Monthly Archives: August 2009

It’s Not the Economy, Stupid

It did hurt me again to see how many of the workforce are really engaged. But the pain was softened by the inclusion of Best Buy.

Found at http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2009/id20090817_671373.htm

By Krisztina Holly and Jim Clifton

Hw can we be expected to grow and create jobs, many executives wonder, when we are shrinking?

Despite a slight easing on the unemployment rate, a quarter million Americans lost their jobs last month, and job prospects for those out of work look bleak for the foreseeable future. Policymakers and citizens alike are concerned with how we can reduce the rate of unemployment—no easy feat when balanced with the need to slash expenses.

However, focusing on unemployment is exactly the wrong thing to do. Yes, the numbers are staggering. But they only tell part of the story, and they do not offer a solution for relieving the economic chaos.

Instead, there is a more effective way to grow—a way that is free, does not rely on a government bailout, and has the potential for massive societal impact. American executives should turn to the 140 million who have jobs, and find practical ways to inspire them in their work, to empower them to innovate us out of a mess.

ENGAGE EMPLOYEES

Based on extensive, long-term research, Gallup has determined that less than 30% of the corporate workforce is truly engaged in its work. That’s less than 30% of employees who work with passion and feel a profound connection to their companies. Yet employee engagement leads to increased customer engagement, which leads to real revenues and, eventually, more job opportunities for others.

Unfortunately, it seems that amid the crush of an urgent economic reality, executives and managers have overlooked some elementary tasks, such as making sure employees know what is expected of them and allowing them to use their talents in their roles. Yet the need to engage employees better is especially crucial during a recession, when mantras such as “do more with less” can madden employees who must pick up extra duties after their colleagues are laid off, but who are offered no tangible financial incentive to innovate.

Engagement serves as an intangible incentive — one that can be more valuable than any money can provide.

LEARNING FROM BEST BUY

Take, for example, one store in the multibillion-dollar electronics retail chain, Best Buy (BBY). Executives evaluated employee engagement and discovered the store was middling at best. The poor score was affecting morale, employee turnover, and store profits.

After polling the employees for solutions, the management implemented some significant institutional changes, like a “team close,” so all team members felt jointly responsible for the nightly store closing, and not just an unlucky few.

As a result of management’s listening and making some bold decisions, employee engagement improved, and the store substantially lowered employee turnover and increased profits. Then, the changes were scaled across the 1,200-store chain. For every one-tenth-of-a-point increase in employee engagement, each Best Buy store increased profits by $100,000 a year.

So consider all of those who aren’t inspired to put their hearts into their work. Worse, nearly 20% are “actively disengaged,” trying to undermine others’ productive work. This is not merely a caricature of Office Space or Dilbert. Tens of millions of people deliberately clock in every day with the intention of holding back U.S. corporations’ ability to compete and innovate.

This is a shame—and yet it is an opportunity too.

Consider this a call to arms for all leaders. Imagine the results if we were to double employee engagement at our organizations within 18 months, from 30% to 60%. Through a disciplined effort to increase the connection and commitment of our employed workers, our organizations can innovate and create new solutions. This is the surest way to lower those devastating unemployment numbers. And we have no excuse—not even a bad economy.

Krisztina Holly is vice-provost for innovation and executive director of the USC Stevens Institute for Innovation at the University of Southern California. Jim Clifton is chairman and CEO of Gallup

Read more at http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2009/id20090817_671373.htm

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Resolution for 2010: thinking different

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Banner B2B Social Media Map

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The department formerly known as IT (Peter Hinssen Book IT Fusion excerpt chapter 1)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Paul Greenberg at CRMe09: It’s About The Social-Emotional Customer getting connected

This post is about connecting. Nice to see how Paul Greenberg thinks about connecting. Fine summary from Esteban!

Connect and act!

Found at http://www.customerthink.com/blog/paul_greenberg_at_crme09_its_about_the_social_emotional_customer

By Esteban Kolsky, ThinkJar, LLC

I attended the opening Keynote this morning with Paul Greenberg at CRM Evolution 2009. There were some very interesting things that Paul discussed that I want to share with you and elaborate on.

First the summary of what he covered.

