Few Consumers Actually Heed Social Media

by Ed O'Boyle  |   1:03 PM June 23, 2014

Ever since Facebook first introduced brand pages in 2007, companies have been flocking to social media. Many business leaders believe that the more they post and share about their products and services, the greater their chances of attracting customers and generating revenue.

But just-released research from Gallup’s State of the American Consumer report suggests that much of these efforts have been misguided.

Social media are not the powerful and persuasive marketing force many companies assumed they would be. Gallup finds that a full 62% of U.S. adults who use social media say that these sites have absolutely no influence on their purchasing decisions. Another 30% say these sites have some influence, and just 5% say they have a great deal of influence.

And although companies may think that people who “like” or follow them on social media are an attentive audience, our research suggests otherwise. Of consumers who report liking or following a company, 34% still say that social media have no influence on their purchasing behavior, while 53% say they have only some influence.

When compared with more traditional forms of social networking, social media initiatives may actually be the least effective method for influencing consumers’ buying decisions. Gallup research has shown that consumers are much more likely to turn to friends, family members, and experts when seeking advice about companies, brands, products, or services. Social media sites have almost no sway.

These findings raise a question: is there an inherent flaw in the idea of using social media to drive purchasing, or have companies just been using social media poorly? The fact that some portion of buyers credit social media with having real influence suggests the latter may be true. Consumers are drawn to social media because they want to take part in the conversation and make connections. But many companies continue to treat social media as a one-way communication vehicle and are largely focused on how they can use these sites to push their marketing agendas.

To positively influence purchasing through social media, marketers should learn to use it to listen and interact. Consumers are more likely to engage when the brand-related posts they encounter are:

Authentic. Social media sites are highly personal and conversational. And, as Gallup finds, consumers who use these sites don’t want to hear a sales pitch. They’re more likely to listen and respond to companies that seem genuine and personable. Companies should back away from the hard sell and focus on creating more of an open dialogue with consumers.Responsive. The social media world is 24/7, and consumers expect timely responses – even on nights and weekends. Companies must be available to answer questions and reply to complaints and criticisms; ignoring negative feedback can do considerable damage to a brand’s reputation. Instead, companies must actively listen to what their customers are saying and respond accordingly. If they made mistakes, they must own up to them and take responsibility.Compelling. Content is everywhere, and consumers have the ability to pick and choose what they like. Companies must create compelling, interesting content that appeals to busy, picky social media users. This content should be original to the company and not related to sales or marketing. Consumers need a reason to visit and interact with a company’s social media site and to keep coming back.

When companies focus their social media efforts on pushing product and not cultivating communities, they overlook the real potential of these channels. Gallup research has consistently shown that customers base purchasing decisions on their emotional connections with a brand. Social media are great for making those connections — but only when a brand shifts its focus from communication to conversation.

View the original article here

The Stakeholders You Need to Close a Big Deal

by Paul V. Weinstein  |   8:00 AM July 11, 2014

A $27 million investment by Andreessen Horowitz fueled Pinterest’s explosive rise on the startup scene. A partnership with Starbucks elevated the mobile payment company Square to a whole new level. Every high-growth enterprise can name a moment of affirmation that changed everything – that first big win that established credibility and created the launching pad for what followed. But how does one actually close that crucial deal?

Based on many years as a business founder, advisor, and investor, I would argue that getting the green light has as much to do with understanding human nature as it does with business fundamentals and finances.

Specifically, closing a deal requires identifying three key stakeholders who have the power to influence the decision: champions, decision makers, and blockers. Even more, it requires understanding their motivations.

Getting a foot in the door, the first hurdle in closing a deal, requires identifying the right champion within the target organization. While a champion has influence over the decision, he is not the ultimate decision maker. In fact, champions rarely have significant power in the organization—but they know who does and their expertise is usually respected. Champions understand the personalities and processes on a granular level and can navigate the culture within an organization.

The primary motivation of the champion is status: champions want to feel important. The champions I’ve known have been motivated by a host of related factors – generating personal visibility, drawing attention and resources to their domain, or being perceived as innovators. Whatever the specific reason for endorsing a deal, the common thread is that champions are at a point in their career where they are willing to take a risk.

