Monday morning started early this week, in a breezy and crisp ‘autumn is pretty much over and winter will be here very soon’ kind of way. Me, semi-staggering from the early hour and the too-much Halloween candy from the night before cobwebs managed to have a reasonably productive start to the week only to be interrupted by an unfamiliar visitor, the mail guy, who dropped off an official looking letter addressed to me.
Sort of odd, because in the short time I have been here I don’t think I had received any snail mail at all, in fact, I can’t imagine the career prospects for folks that actually still deliver snail mail in corporate campuses to be all the bright.
This letter was from SHRM, the Society for Human Resources Management. A few months ago I, along with many of my colleagues and friends had submitted presentation proposals for next June’s SHRM Annual Conference. In fact, I want to say I submitted the presentation for consideration about a year before it would be (theoretically) delivered, SHRM had better hope nothing significant changes in the world of work and HR for twelve months. But I digress.
As you can tell from the post title, and from the image on the right, my proposal was rejected. For the purposes of full disclosure, my proposal was not for a formal or traditional presentation, it was a pitch to do a live, on-site version of the HR Happy Hour show, and I offered as my ‘proof-of-performance’ the archive of 70-odd shows that we have done, highlighting some of the best episodes that featured leaders and well-known experts like Dave Ulrich and Andrew McAfee.
The form letter I received informing me of the rejection offered nothing specific about why the session was rejected - my theory - the folks that evaluated the session had never heard of the show; but a close read of the text does offer some clues as to perhaps why the HR Happy Hour show will not be on the program at SHRM ‘11.
Possible reason 1 - ‘We strive to offer a balanced program of educational sessions’
Likelihood - Thinking no, as I can’t imagine there were any other ‘live radio show’ sessions pitched. So including the HR Happy Hour could not have ‘unbalanced’ anything. In fact, something like the show would have been a good counterweight to the 13 sessions given by lawyers.
Possible reason 2 - ‘(we) select proposals that best fit the overall programming framework of the conference’
Likelihood - Pretty high I think. Assuming that the ‘overall programming framework’ doesn’t include ‘different’, ‘unique’, or ‘innovative’. Can anyone actually describe this framework anyway? But this had to be the main reason for the snub. The Happy Hour show just does not fit the typical and expected template. And I do believe that SHRM does know what its members want.
Possible reason 3 - ‘Please understand that we receive many proposals with several on the same topic’
Likelihood - On the ‘many proposals’ part - sure; on the ‘several on the same topic’ - no way. No one else is crazy enough to keep organizing, producing, and presenting a weekly show on HR and Workforce topics. Maybe I should take that as a sign there really isn’t much of an audience for this sort of thing.
The end result is that the HR Happy Hour show will not be broadcasting from SHRM ‘11 next June, at least not as part of the ‘official’ proceedings. I am not trying to whine and complain about being rejected, I quite honestly did not put that much effort into the submission, but I did want to let listeners of the show (all seven of you) know what was going on. From experience broadcasting from several prior events, I have come to the conclusion the only way to reach anyone outside the core audience is to get on the 'official' conference program. Whether or not that will ever happen is another story.
Regardless, after writing this piece, and processing all the information, I actually think I figured out where I went wrong. Instead of pitching a live HR Happy Hour show, the pitch should have been ‘HR Professor Steve Boese will interview a panel of legal and communications experts on the perils of unfettered access to internet radio in the workplace’.
I bet that would have matched the overall programming framework.
Sort of odd, because in the short time I have been here I don’t think I had received any snail mail at all, in fact, I can’t imagine the career prospects for folks that actually still deliver snail mail in corporate campuses to be all the bright.
This letter was from SHRM, the Society for Human Resources Management. A few months ago I, along with many of my colleagues and friends had submitted presentation proposals for next June’s SHRM Annual Conference. In fact, I want to say I submitted the presentation for consideration about a year before it would be (theoretically) delivered, SHRM had better hope nothing significant changes in the world of work and HR for twelve months. But I digress.
As you can tell from the post title, and from the image on the right, my proposal was rejected. For the purposes of full disclosure, my proposal was not for a formal or traditional presentation, it was a pitch to do a live, on-site version of the HR Happy Hour show, and I offered as my ‘proof-of-performance’ the archive of 70-odd shows that we have done, highlighting some of the best episodes that featured leaders and well-known experts like Dave Ulrich and Andrew McAfee.
The form letter I received informing me of the rejection offered nothing specific about why the session was rejected - my theory - the folks that evaluated the session had never heard of the show; but a close read of the text does offer some clues as to perhaps why the HR Happy Hour show will not be on the program at SHRM ‘11.
Possible reason 1 - ‘We strive to offer a balanced program of educational sessions’
Likelihood - Thinking no, as I can’t imagine there were any other ‘live radio show’ sessions pitched. So including the HR Happy Hour could not have ‘unbalanced’ anything. In fact, something like the show would have been a good counterweight to the 13 sessions given by lawyers.
Possible reason 2 - ‘(we) select proposals that best fit the overall programming framework of the conference’
Likelihood - Pretty high I think. Assuming that the ‘overall programming framework’ doesn’t include ‘different’, ‘unique’, or ‘innovative’. Can anyone actually describe this framework anyway? But this had to be the main reason for the snub. The Happy Hour show just does not fit the typical and expected template. And I do believe that SHRM does know what its members want.
Possible reason 3 - ‘Please understand that we receive many proposals with several on the same topic’
Likelihood - On the ‘many proposals’ part - sure; on the ‘several on the same topic’ - no way. No one else is crazy enough to keep organizing, producing, and presenting a weekly show on HR and Workforce topics. Maybe I should take that as a sign there really isn’t much of an audience for this sort of thing.
The end result is that the HR Happy Hour show will not be broadcasting from SHRM ‘11 next June, at least not as part of the ‘official’ proceedings. I am not trying to whine and complain about being rejected, I quite honestly did not put that much effort into the submission, but I did want to let listeners of the show (all seven of you) know what was going on. From experience broadcasting from several prior events, I have come to the conclusion the only way to reach anyone outside the core audience is to get on the 'official' conference program. Whether or not that will ever happen is another story.
Regardless, after writing this piece, and processing all the information, I actually think I figured out where I went wrong. Instead of pitching a live HR Happy Hour show, the pitch should have been ‘HR Professor Steve Boese will interview a panel of legal and communications experts on the perils of unfettered access to internet radio in the workplace’.
I bet that would have matched the overall programming framework.