Cards of Change

I came across the site Cards of Change, a collection of images of business cards uploaded by people in some kind of career transition or crossroads, usually caused by a layoff or other involuntary circumstance.

Participants take one of their former business cards and imaginatively and creatively edit, adapt, and improve the card's content in a kind of 'rite of passage' that visually and tangibly helps to mark the passage from one career stage to the next.

The site's mission is 'to collect as many business cards and stories of positive change of people who have recently been laid off and connect them with new opportunities from potential employers, business partners and people who make the effort to look on the bright side of life.'

Of the many hundreds of cards loaded to the site, there is most often seen an excitement, optimism, and enthusiasm from the recently separated workers.  In many cases reading their adapted cards, cards that with a few pen strokes and cross outs they have turned from 'business' cards to personal ones, we get the sense of relief and release.  We can feel along with the card owner the weight of stress or pressure of having to be someone else for business, and the lightening of their spirit once they saw that weight removed.

Of course the stress and pressures of being out of work had not likely set in yet as the card owners took to constructing these new creations, but still, I imagine the physical act of transformation of the old into something new has to be seen as at least starting the transition process on the right note.

The other observation I had from reading through the card collection was that there were and still are a lot of unhappy people out there and when presented with a better and more enriching (both financially and emotionally), opportunity, many of seemingly productive and happy workers will race to the door.

I wonder if many of us were provided the opportunity or the necessity to design our own cards would they look at all like our 'official' ones? Or if we could, would we start crossing out words and phrases, replacing them with ones that match our truer selves?  

I recommend checking out Cards of Change, I bet you will spend at least a few minutes looking at the cards and tiny stories.

Winter Wonderland

In these parts of the country the arrival of 'real' winter is kind of paradoxical; we know it is coming but we are always surprised when it actually arrives.  We talk about everyone forgetting how to drive in the snow, of towns and cities failing at clearing highways and streets, and of seemingly irrational runs on grocery stores for milk, eggs, and bread.  Essentially if you get snowed in for a few days, a steady supply of French Toast can be prepared.Cold Miser

In much of the United States Midwest and Northeast the last two weeks have seen the abrupt onset of what looks to be a long, hard winter - snow, wind, cold, even blizzard like conditions in some areas. The winter weather simply overlays a new set of problems and worries on managers and staffs that probably really didn't them. Most organizations are doing more with less in 2011, and adding extra time and stress to the simple task of getting to and from work is just another headache with which to be dealt.

But for most people and organizations the start of the winter weather season does present very real issues - meetings and events cancelled, or at least shortened; school closings that force employees to make alternate child care arrangements (if they can); morning commutes transformed into multiple hour, gas wasting and frustrating marathons; and if in the case of day of deteriorating weather conditions employees distracted and worried as they stare out the windows wondering if they will be able to make it home or pick up their kids.

How organizations, and more importantly managers react, respond, and address staff and work issues caused by winter weather conditions says much about what the organization values, and I think, says quite a bit more than anything written down in values and mission statements, or is plastered on the careers web page under the 'What's it like to work here' banner.

To me, there are only three possible options for managers and organizations when dealing with winter weather and its impacts on work and staff:

1. The Pioneer Approach

 If we are open for business, then everyone is expected to be here, full stop.This sometimes is a necessity, obviously for retail and other public and customer facing workplaces, or for professional basketball teams. There are definitely many organizations that take pride in toughing it out, and swapping stories about '3 hours to drive 4 miles' stories.  But for newer arrivals to the organization, perhaps that started in spring or summer, this attitude can at first be a shock.  If you manage in one of these environments, you had better make sure the team is aware of your kind of old-fashioned 'uphill in the snow both ways' mindset.

2. The essential roles gambit

 If you are in an 'essential' role (good luck figuring that out), you are expected to come in, otherwise stay home.  This can work if really all you need to do is keep minimum organizational capability during a snow event, but it certainly can have a negative effect on morale - 'What do you mean, I'm not essential?'. Because even non-essential people pretty soon figure out that the 'non-essential' list is the same one used for the 'budgets are getting cut, who can we let go of' exercise.

3. We are all adults, use your best judgment

 Truly, the only sustainable approach and the one most likely to succeed over what can be a four or five month winter.  The employee knows best about their commute, their confidence in driving in bad weather, their mental state after or before a nightmare drive, and their family obligations.  The manager should have a good handle on the current work load, the ability of the group to adjust, adapt, and re-prioritize if necessary, and how the overall diminished capacity impacts the larger picture.  Bottom line, the manager needs to understand when and how to handle these situations in a way that keeps employees safe and productive, and makes sure the essential obligations at work are met. Perhaps one way to manage this is to actually prepare, (maybe too late already for this season), and set some general expectations and guidelines for the staff, but always tempered with the 'use your best judgement' conclusion.

You are not a hero for sitting in your car for three hours to then sit in a cube for three hours, only to get back in the car to repeat the process to get home.  And managers that think a sign of their great leadership is that their entire team fought the weather to make it in to work is misguided.  A real leader or even a good manager has set up an environment and process where using and exercising individual and balanced judgment is valued and demonstrated.

Does Technology Change Everything?

Over the weekend I watched the archive of a presentation given by Allen Delattre, Global Market Managing Director for Technology for Executive Search firm Korn/Ferry at last week's GigaOm Net:Work conference in San Francisco.

In the presentation Delattre makes some interesting predictions about the increasing impact of the major technological shifts that enable (or perhaps require) organizations to grow more global, collaborative, and virtual, while acknowledging that 'virtualization' and 'collaborative' have become so overused as terms that they have lost some of their punch. But despite this, the very real effect and impact on new technology from social, to mobile, to collaborative has had on organizations, augmented by the growing influence of the Gen Y and Milennial cohorts, have created such a new environment and set of challenges that the fundamental human resources issues of leadership development, identification of high potentials, and succession management all need to adapt to this new, technology-based reality. 

Delattre sees the ability to understand and successfully implement these new technologies as not only critical to organizational growth and survival, but that the most successful leaders of the future will be the ones that are best able to assess, adapt, synthesize, and implement new technologies to support business strategy and to unleash the best performance from employees.  And since the technology landscape continues to evolve and change so rapidly, Delattre theorizes that traditional organizational succession planning approaches that often emphasize 'coming up through the ranks' and often taking rotational assignments in different parts of the organization will no longer be the best way to find and groom future leaders. His remark that successors for big-time CIO positions used to count on 'surviving that SAP project and bringing in it only at double the original budget' is both sad and amusing.

This is a simple and really direct argument that the technology itself, is a primary driver and leader of the massive changes in organizational structures and that it presents significant impact on the nature of leadership and talent management.  When these kind of 'technology changes everything' speeches come from hot tech companies, or from systems integrators that stand to benefit greatly from the consulting and advisory fees they stand to earn from helping clients navigate the myriad choices on offer, you would be forgiven for taking the remarks with a grain of salt.  But when a Managing Director of a leading executive search firm makes the case that technology leadership is a fundamental and an imperative for tomorrow's leaders, then perhaps a second listen is warranted.

You can take a look at Delattre's presentation at NET:Work below, be warned, the first few minutes are a series of 'Did You Know?' style statistics about globalization, economic, and demographics.  I think by now we all get the idea the world is changing pretty rapidly. Delattre's remarks start at about 4:10. 

What do you think?  Do these new technologies present not just better ways of getting things done but rather a core and enduring change in what tomorrow's leaders must understand and master?

1/2 Man, 1/2 Amazing

This may be a surprise to some, but I do appreciate (sort of) that not everyone that reads this blog is as fully invested and familiar with the nuances of sports, and in particular professional basketball.  1/2 Man

So you may not have realized that the title of this post, 1/2 Man, 1/2 Amazing was not just meant as a general descriptive phrase, but rather was/is the nickname of an actual person, legendary street and playground legend Anthony Heyward.  The nickname stems from a famous Heyward slam dunk over a much taller player. The full details of Heyward's nickname from Hoopedia:

An original member of the AND 1 team he earned Street Name, 1/2 Man balling at Rucker Park. After driving the lane and dunking on a dude that was much bigger then him, Rucker MC Duke Tango called him 1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing. The name has stuck ever since and we all know who was the first player to have it was (sorry Vince Carter). 

Like many of the other streetball legends that have come before and since, 1/2 Man never has 'made it', that is, obtained the highest level of accomplishment in professional basketball, a contract with an NBA team.  There are various theories why fantastic street ball talents like 1/2 Man have largely failed to make an impact in the Association, from lack of experience in structured offensive and defensive systems, to games that are kind of one-dimensional and thus easily defensed at the NBA level, or to a perception that the street or playground game is simply inferior to the NBA game, and consequently its stars, while talented, are by and large a level (or two) below top professional caliber.

I suppose it is debatable whether or not any individual playground star like 1/2 Man was or is talented enough to make it in the NBA, logically you would have to assume that if indeed an NBA contract were offered guys like 1/2 Man would jump at the chance, since even the minimum NBA salary (between about $500K and $1.4M based on experience) is bound to be far greater than what can be earned in the playgrounds and on barnstorming tours playing in local gyms.

But more interesting to me in the case of the NBA largely ignoring the playground legends, is considering how much of the snub is due to pure basketball ability and potential, and how much is based on these players not having the 'correct' background and more typical developmental experiences of NBA players. Even today, most new NBA players compete in American colleges, even if for only a year or two.  Non North American players usually have experience in high-level professional leagues in Europe. With only the occasional exception (e.g. Rafer Alston, AKA 'Skip to my Lou' ), no one steps from the playground to the NBA.

Ok, so you are not in the business of stocking and NBA team. Sadly, neither am I. But chances are you and your organization is looking for help right now.  Chances are even in a recession, your company has to fill and back fill jobs. 

Chances you are looking to the same sources (Top 20 colleges, LinkedIn, or employee referrals) that have always worked for you in the past.

Chances are you don't have a scout watching the talent on the playground.  And that is too bad.

Because that is where 1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing plays. 

Email and feed subscribers click through

Netflixification

Of course you know about Netflix, the subscription based service that for several years has kept American mailboxes stuffed with the latest feature film and TV program DVDs.  For most of its history Netflix focused on that 'hard media' delivery model. Users registered with the site, agreed to a relatively small monthly fee, set up their viewing preferences, and voila, DVDs would begin to appear in the post. Take a day, take ten days, watch the DVD as you like, mail it back in a pre-paid envelope and in a day or so the next choice on your list would arrive.Crap - but you realized it too late

Millions of DVDs going back and forth via the mail, lots of paper and energy used up in the selection, distribution, and return process, but still for most Netflix subscribers a major improvement from a trip to the local Blockbuster shop to peruse the latest DVD releases arrayed along the walls, while sneaking glances into the 'adult' section in the corner to see if anyone you recognize had skulked in for a look. 

Recently Netflix launched additional capabilities or enhancements to its delivery model - namely the ability to stream Netflix supplied content directly to a multitude of platforms from gaming devices (Wii, XBOX), to personal computers, and even handheld devices like the iPad and iPhone.  Not only do users avoid the drive to the local store, now they can skip the process stuffing envelopes and returning DVDs via the mail. Happily for some, the need for any actual human contact is eliminated.

Owning, or even renting 'stuff' is often a hassle. It takes effort, the stuff takes up space, costs are higher, maintenance is required, and perhaps most importantly owning something is often a limiting experience.  Buy that flash new car, and sure, you get to tool around in the ride and kid yourself that you look sharp, but unless you are really well off or are willing to endure some significant transaction costs, you have always given up the chance to own, or at least use the hundreds of other flash cars that you didn't choose. If 'using' cars could be made as frictionless as streaming Netflix video would anyone keep the same car for four or five years?

Beyond the sort of obvious end user advantages of streaming, and past the cost savings of from the elimination of packaging and shipping for Netflix, the newer streaming model represents as close to an optimal delivery model for the consumer. Instant access, on your choice of a wide range of devices that at least one of which you likely already own, and with almost completed elimination of the opportunity cost of a bad decision.  

It really sucked when you went to the video rental store, spent a half hour evaluating hundreds of options before finally selecting something from the 'foreign' section in a pathetic attempt to impress the store clerk with your depth, then getting home and realizing that 'Like Water for Chocolate' should have been called 'Like $2.95 for Crap', and having your evening ruined.

Netflix has it right I think, reducing the penalty for making a bad decision, or at least having a change of heart might be as important as delivering a great product/service/experience.  

I think in the future whether it is enterprise technology, consumer technology, or even lightweight goods and services, the providers that don't compel you to 'lock in' and that make changing course, adapting, expanding, or even shrinking as painless as hitting the 'delete' button on a streamed video will have a tremendous advantage over those with a variety of multi-year contracts, heavy infrastructure requirements, and high switching costs.

It is not a 'good deal' if I can't ever walk away from it.