Quantcast
Subscribe!

 

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

E-mail Steve
This form does not yet contain any fields.

    free counters

    Twitter Feed
    Monday
    Nov152010

    More on Collaboration (I know, you're bored too)

    Last week on the HR Happy Hour show, Jon Ingham from consultancy Social Advantage, and Matt Wilkinson from Enterprise Collaboration Technology vendor Socialcast joined us on the show to talk about HR and Collaboration, and more specifically the approach to and importance of technology in organizational initiatives to enhance and improve collaboration, innovation, co-creation, and likely several other important sounding words ending in '-tion'.

    It was an interesting and informative show, but while looking back on some of the comments in the #HRHappyHour Twitter backchannel, and then upon reading this post today from Laurie Ruettimann on The Cynical Girl blog I think that perhaps we did not really do a good enough job making the case (as our guests certainly believe), that not only is enterprise collaboration fast becoming a critical concern and initiative for many organizations today, but that HR is uniquely positioned to be the key leader and driver in the organization for these projects.  I know that on the Happy Hour show the core audience are not tech geeks, and that doing shows too focused on specific technologies will unleash the snarky comments on the backchannel faster than dropping the 'seat at the table' reference.  But since I believe strongly in the importance and potential of these technologies, I am going to try to give the HR professional three compelling (I hope) reasons you should care about these technologies (while trying not to talk about technology).  

    Failing that, I will revert to the 'Because I said so' line of reasoning.

    Reason 1 - Twenty Years of Change

    The last major change in organizational collaboration technology was the introduction of individual email accounts and widespread access in the early 1990's.  Since then, for the vast majority of mature enterprises, email remains the dominant tool used for almost all types of workplace collaboration.  And it is an awesome tool, the first and perhaps only 'killer app'.  Despite tremendous (and recent) advances in email capability by public and free email providers (Google, Hotmail, Yahoo), the email application and service that most knowledge workers utilize at work isn't tremendously different or superior to the 1992 model.  

    Almost everything else about work, the organization, the nature of the global economy, the demands of the worker, the modern attitudes, technical ability, and expectations of the newest entrants to workforce has changed.  The need to adapt, to create and organize, to source information and expertise from the extended enterprise, and to develop new ideas and innovations faster than ever before are all real organizational challenges, and increasingly the anchor of email as the primary or sole collaboration tool to meet these challenges is seemingly more and more unsustainable.

    How much stuff have you kept around since 1992? Besides your plumber.  Good plumbers are like gold.

    Reason 2 - It is happening already, probably without you

    Whether it is rogue departments that seek out new and better IT solutions that are currently available and are 'officially' sanctioned, or leveraging external and public networking technologies liked LinkedIn, the shift inside enterprises towards more collaborative and open technologies is begun.  And for a time, and perhaps for just a bit longer, the classic IT and HR reactionary response from the 'block/control/write a policy' playbook will no longer serve the interests of most organizations. In fact, CIO's at large companies seem to already have started to come to this conclusion, witness the growth of the IT-dominated Enterprise 2.0 conferences and the recent observations from industry leader Andrew McAfee about E2.0 beginning to go mainstream.

    Reason 3 - Get that seat, place, position...  Dang it - help deliver results to the C-suite

    In her piece Laurie notes, correctly I think, that the 'business leaders hate HR Technology more than HR itself'. Which is probably accurate when HR Technology is viewed through a lens of compliance, administration, and policy enforcement.  If all HR Technology delivers is accurate Payroll results every two weeks and on-time affirmative action reporting (while both necessary), then I don't blame the C-suite from getting bored by the whole thing.  Time and attendance systems simply aren't sexy.

    But these new enterprise collaboration technologies are much more about creativity than compliance, and designed to better connect people with ideas, content, and more importantly, each other.  These tools are meant to support the generation of new ideas, to allow the entire organization to participate across locations and time zones, and to enable the organization to more rapidly find, surface, and validate innovative ideas and the people best positioned to act upon these ideas.  The reason these technologies are exciting are mainly because they are not traditional HR Technologies at all. So when you as an HR leader decide to pitch or promote these tools, you are 'selling' the ability to deliver results, to address business issues, and to squeeze more out of less.  

    Ok, I am done - there's three reasons why this stuff matters to HR.  

    And if I did not manage to convince you, well then -  these tools matter Because I said so!

     

    Friday
    Nov122010

    HRevolution 2011 - Call for speakers (kind of)

    The next installment of HRevolution, the original 'unconference' for Human Resources professionals. will hold its third event this April in the Peach City -  Atlanta, Georgia on April 29 and 30, 2011.

    For past attendees of HRevolution 1 and 2 in Louisville and Chicago respectively, you will be familiar with the general format and vibe of the event.  Loosely structured, participant driven, and hopefully delivering on the promise of relevant, challenging, and interactive content and conversation.

