I lay back in the chair, closed my eyes, and almost immediately felt my body relax. An instant later a stream of warm water rinsed through my hair while strong, competent hands massaged my scalp. For that moment my stress disappeared, washed away with the water.
I might as well have been at some exotic spa on vacation in the Caribbean but I was in New York City, in the middle of a workday, still in my suit.
I was getting my haircut at a salon, Lovella, run by a friend of mine, Avi Benichou. I expected a great haircut, and I got one. But I also got a lesson in management.
After the shampoo, in a slight daze of tranquility, I was guided to a chair and Avi began to cut my hair. We began to chat when, suddenly, behind us, came a commotion. I watched Avi in the mirror as he looked around to see what was happening.
One of the other hair stylists, we'll call him Jon, was talking to a colleague, gesturing dramatically, clearly upset. The other customers began to look around, a little uncomfortable, not sure what was happening.
Avi excused himself and went over to Jon. He spoke softly to him, listened, and in a few seconds Jon calmed down.
Avi returned to my haircut, apologized again, made a joke — but not at Jon's expense, and resumed his cutting.
"So Avi," I said, "You know I've gotta ask: What was that about?"
It turns out that Jon had gotten into a small dispute with a client on the phone. The client had asked Jon to spend the day doing her hair at her wedding but was upset by the fee he quoted which was much higher than a single haircut. He tried to explain to her that he'd have to give up a day's work at the Salon and needed to cover that lost work. Still, she was upset. Which made him upset. And a little dramatic.
Which, Avi said, must never happen in his salon.
"Drama?" I asked.
"Anything unprofessional. We're always on stage. We're all in a single open space. Anything anyone does is visible to everyone else. I don't want customers, other stylists, the receptionist — anyone — to feel uncomfortable."
That's when it hit me: We all work at Lovella.
I was recently on the trading floor of a large bank. Hundreds of people were sitting next to each other in rows, everyone visible to everyone else. The head of the department, one of the top ten people leading this multi-billion dollar company, worked in an office constructed entirely of glass. There was no place to hide.
And it's not just trading floors. Many of the newly built offices I've seen — like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's — are built as open spaces with everyone from the CEO to the receptionist visible to everyone. Even in older buildings almost everyone sits in cubicles or behind glass walls.
This architectural style reflects a management style — we're breaking down the walls between us, trying to soften the hierarchy, and offering transparency. It also reflects a social style facilitated by the Internet that exposes, well, just about everything.
In other words, there's no place to hide.
We need to be diligent and disciplined about how we act, because, as Avi observed, we're always on stage.
In the past, we could be calm and professional in front of everyone and then walk into our private offices and lose it. That harmless venting didn't impact anyone. But when our offices are glass — or worse, desks in the middle of everyone else — our losses of composure are losses of professionalism. People begin to lose confidence and trust in us.
So when Avi noticed Jon lose his composure he knew two things: 1) everyone was looking at Jon and 2) everyone was wondering what Avi would do about it.
Avi passed the test. He maintained his composure, spoke softly to Jon, and let Jon know that it would be better if he as the Salon owner — not Jon — negotiate the price. He promised that he would do just that after my haircut.
"When you're in charge," Avi told me, "You need to look good, relaxed, in control. Meanwhile your stomach is turning because you see that things aren't running like they're supposed to."
Avi demonstrated the new rules of professionalism in an open work place. Be calm. Be supportive of others. Show leadership by avoiding — and, when necessary, actively managing — drama that could distract, embarrass, or unsettle others. And never, ever be the cause of that drama yourself.
"You know," Avi said to me. "Hair stylists can be a little, well, fragile and moody. You need to handle them gently. Otherwise they'll just leave."
He's right. But it's not just hair stylists. It's people. We're all a little fragile and, at times, moody. We all need to be handled with care.
I emerged from the salon an hour after I had entered with a great haircut, more relaxed then I had been in a long time. And that led me to one final insight.
If you're in a situation in which your professionalism is hard to maintain — for some reason you've become upset, riled up, or anxious — and a deep breath or glass of water isn't enough, go for a walk. Leave the office — or whatever space you're in — entirely. Then, if you have the time, walk over to your neighborhood hair salon and ask for a shampoo and cut. You'll emerge composed, relaxed, and professional.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Top 7 Ways To Leverage Your Target List
1. Linkedin: Connect to employees of your target company through Linkedin. The closer to your target department/area/decision maker the better. Don’t send the standard Linkedin request (“I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.”), many won’t accept standard Linkedin requests from those they don’t know personally - others may get offended and mark that they don’t know you (Linkedin’s term for spam - too many of these, and you’ll be asked to go home). Instead, write a custom connection request letter, complementing on blogs, tweets, LI updates, or LI group posts they may have made. At the very least, mention that you’re researching company X to consider if you’d like to work there, and would like this person’s insight.
2. Networking events: To gain an understanding of which events are most likely to yield results with your target companies ask the following questions:
o What organizations does your target company sponsor?
o What charity events?
o What networking or industry organizations does this company (or department) participate in?
How do you find out? Ask people in your Linkedin network, study Linkedin profiles of company employees, study tweets and blogs of company employees. Look at the company’s press releases. All of these can give information about which organizations the company supports.
3. Ask your network: But ask the right question. Ideally, you’re seeking someone in a specific area of a company. And realistically, you’re not looking for a job ... you’re looking for people within the company to talk to - If you’re smart, you’re probably not going to ask these people for a job (unless you’ve gotten lucky and been referred to the hiring manager). Instead, ask to be introduced to people who can help you learn more about company X. See: http://recareered.blogspot.com/2010/08/bringing-your-resume-to-informational.html for more details.
4. Linkedin Company Follow: Linkedin Company follow is a great way to keep abreast of company news, company new hires, people leaving the company (good source of info), and job openings advertised on Linkedin. See http://recareered.blogspot.com/2010/04/linkedin-company-follow-helps-job.html to learn how to use Linkedin Company Follow to gain contacts and information on your target companies.
