Organizations (like any social group) require a certain amount of conformity. There are certain rules and policies and norms (implicit and explicit) that you need to follow in order to have membership. The more conformist an organization is, the less it is able to utilize the intangible assets that it has access to…things like the curiosity, creativity, ideas, questions, experiences, perspectives, diversity, passion, etc. that live within its workforce. These things make people stand out and so in a more conformist environment they tend to stay buried.
So.
If an organization wants to minimize conformity in order to harness its intangibles and maximize its ability to learn, adapt, innovate and evolve, how does it do that? Here are some thoughts.
Look for and expect dissent. If you are talking about anything of substance and there is not some disagreement, you should be very concerned. As General Patton said; “If everyone is thinking the same thing, someone is not thinking at all.” Thiscan be a significant blind spot when we are in a position of leadership though, because we start out thinking pretty highly of our own ideas and when everyone around us agrees with them, who are we to see that as problematic?
Teach people how to disagree respectfully. Talk about this starting in the interview process, include it in job descriptions and in performance evaluations, provide training and feedback. Make it a normal and central part of the culture.
Create and support a different kind of leadership. A big part of why this is a problem to begin with is that we have a way of leadership/management that is largely built on being right and owning the truth. This stands in the way of candid conversation, challenging assumptions, and questioning decisions...all of which can be incredibly valuable for an organization.
Crush politics at every chance. The validity, value and necessity of organizational politics are greatly overrated. We have organizational politics to the extent that we do because that is what we tolerate. Be less tolerant. Organizational politics come at great cost as employees end up with truncated identities and trade their passion and ideals in for the rules to the game.
I think the "how do we do it?" question probably has a lot of different answers, but I think that these are a good start.
I hope that you had a miserable time in Chicago this weekend, I was home with the kids and watched about 47,000 hours of Curious George.Being a grown-up can be downright brutal at times.
The HR blogosphere (which, fortunately for me, happens to be just around the corner from my house) has been abuzz about a couple of things the past few days.Lots of folks talking (and whispering and tweeting and blogging and screaming) about HRevolution and about China Gorman leaving SHRM, and about what these things might mean to the future of this work.
I do not know China Gorman, but some people that I respect think pretty highly of her and I did see her doing a good job of providing a face for SHRM where it did not really have one.It clearly reflects well on her that so many folks are disappointed to see her go, but part of what I hear in this conversation is concern about the role and direction of SHRM.
In the noisy, “pay attention to me” intersection of HR and social media, SHRM is the easiest target in the world for anyone that wants to find a large credible “friend” or a large credible “enemy.”I think that people who are legitimately about moving this work forward know that SHRM is not the problem or the solution, but contains elements of both as it is a reflection of the craft, and not its creator.I like to throw a stone or two at SHRM from time to time myself.It is fun, easy and safe, especially since the people at SHRM have real jobs and are not likely to have the time to pay any attention to me. I also enjoy being invited (and paid) to speak at SHRM events local, regional and national and the interwebs are chock-full of hypocrites like myself.
We love to throw stones at large institutions, but large institutions (SHRM, the auto industry, congress, Big Bacon) are a product of what we did (and what we did not do) yesterday.Stop worrying about what SHRM is doing.Change your organization, tell your story and help someone else change their organization.If you do these things, you will be moving the profession forward in a very real way.
I personally do not have an organization so I am probably just going to lie down.Talking about change wears me out.
And then there is HRevolution.This was kind of hard to miss because the people that were there spent all last week talking about it on Twitter and on their blogs and in their sleep, they talked about it all weekend, and they are still talking about it right now…as far as I can tell, they are really an annoying bunch of self-obsessed, self-promoting jerk offs and I am filled with rage, bitterness and jealousy that I was not able to spend the day with them on Saturday.I am going on record right now saying that I will be at HRevolution 2011 if I have to host it in my garage and provide the play doh myself.
