Foursquare for Kids, or Technology Means Never Having To Let Go

I was a little late to the Foursquare hype, but in the interests of wanting to stay up to speed on the latest developments in technology and social networking I did, eventually create an account. I wrote a little about that experiment here. I still do use Foursquare pretty regularly, although my long reigns as Mayor of both the local Bruegger's Bagel Bakery and my son's elementary school have yet to pay off in the form of free bagels or a hearty 'Welcome Mr. Mayor!' from the principal on days I pick up Patrick from school. 

Certainly like all other social applications, the real value is in the interaction and insight you can gain from friends' Foursquare activity, but since my Foursquare friends are scattered all over the country the knowledge that Sam Higgins is eating breakfast in Austin, TX has not really paid off for me all that much. But still I persist, somehow comforted that if I ever go missing, someone could look at my Foursquare check-in log and attempt to track me down.

Like many parents the idea of your kids growing up, becoming more independent, moving about the world much more freely can also engender those same feelings of worry and concern - 'What if little Timmy does not come home one day?' or even the more benign but common lament - 'Where the heck is that kid, he was supposed to be home an hour ago?'

Most parents elect to try and mitigate these concerns by giving their kids cellphones. In fact, in most areas of the country you'd be hard pressed to find many 12 or 13 year-olds that didn't have some kind of mobile device. The story plays out mostly the same way everywhere. Kid starts begging for a mobile phone at about age 11 or 12, kid assures the parents that the phone will let them stay in touch at all times, and that they will always and immediately answer calls and texts from the parents, and voila - everyone is happy and content in the understanding that mutual assurance or location and safety is just a text or phone call away.

But after a short time for many kids and parents reality sets in, and increasingly persistent calls and texts from parents get slower and slower responses, kids' excuses that start with 'I forgot my phone at school' or 'The battery died' get more frequent, and many families end up sort of where they started - maturing and adventurous kids out making their way in the world, with nervous parents at home to wait and worry. Sort of the way life has played out for, well, pretty much forever.

Enter a new application (currently in private beta) called 'I'mOK'. I'mOK is a location-based check-in service (think Foursquare), for iPhone that helps parents monitor the whereabouts and activities of their children. Every time a child checks in with the app to let the parents know where and who they are with, they are rewarded with points that can be exchanged for parent-supplied perks such as TV time or allowance money. Check out the video below for an overview of the service (email and RSS readers may have to click through)

ImOK Intro Video - Knowing without the nagging from I'mOK on Vimeo.

The service's tag line is 'Knowing without the nagging' and while I suppose the idea is sound in behavioral modification theory, (kid checks in a lot, earns points and rewards for checking in, parents feel good about knowing the kids are safe and thus are happy to provide more rewards), I wonder if application and the others like it that are bound to come, are pushing some of the less appealing aspects of the social web further down the demographic chain.  I feel a little silly letting my 10 or so Foursquare friends know I am at the gas station, but I know that no one is really watching or monitoring my movements (at least I don't think so).

But with a 'family' location-based tracking application, the ideas of constant connection, of small insignificant activities gaining more value in the form of rewards, and the feeling of never really having true and complete privacy and anonymity, even for a short time, seem to be a pretty high price to pay for peace of mind. 

Back in the day my parents (and I am sure many of yours), sent us out in the world to hang out with our friends, to play sports, to ride bikes - whatever. They had no practical way to monitor our movements. But even if they had such a way, I am not completely convinced they would have wanted that ability. Not because they did not care about our safety, but rather because they knew that we needed to learn how to navigate the world for ourselves, and that they couldn't or shouldn't always be at the ready, a phone call or a text message away from us.

What do you think - would you set up a 'family' based location network to keep track of your kids?

Summer Hours and Fear

By now you have likely heard something about the latest 'fired for something you Tweeted' tale, this one from the Philadelphia area where Social media specialist Vanessa Williams was fired from the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corp. after using its Twitter account last weekend to tweet the following:

You can argue about the relative offensiveness of the tweet and whether or not the agency overreacted in its rapid termination of Williams following the Tweet, but it seems to me beyond doubt that this Tweet only became noteworthy, and the publicity surrounding the affair massively augmented by the decision to fire Williams, rather than simply issue a clarification, retraction, apology - whatever, and move on.