In 2008, I was on the business team at OnLive—a high-flying start-up in search of huge amounts of cash to turn a big idea into reality. In the face of the global capital meltdown the only way to procure large sums was from corporate investors. OnLive’s product enabled high-end video games to be hosted in the cloud and played from any device. AT&T was the ideal partner and investor for OnLive: they were playing catch up with Comcast in high-speed internet access for the home and with Verizon for wireless. Adding video gaming service to their broadband offering would give AT&T a unique advantage over their rivals. The ask: invest $35 million for exclusive bundling rights to the US market.

Our champion, Pete, was a mid-level executive tasked with bringing gaming opportunities to AT&T. Pete wanted to gain respect within AT&T both to improve his chances of advancement, but also (and maybe most importantly) to feel like he mattered. Realistically, Pete’s best hope for getting promoted was to raise his visibility—and OnLive was the perfect vehicle to do so. Cool new technology, new market for AT&T, competitive pressure, etc. Pete worked tirelessly to help us understand all the players within AT&T.

A champion, by definition, is deeply invested in getting the deal signed, and the key to working effectively with him is to focus on collaborating to convince the decision maker to say “yes.”

While champions are risk tolerant, decision makers are the opposite. Generally senior executives, decision makers have the power to say yes to a deal and are held accountable for the final outcome. As such, they have a lot to lose and their anxiety level is in direct correlation with the level of expected scrutiny should the deal fail. Regardless of where they started their careers, most decision makers spend the majority of their days dealing with macro issues and are unlikely to have the expertise required to have a detailed understanding of your company or product. This means that they rely on the advice of others for recommendations.

The decision maker at AT&T was CEO Randall Stephenson. His goal was to effectively capture the potential upside of an emerging market and shut out AT&T’s competitors without sacrificing his own credibility. The key to winning over a decision maker like Stephenson is working with a champion to provide enough data, analysis, and outside validation to ensure that those who would question his decision see a trail of sound and thoughtful due diligence. Pete spent 9 months helping us build a solid platform of credibility that would limit Stephenson’s risk if the investment turned out to be bad.

Blockers are the potential deal destroyers that stand between champions and decision makers. They have the decision maker’s ear. While champions are aggressive and decision makers are risk averse, blockers are subversive. Blockers don’t have the power to say yes, but they can get in your way and make it hard for the decision maker to give the go-ahead. For a variety of reasons, blockers are intent on derailing the deal. He or she may have an “alternative” idea that rivals what the champion is pushing or they may be concerned about losing the limelight to an adversary.

At AT&T, the blockers were VPs sponsoring competing deals, various subject matter experts, and an army of corporate finance people.

Like champions, blockers want to feel important, but their importance stems from being the naysayer. Whatever the motivation behind the detraction, it’s critically important to pay attention to blockers and either win them over or neutralize their misgivings. In the end, Pete and OnLive convinced the blockers, including Stephenson’s lieutenants, of the merits of the deal by proving considerable outside third-party support for their vision.

With that, Stephenson felt he could defend his decision. The end result was over $75 million in financing, an exclusive nationwide distribution deal and a credibility point that ultimately allowed OnLive to sign other distribution and financing deals worth over $250 million with companies like HTC, British Telecom, Juniper Networks, Hewlett Packard and Warner Brothers.

The secret to closing deals lies in mastering this balance – if you can support your champion, coax your blocker, and convince your decision maker, you’re golden. Each of the three stakeholders brings a unique set of motivations to the table – your job is to understand them in order to align their interests to get the deal done.

View the original article here

What Everyone Should Know About Managing Up

Having a healthy, positive relationship with your boss makes your work life much easier — it’s also good for your job satisfaction and your career. But some managers don’t make it easy. Bad bosses are the stuff of legend. And too many managers are overextended, overwhelmed, or downright incompetent — a topic that HBR has covered extensively over the years. Even if your boss has some serious shortcomings, it’s in your best interest, and it’s your responsibility, to make the relationship work.

HBR recently ran a special series on managing up, asking experts to provide their best practical advice for navigating this important dynamic. Together, these pieces provide a good primer on how to maintain an effective, productive working relationship with your own boss.

