and how successfully it reflects the brand you present externally. Is the overall experience of your employees a mirror of the experience you advocate for your customers? Are your processes, procedures and policies organized in such a way that they enable employees to conduct their responsibilities so that they provide the desired customer experience?
Considerations
• Establish and communicate the values for your business. Do this using different methods and content and repeat the message often enough that it becomes embedded in the culture and is part of the voice of your employees. A few examples are face-to-face meetings, email messages, and tags on pay statements.
• Discuss the desired culture with employees, solicit their ideas, and focus on the specifics as to how that culture will show up in action.
• Communicate and make decisions based on the values that drive the culture and do so consistently.
• Provide training and support so that your employees feel confident when carrying out the responsibilities of their job.
• Set up multiple communication channels so that employees are able to let you and their co-workers know what affects their ability to do their job well and what kind of experience they observe your customers having.
You oriented and trained your employees emphasizing that customer service is crucial to the success of your business.
You ran a social media campaign offering coupons to a specific number of people that followed you first. Just prior to opening day you sent out the coupons. Opening day arrives!
The First Two Weeks
The first two weeks of business provide a snapshot of what is working well and processes that may need some tweaking so you are busy observing and managing concerns as they arise.
The social media coupon program is paying off. Those followers you sent coupons to are bringing them in for their first experience of your new business. You budgeted for a specific number of coupons and have a list of people you sent them to so the employees can check them off as they are redeemed.
Glitches Happen
There is a glitch with the coupon, some of them are printing off without the identifying number required for redemption. This isn’t the customer’s fault but they are being told they cannot use the coupon without that number. The employee is standing firm-no number, no redemption. Your new business stands to lose a lot of customers over this issue, as it is hardly a welcome experience for the customers who made the trip to try it out. The customers with those coupons came via a social network and they likely will share their experience via social networks. There was another way of verifying that the coupon was valid but the employee was not aware of that.
What Does Human Resources Have To Do With This?
As the business owner you decide what level of autonomy employees will have, and what information to communicate and how often to do so. You determine training needs and the goals and objectives of employees and review and critique their performance. All of these decisions impact the way an employee will perform on the job, whether you are there supervising or out of sight managing other areas of your business. All of these actions are part of the human resources system within your business.
The Customer Experience
The processes and policies that you develop to manage the employee experience help establish the culture of the business. There is a direct link between the culture that is developed within your business and how successfully it reflects the brand you present externally. Is the overall experience of your employees a mirror of the experience you advocate for your customers? Are your processes, procedures and policies organized in such a way that they enable employees to conduct their responsibilities so that they provide the desired customer experience?
Considerations
• Establish and communicate the values for your business. Do this using different methods and content and repeat the message often enough that it becomes embedded in the culture and is part of the voice of your employees. A few examples are face-to-face meetings, email messages, and tags on pay statements.
• Discuss the desired culture with employees, solicit their ideas, and focus on the specifics as to how that culture will show up in action.
• Communicate and make decisions based on the values that drive the culture and do so consistently.
• Provide training and support so that your employees feel confident when carrying out the responsibilities of their job.
• Set up multiple communication channels so that employees are able to let you and their co-workers know what affects their ability to do their job well and what kind of experience they observe your customers having.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Conversations At Work
What kind of conversations do you have at work? I was prompted to think about this a lot over the past few weeks by hearing some perspectives from people I have worked with that surprised me somewhat.
When we work closely with people over an extended period of time we often do so in ways that are focused on the technical details of our work, resolving a problem, or how to reduce potential problems with perhaps a little personal chitchat to balance out our days. But how often do we take the time to tell our colleagues how we see their contribution to our work experience beyond the efficient but not particularly informative “good job”, “thank-you”, “well done” etc.?
When was the last time you told a co-worker in specific terms what their contribution meant to your work experience? Have you ever received a recommendation from someone you worked with that surprised you because it included references to work that in your view was just “doing my job” but discovered that the people you worked with saw it as a significant and positive contribution to the effectiveness of the workplace?
How would having such specific conversations on a regular basis with our colleagues affect our motivation, our stress levels, and our ability to be clear on what is working well?
What do you think? What happens in your workplace? When was the last time you told a colleague in specific terms how their contribution made a difference?
When we work closely with people over an extended period of time we often do so in ways that are focused on the technical details of our work, resolving a problem, or how to reduce potential problems with perhaps a little personal chitchat to balance out our days. But how often do we take the time to tell our colleagues how we see their contribution to our work experience beyond the efficient but not particularly informative “good job”, “thank-you”, “well done” etc.?
When was the last time you told a co-worker in specific terms what their contribution meant to your work experience? Have you ever received a recommendation from someone you worked with that surprised you because it included references to work that in your view was just “doing my job” but discovered that the people you worked with saw it as a significant and positive contribution to the effectiveness of the workplace?
How would having such specific conversations on a regular basis with our colleagues affect our motivation, our stress levels, and our ability to be clear on what is working well?