While I have no access or insight to private communications between members of the Lehigh Valley community and the agency following the 'Summer Hours' tweet, and thus don't know if the tweet truly resulted in a flood of outrage and angry calls and shouts about 'wasting the taxpayers money', I can see from the LVEDC's timeline that the public Twitter 'backlash' to the tweet was pretty tepid. In the moments after the tweet was sent, it appears only one other Twitter user, @KBlumenau, directly engaged with the LVEDC account on Twitter, and even his comments were not outrageous or all the angry. LVEDC, for it's part, offered a few responses about how 'no one is leaving early' and 'how the finance department was making deals'. Kudos LVEDC, I am sure we were all in fear that a couple of slack hours on a Friday afternoon in June would destroy the Lehigh Valley economy.

Certainly after the news broke the the LVEDC had fired Williams, and the news of the firing began to spread on the web, a flurry of tweets, most all of them expressing disappointment and disagreement with the firing decision for what most observers took as at worst an honest mistake. Williams herself has hired a lawyer, and wants to have her 'name cleared'.

We talk quite a bit in the blogging/tweeting/social communities about transparency and openness. And how organizations that come to more fully embrace the new modes of engagement and communication that social platforms provide will be the ones that can innovate more rapidly, attract (and retain) more dynamic talent, and be able to respond to customers in a meaningful and proactive manner. And of course many of us try to convince our organizations or advise other organizations that this kind of openness is really the way forward, and gives us the best chance for success and plays a role in crafting the kind of organization we'd be proud to work for.

But in order to do that, obviously, organizations need to trust that their newly empowered people will do the right thing, will act honestly and responsibly, especially when acting and participating in public forums on behalf of the company. Trust is essential. And the LVEDC had already taken that step, by placing their trust in Williams to Tweet on the official agency account and as part of her job duties. The LVEDC trusted Williams to do the right thing.

The problem was after the mildly inappropriate 'Summer Hours' tweet (again, very arguable), the LVEDC didn't trust that their community would not over react and become enraged at the most slight perception there was something amiss at the agency. The reason Willliams was fired, and the ongoing interest in the story is completely centered around the LVEDC's lack of faith in the community, businesses, and people they serve. The LVEDC assumed the worst of them, that they could not understand a simple comment about summer hours and golf on a Friday in June would bring the whole house crashing down.

If you don't trust your employees, then social media probably is not for you.

If you don't trust anyone, well, you have bigger problems than social media.

Let's Pass on That, (The Hamster Wheel)

Really late to the story on this, (about nine months late to be more precise), but I recently found and read an incredible piece by Dean Starkman for the Columbia Journalism Review site titled 'The Hamster Wheel'.

In the article, Starkman compares the changes in journalistic approaches, and the increasing demands on journalists to create tons of consumable content for a myriad of platforms, (TV, radio, Web, Social Networks, blogs, live blogs,and on and on), to the proverbial caged hamster running on an exercise wheel. Lots of activity, lots of energy being expended, but no real progress, and of course the hamster ends up in exactly the same place when exhaustion sets in as it was before the running started, and theoretically it still had some options.

In the context of the news business, Starkman describes the Hamster Wheel psyche like this:

The Hamster Wheel isn’t speed; it’s motion for motion’s sake. The Hamster Wheel is volume without thought. It is news panic, a lack of discipline, an inability to say no. It is copy produced to meet arbitrary productivity metrics. But it’s more than just mindless volume. It’s a recalibration of the news calculus. Of the factors that affect the reporting of news, an underappreciated one is the risk/reward calculation that all professional reporters make when confronted with a story idea: How much time versus how much impact? This informal vetting system is surprisingly ruthless and ultimately efficient for one and all. The more time invested, the bigger the risk, but also the greater potential glory for the reporter, and the greater value to the public (can’t forget them!). Do you fly to Chicago to talk to that guy about that thing? Do you read that bankruptcy examiner’s report? Or do you do three things that are easier?