To start, consider the type of manager you have. Many pose a unique set of challenges that require an equally unique set of skills to handle. Perhaps you’re dealing with:

No matter what type of manager you have, there are some skills that are universally important. For example, you need to know how to anticipate your boss’s needs — a lesson we can all learn from the best executive assistants. You need to understand what makes your boss tick (and what ticks her off) if you want to get buy-in for your ideas. Problems will inevitably come up, but knowing the right way to bring a problem to your boss can help you navigate sticky situations.

Best practices for interacting with your boss.

There will, of course, be times when you disagree with your boss, and that’s OK — as long as you’ve learned to disagree in a respectful, productive way. Still, despite your best efforts to build a good relationship, there may come a time when you’ve lost your boss’s trust. It happens. And while it may take some diligent effort on your part, it is possible put the relationship back on track, even if you feel like your boss doesn’t like you.

And if you scoff at all the talk of bad bosses and think, “I have a great boss,” be careful. It’s possible to like your boss too much. And being friends with your manager can be equally tricky. You don’t want your boss to be your only advocate at work. You need to find ways to demonstrate your worth to those above her as well.

Perhaps the most important skill to master is figuring out how to be a genuine source of help — because managing up doesn’t mean sucking up. It means being the most effective employee you can be, creating value for your boss and your company. That’s why the best path to a healthy relationship begins and ends with doing your job, and doing it well.

View the original article here

Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences

Impact Factor:2.963 | Ranking:Education & Educational Research 7 out of 219Source:2013 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2014)
Despite increased attention to methodological rigor in education research, the field has focused heavily on experimental design and not on the merit of replicating important results. The present study analyzed the complete publication history of the current top 100 education journals ranked by 5-year impact factor and found that only 0.13% of education articles were replications. Contrary to previous findings in medicine, but similar to psychology, the majority of education replications successfully replicated the original studies. However, replications were significantly less likely to be successful when there was no overlap in authorship between the original and replicating articles. The results emphasize the importance of third-party, direct replications in helping education research improve its ability to shape education policy and practice.

Received July 31, 2013. Revision received October 14, 2013. Revision received April 10, 2014. Revision received June 4, 2014. Accepted June 26, 2014.

View the original article here

Don’t Try to Be a Publisher and a Platform at the Same Time

In the wake of digital disruption, new media companies are seeking scale and legitimacy, while old media companies explore new business models.

The “platform” is a new media company model that has been perfected by the tech industry. Platforms can easily scale to serve gigantic audiences, and their lucrative possibilities beckon to established players that are often called “publishers.” Meanwhile, many publishers have solid brand identities that are alluring to platforms. So publishers and platforms are experimenting with new combinations — but is it really possible to combine a publisher with a platform over the long term?

Typically, publishers are considered to have editorial judgment, while platforms lack it. From this perspective, the Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, and The New York Times are classic “publishers” — they present highly-curated content, and their editors invest a lot of time in its creation. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are classic “platforms” — they distribute other peoples’ content without as much editorial oversight. But these differences are largely cultural. It’s not technologically difficult for publishers to add platform-like elements, and vice versa.

Publishers seeking new business models are often tempted to become more platform-like by enabling their audience to post user-generated content; they hope to increase revenue by selling ads on this “extra” content. Sometimes, they also hope to develop a content management system that other publishers can license and use to distribute their content.

On the other hand, the technologists looking to differentiate their platforms are drawn by the voice and influence of publishing. Plus, platform-builders can capture more value if they own content on their platform, and not just the platform itself.

So in early 2014, Jonathan Glick coined the ungainly word “platisher” to describe hybrids of digital media platforms and publishers. When a media company attempts to be both a destination for edited, themed content and a tool others can use to create content, it’s a platisher.

Making these hybrids work over the long term is difficult, because their incentives work against each other. Toward the end of last year, one of the first platishers, Say Media, announced it was selling off its publishing properties to focus on its technological platform. CEO Matt Sanchez explained the decision to jettison its publisher properties as an inability to do both tech and content at the same time:

The conclusion we’ve come to, and one lots of media companies wrestle with is, do you build brands or do you build platforms?  Those two are just completely different world views.  It’s hard to create clarity for an organization.