Started by ensuring we all understood that the Social Revolution is not new (remember epinions.com? when yelp first emerged? early examples of customers becoming social), and that what we are dealing with is not a business revolution; it’s a societal revolution that business needs to adapt to. He described Social Customer as not something new and different, rather we are them.

This is a key message that he remarked time and again: knowing the Social Customer is all about knowing how we act and how we interact with organizations.

He proceeded to talk about what he calls Generation C (I love the concept) for “connected”. This generation is not about demographics, years of birth, or age ranges but is about becoming connected with organizations. People in Generation C are the 74% (Pew Internet) of US Adults that are connected to the Internet, and the more than 66% (Nielsen) that belong to Member Community sites. It is about the people who are vocal and are influencers by their active participation in the Social world.

These are the people that organizations must target to convert into advocates.

He spent some time talking about converting customers to advocates, and how to manage their influence and position within social networks to the advantage of the business. He said that organizations must make it a plan to convert bad experiences into customer advocates (great point), and talked about how the economic value of a customer should not be as significant to the organization as the Referral Value of the customer (another great concept).

He then switched from Social Customers to Emotional Customers. Talked about sentiments and emotions analysis and how it applies equally to communities and individuals, and to all conversations (over 70% of transactions for Generation Y – the digital citizens – still happen via phone or in person according to Forrester).

He concluded by saying that idea of going social is to create valuable insights from what we learn about customers at the social and emotional level and applying them to the business. The social and emotional label just denote new ways to do it. His parting words were that organizations need to create strategies on how to become social, not just do it.

My Impressions

Paul got all his messages across well and I agree with the concepts. I think it is a great way to remove the existing fear to tell the companies why Social matters (because we are all social), and how it is going to continue to become more important. I like the approach of saying that businesses did not change, what changed was society – it brings the problem to every company dealing with customers.

I admire that he aligned (finally) with my message that feedback management and insights is what drives the revolution for the companies (ok, he did not align – but I have to make myself feel better somehow — I have been saying that since 2005).

There are two things I would have emphasized more.

First, Paul rightly mentioned how each of us want to personalize the experiences, and expect the organization to deliver that. The solution is not to personalize on a one-by-one basis but rather to use segmentation wisely. And that segmentation should not be done on financial value, but rather on the concept of Referral Value. I would have spent more time talking about segmentation as critical to the success (which I think it is).

Second, I think that sentiment or emotional analysis is not quite ready for adoption, most of the times the error rate is higher than the accuracy it yields. I agree that sentiments and emotions are the next frontier, but emphasizing too much how businesses can understand them when the technology is not quite there will backfire when the expected results are not reached. Since the main source of nature is human nature, not technology, it may not be the best recommendation to make. I saw some interesting demos at SpeechTek showcasing this – but we are not that close yet. Think early days of NLP (Natural Language Process) for web self-service.

What do you think? Is sentiments analysis ready to take the mainstream? Is the social customer becoming the social-emotional customer?

How are organizations going to cope with this new customers?

read more fromhttp://www.customerthink.com/blog/paul_greenberg_at_crme09_its_about_the_social_emotional_customer

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

STATS: Social Media Resistance Is Fading Fast

Post found at http://mashable.com/2009/08/26/social-media-brand-marketers

August 26th, 2009 | by Adam Ostrow3

statsRecently, we highlighted a study that showed two-thirds of marketers now use social media in some capacity. Today, more data confirming this trend, but also pointing to what looks poised to be nearly total saturation within a year.

According to a report published today by eMarketer, 59% of brand marketers currently use social media. But within 12 months, that number will swell to 82%. And in the long-run, only 13% indicate having no plans to enter the medium.

Also interesting: this chart, which highlights the reasons that some companies and agencies still aren’t using social media:

Somewhat surprisingly, most of the remaining resistance doesn’t come from marketers doubting the value of it – only 7% of companies don’t see social media as a good use of employee time – but rather, not knowing where to begin or how to measure the effectiveness.

These, of course, are issues that many individuals, companies, and yes, publications :) are looking to address. Here are a few resources that might be helpful if you’re looking to make the case for social media within your organization or with your clients:

How to Measure Social Media ROI for Business

The 22 Step Social Media Marketing Plan

40 of the Best Twitter Brands and the People Behind Them

10 Creative Contests Powered by Social Media

Read more at http://mashable.com/2009/08/26/social-media-brand-marketers

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Online relationships & collaboration: Quality vs quantity

Nice reflection. One of my team members is reading now Zen and the art of motor cycle maintenance, Robert Pirsig‘s book i always associate with quantity and quality. But talking about relationships, there are weak and strong ties. And more and more- based on my experience – i believe that weak ties may benefit one even after decades?