    Unlike traditional industry conferences, at HRevolution the 'speakers' or 'presenters' don't really do much speaking and presenting.  That is not the idea.

    Rather, they serve to guide and facilitate a conversation, debate, dialogue, and even an occasional dispute about their subject area or topic.

    For the last two events, those of us on the organizing committee have not had a formal or official call for presenters.  The first event was very small, and it was pretty easy to recruit and organize the needed number of facilitators to present what was an engaging, if compressed program.  At HRevolution2 in Chicago, the event got much larger in terms of attendees, but our approach to organizing the program was more or less the same as the first event.  Talk to our friends and colleagues, put together a diverse and compelling (we thought) program, and hope for a good outcome.

    While those approaches to program organization and speaker solicitation did work well, as we begin the planning process for HRevolution3, we have come to the conclusion that the same strategies might not result in the kind of program and event that we really want to present in Atlanta.  If we simply reach out to our personal networks, and to the people we already know and respect, we will get a solid program for sure, but we are not convinced that we will be doing ourselves and the attendees any favors.

    Recently we opened up a discussion on the HRevolution LinkedIn group to get some input and ideas for topics and sessions and the overriding sentiment from the 40 or so replies was that we needed to try and branch out, to extend the conversation into areas like finance and operations, to engage a CFO or CEO type to lead a session at the next event.  In short, people are getting tired of hearing the same kinds of sessions about the same kinds of topics.

    I am not talking about 'seat at the table' horsecrap, the HRevolution 1 and 2 presenters were far too good for that, but what people are saying is that we shouldn't simply put on another event, talk about the same seven topics, and have a big party to tell each other how fabulous we all are.

    So as the organizing committee commences preparations for HRevolution3 in Atlanta, we realize that we need to try and find and recruit some new and different voices to the conversation.  Voices that may be front-line HR practitioners, or people from marketing or manufacturing, or even business leaders that ethat really don't think all that much of HR.

    In that spirit of expanding the arena of potential topics and session facilitators, we have decided to set up a simple 'Speaker Submissions' page on the HRevolution site. If you are interested in speaking/facilitating at HRevolution3 in Atlanta, or know someone who would be a great facilitator at the event, please head over to the site and let us know what you are thinking.

    We are hoping to program a different kind of HR event, a different kind of HRevolution even.

    So to start the process of generating, gathering, and assembling the best ideas, the ones that participants will value, please head over to HRevolution Speaker Submissions page and let us know what is on your mind. We will be soliciting ideas via that form until the end of December or so. But remember, we need our facilitators to guide, enable, and frame conversations more than we need them to 'speak'.  

    Because if there is one thing we have learned over the last couple of years, HR people are pretty tired of being spoken to at conferences, and are much more interested in having their voices heard.

    If you have any questions at all about speaking/facilitating at the next HRevolution, shoot me a note - steveboese at gmail dot com, hit me up on Twitter, or leave a comment or start a discussion on the HRevolution LinkedIn group.

    Thursday
    Nov112010

    Tonight - HR and Collaboration

    Tonight on the HR Happy Hour show the topic is ‘HR and Collaboration’.
    You can listen starting at 8PM ET from the show page, using the widget player below,  or by calling in on the listener line - 646-378-1086.


    Perhaps we should have called it ‘HR and Unleashing Innovation’, or ‘HR and Jacking Up Employee Engagement’ , or ‘HR and Leading Your Organization to Glorious Victory Over Your Competitors’.

    Because whether it is from big company Global CHRO survey results, from the demands of a changing workforce , the impact of consumer social networking on work, or simply the realization that the traditional ways of conducting business are no longer able to wring any more productivity out of a stretched, stressed, and dispersed workforce - it seems like getting increasingly fragmented populations to work together more effectively is of prime concern to the HR leader and professional today.

    This week the big ‘Enterprise 2.0 Conference’ held its latest event in Santa Clara, and for the first time a dedicated track specifically targeted at the critical role and significant opportunity that HR leaders and practitioners have in helping to lead in the development of strategies and programs to drive more effective organizational collaboration.  For the burgeoning ‘E2.0’ community, this event is kind of like the Super Bowl of Collaboration, and to have a specific focus on HR and the HR role can be taken as a sign that these issues and challenges need to be taken seriously inside HR.

    Joining us on the show tonight will be leading HR 2.0 consultant and big-brained thinker Jon Ingham, along with Matt Wilkinson, from enterprise collaboration technology vendor Socialcast.  We will talk about E2.0 and collaboration from the HR point of view, discussing strategy, (strategic = good, right?), technology, (still very much a significant factor in E2.0), and organizational culture and readiness.

    This should be a fun and interesting show, I hope you can play along, and better still, join the fun by calling in on 646-378-1086.