As more platishers mature, they may find themselves facing similar conundrums. Platform and publisher incentives are better aligned when a platform is new. A new platform that’s intended to host user-generated content has one overriding goal: Attract users and convince them to create content. High-quality, carefully-edited content is great for pulling in an audience. Well-thought-out content can also “seed” the platform for new users, shaping their understanding of how they use the tool.

For an example, look at Medium, a platisher that raised $25 million in 2014. The company commissions strongly edited articles on well-defined themes while simultaneously allowing anyone in the world to post their writing on Medium. Founded by Evan Williams of Twitter, the company established itself by paying talented writers and editors to develop individually branded “collections” of articles. In its early days, Medium also created a veneer of gatekeeping by forcing new users to apply for accounts. These behaviors tend more toward the publisher end of the spectrum.

But as a platform attracts users, it will be tempted to exercise little oversight so that users can post quickly and freely. If the platform has not previously exercised much oversight, then this won’t be a problem — but if it has taken a publishing role, then conflicts can emerge. With Medium, problems surfaced when the company scaled its open-to-all-platform and allowed anyone to post. Several writers and editors working for Medium (many of whom came from publishing) expressed public dissatisfaction.

Editor Arikia Millikan wrote about how hard it was to clean up her workflow after Medium threw open the floodgates and any user could submit content to her collection. When she joined Medium, she was able to put plenty of attention into every article she curated, but when Medium made it easier for users to submit content, she was suddenly drinking from a firehose.

Kickstarter is another example of a platform that began with publisher-like editorial oversight. The early campaigns on Kickstarter ran a long gauntlet — creators had to budget days into their campaign to cover the Kickstarter approval process. One reason Kickstarter outstripped its competitors was its well-curated selection of genuinely cool projects. But Kickstarter’s income comes from a percentage of successful campaigns — one major business goal is to host as many successful campaigns as possible.  So perhaps it was inevitable that, in 2014, Kickstarter quietly softened its guidelines.

As they lower their safeguards to attract more users, platishers enter a legal and ethical gray area. Are they responsible for the content they host, or not? The need to resolve this question may nudge maturing platishers to become either more like platforms, or more like publishers. For instance, a “seduction guide” on Kickstarter raised $15,000 and caused massive backlash in 2013, leading the company to ban that whole category of guides. But after softening the guidelines in 2014, the company now allows previously banned projects back on the platform, and has created an automated launching process so campaigns can start without human approval.

Consider, too, the practice of sponsored content. Would you blame Google for allowing the Church of Scientology to display a sponsored link on top of “scientology” results in Google Search?  Or would you get angry at Facebook if a sponsored post for the Church of Scientology popped up in your feed? Probably not — but in 2013, plenty of people blamed The Atlantic for running an article sponsored by the Church of Scientology, even though it was clearly labeled as such. (Full disclosure: I have written for The Atlantic.)

If The Atlantic had possessed a reputation as more of a platform than a publisher, then its audience may not have been so dismayed by the sponsored article. The reaction ended up pushing The Atlantic, one of the most digitally innovative legacy media companies, back toward its traditional publishing roots, as it pulled the piece and “sheepishly” acknowledged that “we got ahead of ourselves.”

In the end, the dichotomy between publisher and platform is actually a difference in goals. The question is not: “Are you a platform or a publisher?” The question is: “Do you care more about scale, or about editorial voice?”

Does your company want to change the world by making the tool everyone uses — or would you prefer to change the world by being the voice that everyone trusts?

It is tempting to think you can do both — and maybe a rare few will succeed. But most of us navigating the storm of modern media have big choices ahead. There’s an emerging set of best practices for platishers, but it’s not clear that any of these hybrids will survive their strained incentives without tilting permanently towards one goal or the other.

View the original article here

The Flaws in Obama’s Cybersecurity Initiative

President Obama’s new raft of proposals aim to address the growing concern that America is not taking tough-enough action against the increasing cybersecurity problem of nation-states and criminals (usually criminal gangs) attacking U.S. consumers and organizations. The evildoers’ motivation for doing so is most often money, but intellectual property is also being filched, and the internet is also being used for anything from identity theft to illicit political objectives.

