Remember just a couple of years ago when it was timely and hip to lament the loss of hundreds if not thousands of small, independent bookstores that were being crushed by the big box mega-purveyors like Barnes & Noble and Borders? Similar to the ire that Walmart tends to engender in some communities, the loss of long-established and local businesses that simply cannot compete with the purchasing power, time-proven strategies, and ruthless execution of many of the big chains, makes most of us want to root for the little guys. Well, at least we like to say we are rooting for the little guys, but once we got a taste of the massive in-store book selection, lower prices, on-premise cafes, and free wifi, well, like I said, we like to say we are rooting for the little guy.It's a niche

Heck, there was even a big Hollywood feature film made not that long ago that starred Tom Hanks and his very B&N like giant forcing poor Meg Ryan's cuddly little bookstore on the corner out of business.

Fast forward only a few years and the retail book industry looks almost nothing at all like it did when Meg and Tom were flirting by email at night and trying to destroy each other's business by day. Borders is bankrupt, and Barnes & Noble too is likely in the early stages in a battle for its own survival, under increasing pressure primarily from Amazon.com and its Kindle ecosystem. B&N has been able to survive and compete this long where Borders could not, mainly due to its Nook e-reader, and its commitment and willingness to take at least some of the fight to Amazon.

But today for many book lovers, Barnes & Noble represents in some ways the last stand for not just a retail model, but for the idea of the printed book at all. If you think about the town where you live, if the closest B&N were to close ip shop, just exactly where would you shop for real, actual printed books? Forgetting for a moment that walking into a large B&N it might be actually hard to locate any books, as they are often obscured by the Nook demonstration area, the kids' toy section, the coffee shop, and the thousands of other things in a B&N that are not books. Where I live, there are two B&N's within about 10 miles, and I can't think of another place anywhere that sells real live printed books.

So for those that cling to the almost prosaic notion of browsing through the shelves, picking up and touching the books, paging through the images of a $125 coffee-table art book that no one ever would buy, if the B&N goes, well, all of that likely goes with it. Maybe something else would come to fill in that void, in the larger cities something probably would, but for many other places book buying would almost certainly become an 100% virtual proposition.

And that might not be a big issue at all, who knows. But for me the interesting thing is how through all this change and technological progress in e-commerce and e-readers that the massive, powerful, and formerly evil megastore like B&N has come full circle to represent all that used to be good and nostalgic about the book buying experience.  B&N has gone from being the malicious, heartless competitor to the underdog that many people who love physical books are rooting for. 

It's really hard to pull off that kind of corporate reputation transformation, even if you wanted to. Once evil, always evil is more typical. Although I suspect B&N would have been happy to continue laying waste to little shops all over the world, evil or not.

What do you think - would you care if there were no more physical bookstores?

Have a Great Weekend!

Last weekend this headline, 'Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown?' from the POPSCI blog caught my attention, and indeed it proved to be a really interesting and personal read about the effects of the devastating tornado that descended on Jopin, MO last spring.  In fact to me, the piece was interesting not for its ability to answer the question expressed in the title, (I suppose the answer is really 'Maybe' or 'We don't know'), but rather it's examination of what happened in Joplin before, during, and after the tornado tore through town.Joplin tornado path - Click for a larger image

The Joplin tornado of May 22, 2011 would eventually be categorized as a EF5 storm, the strongest and most dangerous classification, result in 161 fatalities, 1,150 injuries, and cause over $2B in damages. Of course none of this, the seriousness of such a massive and deadly storm, and the impact and devastation it would render, could have been known in advance by the people of Joplin that day. While the full nature of the fury could not be known in advance, there was at least some indication that something bad was about to happen in Joplin. By most accounts, the series of steps conducted by the various national and local authorities responsible for weather forecasting and public safety resulted in the sounding of the tornado warning siren in Joplin about 30 minutes prior to the tornado's arrival functioned as designed and expected. But despite the advance warning, and other precautionary measures taken by an area well accustomed to potentially dangerous weather, significant fatalities and injuries still occurred.