5. Search job boards: But don’t apply through them. Search the job boards for information ... The types of people the companies advertise for gives signals to the problems they are facing. New Executives build their own teams, numerous customer service ads may mean the company needs accounting or marketing help. An ad for a Controller with significant process improvement experience signals that the company is looking for people to help cut costs ... in other departments as well. See some more ideas at: http://recareered.blogspot.com/2010/05/3-ways-to-leverage-job-boards-and.html.
6. Twitter: Now that many Linkedin profiles display Twitter links, follow everyone you can from your target companies on Twitter. Use some of the many search tools on twitter for company mentions, and for other employees. Follow as many employees as you can, especially those in or close to departments you’re targeting. Twitter can be a great listening device, but can also be a way to start a conversation, discussion and the beginnings of a business relationship by making positive comments on Tweets by employees of your target companies.
7. Don’t rely on employees to “refer” you: Most companies today (other than really small ones) employ employee referral bonus programs, as a way to address government labor law compliance. These employee referral bonus programs aren’t as beneficial to candidates as you may think.
2. Networking events: To gain an understanding of which events are most likely to yield results with your target companies ask the following questions:
o What organizations does your target company sponsor?
o What charity events?
o What networking or industry organizations does this company (or department) participate in?
How do you find out? Ask people in your Linkedin network, study Linkedin profiles of company employees, study tweets and blogs of company employees. Look at the company’s press releases. All of these can give information about which organizations the company supports.
3. Ask your network: But ask the right question. Ideally, you’re seeking someone in a specific area of a company. And realistically, you’re not looking for a job ... you’re looking for people within the company to talk to - If you’re smart, you’re probably not going to ask these people for a job (unless you’ve gotten lucky and been referred to the hiring manager). Instead, ask to be introduced to people who can help you learn more about company X. See: http://recareered.blogspot.com/2010/08/bringing-your-resume-to-informational.html for more details.
4. Linkedin Company Follow: Linkedin Company follow is a great way to keep abreast of company news, company new hires, people leaving the company (good source of info), and job openings advertised on Linkedin. See http://recareered.blogspot.com/2010/04/linkedin-company-follow-helps-job.html to learn how to use Linkedin Company Follow to gain contacts and information on your target companies.
5. Search job boards: But don’t apply through them. Search the job boards for information ... The types of people the companies advertise for gives signals to the problems they are facing. New Executives build their own teams, numerous customer service ads may mean the company needs accounting or marketing help. An ad for a Controller with significant process improvement experience signals that the company is looking for people to help cut costs ... in other departments as well. See some more ideas at: http://recareered.blogspot.com/2010/05/3-ways-to-leverage-job-boards-and.html.
6. Twitter: Now that many Linkedin profiles display Twitter links, follow everyone you can from your target companies on Twitter. Use some of the many search tools on twitter for company mentions, and for other employees. Follow as many employees as you can, especially those in or close to departments you’re targeting. Twitter can be a great listening device, but can also be a way to start a conversation, discussion and the beginnings of a business relationship by making positive comments on Tweets by employees of your target companies.
7. Don’t rely on employees to “refer” you: Most companies today (other than really small ones) employ employee referral bonus programs, as a way to address government labor law compliance. These employee referral bonus programs aren’t as beneficial to candidates as you may think.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
You're Getting a Bonus! So Why Aren't You Motivated?
If you're like most professionals working in large corporations, you're eligible for an annual bonus as part of your pay. If you're one of the luckier ones, you've been hearing rumors lately that with the economy recovering, that bonus may become a reality again.
Good for you. But maybe not so good for your company. Chances are, its bonus program is costing it plenty but it isn't seeing much of a motivation boost in return, from you or anyone else.
The idea that some part of an employee's pay should be contingent on good performance is a very old one. Harvard's Derek Bok writes that it dates back to at least the time of Julius Caesar, who instituted an "elaborate system to supply bonuses to loyal soldiers participating in successful campaigns — 50 dinari for every legionnaire and 500 for each centurion." In America, Bok says, bonuses started to become a significant part of corporate leaders' compensation around the time of the first World War. Now, bonuses have become so commonplace in the business world that their value is rarely questioned.
The problem is that, even if it's true that contingent compensation spurs higher performance (and not everyone thinks it does - see, for example, this pdf), when the reward comes as one big check cut by the finance department at the end of the fiscal year, that motivating effect is mainly lost. That's because the bonus fails to make two critical connections:
1. The connection between values and behavior. Typically, bonuses are tied to financial achievement —they're paid out when a certain benchmark is hit such as yearly company revenue, earnings per share, or department revenue targets. But the connection between the outcomes you truly value and the behaviors you want to see from employees can be far from obvious.
2. The connection between a worker and his/her direct supervisor. Plenty of research has shown that the most important influencer of workers' performance, for better or worse, is the dynamic between them and their bosses. For example, research into workplace deviance by Lance Ferris of Singapore Management University shows a higher level of outright deviance among employees who feel they've been treated rudely or unfairly by their immediate supervisors. By the same token, there is nothing more motivating than recognition that comes directly from the higher-up who knows your work best: your manager. At that close range, a reward is a relationship-builder. Administered more remotely, as bonuses are, it's only a transaction.
What works better than an annual bonus, then? The answer is a more strategic, thoughtful approach to conditional rewards, involving smaller payouts given year round and, critically, targeting the vast majority of the workforce — not just a privileged few.
Of course, this raises the complexity level of performance management. At software maker Symantec, for example, it had always been a simple matter to give top performers non-strategic cash rewards. Now, through its Applause recognition program, the company spends the same basic amount of money on thousands of small acts of recognition, tied to important goals and values and dispensed through direct supervisors, each of them valued anywhere from $25 to $1,000.