What do you think? What happens in your workplace? When was the last time you told a colleague in specific terms how their contribution made a difference?
Monday, November 07, 2011
Employees Bring Talent
I read a lot of business articles and books, many of them focussed on human resources, organizational behaviour and social networks. One thing that shows up a lot is the references to the low levels of engagement among employees in contrast the the belief that a higher level of engagement is required for companies to have long-term sustainability.
One thing that comes to mind when reading these sources of information is the disconnect between the terminology that is being used and the way people feel about that terminology yet there is little discussion on this topic. Perhaps there is a fear of being too 'politically correct' or of being seen as not focussing on the real issue. Perhaps the terminology is part of the real issue, so I thought I would share some thoughts and see what you think.
Terms that are frequently used in articles, blogs and discussion groups when the topic is human resources are referring to people as assets or talent; and today I saw an article that referred to employees as weapons. When I listen to people discussing how they feel about this use of terminology in reference to employees they most often state that they feel like they are not considered as a whole person but as a thing, not much different than the equipment or building their employer purchases.
People are not assets or talent or weapons. They are human beings who exchange the use of their competencies, skills and abilities for a financial renumeration. A business does not own people, they lease their abilities.
If organizations believe that the people that work for them provide the value that is needed to sustain their business perhaps they might consider that disengagement can start with the way we communicate and can be resolved with the way we communicate.
What do you think? Do you feel the same way about being called assets, talent or weapons as the people I am hearing from?
One thing that comes to mind when reading these sources of information is the disconnect between the terminology that is being used and the way people feel about that terminology yet there is little discussion on this topic. Perhaps there is a fear of being too 'politically correct' or of being seen as not focussing on the real issue. Perhaps the terminology is part of the real issue, so I thought I would share some thoughts and see what you think.
Terms that are frequently used in articles, blogs and discussion groups when the topic is human resources are referring to people as assets or talent; and today I saw an article that referred to employees as weapons. When I listen to people discussing how they feel about this use of terminology in reference to employees they most often state that they feel like they are not considered as a whole person but as a thing, not much different than the equipment or building their employer purchases.
People are not assets or talent or weapons. They are human beings who exchange the use of their competencies, skills and abilities for a financial renumeration. A business does not own people, they lease their abilities.
If organizations believe that the people that work for them provide the value that is needed to sustain their business perhaps they might consider that disengagement can start with the way we communicate and can be resolved with the way we communicate.
What do you think? Do you feel the same way about being called assets, talent or weapons as the people I am hearing from?
Friday, November 04, 2011
A Small Organization Awakening
I was having a conversation with a friend recently in which we put forth our perspectives as to whether organizational life has really changed much over the past three decades. Certainly we are easily able to read about the "rapid pace of change"-I have been known to write about it and it helped shape the way my book Change, Resilience and Organizations turned out. (http://www.amazon.ca/Change-Resilience-Organizations-Karin-Wills/dp/3639068718)
Even though there have been many changes in the way the world operates largely created by globalization and technology advances, human expression has not really changed that much. We may use email, text message and social networks to communicate more often than we use the phone, save our documents 'in the cloud', interact at work with a much more diverse work team both locally and globally than ever before, but the behaviours we exhibit are only marginally different. Which means that the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of organizational life still occur and those tasked with managing people in organizations are dealing with the same plusses and minuses that occured 20-30 years ago, perhaps at a more public and rapid rate.
When I was researching for my book A Social Media Primer: For People In Organizations, the pace of change was mind boggling as during that 18 month period social media/social networking changed dramatically. But it is important to remember that such changes are adopted by people in a range from early adopters to not there yet but all those people are still managing. It is a good reminder that social media/networks are tools and they in and of themselves don't do anything, it is the people using them that create what happens. (https://www.ebookit.com/books/0000001007/A-Social-Media-Primer.html)
I am more apt to look at what is going to happen in the future than on history, but if we consider history and systems thinking in a big picture view of organizational life we will recognize that we have been *there* before. This can be a calming perspective when change feels like too much, too soon-we have been here before and we managed and we will do so again. I tend to be an early adopter possibly because of my intense curiosity for things that are new but I often go to my friends that are late to adopt for a good dose of perspective, reality and reminders. They have their own brand of wisdom to share and it helps me stay balanced in my approach which makes a difference when you work with diverse people.
So, what is your biggest concerns about organizational life these days? What problem are you trying to solve? What helps?
Even though there have been many changes in the way the world operates largely created by globalization and technology advances, human expression has not really changed that much. We may use email, text message and social networks to communicate more often than we use the phone, save our documents 'in the cloud', interact at work with a much more diverse work team both locally and globally than ever before, but the behaviours we exhibit are only marginally different. Which means that the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of organizational life still occur and those tasked with managing people in organizations are dealing with the same plusses and minuses that occured 20-30 years ago, perhaps at a more public and rapid rate.