One reason, and probably the primary reason, was of course the sheer size and destructiveness of the May 22 tornado. As an EF5 storm, packing 200+ MPH winds, there is little that even the most soundly built structures and safty shelters could do to withstand that kind of assault. But in addition to the fury of the massive storm, some reports, including the above-referenced POPSCI piece call attention to the idea of something called siren fatigue, the tendency for people in high-risk tornado areas to downplay the significance of, and perhaps to fail to take appropriate safety precautions when the tornado siren is called due to the high volume of tornado false alarms that have been previously sounded.

From the POPSCI piece:

But the biggest concern was what the investigators called siren fatigue.

Like many other towns, Joplin’s policy is to sound a three-minute siren when a storm with winds stronger than 75 mph is approaching town, regardless of whether an NWS agency has issued a watch or warning. So at 5:11 on May 22, after local emergency managers were informed that a funnel cloud had been sighted over southeast Kansas, the city sounded a siren. But warning too early can be dangerous, particularly in a siren-jaded area. The NWS study describes one man’s confused, lackadaisical response: “(1) Heard first sirens at 5:11 p.m. CDT (estimated 30–35 minutes before tornado hit). (2) Went to the TV and heard NWS warning from TV override that indicated tornado near airport drive seven miles north (polygon #30) of his location. (3) Went on porch with family and had a cigar.”

Twenty-seven minutes later, the man heard another set of sirens. At this point, he “thought something wasn’t right,” so he went back inside and turned on the TV, where meteorologists were still warning that the threat was north of town. Then his wife yelled “Basement!” The report concludes this summary of events thusly: “Tornado hit as they reached the top of the basement stairs, destroying their home.”

Wow. Some gripping, riveting stuff. The kind of thing that should make most of us glad we don't have those types of life of death kinds of calls to make. Sounding the alarms and sirens when there is the just the chance of a dangerous storm, most of which either do not materialize or are relatively minor, has the tendency over time of dulling the siren's effectiveness, and introducing a kind of complacency in the minds of some residents.  While the problem is fairly easily identified, the right solution to combat siren fatigue is less clear. Different signal sounds for different local conditions is one option, better and more accurate forecasting is another, but eventually when faced with the decision of whether or not to sound the sirens, the need for erroring on the side of safety usually prevails.

It's just a couple of months until the start of the active tornado season in many parts of the US, and no doubt once the storms start forming in the Midwest and South the siren fatigue discussion will be continued. The larger point in all of this, and why I thought it relevant to write about on a site (mostly) about the workplace - if people can be conditioned to tune out messages meant to quite possibly save their lives, then it is about 100% certain that at least some of the important messages you are sending to your colleagues, your staff, your friends - whatever, have a good chance of being tuned out as well.

Even if the message you need to convey is an important one, like a tornado warning siren, if it keeps coming in the same manner, at the same time, delivered over and over again, eventually it becomes just another piece of noise in the stream. Fortunately for most of us, the consequence of our messages being tuned out probably isn't terribly significant in the big picture. Most people will carry on just fine by ignoring our message.

Fortunately, I suppose, the danger is probably more to our own careers.

The entire '99% vs. the 1%' is now a well established concept (thanks to the 'Occupy' movement), or method of describing in very broad terms the income, (and some might say opportunity), disparity that exists in the US economy. When you hear these terms, you immediately understand the concepts, take your own position on the merits of each point of view, and sometimes self-identify with one group or the other.Let's hug it out

But recently I read an interesting piece on the AdAge Digital site about a different kind of 1%, (that was an awkward transition, admittedly), specifically the 1% of a company or a brand's social media fans that seem to actively engage with said company or brand. The article, titled 'Study: Only 1% of Facebook 'Fans' Engage With Brands', recounts a recent piece of research conducted by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute that claims to show that only about 1% of the self-identified 'fans' of a brand on Facebook, (certainly not the only social platform, but indeed the largest), actually 'engage' with the brand by commenting, tagging, sharing, etc. actively with the brand and the content.  The vast, vast majority, the other 99%, simply identify as fans, get exposed to some of the brands' content, and continue on with whatever else they were doing.