The cornerstones of the proposal are to:

Prohibit the sale of botnets and similar toolsGive the courts the power to shut down networks assembled for cybercrime such as those involved in “distributed denial of service” (DDOS) attacksProtect companies that share information with the government about computer threats from liability

He also calls for better cooperation between companies and the government when tackling cybercrime.

The problems are certainly real. We are losing on the battleground of cybersecurity. For example, the gains that IT contributed to the GDP of the Netherlands in 2014 were wiped out by the even larger cost of cybercrime. Cybercrime has now become widespread enough to be a drag on growth in many countries. By some estimates, it costs between $500 billion to $1 trillion worldwide. That’s bigger than the GDP of 75 countries combined.

But how much can any government do to address the problem of cybercrime?  And will these proposals do anything to fix the situation in the U.S.? Many of the criminal gangs (and certainly nation-states) lurk beyond U.S. jurisdiction — or at least, beyond the capacity of law enforcement to track them down in large numbers. Therefore, criminalizing many of the activities and products associated with cybercrime is likely to have more symbolic value than actual effect.

This is a limitation that would be faced by any country’s government, except perhaps the one where the crooks live. Russia, for example, has an exploding underground cybercrime industry. Trend Micro’s findings are that you can buy a botnet outright for about $700, or rent one for an hour for $2 — enough time to do serious damage. Trojans that let you spy on incoming and outgoing texts will run you $350.

Every country now has its own special wares to peddle. Brazil is apparently the place to go if you’re in the market for some banking malware. China’s gangs have their own special portfolio to sell. In terms of the competition between Russia and the United States, the homes of the biggest criminal hosts, Russia is winning bigtime. In three months in 2012, Russia’s share of malicious hosts rose by around 10%, and the United States lost 10% of its bad boy computers. There’s ample evidence that for every cybercriminal activity that gets squashed in the United States, an offshore competitor takes it — at cheaper rates. And even those rates are falling fast as more players and countries compete for their share of the pie.

In other words, Obama’s proposals are tackling a problem that was already diminishing in the U.S. The bad guys that really cause problems for Americans (and everyone else) are beyond the long arm of the law.

But what of the part about encouraging companies to share information about cyberthreats with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security by offering them “targeted liability protection”? That has to be a good thing, right? Well, the thing is that it’s already happening. In the United States, many company groups already share information — without government involvement — concerning cyberattacks and threats.

Each of these industries is dealing with its own kind of ugly crook, looking to use its specialized expertise to exploit vulnerabilities peculiar to that industry. The Retail Cyber Intelligence Sharing Center has been up and running since last year, when some 30 large retail companies got together and decided to share information on threats with each other. The oil and gas industry are doing something similar through ONG-ISAC (an acronym likely brought to us by the spawn of the same marketing-savvy engineers that coined TCP/IP and PCMCIA). And FS-ISAC does the same thing for the financial services industry, a particularly important sector for Willie Sutton reasons.

It makes sense for companies to form their own cybersafety industry groups to combat their particular threats. Individual companies are also putting great effort into safeguarding their value, though the facts about and nature of their work is often secret.

A bigger issue is that cybercrimes are grossly under-reported and fear of liability is only one part of the problem. Companies just don’t see the governmental resources available to successfully prosecute the kinds of cybercrime they experience, and the track record probably supports that view. Why share information with the government if it won’t help your situation?

There are also hosts of not-so-wacky conspiracy theorists who worry about any governmental involvement with the internet. (Some of them actually think the government is using it to snoop on us!) They also worry that if Congress passes a bill when prompted by a crisis, there are almost always additional consequences:  usually giving the government more power than we would like.

Nevertheless, a few things make this part of the proposals much more palatable. First, there are many cybercrimes that aren’t just industry specific. Lots of nasty stuff would simply fall through the cracks if left to individual industries. We might not see innovations and changes that affect all of us, and we not might be as good at communicating new general threats more publicly.

For example, the fastest growing malware targets smartphones. With the right hack, your phone can be used to bug you or see what its camera sees. Not a great sales pitch for a conflicted phone industry. How about cars getting hacked? What about Skype-enabled TVs peering into thousands of homes and the streams being sold on the dark web? We might want companies to share that kind of information with the government — and us — without too much fear of reprisal.