     

    Wednesday
    Nov102010

    A Policy of Truth?

    Nothing like a solid HR policy to get in the way of some good natured 'bashing the boss on Facebook' antics.

    Turns out, at least in the case of the employee fired by American Medical Response of Connecticut, even an all-encompassing and overly broad policy, ('don't say anything at all negative about the company in any way on the internet), was still not enough of a deterrent to stop this employee from exercising what the NLRB contends is her right, and that is not significantly different from water cooler or happy hour commiserating with co-workers.Flickr - Enokson

    I've been thinking about policy development, application, and enforcement lately, not really so much about the above mentioned 'Facebook Firing' case, but in the broader context of what the overall set of policies, (and the attitude towards enforcing them) say about an organization's culture, and how the organization is perceived by new entrants to the fold.

    Most of the time review and communication of an organization's policies and norms is kind of an individual exercise.  We make sure each new hire is aware of and (sort of) knows how to comply with our policies, (at least the important ones).  We confirm that every employee knows where to find the documentation about our policies.  But most companies don't host open employee forums or implement interactive tech tools to discuss, create, modify, or even eliminate policies.  Questions and answers about policies are usually private discussions.

    And employee investigations of alleged policy violations also tend to examine and evaluate policies on a one-off kind of basis. Unless an employee really goes crazy, transgressions tend to be limited to a single policy violation (attendance, dress code, internet use, etc.).  Usually the HR pro focuses on the demonstrated behavior compared to the policy, (or at least the expectations) for that one area only.

    This individual or isolated focus is necessary really; if a random new hire doesn't like the company travel policy; well, too bad.  And when an employee needs to be disciplined for taking too many three hour lunches, there usually isn't a call or need for a careful review of the travel expense policies.

    Where it starts to get interesting, and I think much more illuminating, is when an organization is compelled to to make a more comprehensive review of its policies in a broad context.  The kind of review that companies undergo when having to assimilate a newly acquired company.  

    Questions from the new group abound. Whose benefit plans are better?  How much vacation will I get? Can I work from home?  Is my dog still welcome in the office?  

    And on and on.

    The thing is most companies believe they have a kind of unique and special and winning culture.  And that the policies they have established help to outline and support their wonderful culture.  But once they are put in place they tend not to get much revision or consideration, at least not on a holistic level.

    Until you have to assimilate a few hundred or thousand people from another company, one that believes that they too, have a unique and special and winning culture it is easy to kind of revel in your own 'specialness'.   In these exercises your culture gets put under the kind of scrutiny that is typically just not practical or possible in the course of normal business.

    Sure, your company is special, and fantastic, and progressive and all that.  I'm sure of it.

    But the folks who aren't so sure are the newest few thousand colleagues that just found out puppies aren't welcome in the workplace anymore.

    Monday
    Nov082010

    Where can we find someone that knows...

    Check out the embedded map below (email subscribers may need to click though).

    It is from a free service called Map My Followers, a site that presents a mashup of information about a given user's followers on Twitter, superimposed on a Google Map.

    The image above presents a visual representation of a sample of 100 of the folks that follow me on Twitter, overlaid on the standard Google map, and hovering on the little marker for each person pops up their Twitter name as well.  On the lower right, a tag cloud of common terms from my followers profiles is displayed, which provides additional insight (beyond geography) of these 100 followers interests.

    Sort of neat, kind of cool looking, and quite honestly the kind of capability, presentation, and wow factor usually lacking in the traditional workforce analysis tools that attempt to perform similar functions. 

    Imagine if you were the person in charge of sourcing and staffing a project team to support some new organizational initiatives.  Factors like geography, skills, interests, availability, and prior experience would all come in to account as you attempted to assemble the team. Instead of a map of Twitter followers, your 'map' would be sourced from core HRIS information,  internal talent profiles, internal skills inventories, and perhaps even insight from the CRM system (as to the size and strategic importance of the opportunity), and augmented by your database of external talent (maybe even a custom LinkedIn or boolean search result on top of that).

    Build in more advanced filtering capability and have the tag cloud on the right be user configurable and actionable (let me click on a tag and have the mashup highlight all the people that match that tag), and now you have the start of more dynamic and adaptable tool for insight and action into the workforce (and perhaps even all the available and accessible talent).  Make hovering over the map marker pop up a lightweight bio, with essential information displayed, and include the ability to quickly contact the person via email, IM, or even a Tweet.

    I love checking out all these new and innovative services that seem to be proliferating lately, the cleverness and industry these developers show simply by accessing open APIs and re-imaging the data is outstanding.

    What I don't love is after spending a lunch time playing with a cool site like Map My Followers is having to try to piece together similar organizational insights in an aging set of enterprise tools that were designed in a different age.