Since I was not there, my perspective on this unconference is probably the most insightful one and you are all welcome for my insightfulness.And my humor.And my good looks. I would also like to take this opportunity to make it clear that this is technically an unpost on an unblog.I do not know what HRevolution was like and obviously cannot speak to its value, but I do know there was a lot of sharp folks there that are very passionate about this work.But in the spirit of evolution (and revolution) there are a few traits that I believe are becoming increasingly important to those wanting to help create the future of this body of work.
Curiosity:I think that we need to ask more question and do a better job of seeking out information from different places.Questions are powerful and can determine the direction of our growth.Are we asking good questions, big open-ended questions?It can be easy to talk about all of the stuff that we do know, but to wonder about the stuff that we do not yet know is different. Are we looking outside of our networks and our profession for new ideas, new archetypes, new models, new language?
Critical Thinking:Social media is a tricky thing because if we are not careful we can use it to just replace the old talking heads with new more hip talking heads with iphones.Are we using our new tools and new connectivity to distribute power?Are we putting more power in the hands of the practitioner?Are we developing greater discernment?HR has been very susceptible to fads, so called “best practices” and shiny new metrics…even those measuring nothing that matters. Are we getting better at making the decisions that are right for our organizations?
Courage:If you want to help create tomorrow you have to be willing to walk out to the very edge of today and that can be a scary place to be.I would imagine that this topic showed up at HRevolution either formally or informally because I know that there were a lot of smart folks there with a lot of knowledge and expertise.And when you know your stuff it eventually becomes a question of courage.Are you willing to tell the truth and help your organization to tell the truth?
Maybe we can dig into these themes a bit more of the next week or two, I know that you will have some interesting perspectives as an internal practitioner.
Thanks for summarizing our thoughts in your last post. The only place where I wanted to add a comment was related to #4 regarding choice. My thoughts are that individualization and customization are much more complex than simply choice. I think we already expect choice today as consumers. In the future, we not only expect choice, but we'll expect to be able to buy a product or service in almost every situation that is specifically and uniquely designed to meet my own needs.
As for the future of organizations, I want to issue a caveat before sharing my thoughts. There is a difference between predicting what the organization of the future SHOULD look like versus what the organization of the future WILL look like. I'm choosing to take an idealist view of things for the purposes of this post. So, what I'm about to share is how I think a successful organization ten years in the future should look. In addition, I'm taking a little more prescriptive approach as I think about how the organization itself needs to evolve.
The flatter the better. While I think it will take time to break down the hierarchies of the past, organizations that become flatter in the future will be better able to innovate and adapt to rapid changes. The fewer layers, the faster information can travel and the less places there are for silos and walls to be built. However, to become effectively flat requires some radical changes in thinking about accountability, power, career paths, development and communication.
Learning is the super competency. Innovation, design, driving and adapting to change are all learning activities. They require that individuals be constantly taking in information, processing it, looking for patterns and opportunities, and taking actions. Those who can learn the fastest and put new knowledge to work will be best positioned in the future. This is particularly true for leaders and executives (which will be a major change for them from the past). To effectively deliver on this, organizations are going to have to get much more aggressive in providing learning and development programs for all employees at all levels.
Transparency is king. The days of closed books and controlled flow of information are gone. With social networking, blogging and the web oozing in through every crack in even the most locked down organizations, there is no longer any place to hide. In the future, organizations will have to build their companies and cultures in such a way that they are fully authentic to their brand promise. Their actions will truly need to match their words.
Flexibility is the new norm. Fixed schedules, set work locations, and narrow job duties are things of the past. This may be where technology has it's greatest impact. It won't be long before all of your knowledge workers will require broadband wireless enabled laptops so that they can work where ever they happen to be, whenever they do their best work. Online collaboration tools are making "the office" less and less relevant. Additionally, even those who work in front-line, more traditionally structured jobs are going to expect flexibility in scheduling, job responsibilities, learning opportunities, etc. This will create a great deal of management complexity which will require organizations to be very creative to be successful.