While seemingly offering a really low return on investment to marketers, at least according to the study's authors it doesn't paint a totally bleak picture. From the AdAge piece:

"I don't think it's a bad thing," said Karen Nelson-Field, senior research associate for Ehrenberg-Bass Institute who describes herself as a "Facebook advocate." "People need to understand what it can do for a brand and what it can't do. Facebook doesn't really differ from mass media. It's great to get decent reach, but to change the way people interact with a brand overnight is just unrealistic." 

In this understanding of the marketing and media worlds, social is just another media channel useful for its reach rather than any notion of engagement.

While this article and the study it refers to are in a strict sense focusing on consumer brand engagement, I think they offer some food for thought for the Human Resources and Recruiting professionals who are increasingly looking to social platforms like Facebook and Twitter to create interest, conversation, and dare I use the word again, engagement for their own purposes. The main point, that an engagement level of 1% might be the baseline is instructive as HR pros create their forecasts and plans. 

But the second point the AdAge piece brings up is even more thought provoking -  namely whether or not social platforms like Facebook are truly brand engagement platforms, or just another marketing and messaging channel like newspaper ads, company web sites, or large job boards.  I know we like to think that with social all or at least many of the traditional rules no longer apply, but this study (and others), suggest that maybe the change is not happening so fast.

What do you think? Does the 1% number hold up in your experience? And does it even matter?

Global companies often struggle with the challenge of deploying technology solutions and process automation in regions that perceive the demanded changes as “corporate mandated” and specific to the location of the company’s corporate offices. How often do we hear the sentiment expressed that this is just another corporate initiative that has nothing to do with how we do business in the region? Consequently, many system initiatives fail miserably when the regions are asked to adopt it. Projected ROI is not realized, organizational ineffectiveness continues, and careers are adversely impacted – despite the well intentioned deployment.

Over the last several years I have had the opportunity to work with many world-leading companies that have deployed solutions throughout the various world regions – to local end user populations with very distinct processes, business cultures, and language requirements. In working with these companies one of the first thing we have done is assess the company culture to determine if the organization is truly ready to deploy a global system that will be adopted as envisioned. After all – “if you build it they will come” only works in the movies.

In response to this problem, countless books, articles and white papers have been written and an equally large amount of seminars and workshops delivered. So why not (I ask myself) a blog on lessons learned over my years working with companies that have ventured into the world of global system deployment? Lessons learned from working with executives, project team members and system end users – both at Corporate as well as in the regions. A blog that discusses how to create a more effective deployment atmosphere and culture during system definition and implementation and prepare the ground properly to ensure that the actual system deployment is positive and yields the desired response at the Corporate and Regional level.
So, from scheduling calls and engaging virtual teams, to walking the fine line between localizations and standardization; from ensuring representation and commitment at the regional level, to overcoming project stereotypes and misconceptions across the board; from defining deployment strategies and managing system rollout tasks – stay tuned. Practical tips and suggestions I have learned (sometimes through my own mistakes) over the past decade as I have worked with well intentioned, conscientious and highly motivated colleagues thrown into the deep end and asked to swim.

One of the best ongoing online series on leadership and business is the New York Times fantastic 'Corner Office' interviews conducted by Adam Bryant. In each piece, Bryant talks with a company CEO about business philosophy, their thoughts around people management, and often, and of particular interest to HR and recruiting professionals, the hiring and interview process.