It is perhaps difficult to find another industry than news and information services that has been disrupted more massively in the last 15 years or so by the rapid development of the web, the birth of so-called 'citizen journalism', and the perfect storm of cheap data plans, incredibly powerful smartphones and other mobile devices, and hundred of millions of social network platform users ready and eager to report and comment on the news - all in real-time. In the CJR piece, Starkman paints a vivid picture of increasing activity with possibly dubious benefit, and that underscores more endemic tensions in workplaces today - we are all asked to do more, or at least the same, with far less people and resources.

The article contains an example of the Hamster Wheel in action using the illustrative chart on the right - over the last ten or so years, story production in the printed Wall Street Journal has increased substantially, with corresponding reductions in headcount leading Starkman to conclude the average WSJ reporter is now 69% more productive that in 2000. 

In the race for web traffic, more views of a networks' or news organizations' YouTube videos, 'likes' on Facebook, or Twitter followers; Starkman makes the argument that the traditional values and importance of deeply reported and in-depth investigative pieces (the ones that can't really be tweeted), are suffering. And not only are news organizations steering away from the investment of time and resources to produce these pieces, the long-term financial benefits of the current 'Hamster Wheel' strategy are dubious at best. Some estimated claim the popular and 'Web 3.0' model of journalism The Huffington Post only creates about one dollar of revenue per reader per year.

Is that a large, more applicable to the workplace take on all of this?  In other words, why did I just spend 45 minutes and 600 or so words writing about a nine-month old article on the news business?

Well here goes - I think many of us of running on our own personal or organizational Hamster Wheels. We too have to be everywhere. We have to connect and communicate with colleagues and staff on many more platforms than ever before. We have to engage potential job candidates all over the social web, and create compelling engagement strategies for the conversation, (that will work on all kinds of mobile devices including ones that have not been invented yet). We have to stay on top of news, information, coming and goings in our industry in a 24/7 global context.

In short, we kind of have convinced ourselves, just like the execs at many of the news organizations that Starkman discusses in the CJR piece, that we can't take a breath, miss a tweet, an update, follow the hashtag from a conference we could not get to, or let someone else beat us to the punch.  It is a hard way to live without any kinds of filters to know what is truly important and meaningful and what isn't.

I'll leave you with a final nugget of insight from the the piece:

The most underused words in the news business today: let’s pass on that.

They might be the most underused words in your business too.

The Authority on Talent - Webcast June 16

So here is the premise:

An authority is defined as the undisputed expert in a particular field. And, just as the CFO is the authority on finance and CIO the authority on IT, HR leaders are emerging as the authority on their organization's greatest variable expense—its people.

Does that description, the HR organization being recognized and respected as the organization's 'authority' on all things related to its people, seem to fit your views and the manifestation of your HR reality?The obvious image. Sorry.

Can 'HR' really be that ubiquitous to truly understand or at least appreciate the intricacies, nuances, particulars, and practicalities of the thousands of individuals that may be working in the organization, and each one's personal and unique set of attributes and circumstances that ultimately drive and effect individual and organizational performance?  It is a tall order for sure, and if you as an HR leader buy into the premise, HR as the 'authority' on people or talent or whatever you call the humans that work in your organization, then having the right tools, processes, education, and technology to make that vision a reality will be of prime concern.

This 'Authority on Talent' premise was floated by the folks over at Plateau Systems and this week on, Thursday June 16th at 12 Noon ET, I will join Kris Dunn and Mark Stelzner for a free webcast/conversation called 'Authority on Talent', to talk about this idea, and some of the ways HR professionals can raise their standing in a kind of organizational pick-up game. 

KD, Mark and I will talk about HR’s role as the Authority on Talent in the organization, focusing on the following questions: 

• What do HR leaders need to establish this authority?
• What’s different now from previous “seat at the table” moments for HR?
• What role does technology play?