Probably more important than our internet-of-everything gadgets are the power, water, sewage, manufacturing and transportation networks. A surprise, broad attack might put us, if only temporarily, somewhere between now and the Middle Ages. And even though governments are trying hard to protect this infrastructure, we’d probably want any hint of a private breach likely to be correlated with a broad-scale, warfare-like attack shared centrally (sooner rather than later).

In summary, I believe Obama’s proposals are well-intentioned. Information sharing is, on balance, a good thing. They at least start to address a set of problems that will impact the next generation even more than ours and may be the basis for some fundamental research. But I just doubt that they will be very effective in combating cybercrime.

So what is the answer?  We know it is a global problem requiring a global solution. We know we need more global cyber capacity to fight cybercrime. International cooperation is critical. Global information sharing is also important — and we are doing some of it. A better understanding of the psychology of how insiders are coaxed, blackmailed, or tricked into sharing access to their computer systems would help organizations defend themselves. Good technology exists and will help, if we use it. Most important is education: Everyone — individuals, employees, companies, and boards of directors — needs to understand the new dangers.

One of the best results of Obama’s initiative may be to put the cybercrime issue a little higher on everyone’s agenda. If it spurs more good guys to learn and focus on the challenges, this second-order effect may have the greater impact.

View the original article here

Effective Instructional Time Use for School Leaders: Longitudinal Evidence From Observations of Principals

Impact Factor:2.779 | Ranking:6/219 in Education & Educational ResearchSource:2012 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2013)
Scholars have long argued that principals should be instructional leaders, but few studies have empirically linked specific instructional leadership behaviors to school performance. This study examines the associations between leadership behaviors and student achievement gains using a unique data source: in-person, full-day observations of approximately 100 urban principals collected over 3 school years. We find that principals’ time spent broadly on instructional functions does not predict student achievement growth. Aggregating across leadership behaviors, however, masks that some specific instructional investments predict year-to-year gains. In particular, time spent on teacher coaching, evaluation, and developing the school’s educational program predict positive achievement gains. In contrast, time spent on informal classroom walkthroughs negatively predicts student growth, particularly in high schools. Additional survey and interview evidence suggests this negative association may arise because principals often do not use walkthroughs as part of a broader school improvement strategy.

Received April 18, 2013. Revision received August 6, 2013. Accepted August 29, 2013.

View the original article here

Teamwork Exercise: Tell a Story about Your Past

Exercise Similarity Analysis helps you to find the training activities you are looking for quicker than ever before by letting you follow clusters of similar exercises. Our Similarity Algorithm can accurately spot exercises in the collection which are similar to the one you are currently reading. These are shown in order of similarity at the end of each training activity. Following clusters of exercises can inspire you to find better exercises suitable for your specific training needs.

We are constantly looking for ways to make it easier for you to find what you want. Please let us know about your views on this or other features.

View the original article here

Talent acquisition and development specialist

Talent acquisition and development specialist London

This FMCG organisation has global brand presence and is well known for their people values. In this unique role, you will take on a lead role for the UK and Ireland population as a Talent Acquisition specialist as well as widening your remit to Training and Development. You will work closely with your European and Global counterparts to own and drive the UK and Ireland recruitment process, essentially being the face for this brand in the external market place when it comes to talent attraction.

Our client is looking for someone who can bring expertise at a strategic level to the talent acquisition and resourcing space for the business or someone who can bring strong training skills to the table and shows the aptitude and strategic capability to take on talent acquisition as part of their role remit. The long term aspirations for this role is that the indvdual will also become a HR Business Partner in the near future for one of the smaller internal client groups in the UK and Ireland.

This is a really great opportunity for someone who wants to join a large blue-chip business in a role that offers autonomy, growth and international scope. Longer term, our client are well know to rotate talent internally and across their markets on an international level which could be a compelling pull for the right candidate. We are looking for someone bright, commercially astute and with end to end skills in resourcing or training and development, industry experience is not essentially although you must be able to show that you have worked in a matrix structure ideally within an international organisation.