Manager/Leader as coach. If you have ever participated in sports, you know how much differently a coach behaves towards his or her players than a manager does towards his or her employees. A coach may have been a player at one point in their life, but in their role as coach, they have very specific responsibilities that are different than being a player: teaching the game to players including the formal rules and the subtle nuances; figuring out where each player fits best (what position should each play); helping each player master the fundamentals of playing the game; setting up a system; and finally, managing the game and making adjustments as situations change during the game. The coach spends most of his time with his players practicing the skills required to perform when it counts. Contrast this to the manager of today who spends most of their time still playing the game and minimal time working with the team (and almost no time practicing). The leader of the future will need to model the style of a sports coach and spend 90% of their time focused on helping their employees excel in their positions.
Certainly, this list isn't exhaustive, but I think that these five things will be the fundamental changes that successful organizations will make over the next ten years to survive in this changing environment. I'm sure I've missed a few, so I'd look forward to you filling in the gaps and telling me what I may have gotten wrong.
Good thoughts and thanks for getting us rolling on our Business 2020 discussion. I've been thinking and collecting notes on this topic since you first posed it. Predicting the future is a more daunting task than I originally anticipated.
Two issues you raised were on my list as well.
Rate of Change. Speed is becoming critical. Not only the speed at which you change, but the speed at which you can adapt to the change around you.
Technology. The disruption of technology has only just begun. Increasingly, more jobs will be replaced by technology leaving people searching to find different ways to create value.
Here are a few other thoughts I have about what the future might look like.
Individualization and customization of products will not longer be a differentiator but an expectation. Customers increasingly expect their products to be unique to their needs. As an example, the NFL has begum promoting that you can now order jerseys and shirts from your favorite NFL Teams from their website where you choose the design, color and what it says on the back. We expect to be able to customize everything and that will continue.
Trust is officially dead. Skepticism has long been a label of Gen X, but every generation is growing increasingly skeptical. People get lied to or spun everywhere they turn and it seems that there's no one to trust. So, transparency and full disclosure will no longer be a choice but a requirement on the part of organizations. Companies who can build loyalty and trust over time through their actions will have an advantage.
Design will be king. The ability to anticipate customer (and employee) needs and desires and design products and services to brilliantly meet those will differentiate the successful from the rest. This isn't just artistic design, but product design, brand design, communication design, organization design, etc. (Think Zappos, iPhone apps, and the Obama presidential campaign--all examples or brilliant design in one way or another).
It seems that we are collectively becoming more impatient and demanding as people. We want things our way, right now. I don't see that this trend will turn and certainly this trend will impact not only how we do business, but how we design our organizations as well.
On to the topic of the organizations of the future.
I have read, participated and listened to much talk in the past 18 months about the future of HR. I personally am not a fan of most of this conversation as it tends to be about "fixing" things that are in place today. My personal opinion is that business, organizations and how we create value are going through some really significant transitions and we need to have some clarity about that before we can really think about what HR (and Talent and OD and Leadership, etc.) needs to become. I like the points that the HR Bartender makes here about the future of work.
I personally am done talking about that illustrious seat at the table. I am done talking about HR as a strategic partner, yadda, yadda, yadda. I am however, very interested in how work and the organization is changing and how we as professionals in and around HR might play a valuable role tomorrow and the day after.
Over the next week or two, let's consider 3 questions. We can work through them one at a time and why dont we each provide 5 answers per question.
Looking down the road 10 years: 1.) How will business be different 2.) How will the organization be different 3.) How will work be different
So, lets meet back here in the next couple of days with 5 ways in which we think business will be different in 10 year...deal?
Big, fat, happy congratulations to you and yours on the newest addition to the family. Hope you have all enjoyed some quality nesting time over the past week or so...don't hesitate to slap a picture or two up here so we can get our eyes on the newest anarchist to join the team!