The perceived difficulty of that task helps to explain why so many other companies continue to give out bonuses that lead to no real uptick in employee engagement or company performance. They're easy to administer. Management has decided it should institute pay for performance, and an annual bonus program is the simplest way to check off that box. But shouldn't more companies try to do better?
I'm interested in your thoughts. How does your company recognize and reward good work? And does that approach have any effect on people's everyday habits? What version of contingent compensation would engage and motivate you?
Eric Mosley is co-founder and CEO of Globoforce, which provides employee recognition solutions. For more information, also see his company's blog at http://globoforce.blogspot.com/
Good for you. But maybe not so good for your company. Chances are, its bonus program is costing it plenty but it isn't seeing much of a motivation boost in return, from you or anyone else.
The idea that some part of an employee's pay should be contingent on good performance is a very old one. Harvard's Derek Bok writes that it dates back to at least the time of Julius Caesar, who instituted an "elaborate system to supply bonuses to loyal soldiers participating in successful campaigns — 50 dinari for every legionnaire and 500 for each centurion." In America, Bok says, bonuses started to become a significant part of corporate leaders' compensation around the time of the first World War. Now, bonuses have become so commonplace in the business world that their value is rarely questioned.
The problem is that, even if it's true that contingent compensation spurs higher performance (and not everyone thinks it does - see, for example, this pdf), when the reward comes as one big check cut by the finance department at the end of the fiscal year, that motivating effect is mainly lost. That's because the bonus fails to make two critical connections:
1. The connection between values and behavior. Typically, bonuses are tied to financial achievement —they're paid out when a certain benchmark is hit such as yearly company revenue, earnings per share, or department revenue targets. But the connection between the outcomes you truly value and the behaviors you want to see from employees can be far from obvious.
2. The connection between a worker and his/her direct supervisor. Plenty of research has shown that the most important influencer of workers' performance, for better or worse, is the dynamic between them and their bosses. For example, research into workplace deviance by Lance Ferris of Singapore Management University shows a higher level of outright deviance among employees who feel they've been treated rudely or unfairly by their immediate supervisors. By the same token, there is nothing more motivating than recognition that comes directly from the higher-up who knows your work best: your manager. At that close range, a reward is a relationship-builder. Administered more remotely, as bonuses are, it's only a transaction.
What works better than an annual bonus, then? The answer is a more strategic, thoughtful approach to conditional rewards, involving smaller payouts given year round and, critically, targeting the vast majority of the workforce — not just a privileged few.
Of course, this raises the complexity level of performance management. At software maker Symantec, for example, it had always been a simple matter to give top performers non-strategic cash rewards. Now, through its Applause recognition program, the company spends the same basic amount of money on thousands of small acts of recognition, tied to important goals and values and dispensed through direct supervisors, each of them valued anywhere from $25 to $1,000.
The perceived difficulty of that task helps to explain why so many other companies continue to give out bonuses that lead to no real uptick in employee engagement or company performance. They're easy to administer. Management has decided it should institute pay for performance, and an annual bonus program is the simplest way to check off that box. But shouldn't more companies try to do better?
I'm interested in your thoughts. How does your company recognize and reward good work? And does that approach have any effect on people's everyday habits? What version of contingent compensation would engage and motivate you?
Eric Mosley is co-founder and CEO of Globoforce, which provides employee recognition solutions. For more information, also see his company's blog at http://globoforce.blogspot.com/
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Create a Simple Strategic Principle
Helping employees understand a strategy while simultaneously motivating them to achieve it is a dire challenge for many leaders. Creating and sticking to a pithy, memorable, action-oriented phrase can help. When designed and executed well, a strategic principle gives employees clear direction while inspiring them to be flexible and take risks. A powerful strategic principle forces trade-offs between competing resources and provides a litmus test for decisions. When faced with a choice, an employee should be able to test her options against the strategic principle to make a decision that aligns with the company's objectives.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Develop the 4 Qualities of an Inspirational Leader
Leaders need vision, energy, authority, and a natural strategic ability. But those things don't necessarily help you inspire your employees to be their best and commit to you as a leader. Here are the four qualities you need to capture the hearts, minds, and spirits of your people:
1. Humanness. Nobody wants to work with a perfect leader. Build collaboration and solidarity by revealing your weaknesses.
2. Intuition. To be most effective, you need to know what's going on without others spelling it out for you. Collect unspoken data from body language and looks given across rooms to help you intuit the underlying messages.
3. Tough empathy. Care deeply about your employees, but accept nothing less than their very best.
4. Uniqueness. Demonstrate that you are a singular leader by showing your unique qualities to those around you.
1. Humanness. Nobody wants to work with a perfect leader. Build collaboration and solidarity by revealing your weaknesses.
2. Intuition. To be most effective, you need to know what's going on without others spelling it out for you. Collect unspoken data from body language and looks given across rooms to help you intuit the underlying messages.
3. Tough empathy. Care deeply about your employees, but accept nothing less than their very best.
4. Uniqueness. Demonstrate that you are a singular leader by showing your unique qualities to those around you.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Economic Conditions Snapshot, September 2010: McKinsey Global Survey results
Two years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, 51 percent of executives who responded to our most recent survey say the world economy is in recovery; 58 percent say so about their own countries.1 Most expect corporate profits to rise this year from their level in 2009, and 38 percent expect to hire by the end of the year—the greatest share expecting to hire in the near term since before the crisis.
Even if companies are coping with the new economy, the results also indicate that executives’ confidence is tenuous. For example, more expect economic conditions to improve than not, but fewer say so now than did earlier this year. Notably, the share of respondents expecting better conditions in six months is lower than it was a year ago: 55 percent now, compared with 61 percent in September 2009. Furthermore, optimism on the current state of the economy compared with six months earlier started to fall in June and has taken a sharp dive in the past month. Compared with August, 10 percentage points fewer say the economy is better now. The slide is particularly notable in North America, where the share of respondents who say conditions are better has fallen 16 percentage points.