In the most recent installment, Bryant talked with Harry West, CEO of the innovation design firm Continuum, and while Mr. West had some interesting things to share about interviewing and hiring -  'I ask a few very basic questions. “What is it you want to do? What is it that you’re good at? What is it that you’re not good at? Tell me about what you’ve done.”, the most intriguing part of the Corner Office piece was an observation West made about change, and specifically the speed in which change can be effected inside an organization. 

Here's the passage from the Times article:

Pacing is really important in an organization. When you’re leading, you’re generally trying to lead change, and I think it was Roy Amara, who said about technology, “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” And I think the same applies to change within an organization.

Let that sink in for a second, we overestimate the impact of a (technology) change in the short run, and underestimate it in the long run. I think with the relentless, powered by social networks, 24/7 news and information cycle that can often lead to even more hype and therefore expecations about new technologies, that managing expectations and understanding an organization's ability to navigate through any significant change is more important than ever. But don't take my word for it, check what CEO West has learned about the pace of change in his career:

And so I’ve learned that it’s critical to think carefully about the pace of change, and it’s something that I’ve learned the hard way. It’s important to manage that carefully, because it’s not just about the pace of change that certain people in the company can manage.

It’s about the pace of change that the company as a whole can manage. You can push and push and nothing seems to happen, and then suddenly it takes off and you’re sort of running to catch up.

Look, we all know that change management is critical in any major process, strategy, or technology program or implementation. But I think it is incredibly easy to fail to have the proper appreciation and empathy for those whose worlds our great ideas and plans are going to impact. In other words, it often isn't about your ability to handle change, ambiguity, or stress  - it's about everyone else's too.

Neither West, nor I are advocating standing still, or waiting for the perfect conditions to effect change, but an occasional reminder that the pace of change might be equally important as the nature of the change is a good one.

This funny recruiting video from Twitter was posted on YouTube on Friday, and made the rounds pretty quickly across the web over the weekend, so chances are you may have seen it already. The embed is below in case you missed it, or wanted to have a second look, (email and RSS subscribers will need to click through).

The YouTube post on Twitter's official channel was accompanied by this tweet-like update:

#hackweek project: make the best/worst recruiting video of all time. Done.
To find out more about jobs at Twitter visit: http://www.twitter.com/jobs or @jointheflock

So while the video itself looks to have been made in response to a hack week challenge to intentionally create the worst recruiting video possible, it is so bad, cheesy, and done with such low production values that I think it ends up actually being a pretty effective effort nonetheless. 

A couple of things stand out in the video, chief among them the fact that just by devoting one of their hackweek challenges to making a recruiting video, Twitter is sending a subtle message that is actually taking recruiting seriously and its talent needs are top of mind. Typically these kinds of challenges focus on products, features, or other kinds of explorations that possibly could become products or features one day. So focusing on boring old recruiting is to me, kind of telling. Additionally, unlike more technical challenges, really anyone in the company can make a recruiting video, expanding the potential participant pool outside of just the product people and engineers.

And then there is the content of the video itself, in its attempt (mostly successful), to be 'bad', it reveals that Twitter and its employees are open to poke a little fun at themselves - even the CEO gets in on the game with a solid, deadpan performance in the piece. It clearly is real Twitter employees in the piece, not corporate talking heads, they are in their natural working environments, and while going over the top to be cheesy, if you listen to the copy you actually get a pretty simple, straightforward employer branding kind of message. Small teams, important projects, great work environment and so on. And a CEO not above helping send that message. A call to action with the web address of the career page and the recruiting Twitter account, (natch), also make the cut.

Sure, the purpose of the video was to make it bad, but in a way it kind of shows anyone interested in creating these kinds of messages that it can be really easy to overthink them, to wordsmith every line of copy, and to obsess over getting the sets, lighting, pace etc. all 'just right'. If the folks at Twitter can make a bad video still seem pretty good, then I think that suggests any of us could do the same.

What do you think? Is it really just a bad and a spoof and I am reading too much into it?