A little radio silence has actually been kind of nice, and I really like what you came back with in #3. It reminded me a little bit of what Gordon MacKenzie says about new employees in his book Orbiting the Giant Hairball. He reminds us that new employees (and I would say young professionals) have a very unique magic as they come into an organization (or a community) with fresh eyes and fresh perspectives. Even though their perspective is especially valuable, our organizations and communities do a lot of things to beat it out of them and get them to look, talk and think exactly like the rest of us. It is important to have no fear if we are to push back on that dynamic and I think that lesson #4 fits very nicely with #3 and our earlier posts on this theme.
Lesson #4 Do Something. Now.
I think that it is important and valuable to network, to spend time getting to know people, to seek out feedback on your ideas and ideals, but too many folks never go beyond that. It is not hard to find a group of folks in a community or an organization that know exactly what should be done to make everything "perfect" and everyone "happy." They know all of the answers. They are passionate about their answers and they will (and do) talk until they are blue in the face. And talk is all they do.
It can be very easy to get bogged down in details, what is allegedly realistic, why you need to "pay your dues" before you can drive change, yadda, yadda, yadda....a little bit of this stuff is important and relevant, but most of it is bullshit. If you wait until you have the perfect plan and everyones support and have paid all of your dues your time will have expired on this planet.
If you see a better way to do something (and if you are awake and alive and paying attention, you do see a better way to do something), take some action. Do something. Now. You will make mistakes. If you do not make any mistakes you are not doing much at all. You will make some mistakes and you will ruffle some feathers and it is all part of the process and it is part of how change happens and how you learn and grow.
Do something. Now. Today. Right now. If you wait too long, you might just become one of those professional talkers that know all of the answers but never do anything.
Rock out a little bit today, it's Friday. And have a good weekend. -joe
Good and timely post...big topic. Really big topic. I am guessing that we will spend some time on this topic, so let me just attempt to respond to your two direct questions with this post.
1. How do you feel about employers mandating healthy behavior (such as company that will not employ smokers)?
I have no problem with employers mandating evidence-based healthy behaviors, and I think it would be wonderful if that included some yoga and meditation time as well as mandated healthy working hours and a living wage for all employees...but that might be for another blog post.
One thing that comes to mind immediately is the actual capacity for effective and sustainable change. I tend to think that employers have a tendency to "mandate things" poorly, regardless of their good intentions. Mandating certain behaviors as part of the initial hiring expectations is generally much easier to do than to introduce new mandates for existing employees. It can be done, I just do not see much of it done very well.
I used to work for a healthcare system that decided to go "tobacco free"...no smoking or use of tobacco products at any of their locations (for employees, patients or visitors) and no smoking or use of tobacco products during working hours for employees regardless of location. Might seem like a no-brainer for people working in healthcare, but this was highly unpopular with many employees. The organization did a very good job of implementing this change though...they started talking about it at least a year in advance, they pushed out a lot of information about the change, why the change, when the change, etc. including good, authentic use of internal blogs for real and candid dialogue. They also provided extensive smoking cessation programs for employees and spouses and other incentives.
So, I think this was an example of an organization doing a really good job of implementing a new mandate, but I think it is rarely done that well. Organizations are not good at change in general, and I think that most will really struggle with new mandates, especially mandates of this nature.
We also do not like to be told what to do or what is good for us. Even if we know it to be true, we do not like others telling us what to do. I used to be a smoker. I never had any confusion about the negative impacts of smoking, and I knew that I needed to quit. I also hated being told this by others. Not sure if it is a cultural thing or a human thing, but we are very resistant to the direction of others.
2. What do you think is going on as it relates to personal responsibility and the behaviors impacting our health?
Hmm...that is pretty complicated I think. Part of it is simply the fact that this is one of those things that has a big choice-consequence gap. For example, I may know that eating a quadruple cheeseburger wrapped in bacon and smothered in ranch dressing (I think my cholesterol just went up from typing that) is not "good for us" in the long run. But I can eat it, get some immediate gratification with the consequences being several years away. It is not likely to cause me any great hardship tomorrow or next week. It is hard to work against that delay. It is easier to get serious about our personal health after some of that has started to catch up with us. But even then behavior change is really hard. I have seen data on people who have had life-saving heart surgery showing that one year after surgery, the majority of them have not changed their behavior in any way to reduce their risk for future problems. Behavior change is hard and poorly understood.