These are kind of big questions, and while important, there is also the sense that we have been around this same block a few times before, and over the years all we really seem to be doing is re-phrasing the questions, churning out the same fundamental recommendations, while in reality not much at all is changing. It could be that while the questions are still the 'right' ones to ask, the expected and obvious answers are letting us down. Or it could be that we should be re-framing the conversation completely, and recognize that what HR has been trying to do for the last, well forever, just isn't working and it is time to change the geometry of the conversation.

I suspect like many conversations of this type, the truth is somewhere in between. But finding that truth sure isn't easy and while I am not at all convinced in an hour this Thursday that Kris, Mark, and I can truly get you or anyone any closer to that truth, one thing I can promise is that it will be an enjoyable, lively, and perhaps even provocative ride.

Thanks very much to the folks at Plateau Systems for putting together this webcast, and for trusting the three of us not to embarrass you (too much).

You can learn more and register for the free webcast this Thursday June 16th at 12 Noon ET here.

And if you do tune in this week - the Twitter hashtag for questions, comments, and snarky remarks is #TalentAuthority.

Can I Work There if I Live Here?

There are really only a few, perhaps ten or so, major decisions that people take in their lives that have such significant and long-lasting impact on the quality of their lives, their happiness, their financial and physical health, and even their legacies, that they usually require long and careful consideration before they are taken. 

Where to go to college, what career path to pursue, what kind of job to take, where to live, whether or not to continue to date that slacker in hopes you can change him, (cut him loose, you know he will never change), and so on.

But for job and career related decisions, at least for now when the majority of jobs still require reporting most days to a central work location, be it an office, store, factory, etc. - geography and it's associated impact on the decision process is an ever-present but at times under appreciated part of the complex dynamic. Sure, companies and candidates both spend lots of time evaluating skills match, career objectives, company culture, salary and benefits, and the like, but often questions like 'How long will it take me to commute each day?' or 'Can I afford to live anywhere near where the facility is?' or 'Are there any childcare options on the way to the office?', are not typically emphasized in interview and assessment process. Sure the candidate thinks about these issues some, but often only as a secondary set of considerations to the actual job itself, and usually the candidate is left to sort out the answers to these questions on their own.

And these are critically important questions, ones that will effect the potential employee's likelihood for success, and certainly their quality of life outside of work. So how can organizations try to better help candidates address these concerns, as well as provide some insight to the challenges that the candidate (or even the existing employee base), might be facing in terms of geography, commuting time, and other real-world considerations?

How about with an interactive map that shows office locations, median real estate costs, average commute times, and other practical, real, and really important data points to help candidates and employers make more informed decisions? Take a look at an example of what such a map would look like, this one for the San Francisco area: (click here, or on the image to try the map out yourself).

This map was created by Stamen, a Design and Technology studio from San Francisco.

To work with the tool, simply plot your starting point or destination point on the map, then on the left side, select from different modes of transit, ranging from car sharing to biking to walking. After that, you can indicate the desired length of commute, and the housing price range you can work with. After your selections are made, the map then shades in all the neighborhoods that lie within your parameters. It tries to help answer the basic question - 'If I live here, can I afford to work there?'

For people and potential employees not familiar with the area, this kind of a tool is a fantastic resource, and one that I could see a large employer in any given market or geography using to both inform, educate, and even attract candidates.

If you are say recruiting hard to convince a candidate to leave an area like San Francisco to come to perhaps, Birmingham, (cultural capital of the South), you could clearly and in an interactive manner demonstrate some of those 'quality of life/cost of living' angles that you play up on the phone. And additionally, having access to this kind of interactive data would better inform company leaders planning the next office location, or possible re-organization. You could easily develop this tool a bit further to plot the addresses of employees and build some intelligence to calculate changes in average commute time, energy use, and even impact on company happiness (a stretch, but just go with it), that would accompany a physical office move.

What do you think - would like to have a tool that allowed you and your candidates to better assess more of the real-life variables in the recruiting process?

Have a great weekend!