Logo Outrage and Lack Thereof

Have you seen all the outrage and crazed, incensed, 'blow up the interwebs' freakout that has accompanied the JC Penney logo redesign?

What's that?  You missed it?

Of course you did, because unlike recent and much more high profile logo changes from the Gap and Starbucks, hardly anyone seemed to notice or care about the JC Penney logo changes.

No massive Facbook protests. No derisive Twitter hashtag like #JCPFAIL that suddenly turned into a trending topic. The only reason I even know enough about the new logo to post about it is that I am insane and need to turn away from the computer once in a while.

Accoding to the press release, the new logo offers, 'fresh, bold design', and 'signifies the Company’s great progress in creating a more exciting and relevant shopping experience'.

And that may be true, lowercase letters and a two-tone vibe seem fairly exciting. I guess.

The reason I bring this up, besides it being the end of a ridiculously long and tiring week, is to ask a simple question?

If you, or really your organization, announces a big change, a major initiative, restructuring, re-branding, re-imagining of your corporate mythology and no one (at least by today's social web measure), seems to notice, then did it really even happen?

And if no one notices, and after the big splash announcement your Google Alert only fills up with services that picked up your press release and that is about it, is that a signal or a sign of your irrelevance?

Should JC Penney care that you did not even know they changed their logo, and that you certainly didn't rush to Twitter and Facebook to get your opinion registered? How could JCP do this!?!

Is this the most tedious post you have ever read?

Have a great weekend!

Ambition and Curiosity

There is (yet another) interesting discussion happening on Bill Kutik's HR Technology Conference LinkedIn group about the social media and social networking in the workplace, and the relative pros and cons of the opposite sides of the argument.  As is the case in Bill's group, the discussion is intelligent, balanced, and reasonable - unlike what you might find in other forums attempting to discuss these issues.

I haven't weighed in on the discussion on LinkedIn, (sorry, Bill), because I am a selfish blogger and needed some content, and I had a kind of different take on the topic, one that veers slightly away from the practicalities of the debate, and drifts more into the philosophical. I think while the debate about blocking these sites tends to center around data security, productivity, message control, etc.; the real issues (even if companies don't want to admit them), are much more about the ideas or concepts of ambition and curiosity. 

Ambition in the sense of aspiration, of becoming something bigger, greater, and more meaningful in whatever measures that are relevant to the organization.  Curious in the framework of inspiring interest, discovery, or of seeking and (hopefully) finding new meanings, connections, and ideas.  

It seems, at least on the surface, that organizations that have moved to actively block or restrict access to social networks and internet based productivity services using the practical and typical concerns about security and the like are quite possibly betraying a lack of ambition and curiosity. Sure, no organization or leader would admit to this, no one would flat-out state, 'Our firm has limited goals for future growth and innovation, and we are not terribly interested about what is happening with out competitors, customers, partners, and community.'

Of course no leader would admit that, since even if it were true, the admission would send share prices plummeting, drive smart and talented employees for the exits (or at least to LinkedIn to update their profiles), and drive a stake in employee enthusiasm and morale.  Sure, the connection between open, unrestricted, and organizationally supported access and engagement on social networks to improved business outcomes is, for now, still spotty, sporadic and tangential. It is still difficult for social media proponents and aficionados to clearly articulate their arguments when faced with the security and 'not important to the tasks at hand' talking points.

But what the reluctant or skeptical are more easily convinced of, is that the threats to their empires and their livelihoods are likely to come from new competitors. Ones that are smaller, more nimble, more adaptable; and by necessity are forces to avail themselves of all possible resources, full access and exploitation of social network connections certainly chief among them.

Small, aggressive, and dangerous start-ups don't worry about 'time-wasting', and they are willing to accept whatever security risks may arise from the social web - happy to trade off some level of risk for the vast benefit they see and can derive from these networks.

Now that we are into 'beating a dead horse' territory, I will close with this - the organizations that are taking over today, and will dominate tomorrow, have a wide, broad, and expansive view of the world. And they realize the world does not solely consist of their own employees, and the relationships they share with each other.

Great ideas are everywhere, if your eyes and ears are open to find them.

Soft, Selfish, or Stupid

Last week in Boston the fifth annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference was held, and while sadly I was not in attendance, the excellent ESPN True Hoop blog provided an outstanding series of posts that offered summaries and commentary from the conference.Does he need more practice?