Even if companies are coping with the new economy, the results also indicate that executives’ confidence is tenuous. For example, more expect economic conditions to improve than not, but fewer say so now than did earlier this year. Notably, the share of respondents expecting better conditions in six months is lower than it was a year ago: 55 percent now, compared with 61 percent in September 2009. Furthermore, optimism on the current state of the economy compared with six months earlier started to fall in June and has taken a sharp dive in the past month. Compared with August, 10 percentage points fewer say the economy is better now. The slide is particularly notable in North America, where the share of respondents who say conditions are better has fallen 16 percentage points.
The Miracle of Making Mistakes
Make no mistake: The fear of making mistakes is deeply ingrained in our psyche.
All through school, a mistake indicates the prospect of lower grades. Good students don't make mistakes. At home, mistakes lead to admonishments. Good children follow the rules. At work, mistakes have serious repercussions. Good workers get it right the first time.
But, in those very schools and organizations where we are marked down for making mistakes, we also learn that people often stumble upon great inventions. There's growing evidence to suggest that innovation flourishes when people are given the space to make mistakes. Even Mahatma Gandhi attached value to experimentation; he believed that "freedom isn't worth having if it doesn't include the freedom to make mistakes."
Why then don't we allow, much less encourage, making mistakes? Most of us, particularly in business, fight shy of them. We believe that people will see a faux pas as incompetence. We also feel that success is driven by our image as experts rather than as learners. And the measures of our performance are numbers such as sales, profits, total returns to shareholders, and so on.
Are these really the best measures of success? Consider an alternative. What if we were to ask employees what mistakes they committed because they did something differently? What did they learn?
Does that sound a little crazy? It may, but we have to bring the human element back in business; we can't function as extensions of computer programs. Some mission-critical and life-threatening tasks may have zero tolerance for failure, but not the rest of our work and lives. I'm not suggesting breaking every rule; I feel we should institutionalize the art of making mistakes; introduce a method for the madness; and innovate the innovation process.
Imagine encouraging an employee to keep trying to solve a problem until he or she makes, say, five mistakes. Imagine asking team members whether they have made their five mistakes yet! Trust me, if you aren't making mistakes, you're not learning — or, at least, you're not learning enough.
Do you remember the first time you rode a bicycle? Can you relive the exhilaration of riding free, the sense of triumph as you broke free of the crutches of support? Now step back. How many times did you fall off the bike before that first ride?
I remember my first class in engineering school during which our professor asked us to dismantle an engine. We did that. Then he asked us to put it together and walked away. We messed that up big time and had to work at it for days. I learned more about engineering in that short time than I did in the next four years. Why don't you ask your employees to dismantle something and then, give them the time but not the help to put it together?
Do you have the nerve to encourage the mistakes that people will inevitably make on the path of discovery?
All through school, a mistake indicates the prospect of lower grades. Good students don't make mistakes. At home, mistakes lead to admonishments. Good children follow the rules. At work, mistakes have serious repercussions. Good workers get it right the first time.
But, in those very schools and organizations where we are marked down for making mistakes, we also learn that people often stumble upon great inventions. There's growing evidence to suggest that innovation flourishes when people are given the space to make mistakes. Even Mahatma Gandhi attached value to experimentation; he believed that "freedom isn't worth having if it doesn't include the freedom to make mistakes."
Why then don't we allow, much less encourage, making mistakes? Most of us, particularly in business, fight shy of them. We believe that people will see a faux pas as incompetence. We also feel that success is driven by our image as experts rather than as learners. And the measures of our performance are numbers such as sales, profits, total returns to shareholders, and so on.
Are these really the best measures of success? Consider an alternative. What if we were to ask employees what mistakes they committed because they did something differently? What did they learn?
Does that sound a little crazy? It may, but we have to bring the human element back in business; we can't function as extensions of computer programs. Some mission-critical and life-threatening tasks may have zero tolerance for failure, but not the rest of our work and lives. I'm not suggesting breaking every rule; I feel we should institutionalize the art of making mistakes; introduce a method for the madness; and innovate the innovation process.
Imagine encouraging an employee to keep trying to solve a problem until he or she makes, say, five mistakes. Imagine asking team members whether they have made their five mistakes yet! Trust me, if you aren't making mistakes, you're not learning — or, at least, you're not learning enough.
Do you remember the first time you rode a bicycle? Can you relive the exhilaration of riding free, the sense of triumph as you broke free of the crutches of support? Now step back. How many times did you fall off the bike before that first ride?
I remember my first class in engineering school during which our professor asked us to dismantle an engine. We did that. Then he asked us to put it together and walked away. We messed that up big time and had to work at it for days. I learned more about engineering in that short time than I did in the next four years. Why don't you ask your employees to dismantle something and then, give them the time but not the help to put it together?
Do you have the nerve to encourage the mistakes that people will inevitably make on the path of discovery?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Is Your Elevator Pitch a Monologue or a Dialogue?
Jay Hamilton-Roth
Published June 01, 2009 by: Jay Hamilton-Roth
When most people think "elevator pitch", they think of a paragraph that they can utter in about 15 seconds that tells people what they do. I've written previous articles on how to craft a pitch and how to judge your pitch's effectiveness. But what most people forget is the goal of the elevator pitch - to start a dialogue.
Let's say I'm at a mixer, and I ask the person standing next to me what they do for a living. They respond with their elevator pitch. And unless it's a great pitch, it's likely that I've tuned them out. Why? Because they didn't tailor their pitch to me.
In all your marketing communication, you need to ensure the message matches your target's needs. If you don't know their needs, all you can do is talk at them, and hope that the message somehow "sticks".
How can you create an elevator pitch that's memorable? Start slowly. Describe who you target clearly and a single benefit you provide. For example, I'd say: "I help small businesses around the world make more money." In this simple sentence, I've identified my target audience (small businesses), where they are located (around the world), and a single benefit (make more money). Notice I also put in clear clues to help the listener to see if their problems fit my business offerings (this helps the listener frame the dialogue better). Instead of adding any more to the pitch, I now wait for the inevitable question, "How do you make more money?" (I could loan money, steal money, print money, or provide services).