How do you think about hat

Post found at http://blogs.zdnet.com/collaboration/?p=855

August 25th, 2009

Posted by Oliver Marks @ 10:52 pm

I’m currently reading (courtesy of San Francisco Public Library) ‘Free, the future of a radical price’ by Chris Anderson,  who also wrote the influential book ‘The Long Tail‘. There’s plenty of good discussion elsewhere about the validity of the various business models Anderson explores around his proposition that companies can ultimately make more money by giving things away than they can by charging for them.

(Google is of course a great example if this: the more they can engage you in their ‘free’ products online, the more they can advertise to you and build up their online profile on you, which is where they ultimately make their money).

There is a parallel reality I’m more intrigued by however around this ‘Free’ concept, and that is the perception that all software running in a browser window is historically essentially free to the end user. The web generation have been exposed to prodigious amounts of free content and are currently in the throes of adding friends and personal connections to their online identities and personas at an ever greater rate.

The impact this has had on organizing people to collaborate is not insignificant: many people have always known their browser window as a grazing device. They started out surfing around cyberspace, to use the quaint old language, and now they expect sophisticated functionality and intuitive, easy to use interfaces from web applications they may spend time measured in seconds on. Like Google, the profit incentive of these vendors is usually your exposure to advertising messages.

So what happens when ‘Facebook generation’ web browser users are asked to participate in collaboration networks inside companies in order to share structured and unstructured information in ‘Facebook style’ applications? Their learnt behavior can result in very superficial ‘flip through the TV channels looking for something interesting’ style usage.

Some of this learnt behavior is caused by the tsunamai of free eye candy applications and shiny objects that flow past their eyeballs every day in the consumer world, and some by unclear instruction of what it is management expect them to do.

This attention deficit attitude is spreading in some cases to online personal interactions, as Sam Lawrence notes in his insightful post ‘numbers we track in our online/offline life‘:

Number of friends is the metric on big kitchen sink networks like Facebook, Myspace, etc. On Twitter it’s number of followers. And you can see the resulting behavior every day. As soon as someone joins Facebook, it’s a race to add as many friends to (your) cart as possible to get that number up.

Sam’s been brainstorming with eBay founder and chairman Pierre Omidyar about the numbers we track in our online and offline life as they relate to his ‘nicheworking’ site Black Box Republic…

…while we focus on driving our social numbers up as high as possible, those numbers end up being meaningless. They don’t reflect reality. In real life people come in and out of our life. People we vouch for at one point, we can’t vouch for at another point. Our friends change. People we want to meet change. Because the kitchen-sink networks optimize their numbers around mass-use in order to sell advertising, they can’t solve this problem.

The parallels with business use of enterprise collaboration are striking: ‘friending’ everyone in your company as a bureaucratic task when you first start a new job (or a new Enterprise 2.0 is introduced) and then focusing on finding more contacts until you have the full set of connections online is of questionable value.

The quality vs quantity conundrum is also very real in the depth of knowledge shared. The goal of good collaboration networks over time are to build up ever more valuable repositories of information. The contributors may evolve and change over time, just as the personal connections and relationships that grow from sharing the information may mutate and change, but the body of knowledge and interconnected ‘business fabric’ grows cumulatively ever stronger.

New employees are much less likely to be trained on induction into a new company to nurture a sense of belonging and loyalty, as used to be typical.

Stewart Brand listed seven principles of the ‘hacker ethic’ way back in 1984: Anderson re examines number 3, ‘all information wants to be free’, with Brand in his book. (This phrase dates back to 1959 and MIT’s Model Railroad Club but read the book for more: page 94).

Brand:

On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting each other.

The right information – and the right contacts – when you need them will absolutely make the average knowledge worker so much more productive. The challenge is differentiating their use models to filter overwhelming volume and understand quality over quantity, something which may be spinning out of control online in their personal lives online.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/collaboration/?p=855

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers