Are Pictures Better than Words?

Here's a question for a Friday: Have infographics already jumped the shark?

If you spend even moderate time and energy reading online news, blogs, commentary, etc.; no doubts you've ran into your fair share of infographics in the last couple of years. And like any other art form/data presentation medium some of these infographics are awesome, and some are, well, kind of sad attempts and enlivening thin data sets that would be better communicated in a simple data table, or even a paragraph.

And while infographics may now seem kind of familiar and even a little played out on the web, they have not really entered the day-to-day flow inside most organizations. I bet no one reading this post has ever responded to the boss' request for some HR or Financial data with an infographic, even if we think that when well executed, the infographic form might help us not only present the data, but tell the story as well.

Might infographics begin to enter the world of work and become as typical as the Excel-based pie chart copied onto a PowerPoint slide?

Maybe.

A new company called Visual.ly is building out a service that will allow people to create custom infographics using information from their own databases and APIs. The service will be automated, which means users will only need to indicate the kind of information they want to display visually to produce the infographic. You can see some samples of what these infographics look like here.

Pretty neat right? And even the most jaded web natives among us would probably admit that even the simplest of these infographics are often an improvement in presentation and 'interestingness' than the spreadsheets and data tables we have all been working from for ages.

Visual.ly has produced thousands of infographics to date, mostly for big media companies and online news services like the Wall Street Journal and The Economist; and has plans to go public with its service in December. Until then, you can experiment a bit with the self-creation process by creating a simple infographic of your own Twitter persona, (mine is below).

What do you think - do you see a time where simple, created with a few points and clicks type infographic presentations of enterprise data will become as common place as the pie chart?

Should enterprise systems build in this kind of capability, or is this better left for getting attention on the web?

FYI - Here is my little infographic experiment:

 

 Have a great weekend!

Transferable Excellence

I read a really neat piece on the Fast Company CoDesign site last week about Pixar, describing some of the secrets, or really philosophies that form much of the foundation for their success. The piece, titled 'The Inside Story: 5 Secrets To Pixar's Success', details the some of the recollections of Pixar's former Chief Technical Officer, Owen Jacob.  These kinds of articles are usually have only limited value and application to the broader business world, as often the 'secret sauce' of a Pixar or a Zappos or an Apple are nearly impossible to duplicate outside of those unique and distinct environments and cultures. Or some of the secrets really aren't secrets at all, just common and common sense approaches to customer service or design or communication that for one reason or another these companies manage to execute more effectively than most.

In the CoDesign piece about Pixar, most of the ideas weren't those not-really-secrets and rather were kind of interesting and a little unexpected. Among them were advice on letting your work rather than your words speak for themselves, admitting when an idea or project needs to be scrapped and re-started, and understanding the importance of the medium when transmitting your messages. 

But it is the last 'secret' was the one most intriguing, and the one most traditionally associated with human resources and recruiting - Hire For Excellence. Of course many if not most organizations, at least on the surface, attempt to hire for excellence, but only as it is normally defined and interpreted. That is by carefully matching resumes and experiences with job requirements, interviewing to get a sense of the candidate's process and approaches to solving problems, and perhaps assessing more ambiguous interpretations of cultural fit. But no matter the specifics of the process, all organizations try to make the best matches when filling their open positions.

What is different, and secret, about Pixar's definition of hiring for excellence it their broader, more expansive view of excellence. According to the CoDesign piece, the 'excellence' they are looking for is not limited to the job spec, or in some kind of pre-defined assessment, but rather this:

It doesn’t matter what you are excellent at, just that you have reached a level of excellence. It’s important that you know what excellence feels like and what it takes to achieve it. It could be gardening, jujitsu, or cooking. The main thing is you’ve had a taste of excellence and will know how to get there again.

Definitely a different take than most of the standard processes we have in place for identifying and assessing candidates. While in the interview or screening processes, we might (briefly) look at or consider someone's 'non-essential' interests or skills as a data point in the process, we almost never think of these activities as a kind of predictor of on the job success, and rarely consider what achieving excellence in the real world could mean inside our own organizations.