One of the True Hoop posts reviewed a panel discussion titled 'Birth to Stardom, Developing the Modern Athlete in 10,000 Hours?'. This panel was moderated by 'Outliers' author Malcolm Galdwell, famous for his '10,000 hours' theory, (the time one needs to put it to achieve mastery at any given skill), and included (among others), Steve's HR Technology favorite basketball analyst, the great Jeff Van Gundy.

The discussion centered around the modern athlete and the debate surrounding the age-old question of nature vs. nurture. Do sports stars have innate, natural ability that assures success, or are they developed due to the combination of training, early identification, and almost obsessive focus on performance? In other words, does the '10,000 hours' theory apply at the highest levels of athletics?

While in athletics, the inherent physical characteristics that place most of the top performers at an advantage can't realistically be debated (if you are only 5' 3", putting in the 10,000 hours still likely won't land you in the NBA), what is open to discussion is the relative importance in athletic achievement of 'nurture', and the necessity of supremely physically talented athletes to diligently practice, refine, and improve their skills over time. As we know, many of the games greatest stars were not necessarily the hardest workers (see Iverson, Allen in 'Talkin' About Practice').

And certainly the access to and the involvement of mentoring and coaching play a role in athletic development as well; even the most dedicated pracitioner will need guidance along the path, and coaches have to be prepared to adapt their approaches to better fit the talents and goals of the athletes.

In the end, there seemed to be agreement (perhaps obvioulsly), that for most athletes, a combination of 'nature', (raw, physical traits and ability), combined with 'nurture' (work habits, dedication, ability to accept coaching), were necessary conditions for athletes to achieve their greatest potential.  Sure, it could be argued whether the '10,000 hours' level is really relevant in athetics (often the length of time needed to put it 10,000 hours would result in a loss due to aging and injuries of some of the raw physical abilities needed to succeed), but the basic equation of Raw Talent + Hard Work = Success seems to hold.

But beyond the obvious conclusion, the great Jeff Van Gundy offered up this nugget of wisdom, observing that all players that arrive in the NBA have at least a baseline of physical ability, i.e. there are no slow, short, unathletic players, but the real differentiators were more intangible.  According to JVG professional athletes need to balance the physical with the attitudinal.

JVG's money line: “Soft, selfish or stupid. You can be one of these things, but you can’t be two.” 

Super point, and one that likely applies beyond sports as well. While we all have this idea in our minds when we are managing, leading, or recruiting for our organizations of what the 'perfect' or 'high potential' employee looks like, the reality is those 'perfect' employees and candidates are almost impossible to define and to find. But often we don't admit this, and we just keep grinding, keep sourcing to uncover that one person out there that isn't 'soft, selfish, or stupid', when in reality we could live with having two of the three characteristics, and manage around the one that is missing.

The greatest players certainly, win on all three variables, but the other 95% that make up our teams, (and almost all of us) will fall short of at least one of them. Maybe instead of holding on to a mostly unrealistic chase for a once-in-a-generation star, we build up a solid team of role players that can feed off each other, and perhaps make up for one another's shortcomings, (as well as yours).

Edgy is Relative

I confess I was at a bit of a loss for a topic for this today’s post.  The hubbub over TheLadders seems to have died down, so I ruled that out as a subject.

The Super Bowl is now a few weeks passed, and has already been covered elsewhere in the HR blogosphere by the HR version of Slim Shady himself, the great Kris Dunn, who shared his take on the key differences in the two ad spots that featured Eminem.

The Charlie Sheen meltdowns, while epic, already seem kind of tired as Chas. Sheen’s myriad media appearances have the effect of dulling the crazy to the point where the only thing he can do to attempt to remain interesting is to act even more bizarre, which is almost not possible at this point.

Back in the ‘real world’ of HR, recruiting, talent, etc. things seem to be in a bit of lull, in that down period after the holidays and end of the year, but before HR conference season really picks up, and with it the surge in energy, vendor announcements, and general excitement that seem to surround HR pros annual pilgrimages to Vegas, Orlando, Chicago, or wherever; in search of sponsored cocktail hours and juicy swag.

In fact, if it weren’t for TheLadders in the HR/Recruitment space, and the Super Bowl or Charlie Sheen for everyone else, I am not sure we would have anything at all to talk about, blog about, or otherwise debate as (for most of us in the USA), meander our way slowly through what has been a long, cold, harsh winter. Even the ongoing Labor Relations drama in Wisconsin seems to be already getting relegated to the back pages.