I also think that we are failing our children in this area right now, I think that the fast food industry is not our friend and we have tip-toed, and continue to tip-toe around the issue of smoking. I think that we are just beginning to educate ourselves on what is actually healthy and what is not healthy. And businesses lead with what is profitable, rather than what is best for our wellbeing. If I can make a killer profit on the super-jumbo-mega-supreme nacho platter, I am less likely to push apples and oranges...which limits choices and it is a vicious cycle.
And, maybe...maybe there is something bigger going on with personal responsibility in this country. I have seen some pretty horrible data about personal and family debt in this country. I have seen data indicated that many and possibly most Americans are not really happy with their job, yet do not do anything about it. Maybe part of what we are facing is actually a crisis of personal responsibility.
Well, I am back from a bit of a vacation and thought that I would throw out a couple more questions regarding applying the principles of crowdsourcing to the large and complex body of work we refer to as Human Resources.
1.) It seems to me that implementing crowdsourcing (and other tools, including Web 2.0 stuff) requires HR to move to more of a solution orientation than a process orientation. Do you agree with that and if so, how does that move happen?
2.) Should we be concerned that things like crowdsourcing (and open systems, and appreciative inquiry) are not being born out of HR work? Shouldn't the people charged with tapping into our "human resources" be doing more experimenting and producing more innovation in how we do that?
3.) The word on the street is that you are riding part of RAGBRAI this year. Is that true and are you ready?
So, I think we are doing quite a lot of agreeing and maybe a bit of disagreeing on this topic. We clearly both believe that there are some ways in which HR needs to evolve and we both believe that crowdsourcing could potentially be a powerful part of that. But of course, I will try to examine the disagreement...
You mentioned the importance of process, software and compliance as being critical to HR. I think that, paradoxically, these tools are what is killing HR right now. A process is a tool, not a body of work and I think that HR has lost sight of that. A hammer can be used to build a home or it can be used to inflict great physical violence on another human being. It is of little real value to spend a great deal of time, energy and attention making sure that you have the absolute best hammer if you have not gotten clear on what you are using it for and what your role is. This to me is one of the disconnects facing HR and it is one of the things standing in the way of truly utilizing an approach like crowdsourcing.
The employee referral programs you mention is a perfect example. I think that nearly every one of the 19,284 companies I have been employed by in my lifetime have had an employee referral program. I cannot think of a single one that was actually very serious about it. Despite the fact that hires generated by employee referrals have a greater ROI than those that come from other sources, most companies do not appear to make a serious commitment to referral programs. To me this is just one example of a profession that prioritizes process over people. I think that many HR professionals and leaders in their heart of hearts believe that they can find better applicants through their tools, than "the crowd" can. I think that HR has come to worship their own processes, policies, language, paradigms and especially their software to the extent that it is not easy for them to have a lot of real faith in "the crowd."
Too much of the conversation is about using HR tools to keep "the crowd" in line and content. You cannot ever make a real effort to employ crowdsourcing if you do not believe in the raw ability of the crowd to deliver answers and create value. I think that many in HR have come to believe that the crowd is the source of problems, not the source of solutions.
Process is important. Software is important. Tools are important. But they are only valuable to the overall business if they are being applied within the appropriate philosophical context. I would say that context is part of what needs to change and I would say that changing that is a much bigger job than implementing some new process or changing software.
I personally cannot participate in another conversation regarding "a seat at the table" without putting a fork in my eye, but I do want to say this...
I think that the work of Human Resources needs to change...a lot. Not because other people at home in their pajamas, typing on their computers say so, but because how value is created has changed and how we do work and organize resources needs to change.
I apparently know very little about Human Resources because everyone else it seems is talking about processes and software and compliance and I care very little about any of that. I care about our ability to fully realize the potential of the "human resources" we bring into our organizations. If there is software that does that, kick ass, everyone should go buy some immediately.