SR Group is acting as an Employment Agency in relation to this vacancy.

LocationLondonSalary£45000 - £55000 per annum + bonus & benefitsReference143009KRIContact NameKetna Ramchandani

This FMCG organisation has global brand presence and is well known for their people values. In this unique role, you will take on a lead role for the UK and Ireland population as a Talent Acquisition specialist as well as widening your remit to Training and Development. You will work closely with your European and Global counterparts to own and drive the UK and Ireland recruitment process, essentially being the face for this brand in the external market place when it comes to talent attraction.

Our client is looking for someone who can bring expertise at a strategic level to the talent acquisition and resourcing space for the business or someone who can bring strong training skills to the table and shows the aptitude and strategic capability to take on talent acquisition as part of their role remit. The long term aspirations for this role is that the indvdual will also become a HR Business Partner in the near future for one of the smaller internal client groups in the UK and Ireland.

This is a really great opportunity for someone who wants to join a large blue-chip business in a role that offers autonomy, growth and international scope. Longer term, our client are well know to rotate talent internally and across their markets on an international level which could be a compelling pull for the right candidate. We are looking for someone bright, commercially astute and with end to end skills in resourcing or training and development, industry experience is not essentially although you must be able to show that you have worked in a matrix structure ideally within an international organisation.

SR Group is acting as an Employment Agency in relation to this vacancy.

Apply now

View the original article here

Operational Trainer - West Byfleet and Uxbridge

Operational Trainer - West Byfleet and Uxbridge West Byfleet and Uxbridge

Anchor has an exciting opportunity for an experienced Operational Trainer to join their team. Their main role will to be deliver effective learning & development interventions that drives and supports a competent and capable workforce.

The successful candidate will be expected to manage the regional training centre, to ensure events are planned, in line with demand, to maximum occupancy and that drives or maintains statutory and mandatory training targets.

Location: West Byfleet and Uxbridge

Key Responsibilities:

• Training delivery
• Daily running of the regional training centre
• Planning interventions based on demand identified in the regional / national plans
• Adapting training materials or techniques to meet the needs of the audience
• Revision of training materials based on feedback and evaluation

Required Knowledge & Experience:

Qualifications

• Certificate in training practice, NVQ or equivalent experience
• Part of fully qualified membership of CIPD
• PTTLLS or working towards PTTLLS
• Specific care or health & safety qualifications, would be advantageous

Experience Required:

• Experience of the full learning cycle (training needs analysis, design, delivery and evaluation)
Having worked in a person centred/customer focused environment.
• Experience of training delivery to a diverse and multi skilled workforce
• Proven track record in implementing blended learning techniques

Required Skills:

• Up to date knowledge of industry best practice and standards as well as developments in the L&D arena
• Blended learning techniques
• Appropriate development interventions, suitable for learners in a customer facing environment

Closing Date: 02/03/2015

LocationWest Byfleet and UxbridgeSalary£30 to £34k depending on experienceReference011920Contact NameCintia Santoianni

Anchor has an exciting opportunity for an experienced Operational Trainer to join their team. Their main role will to be deliver effective learning & development interventions that drives and supports a competent and capable workforce.

The successful candidate will be expected to manage the regional training centre, to ensure events are planned, in line with demand, to maximum occupancy and that drives or maintains statutory and mandatory training targets.

Location: West Byfleet and Uxbridge

Key Responsibilities:

• Training delivery
• Daily running of the regional training centre
• Planning interventions based on demand identified in the regional / national plans
• Adapting training materials or techniques to meet the needs of the audience
• Revision of training materials based on feedback and evaluation

Required Knowledge & Experience:

Qualifications

• Certificate in training practice, NVQ or equivalent experience
• Part of fully qualified membership of CIPD
• PTTLLS or working towards PTTLLS
• Specific care or health & safety qualifications, would be advantageous

Experience Required:

• Experience of the full learning cycle (training needs analysis, design, delivery and evaluation)
Having worked in a person centred/customer focused environment.
• Experience of training delivery to a diverse and multi skilled workforce
• Proven track record in implementing blended learning techniques

Required Skills:

• Up to date knowledge of industry best practice and standards as well as developments in the L&D arena
• Blended learning techniques
• Appropriate development interventions, suitable for learners in a customer facing environment

Closing Date: 02/03/2015

Apply now

View the original article here

Strategic HR - Talent & Leadership Specialist

Strategic HR - Talent & Leadership Specialist London

Shape the MPS of tomorrow

To protect London and fight crime, the MPS must be the best it can be. That means our leaders must be trained to provide support, direction and vision for a truly exceptional team. That’s where you come in. As a Strategic HR Talent & Leadership Specialist, you’ll be the driving force behind our talent programmes, making sure senior figures are fully equipped to excel.