I kind of think many of us are more or less heads-down, slogging through the last part of the cold season, hoping to wake up from hibernation in time for the North Central East Southwest SHRM Annual Conference and Exposition.

Good times. If you go score me new stress ball.

Then it hit me, anyone trying to get our attention this time of year figures they have to go for the provocative, the scandalous, or the edgy.  Whether it is middle-age finance types cavorting around the office furniture in TheLadders ads, or Super Bowl commercials with people getting smacked in the head with Pepsi cans, the marketers, PR professionals, and Twitter celebrities have (probably rightly) concluded that the only way to get you to wake up and look away from your iPhone for two minutes is to go for the shock and awe. Edgy may be cool, but it comes with one huge problem - edgy is relative.  Go for the edge and you immediately alienate that part of the audience that may not have given you much of a chance to begin with, but now for sure will not.

Edgy only has meaning when compared to your audience’s past experiences, what they have seen, read, and know.  What matters is not so much the absolute shock value of your pitch, personal brand, website, Facebook page, or creative job ad; but rather it’s relative salaciousness compared to the drivel your competitors are offering.  Why does an online job ad that differs ever so slightly from the mainstream formula seem so innovative and dare I say ‘edgy?’. Because compared to 99% of the mundane and monotonous, an ad that sprinkles in just a couple of off-the-wall phrases, or flashes the tiniest  bit of attitude in the ‘Required job duties’ section will read like the second coming of On The Road.

Any corporate ‘What it’s like to work here’ section on the career site that goes for the gusto simply by refraining from a recount or laundry list of the company core values, or victories as a ‘Best Place to Work’ by the local merchants association (‘Downtown East Hartford loves us!’), will seem like the next Zappos, Google, or Facebook on the wow scale.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating more play it safe behavior, more boring and expected job ads, company websites, or inane ‘A Message from the CEO’ statements, what I am offering are words of encouragement and hope.  Edgy is relative.  In the HR and recruiting space you can have an incredible incremental impact by just being slightly less tedious than your competition. You don’t have to convince your Director of Purchasing to do a gag-inducing striptease on the conference room table to get noticed. You don’t have to run the risk of a social media backlash.

Mostly, to be memorable, you just have to be the tiniest bit less of a dullard than the next company. Which we all know is pretty easy.

No go out there and mildly surprise someone!

The One-Question Survey

Chances are if you work in a corporate job, in the last year you've taken some kind of engagement or employee satisfaction survey (or perhaps created and administered one), designed to take the pulse of the organization, to assess strengths and weaknesses in the areas of trust in leadership, pride in the organization, and meant to help the C-suite identify areas that might pose a risk to the overall performance of the enterprise.

These surveys are usually professionally designed, intelligently administered, and provide rich data sets that can be used for analysis and comparison.  But these surveys, like any survey really, are only truly valuable if they are asking the right, and relevant questions.  They tend to almost exclusively focus inward, i.e. - 'What do you think about your managers?' or 'I have pride in working for this company' type questions are typical.

But I think for many organizations, especially now as the employment market begins to show more and more (halting) steps towards more sustained improvement, the true engagement questions, or really the questions that the C-suite has to have the answer for are outwardly oriented.

In fact, most leaders might only want or need to know the answer to one question, the one question that we never seem to see in these engagement surveys, namely:

If Competitor 'XYZ' offered you $10,000 more (or whatever amount is applicable to put the person in the 'I'd need to think about it mode'), would you take the offer and resign from our company?

Sure, I know what you are saying, no employee would truly want to answer that question, since they would fear a 'Yes' answer would brand them as a 'no-commitment' traitor, and might put their job at risk. And even a 'No' answer might brand someone as having a lack of ambition. So we never ask the one question we really need to have the answer for.

What people say about their attitudes and tendencies is important, but what they actually do is the only thing that ultimately matters. And when good people start leaving the organization, in seeming contradiction to a stellar prior year employee engagement survey, and leadership seems surprised, perhaps it is because you never asked and don't truly understand the only question about engagement and retention that really is telling. 

Or you could have a few more meetings trying to strategize on how to move the 'My office environment is pleasant and comfortable' score up a few points for next year.