If not...those of us that work in and around the discipline of Human Resources should be relentlessly rubbing our brains together to do a better job of setting talent free...of getting more value out of the intellectual, aspirational, experiential and relational capital that exists in our workforce. I truly believe that we are literally drowning in un-utilized and under-utilized "human resources."
Crowdsourcing may very well be part of the solution. Crowdsourcing (much like Web 2.0) is being talked about by a lot of, lot of, lot of, lot of people right now, and we do not want to confuse popularity for value, but (also like Web 2.) crowdsourcing appears to be potentially very valuable to Human Resource work...because it is about people.
Crowdsourcing (like Web 2.0) means slightly different things to different people and is still being defined and framed. Wikipedia says this:
Crowdsourcing is a distributed problem-solving and production model. Problems are broadcast to an unknown group of solvers in the form of an open call for solutions. Users--also known as the crowd--typically form into online communities, and the crowd submits solutions. The crowd also sorts through the solutions, finding the best ones. These best solutions are then owned by the entity that broadcast the problem in the first place--the crowdsourcer--and the winning individuals in the crowd are sometimes rewarded. In some cases, this labor is well compensated, either monetarily, with prizes, or with recognition.
Procter and Gamble, Threadless and Innocentive are often pointed to as examples of how and why crowdsourcing works...but these and most other examples out there are using crowdsourcing in marketing, and research and development.
I believe that Human Resource professionals can champion crowdsourcing within their organization to be used in marketing and R&D efforts for starters. But the pressing issue for us is, this... is crowdsourcing something that we can and will apply to Human Resources work. Can we use it for:
identifying and attracting talent
increasing innovation
increasing employee engagement
improving organizational culture
reducing bad turnover
professional and career development
employee wellness and balance
feedback and evaluation
strategic planning
development of compensation and benefit plans
change management
policy review
I think it offers a great deal of potential for many of these areas, but there is some conversation to be had about the "how." I think this is an issue that we can spend some time exploring, and I am interested to hear what you (and others) might have to say.
Interesting post, I have to admit I see a lot of parallels between the world that we came up in as Gen Xers, and today. I think there might also be a second issue at hand, and this one regarding Gen Y...because the world has in some very significant ways changed in the past ten years (even in the past 2-3 years) and I wonder how that will impact them early in their careers.
But, getting back to the crew coming up after Y, I do think that is likely we will see another cohort big on cynicism. I for one, think that is a good thing. In addition to the apparent correlation between cynicism and good looks, I think that our organizations and institutions continue to get away with a lot of bullshit. Despite all of the collective cynicism of the good looking Gen Xers, we still live in a world driven by spin.
There is today a great deal of noise being made about things like transparency and authenticity, and much of it is being made by the princes and princesses of the Web 2.0 world, but little of it has become reality yet. Few and far between are the leaders and decision makers in business, education, media, government, and religion that truly understand and live transparency and authenticity. Those things tend to be the mantra of those wanting to be leaders more so than those that are leaders.
More cynicism? Bring it on, I say...we need reinforcements.
So, I will continue to at least partially disagree with you.
I do agree however that HR leaders and practitioners have lost all control of their language and that works against their ability to be precise and effective. Talent, skills, competencies are all great examples. They are each different things, but they all suffer from the same underlying issue...HR folks are not clearly and precisely defining them. So, people are talking to each other but using different language and different definitions and the conversation is sloppy and wasteful, as are the efforts that follow.
I do not believe that talent is innate. I do think that you are a talented speaker, and I would assume that parts of that are innate and parts of that have been learned...in fact in your particular case I know that is true. You are a more talented speaker now than you were five years ago and that is at least partially due to things that you have learned about speaking during that time. But my definition and understanding of what talent is is of no importance here.
I think that the larger and more important point is that leaders need to address this within their organizations. If HR is going to have clarity of purpose it must have some real clarity of the underlying concepts and fundamental variables it works with. I do not think that the profession is going to come to specific and applicable definitions, but I think that this can and should be done within organizations. Before you talk seriously about talent management, your organization should have clarity on what talent means to you. Before you talk seriously about competencies, your organization should have clarity on what a competency is for you.