So what do you think? Is demonstrated excellence at something, anything as good or better than the 'right' experiences, skills, and education?

Thinking about the Future of Work

In a few weeks I'll be heading to New York City to attend and co-present along with Trish McFarlane at the Conference Board's Senior Human Resources Executive Conference. The Senior Human Resources Conference this year has as its theme The Future of Work: Growth, Innovation, and People.

Sort of an ambitious set of topics to take on over two short days, but as always The Conference Board has organized a phenomenal set of sessions presented by a cross-section of  the most accomplished Human Resources leaders from some of the world's largest organizations. Just a few of the companies that will be presenting their perspectives, philosophies, and strategies for adapting to this new world of work are Nike, Pitney Bowes, Abbott Laboratories, Boeing, American Express, and more. 

So despite the challenge of taking on a subject as lofty and potentially theoretical as 'The Future of Work', the quality and diversity of the sessions and the expertise of the collection of senior Human Resources leaders in attendance all but ensures that the discussions and knowledge sharing will be equal parts insightful and practical. The Senior Human Resources Conference has a justified reputation for assembling a group of the profession's top leaders and presenting engaging and relevant content to the attendees. And this time, with all of the sessions designed to give attendees insights into how work is changing, and how leading companies are innovating, improving and developing their organizations to compete in the next decade; the conference is shaping up to be a can't miss event.

This reputation for excellence makes me feel honored that The Conference Board has invited Trish and I to present a conference session titled 'How Social Tools Can Empower a Global Organization'. Trish and I plan to talk about how social networks, social technologies, and changing attitudes towards engagement, interaction, and connection are impacting and transforming how organizations communicate and engage with employees, candidates, and customers. We hope to get past the surface layer, and dig a little deeper into what these senior HR leaders should be thinking about as they consider how social tools can and will change the way traditional HR gets done inside organizations.

It's a big topic and it's an important one too, and while Trish and I won't profess to have all the answers, I am pretty confident the discussions with the assembled leaders in attendance will help all of us learn a little bit more from each other.

Trish and I hope you’ll consder joining us in New York, NY on November 15- 16, 2011 for two full days of sessions.  There will be tracks on HR Strategies and Issues, HR Management and Process and one on Talent and Leadership.  You can join the Conference on LinkedIn, using the following link: Senior HR Executive Conference on LinkedIn or on Facebook, using the following link: Senior HR Executive Conference on facebook

We’ll also be tweeting from the event using hashtag #tcbsrhr.

Now the best part, if you do decide to register, you can use discount code SB1 for $500 off registration!

We hope to see some of you next month in New York!

Have some extra cash laying around? Don't try and bring it to a bank

From today's NY Times a sign that perhaps for corporations and individuals that even caution, restraint, and endless 'waiting for more clarity before we do anything with our money', may also be losing effectiveness as a strategy or hedge against tough economic conditions:

The article titled: In Cautious Times, Banks Flooded With Cash, describes the plight of some bankers large and small from across the country that faced with shrinking interest rate spreads, (which reduce profits), general reduction in demand for loans and loan products, and a public increasingly seeking 'safe' havens for cash stores, have collected too much cash in the form of deposits, and are even beginning to refuse or discourage customers from giving them more.

From the Times piece:

Bankers have an odd-sounding problem these days: they are awash in cash.

Droves of consumers and businesses unnerved by the lurching markets have been taking their money out of risky investments and socking it away in bank accounts, where it does little to stimulate the economy.

Though financial institutions are not yet turning away customers at the door, they are trying to discourage some depositors from parking that cash with them. With fewer attractive lending and investment options for that money, it is harder for the banks to turn it around for a healthy profit.

So the banks, at least some of them as indicated in the Times piece, can't really make a meaningful profit with all the excess cash and deposits that have come in. While the piece doesn't really try to make us sympathetic towards the bankers and the banking industry, (good luck with that), it does at least seem to indicate that for a few banks anyway, they'd rather play by the rules and at least try to steer some deposits to more productive ends compared to pretty much driven down to zero return traditional deposit accounts.