When I was researching for my book A Social Media Primer: For People In Organizations, the pace of change was mind boggling as during that 18 month period social media/social networking changed dramatically. But it is important to remember that such changes are adopted by people in a range from early adopters to not there yet but all those people are still managing. It is a good reminder that social media/networks are tools and they in and of themselves don't do anything, it is the people using them that create what happens. (https://www.ebookit.com/books/0000001007/A-Social-Media-Primer.html)
I am more apt to look at what is going to happen in the future than on history, but if we consider history and systems thinking in a big picture view of organizational life we will recognize that we have been *there* before. This can be a calming perspective when change feels like too much, too soon-we have been here before and we managed and we will do so again. I tend to be an early adopter possibly because of my intense curiosity for things that are new but I often go to my friends that are late to adopt for a good dose of perspective, reality and reminders. They have their own brand of wisdom to share and it helps me stay balanced in my approach which makes a difference when you work with diverse people.
So, what is your biggest concerns about organizational life these days? What problem are you trying to solve? What helps?
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Why Does Your Small Business Need HR?
One of the reasons I advocate for small businesses to start to build their HR infrastructure early in the start up phase is because it will help save time and money over the long term. Putting aside for now the practical aspects of being within compliance of employment laws we need to consider the culture we envision for our business and to understand the internal and external factors that will affect that culture as the business grows.
In my first discussion with a business owner to determine what the HR needs of their business is I ask that they answer a short series of questions that provide a good picture of their business today and their plans for the future. Answering these questions is helpful to me in understanding the goals for the business but it also provides the owner with another opportunity to review the overall system and strategies from a fresh perspective.
Understandably the focus of most small business owners is attracting and engaging a paying client base but attracting and engaging employees is equally as important as your business grows. Having an agile, well thought out and straightforward HR infrastructure is essential to ensuring that your customers have the kind of experience that will bring them back and prompt them to refer your business to their contacts.
Having the money available to properly manage your HR considerations is a very real concern when a business is in a growth phase, perhaps more so in businesses that have significant cash outlays for premises, inventory and equipment. This is just one reason why an agile, module based infrastructure is ideal and it will allow you to implement only the aspects you need and add additional elements as the business grows and more employment related demands are required.
If you determine what values that you want the culture in your business to reflect and build your HR infrastructure around those values you will have a better shot at developing and maintaining the core cultural aspects that are the most important to you as a business owner. Trying to fix a culture that has gone off track is an expensive and time consuming prospect and can easily derail your focus on other aspects of the business.
Many companies include values such as integrity, honesty, and hard working in their core values, all good values. However, as the leadership figure in your business you need to define precisely what those values look like ‘on the job’ to your employees and customers. This is an oft overlooked but vitally important approach to take when building your business. It helps in the hiring process, as you are clear on the necessary skills and approaches to work you are looking for in the candidates you recruit. Retaining employees requires in part, maintaining the values based culture that you presented to candidates during the hiring process. And ensuring that employees present the customer experience you have determined for your business means a common understanding of what those values look like on the ground.
In my first discussion with a business owner to determine what the HR needs of their business is I ask that they answer a short series of questions that provide a good picture of their business today and their plans for the future. Answering these questions is helpful to me in understanding the goals for the business but it also provides the owner with another opportunity to review the overall system and strategies from a fresh perspective.
Understandably the focus of most small business owners is attracting and engaging a paying client base but attracting and engaging employees is equally as important as your business grows. Having an agile, well thought out and straightforward HR infrastructure is essential to ensuring that your customers have the kind of experience that will bring them back and prompt them to refer your business to their contacts.
Having the money available to properly manage your HR considerations is a very real concern when a business is in a growth phase, perhaps more so in businesses that have significant cash outlays for premises, inventory and equipment. This is just one reason why an agile, module based infrastructure is ideal and it will allow you to implement only the aspects you need and add additional elements as the business grows and more employment related demands are required.
If you determine what values that you want the culture in your business to reflect and build your HR infrastructure around those values you will have a better shot at developing and maintaining the core cultural aspects that are the most important to you as a business owner. Trying to fix a culture that has gone off track is an expensive and time consuming prospect and can easily derail your focus on other aspects of the business.
Many companies include values such as integrity, honesty, and hard working in their core values, all good values. However, as the leadership figure in your business you need to define precisely what those values look like ‘on the job’ to your employees and customers. This is an oft overlooked but vitally important approach to take when building your business. It helps in the hiring process, as you are clear on the necessary skills and approaches to work you are looking for in the candidates you recruit. Retaining employees requires in part, maintaining the values based culture that you presented to candidates during the hiring process. And ensuring that employees present the customer experience you have determined for your business means a common understanding of what those values look like on the ground.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
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.
Let me know what you think.
Monday, October 17, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
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?
What do you think?
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
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?
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?
Friday, September 30, 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
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 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.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
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?
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?
Monday, August 22, 2011
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!
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!
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, August 15, 2011
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?
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?
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)