My next sentence is a bit more specific: "I plan and implement creative marketing strategies." Perhaps they'll hear the word marketing or creative or strategies. It doesn't matter much, because I immediately follow up my answer with a question, "What's your #1 business problem?"
I've just created a dialogue around a prospect's business. The more I find out, the better I can now talk about how my offerings can help their business (or not). The result is a memorable message that's tailored to my prospect's needs.
Published June 01, 2009 by: Jay Hamilton-Roth
When most people think "elevator pitch", they think of a paragraph that they can utter in about 15 seconds that tells people what they do. I've written previous articles on how to craft a pitch and how to judge your pitch's effectiveness. But what most people forget is the goal of the elevator pitch - to start a dialogue.
Let's say I'm at a mixer, and I ask the person standing next to me what they do for a living. They respond with their elevator pitch. And unless it's a great pitch, it's likely that I've tuned them out. Why? Because they didn't tailor their pitch to me.
In all your marketing communication, you need to ensure the message matches your target's needs. If you don't know their needs, all you can do is talk at them, and hope that the message somehow "sticks".
How can you create an elevator pitch that's memorable? Start slowly. Describe who you target clearly and a single benefit you provide. For example, I'd say: "I help small businesses around the world make more money." In this simple sentence, I've identified my target audience (small businesses), where they are located (around the world), and a single benefit (make more money). Notice I also put in clear clues to help the listener to see if their problems fit my business offerings (this helps the listener frame the dialogue better). Instead of adding any more to the pitch, I now wait for the inevitable question, "How do you make more money?" (I could loan money, steal money, print money, or provide services).
My next sentence is a bit more specific: "I plan and implement creative marketing strategies." Perhaps they'll hear the word marketing or creative or strategies. It doesn't matter much, because I immediately follow up my answer with a question, "What's your #1 business problem?"
I've just created a dialogue around a prospect's business. The more I find out, the better I can now talk about how my offerings can help their business (or not). The result is a memorable message that's tailored to my prospect's needs.
How to Prevent Hiring Disasters
Hiring someone can be a time-consuming and nerve-wracking task. In an ideal situation, you find the perfect person for the position — someone who hits the ground running, increases your unit's performance, and eases your workload. In the worst-case scenario, your seemingly perfect hire turns out to be far from it and you spend months dealing with the aftermath, including finding a replacement. Either way, it can feel like a referendum on your judgment. So how can you be sure your experience is more like the former than the latter? If you outline and adhere to a disciplined process, you can greatly improve your chances.
What the Experts Say
Claudio Fernández-Aráoz, a senior adviser at Egon Zehnder International and the author of Great People Decisions and "The Definitive Guide to Recruiting in Good Times and Bad," argues that hiring decisions are pressure-filled for a reason. "It is crucial to get hiring right not only for the hiring entity, but also, and very importantly, for the person being hired," he says. A new hire isn't to blame for a bad hiring decision, but will shoulder much of the burden when a role doesn't fit.
A carefully crafted hiring process can help avoid most mishaps. Adele Lynn, founder and owner of The Adele Lynn Leadership Group and author of The EQ Interview, urges that companies regard hiring as more of a science than an art, or worse a leap of faith.
Prevention is the best medicine
You can greatly reduce your chances of getting hiring decisions wrong by following a clear and consistent approach that includes knowing the traits valued across the organization (such as humility or an entrepreneurial spirit); conducting fair, structured interviews that include multiple people from the organization; and agreeing on a standard ranking system to evaluate candidates.
Getting the right person for the job requires time and discipline. Be careful of the time trap, warns Lynn. "Often, companies are desperate to fill a position, so the interview process includes some generic questions and some information about the position," she says. Needing to fill the role yesterday is not an excuse for shortchanging the process.
Know the specific competencies you're looking for
Fernández-Aráoz says we are hardwired to hire people who are like us or make us comfortable — but that does not always yield the best candidate. In fact, you need to be aware of what he calls the "typical unconscious psychological traps" that lead one to make inferior people decisions (e.g. overrating capability or making snap judgments). Outline the specific competencies — above and beyond the traits you look for in all new hires — that the ideal candidate needs. What skills are required? How much does experience matter? What behaviors does he need to exhibit in the role? For example, this is a role requiring 7 years of computer programming experience but also an ability to work collaboratively with team members on high-pressure projects.
Screening for the right soft skills is critical. Seasoned hiring managers will tell you that it's much harder to coach behavioral issues than it is to teach someone the technical aspects of the job. "And people who fail in a new job mostly do so because of their inability to develop proper relationships not only with their boss but also with their peers and subordinates," says Fernández-Aráoz. To assess relational skills and emotional intelligence, "the interview should include behavior-based questions and motive and reflection questions," says Lynn. For example, "Tell me about a time you had a conflict with a co-worker and explain how you resolved it." The aim is to uncover the candidate's true colors. Does he blame others for his mistakes? Does he rationalize his behavior? Or does he accept responsibility? "You get a much more thorough understanding of how a person will behave in the future," says Lynn.
On-board with care
When a new hire seems to be struggling, on-boarding can also be to blame. "Most companies let their new hires sink or swim, and as a result many sink. Some form of integration support reduces the chances of failure, accelerates learning, and increases the contribution of any new hire," says Fernández-Aráoz. The right onboarding approach can help you get immediate value from your new hire and position her for success. But perhaps the most important element is expectation-setting. "Especially with knowledge workers and younger workers, there is a strong need to communicate both expectations of performance and behavior," explains Lynn.
When it happens anyway...
Sometimes even when you follow all the rules, you may still end up with the wrong person in the job. When you suspect a poor fit, proceed carefully. Start by asking others to corroborate your opinion. Don't start a witch hunt, but discreetly ask if they see the situation in the same way. Then, once you've identified where the mismatch is, ask yourself if the problem is coachable "People are ineffective for many reasons and some of those reasons are definitely correctable," says Lynn.
"Unless it's an egregious breach of values, generally coaching and reiterating behaviors and performance expectations should be the first step." Provide feedback to the new hire early on and lay out a plan for getting her up to speed in the problem areas. If the issues persist, consider finding a more appropriate role for her in your organization.
In the worst cases, termination may be your only option, particularly if you find that the problem is not coachable, if you are unwilling to further invest in coaching, or if the error or behavior is intolerable. It should be your last resort, however. "Most likely as the hiring manager you have a large share of responsibility for the mistake, and thus should never fire a person without thoughtful consideration," says Fernández-Aráoz. If you have to let someone go, take a hard look at the hiring process you used and figure out how to change it next time around.
Principles to Remember
Do:
* Identify the competencies an ideal candidate needs
* Ask interview questions that uncover the drivers behind the candidate's past and future behavior
* Give the new hire early feedback about her performance
Don't:
* Prioritize technical skills over relational ones
* Assume you've made a bad hire without checking your perception with others
* Immediately move to termination, without first considering coaching or transferring
Case Study #1: The value of sleeping on it
Roxanne Bond, the Executive Director of HR at USAA Real Estate Company, works closely with her hiring managers each time there is an open position. Roxanne's group developed and refined a sophisticated and efficient hiring process that starts with building a list of the competencies needed for each position. The company has a great track record with little turnover and a strong, inclusive company culture. However, USAA Real Estate Company is like all fast-paced and busy companies and hiring managers often feel urgency when they have to fill a position. Last year, a hiring manager needed to fill a heavy financial role and wanted someone with the technical skills and experience to begin right away. The job came down to two candidates: Sarah and Amanda*. Both had accounting backgrounds but Sarah had more experience doing the tasks that the role required. The hiring manager was leaning toward her even though a few red flags came up in her interview. In response to questions about past mistakes, Sarah indicated that she was overly sensitive to criticism. In response to the same questions, Amanda showed she took responsibility for her actions and had a positive attitude.
Roxanne strongly urged the hiring manager to consider Sarah's responses and whether her leg up in experience was worth the risk. She gave her the night to think about it and when they met the next day, they decided to go with Amanda after all. The hiring manager thought that she could coach Sarah's behavioral issues but realized that doing so would take an enormous amount of time — time that would be better spent helping Amanda get up to speed on job tasks. Roxanne is proud of the careful process that USAA Real Estate Company takes when it comes to hiring: "We haven't had a bad decision in years and it goes back to the preventative approach we take."
Case Study #2: A rookie mistake turns into a valuable lesson
A few years back, Jennifer DeLury Ciplet was appointed as the Executive Director of NISGUA (Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala). The organization, which advocates for human rights in Guatemala through speakers' tours, legislative work, and publications, was on the cusp of a transformation. NISGUA's supporters had traditionally been older and white and had gotten involved in the organization's work through other faith-based groups. The board wanted Jenn to help build new alliances with new constituencies — younger, immigrant populations. It was a classic customer-diversification issue. Jenn took the task seriously and, when she needed to fill a new programs position, intentionally looked for someone from the new population they were trying to reach. While she didn't formally define the required capabilities, she had a strong sense of the type of person they needed. She was thrilled when she found someone who seemed to embody the organization's new direction, and had what Jenn thought were all of the right technical skills.
Once he started however, Jenn realized that, while the new hire represented the future of the organization, NISGUA was not there yet. She needed someone who could bridge the gap; to still spend time on the phone with traditional supporters while also attending events to connect with a younger audience. This required deep cross-cultural skills that the new hire did not have. A month into his tenure, Jenn realized she'd made a mistake — the new hire was more of an activist than a relationship-manager. Fortunately, NISGUA has a 90-day probationary period. Jenn did a 360 review to get input from everyone he was working with found she wasn't the only one concerned about fit. She shared the feedback with him, explained the mistake she had made, and said that he wouldn't be asked to stay.
When looking for his replacement, Jenn had a far better understanding of the job and formally defined the required capabilities. "I was more clued in to what the job really required," she said. She advertised explicitly for cross-cultural competencies and asked scenario questions in the interview that demonstrated those skills. The next person she hired was ideal — she stayed with the organization for two years (only leaving when her husband's job was relocated) and helped guide the organization through its transformation.
What the Experts Say
Claudio Fernández-Aráoz, a senior adviser at Egon Zehnder International and the author of Great People Decisions and "The Definitive Guide to Recruiting in Good Times and Bad," argues that hiring decisions are pressure-filled for a reason. "It is crucial to get hiring right not only for the hiring entity, but also, and very importantly, for the person being hired," he says. A new hire isn't to blame for a bad hiring decision, but will shoulder much of the burden when a role doesn't fit.
A carefully crafted hiring process can help avoid most mishaps. Adele Lynn, founder and owner of The Adele Lynn Leadership Group and author of The EQ Interview, urges that companies regard hiring as more of a science than an art, or worse a leap of faith.
Prevention is the best medicine
You can greatly reduce your chances of getting hiring decisions wrong by following a clear and consistent approach that includes knowing the traits valued across the organization (such as humility or an entrepreneurial spirit); conducting fair, structured interviews that include multiple people from the organization; and agreeing on a standard ranking system to evaluate candidates.
Getting the right person for the job requires time and discipline. Be careful of the time trap, warns Lynn. "Often, companies are desperate to fill a position, so the interview process includes some generic questions and some information about the position," she says. Needing to fill the role yesterday is not an excuse for shortchanging the process.
Know the specific competencies you're looking for
Fernández-Aráoz says we are hardwired to hire people who are like us or make us comfortable — but that does not always yield the best candidate. In fact, you need to be aware of what he calls the "typical unconscious psychological traps" that lead one to make inferior people decisions (e.g. overrating capability or making snap judgments). Outline the specific competencies — above and beyond the traits you look for in all new hires — that the ideal candidate needs. What skills are required? How much does experience matter? What behaviors does he need to exhibit in the role? For example, this is a role requiring 7 years of computer programming experience but also an ability to work collaboratively with team members on high-pressure projects.
Screening for the right soft skills is critical. Seasoned hiring managers will tell you that it's much harder to coach behavioral issues than it is to teach someone the technical aspects of the job. "And people who fail in a new job mostly do so because of their inability to develop proper relationships not only with their boss but also with their peers and subordinates," says Fernández-Aráoz. To assess relational skills and emotional intelligence, "the interview should include behavior-based questions and motive and reflection questions," says Lynn. For example, "Tell me about a time you had a conflict with a co-worker and explain how you resolved it." The aim is to uncover the candidate's true colors. Does he blame others for his mistakes? Does he rationalize his behavior? Or does he accept responsibility? "You get a much more thorough understanding of how a person will behave in the future," says Lynn.
On-board with care
When a new hire seems to be struggling, on-boarding can also be to blame. "Most companies let their new hires sink or swim, and as a result many sink. Some form of integration support reduces the chances of failure, accelerates learning, and increases the contribution of any new hire," says Fernández-Aráoz. The right onboarding approach can help you get immediate value from your new hire and position her for success. But perhaps the most important element is expectation-setting. "Especially with knowledge workers and younger workers, there is a strong need to communicate both expectations of performance and behavior," explains Lynn.
When it happens anyway...
Sometimes even when you follow all the rules, you may still end up with the wrong person in the job. When you suspect a poor fit, proceed carefully. Start by asking others to corroborate your opinion. Don't start a witch hunt, but discreetly ask if they see the situation in the same way. Then, once you've identified where the mismatch is, ask yourself if the problem is coachable "People are ineffective for many reasons and some of those reasons are definitely correctable," says Lynn.
"Unless it's an egregious breach of values, generally coaching and reiterating behaviors and performance expectations should be the first step." Provide feedback to the new hire early on and lay out a plan for getting her up to speed in the problem areas. If the issues persist, consider finding a more appropriate role for her in your organization.
In the worst cases, termination may be your only option, particularly if you find that the problem is not coachable, if you are unwilling to further invest in coaching, or if the error or behavior is intolerable. It should be your last resort, however. "Most likely as the hiring manager you have a large share of responsibility for the mistake, and thus should never fire a person without thoughtful consideration," says Fernández-Aráoz. If you have to let someone go, take a hard look at the hiring process you used and figure out how to change it next time around.
Principles to Remember
Do:
* Identify the competencies an ideal candidate needs
* Ask interview questions that uncover the drivers behind the candidate's past and future behavior
* Give the new hire early feedback about her performance
Don't:
* Prioritize technical skills over relational ones
* Assume you've made a bad hire without checking your perception with others
* Immediately move to termination, without first considering coaching or transferring
Case Study #1: The value of sleeping on it
Roxanne Bond, the Executive Director of HR at USAA Real Estate Company, works closely with her hiring managers each time there is an open position. Roxanne's group developed and refined a sophisticated and efficient hiring process that starts with building a list of the competencies needed for each position. The company has a great track record with little turnover and a strong, inclusive company culture. However, USAA Real Estate Company is like all fast-paced and busy companies and hiring managers often feel urgency when they have to fill a position. Last year, a hiring manager needed to fill a heavy financial role and wanted someone with the technical skills and experience to begin right away. The job came down to two candidates: Sarah and Amanda*. Both had accounting backgrounds but Sarah had more experience doing the tasks that the role required. The hiring manager was leaning toward her even though a few red flags came up in her interview. In response to questions about past mistakes, Sarah indicated that she was overly sensitive to criticism. In response to the same questions, Amanda showed she took responsibility for her actions and had a positive attitude.
Roxanne strongly urged the hiring manager to consider Sarah's responses and whether her leg up in experience was worth the risk. She gave her the night to think about it and when they met the next day, they decided to go with Amanda after all. The hiring manager thought that she could coach Sarah's behavioral issues but realized that doing so would take an enormous amount of time — time that would be better spent helping Amanda get up to speed on job tasks. Roxanne is proud of the careful process that USAA Real Estate Company takes when it comes to hiring: "We haven't had a bad decision in years and it goes back to the preventative approach we take."
Case Study #2: A rookie mistake turns into a valuable lesson
A few years back, Jennifer DeLury Ciplet was appointed as the Executive Director of NISGUA (Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala). The organization, which advocates for human rights in Guatemala through speakers' tours, legislative work, and publications, was on the cusp of a transformation. NISGUA's supporters had traditionally been older and white and had gotten involved in the organization's work through other faith-based groups. The board wanted Jenn to help build new alliances with new constituencies — younger, immigrant populations. It was a classic customer-diversification issue. Jenn took the task seriously and, when she needed to fill a new programs position, intentionally looked for someone from the new population they were trying to reach. While she didn't formally define the required capabilities, she had a strong sense of the type of person they needed. She was thrilled when she found someone who seemed to embody the organization's new direction, and had what Jenn thought were all of the right technical skills.
Once he started however, Jenn realized that, while the new hire represented the future of the organization, NISGUA was not there yet. She needed someone who could bridge the gap; to still spend time on the phone with traditional supporters while also attending events to connect with a younger audience. This required deep cross-cultural skills that the new hire did not have. A month into his tenure, Jenn realized she'd made a mistake — the new hire was more of an activist than a relationship-manager. Fortunately, NISGUA has a 90-day probationary period. Jenn did a 360 review to get input from everyone he was working with found she wasn't the only one concerned about fit. She shared the feedback with him, explained the mistake she had made, and said that he wouldn't be asked to stay.
When looking for his replacement, Jenn had a far better understanding of the job and formally defined the required capabilities. "I was more clued in to what the job really required," she said. She advertised explicitly for cross-cultural competencies and asked scenario questions in the interview that demonstrated those skills. The next person she hired was ideal — she stayed with the organization for two years (only leaving when her husband's job was relocated) and helped guide the organization through its transformation.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Marketers working toward social, search integration
Story posted: August 16, 2010 - 6:01 am EDT |  | | |
|
|
SOCIAL MARKETING BUDGETS UP The survey found that 29% of marketers plan to boost their budgets for social media this year, and 56% plan to provide additional resources for social media. When asked how much of their online marketing budget will go toward social media this year, 35% said 1% to 5%; 21% said 6% to 10%; 8% said 11% to 15%; 4% said 16% to 20%; and 7% said more than 20%. Thirteen percent said they didn't know how much of their budget would be spent on social media, and 12% said they would not spend anything on social media this year. Paul Dunay, global managing director-services and social marketing at Avaya Inc., said 15% of his company's online marketing budget will be devoted to social media this year. “We have moved from an experimenting mode to a maintaining mode,” Dunay said. “I believe that many companies use social media incorrectly. They are constantly asking about ROI, which is an indication to me that they are taking a one-way, let's-communicate-it-out-and-build-a-fan-base type of approach. Our approach is to use social media to support existing customers.” Dunay said his marketing group uses Facebook, Twitter, blogs, online forums and other social media channels to address customer concerns, provide support, answer questions and build long-term relationships. He said improving search performance is among Avaya's top five goals, but it is not the primary goal. According to the BtoB/Business.com survey, the top goals for social media marketing are: building brand awareness (cited by 81% of respondents); increasing traffic to a website (77%); generating leads (67%); providing deeper engagement with customers (66%); and improving search results (57%). The survey asked marketers how they are using social media to improve their search results. Nearly half (48%) said they are driving inbound links through various social media channels; 45% said they are expanding profiles and social media accounts to increase rankings on major search engines; 40% said they are monitoring social media conversations to influence organic SEO; and 26% said they are monitoring social media conversations to influence keyword purchases. Also, when asked what the overall impact of social media has been on the search performance of their company's website, 44% said it had been positive, 28% said neutral, 27% said they didn't know, and 1% said negative. “Social media continues to make huge gains among the myriad of online marketing tools available for integrated campaigns,” said Patricia Neuray, VP-sales and marketing at Business.com, a b2b search engine and online marketing company. “As 44% of the respondents have seen an increase in traffic from search engines since launching their social media efforts, marketers are allocating more budgets to social media tactics and setting specific goals to measure the impact of their social media efforts.” While marketers are developing new metrics to gauge the results of their social media efforts, 41% of respondents said they are not currently measuring the impact of social media on their company's search performance. Of those that are, the most common metrics they're using include organic search rankings (37%); number of inbound links (30%); search volume for brand or keyword phrases (23%); and search marketing conversion rates (22%). In terms of actual results they are seeing from the impact of social media campaigns on search performance, 35% of marketers said they have seen an improvement in organic search rankings; 24% reported an increased in search referrals; and 15% have seen increased click-through rates in paid search campaigns. “To date, search engine optimization has really been dictated by the volume and quality of inbound links—links have been regarded as the currency of the Web,” said Ryan DeShazer, global practice leader for search at GyroHSR, Cincinnati. “That paradigm has shifted in the last 12-plus months due to the explosion of social media. You always want to write content so compelling that people link to that content. Now, people are sharing those links on social channels.” |
SOCIAL KEYWORDS
One strategy the agency is using with its b2b clients to improve search results is to shift the conversation in social media channels by inserting keywords that specifically relate to a company or brand. For example, for a client that specializes in virtualization software, GyroHSR started using the phrase “server virtualization” in conversations about database virtualization on social channels such as Twitter and Facebook. (DeShazer declined to name the client.) “As the conversation shifts to "server virtualization,' people will search on Google and will use the term being spoken about in social channels. We have an opportunity to influence what queries users are searching for,” DeShazer said.
The BtoB/Business.com survey also looked at how companies are using search to enhance their social media efforts.
It found that 54% of marketers search for conversations about their company's brand or products on social media channels; 42% perform search engine optimization on their social media content; 37% search for conversations about their competitors on social media channels; and 13% place social media links in paid search ads.
Nearly one-third (30%) of marketers said they are not currently using search to enhance their social media efforts.
The top metrics used to measure social media marketing efforts are: visits to websites (55%); number of fans, followers and “likes” on social media networks (48%); number of mentions about a company or product (35%); and number of retweets (28%). One-quarter of marketers are not currently measuring their social media campaigns.
The most popular social media monitoring tools include Hootsuite (15%), SocialMention (7%), Radian6 (6%) and TweetBurner (6%). More than half (53%) of marketers surveyed said they are not using any social media monitoring tools.
“The challenge with measuring how much activity there is in social is that you don't know if those comments are good, or bad or what they mean,” said Adam Kleinberg, CEO of Traction Corp., an online marketing agency in San Francisco.
“A lot of these tools have a sentiment analysis piece, but in reality, the sentiment analysis isn't as accurate as we would need for it to be to be meaningful. Semantics are so difficult to measure.”
In other survey findings, 39% of marketers described their company's level of sophistication with search engine optimization as needing improvement; 27% said it was somewhat advanced; 26% said it was adequate. Only 9% said it was very advanced.
Some marketers said they are just beginning to explore the integration of social media and search.
Nicole Lipson, senior marketing manager at Georgia-Pacific Gypsum, which makes products for commercial construction, said, “We are continuing to evaluate and improve our search program, mostly to ensure that important keywords for our business will bring us up to the top of the list. Integrating search with social media is something that we're just beginning to look at, and we are using experts to help us look at that.”
Georgia-Pacific Gypsum uses social media networks such as Flickr and YouTube to post product photos and instructional videos for its target audience of architects, general contractors and distributors, Lipson said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)