While the safe havens for cash may not have stopped being safe, at least some of them have become unavailable due to overcrowding. 

The giant cash reserves that many US organizations are sitting on have been well-reported in the last year or so, but this is the first time that I've noticed reports that even the 'sit on all our cash until times get better' strategy might have some practical problems actually being executed.

If the local bank doesn't want your cash, then maybe just maybe, it's time to think of some more creative ways to use those 'unwanted' funds.

It's pretty likely at least one employee out there has a great idea for a new product, improved service, enhanced process - something that could use a little seed money to explore further.

I'll bet you have lots of loyal, solid performing employees that have not seen a raise or bonus of any kind in several years, they might find something to do with a few extra dollars around this holiday season.

And chances are about 100% if you have a job opening at your company you have no shortage of applicants. Hire the one with the best attitude and spend the money to train them how to do the job, rather than waiting for the 'perfect' candidate to walk in. 

The easiest money to spend is other people's money, I get that. But when even the bank won't take your money, it seems to me like their are lots of organizations that could use this advice.

Is your organization sitting on a pile of cash? What needs to happen to stop hoarding and start investing?

Networking and Numbers - Does Size Really Matter?

Over the weekend I tipped a milestone of sorts - 1,000 first-level connections on LinkedIn -   . I know connection numbers and social network graphs are relative; 1,000 connections may seem paltry to some of the folks reading this post, (particularly the well-connected recruiters out there). To other folks, even ones that are really successful and accomplished, one thousand so-called 'professional' contacts may seem like a huge amount. We all know from personal experience executives that might not even have a LinkedIn profile, much less a large, cultvated online network spanning organizations, industries, and backgrounds. The last VP of Human Resources that I worked for reached her position, (at a Fortune 1000 company), without ever having a LinkedIn profile.

It seems clear that while 'networking' has always mattered, for some, at least up until very recently, online professional networking has not necessarily been a pre-requisite for career advancement and success. But most of us 'professionals' these days are on LinkedIn, might be doing at least some work or career related connecting on Facebook, (check my piece on BranchOut from last week), and many have even dived into the Twittersphere, (where at least for me, a tremendous amount of 'work' is going on). It is kind of hard to imagine a young professional today that would rise to the most senior level of a large organization in the next 20 years without having developed an effective online network and presence to supplement or complement their close, personal, and real-world connections.

But as to the idea about whether sheer size of one's professional network is really important or not, while many would reflexively respond that it doesn't matter that much, that quality, diversity, engagement, etc. is what matters; no one I know has completely stopped accepting connection requests on LinkedIn, or decided they have 'enough' online contacts. If you are someone that actually has done this, please drop a comment and let us know.

I was thinking about these ideas around importance of social network size in my incredibly shallow self-absorbed run-up to 1,000 LinkedIn connections because I knew I wanted to write about the topic. In doing some research, I found a recent piece in the July/August 2011 Harvard Business Review, titled 'A Smarter Way to Network', by Rob Cross and Robert Thomas. 

In the piece the authors recommend some practical network-building and cultivating strategies that they feel lead to the development of the most effective networks. Several of the recommendations, (culling redundancies, eliminating energy-sapping contacts), have at least the short-term effect of reducing absolute network size in favor of building a more balanced, strategic, and opportunistic kind of collection of 'trusted advisors', rather that a massive throng of online connections. In the entire piece, Cross and Thomas do not mention LinkedIn, (or any other online networking site), at all, and only very casually refer to online networking in a general sense. In fact, the article's focus on the 'network' as really consisting of those dozen or so close, personal, and trusted confidants, allies, and mentors makes one sense that for true benefit, chasing the next thousand LinkedIn connections at the expense of assessing and developing these personal relationships would be a colossal waste of time.

So I will end by simply asking the question. Or really a few questions.

Does 'size' of network really matter?

Is growing your online set of connections important to you? What benefits have you personally accrued?

How do you personally balance the need for rich, deep connections with trusted advisors with maintaining your thousands of friends in your social graph?

One last comment - that VP of HR I worked for? She is now on LinkedIn as well.