I recently served as a panelist on a webinar which discussed the 2012 HCM budgets.  The survey was done by IHRIM (International Association for Human Resource Information Management), and some interesting results appeared on the survey which caused me to do additional research on how the past few years of a difficult economy has impacted HR and HR systems budgets.

The good news is that 82% of those surveyed had their 2011 budget kept at the 2010 level or increased.  For 2012 that number is going up to 85%.  While we are still struggling with the economy, it shows that corporate leaders are realizing that they need to begin to invest in their technology infrastructure.  As companies have tried to hold down their expenses, their systems have continued to age and may not be taking full advantage of the technologies being used by  newer groups of employees.

Use of the 2012 budgets appear to be in the Talent Management areas (Recruiting, Performance Management and On-Boarding).  One interesting area of increase is with Business Intelligence, which corporations have realized can help them make better decisions about running the business.  32% of all respondents said they would be looking at some sort of Business Intelligence this year.

Spending on HR technology continues to grow in 2012 as organizations begin to see the economy moving.  There are still many areas which could impact the economy and corporate spending, but if you have allowed your technology and HR systems to become out dated, this needs to be rectified sooner instead of waiting for a full economic recovery.  If you haven’t already done so, you should begin to create an HCM technology strategy roadmap to best use your budgeted funding.

I recently served as a panelist on a webinar which discussed the 2012 HCM budgets.  The survey was done by IHRIM (International Association for Human Resource Information Management), and some interesting results appeared on the survey which caused me to do additional research on how the past few years of a difficult economy has impacted HR and HR systems budgets.

The good news is that 82% of those surveyed had their 2011 budget kept at the 2010 level or increased.  For 2012 that number is going up to 85%.  While we are still struggling with the economy, it shows that corporate leaders are realizing that they need to begin to invest in their technology infrastructure.  As companies have tried to hold down their expenses, their systems have continued to age and may not be taking full advantage of the technologies being used by  newer groups of employees.

Use of the 2012 budgets appear to be in the Talent Management areas (Recruiting, Performance Management and On-Boarding).  One interesting area of increase is with Business Intelligence, which corporations have realized can help them make better decisions about running the business.  32% of all respondents said they would be looking at some sort of Business Intelligence this year.

Spending on HR technology continues to grow in 2012 as organizations begin to see the economy moving.  There are still many areas which could impact the economy and corporate spending, but if you have allowed your technology and HR systems to become out dated, this needs to be rectified sooner instead of waiting for a full economic recovery.  If you haven’t already done so, you should begin to create an HCM technology strategy roadmap to best use your budgeted funding.

There are some people that really like giving out orders, and some, (certainly fewer), that like being told what to do. But I suspect the majority of us fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. As leaders or parents or when acting in any role that puts us in a position of authority, we want to set some basic direction or ground rules, and then sit back happily and watch our charges carry out their duties and tasks without much meddling or the need for intervention and correction.Click image for larger size

Face it, how many times do you have to tell your kids to clean up their room or to stop texting at dinner before it gets really tedious? And in the workplace it can get very tiresome to have to keep reminding Peter to include the cover sheets on the TPS reports. I mean come on, when is he going to finally get it? Yep, constantly telling people what to do, and the flip side, hearing again and again what you need to do, (or what you need to stop doing), both are dreary, monotonous, and at times soul-crushing.

What's the solution? I really don't have one except to say that no matter what side of the ledger you find yourself on, the constant repetition can only mean two things. One, the message simply isn't getting across. Or two, the message is clearly understood, and the person that needs to make the change just doesn't have the same agenda as the order-giver. I suppose there is a third scenario, where there is a valid moral or ethical objection to compliance, but that one is kind of rare and usually can be debunked on closer examination. I have not yet acceded to my 11 year-olds 'moral' objections to going to bed.