I see this same thing happen all the time in talking to organizational leaders about diversity. They are often incredibly confused about why diversity is important, about why they should invest and how they should invest in diversity, and 90% of that confusion is based on inaccurate and differing definitions and understandings of diversity.
This all important foundation is often missing, and the work that is built without a foundation is always in jeopardy.
I am not usually a terribly big fan of Simon, but I should probably get over that, as my wife says I am a lot like him...not sure how to feel about that.
But Simon clearly resonates with people in his approach to what he does. I think that all of the reasons that you list are important ones, but one of the factors of his success that we often overlook is the team he is a part of. Whether we like the other judges or not, Simon stands out in the way that he does because the the other judges are not like him. If all the judges were very similar to Simon in his approach, we would find less value in it. In fact if all of the judges were like Simon, I think the show would probably be miserable. I think that part of the reason the show works is that you have a balanced cast of characters for judges.
Simon does certainly stand out from the others and part of that is about him and part of that is about who he works with and I think that the very same thing is true at work. A big component in our evaluation and translation of the behavior of others is who they are around and with...and we have a hard time factoring that in and even recognizing it. I think there is a real leap from identifying a talented individual to building a talented team. We have a very real tendency to say "Simon is very good at what he does, go find me more Simons", but each additional Simon adds less actual value and you are probably more likely to end up with dysfunction.
I do think one of the really valuable (and rare) things that Simon does is he is consistently straight forward and honest...he does not beat around the bush, and that is something we could all use a bit more of.
We are heading to South Dakota this week for the state SHRM Conference, where we get to deliver one of our favorite keynote messages Generation X : Magic (or Mayhem) in the Middle. You and I like this message for a number of reasons and have been giving presentations and workshops on generational issues for a couple of years now, and I think that this continues to be an important set of issues for organizations.
I am thinking that it might help us get mentally prepared by thinking a bit about our favorite (and the most attractive) generation in the workforce today. Good friend and fellow X'er Jamie Notter has shared some thoughts on Gen X assets and liabilities over on a blog that he contributes to. I am curious what you think of these.
Also, we contributed some thoughts for Cheezhead last week, mostly stuff that comes from The Manifesto, and it occurs to me that these things should resonate especially well with our Generation X brothers and sisters. Would you agree with that and do you think other generations will struggle with these ideas more? Or is there no generational connection here?
Have a good week and looking forward to hitting the road with you. -joe
I am going to push a little harder on this issue as it has become a growing source of frustration for me. I continue to encounter companies, schools and non-profits that block access to social networking sites, content-sharing sites, etc. I agree with you that this is largely an issue of leadership and I think that it is issue that allows us to see which organizations have a proactive leadership stance and which ones have a reactive leadership stance. And I would say that in the world in which we live, if you are being reactive your days are numbered.
Not only does blocking Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. show a desire to manage activity rather than productivity, it shows a complete lack of understanding about how information travels, how employees become engaged, how innovation happens and how value is created today. It also helps ensure that your organization remains largely clueless about something that is changing nearly all aspects of how we do things. There are companies that are actively using Twitter to promote their brand, to recruit talent to provide customer serive and there are those that block it, deny it and shake their fist at it.
To put it another way; some of use tools, some of us are tools.
With the rate of change today, organizations can ill afford to block, deny and shake their fist at the changes that are taking place in the world. I think there are 200 million people on Facebook right now. Some of them are your customers. Some of them are potential customers. Some of them are your employees. Some of them are your potential employees. It really makes a lot of sense for you to be there. If you are not there, I probably will be there taking them away from you.
The same is true regarding Twitter and "social media" in general. A friend of mine put it like this; "If you are doing anything of any significance in the world, people are going to talk about you. You should be there."
Closing your eyes and covering your ears does not mean the conversation stops...it just means you don't get to benefit from it.
Posts