Click image for larger sizeSo if you find yourself as a crossroads with someone or something that simply won't see things your way, perhaps taking a page from the worlds of marketing or advertising is the best way forward. Take a look at the images that accompany this post. They are taken from the Library of Congress archives of Works Progress Administration posters from the late 1930s and early 1940s. An era known formally as the Great Depression, and less formally as 'absolute crap'. 

Both of these posters, and many of the others in the archive, are attempts to 'tell people what to do' in a time where for most people, pretty much the last thing they wanted to hear was a lecture or an admonition from anyone. Mostly, they just wanted to find work, or hang on to the jobs they had, and find some way to feel better about things. And as the 40s started, the likelihood of entering into World War II was pretty high. Certainly, a country going pretty much straight from economic depression to World War II in short order pretty much created an environment of stress, worry, and real fear about both the present and the future.

So why are these WPA posters so cool and kind of instructive? Well, for one reason they are really cool to look at. They are extremely well designed and artistic, as the WPA had access to and the availability of many top notch designers and artists who had found the normal markets for their work pretty thin during the depression. And secondly, mainly due to the constraints of the medium, they are simple and direct. 'Be Careful', and 'Visit The Zoo'. That's it. That is the entire message. But the design of the posters makes us want to look at them a little longer, to maybe be a little more open to the message, and perhaps, just a tiny bit, be more receptive to the pitch, to being told what to do.

I think it can be really easy to forget that once the message keeps repeating it often gets tuned out or just blends into the white noise.  But making it interesting, making it compelling, making it into art - well if you can do that you might have a chance at being heard.

Now if I can just photoshop 'Clean your room' on the Zoo poster and show it to the kid.

Have a Great Weekend!

MacGyver is probably the coolest TV-hero ever.  He is cooler than you could ever dream of being even if you only dreamed of being MacGyver.

He could make a cannon from a old microscope, turn a bedframe into a catapult, and do just about anything else with s Swiss Army knife and some duct tape.

Smart, agile, resourceful - and able to rock a mullet as good as anyone before or since. Possessor of many of the qualities of my friends from Fistful of Talent, Kris Dunn and Tim Sackett.

Why the clumsy transition from the legendary MacGyver to KD and Sackett, who are also legendary, but for slightly different reasons?

Because next Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 1:00PM ET, Kris and Timmy, (and possibly Pete Thornton), are presenting a Fistful of Talent Webinar titled - Social Recruiting MacGyver Style! (How to Recruit via Facebook).

Here's what you need to know:

Tim Sackett and Kris Dunn are teaming up to present the next Fistful of Talent Webinar: Social Recruiting MacGyver Style! No Money, a Paperclip and Facebook – all a Real HR Pro Needs to Recruit. (Sponsored by the good people at  Branchout)

Join KD and Tim on February 2, 2012 for this one-hour webinar and they’ll hit you with the following Facebook-centric items: 

• Where is social recruiting heading, and why do you need to care as the HR rep of your organization?
• How a 1-2 person shop can compete in social recruiting (with no money, a paper clip and Facebook…)      
• How to use rarely understood tools like Facebook Marketplace and Facebook Pay-Per-Click Ads to drive Facebook candidates to your open positions
• How to use Facebook search features to locate candidates on Facebook and contact them without looking like a stalker

Register today and the fine folks at Fistful of Talent will send you a special FOT toolkit – “How to Find and Contact Candidates on Facebook without Looking Like a Stalker”, once the webinar is complete.

Everyone knows that whatever the future holds for recruiting, that Facebook, the largest social network with it's soon to have one billion profiles, is almost certainly going to play a part in most organizations talent strategies. I've written about the subject here as well, and on the webcast KD and Tim, (along with the experts from BranchOut), will help to prepare you for what could very well be the next frontier in the talent game.

I encourage anyone in the recruiting and talent space to sign up for the webcast. The FOT gang guarantees your 100% satisfaction, 60% of the time.

And we can also have fun live tweeting and making fun of Tim.