This is an exciting opportunity to design and develop MPS Talent & Leadership programmes. You’ll make sure senior leaders have the experience and skills to fulfil MPS goals, through expert support, interventions and training. You’ll also design assessments that help us evaluate leadership potential. It’s your chance not only to influence the Met at the highest level, but to join Strategic HR, which delivers our overall People Strategy. You’ll bring your expertise to this 45-strong team, working both within and outside your specialism.

An experienced HR professional with CIPD membership (or equivalent accreditation) or equivalent experience, you’ll have worked on Talent and Leadership programmes before. You’ve shaped strategies and designed processes, drawing on your knowledge of current talent management practice. This should cover leadership and development, and selection and engagement. You’re also a skilled project manager, with a proven ability to deliver change. Now you’re ready to use this expertise plus your collaborative approach to create an outstanding leadership team. One that can make a real difference to the Met and, ultimately, the people of London.   

To apply, please visit our website to download a role specific information pack and application form.

Completed applications must be returned by Friday 27th February 2015.

We view diversity as fundamental to our success. To tackle today’s complex policing challenges, we need a workforce made up from all ofLondon’s communities. Applications from across the community are therefore essential.

LocationLondonSalaryc£43,000Reference392357Contact NameRecruitment

Shape the MPS of tomorrow

To protect London and fight crime, the MPS must be the best it can be. That means our leaders must be trained to provide support, direction and vision for a truly exceptional team. That’s where you come in. As a Strategic HR Talent & Leadership Specialist, you’ll be the driving force behind our talent programmes, making sure senior figures are fully equipped to excel.

This is an exciting opportunity to design and develop MPS Talent & Leadership programmes. You’ll make sure senior leaders have the experience and skills to fulfil MPS goals, through expert support, interventions and training. You’ll also design assessments that help us evaluate leadership potential. It’s your chance not only to influence the Met at the highest level, but to join Strategic HR, which delivers our overall People Strategy. You’ll bring your expertise to this 45-strong team, working both within and outside your specialism.

An experienced HR professional with CIPD membership (or equivalent accreditation) or equivalent experience, you’ll have worked on Talent and Leadership programmes before. You’ve shaped strategies and designed processes, drawing on your knowledge of current talent management practice. This should cover leadership and development, and selection and engagement. You’re also a skilled project manager, with a proven ability to deliver change. Now you’re ready to use this expertise plus your collaborative approach to create an outstanding leadership team. One that can make a real difference to the Met and, ultimately, the people of London.   

To apply, please visit our website to download a role specific information pack and application form.

Completed applications must be returned by Friday 27th February 2015.

We view diversity as fundamental to our success. To tackle today’s complex policing challenges, we need a workforce made up from all ofLondon’s communities. Applications from across the community are therefore essential.

Apply now

View the original article here

Strategic HR - Talent & Leadership Specialist

Strategic HR - Talent & Leadership Specialist London

Shape the MPS of tomorrow

To protect London and fight crime, the MPS must be the best it can be. That means our leaders must be trained to provide support, direction and vision for a truly exceptional team. That’s where you come in. As a Strategic HR Talent & Leadership Specialist, you’ll be the driving force behind our talent programmes, making sure senior figures are fully equipped to excel.

This is an exciting opportunity to design and develop MPS Talent & Leadership programmes. You’ll make sure senior leaders have the experience and skills to fulfil MPS goals, through expert support, interventions and training. You’ll also design assessments that help us evaluate leadership potential. It’s your chance not only to influence the Met at the highest level, but to join Strategic HR, which delivers our overall People Strategy. You’ll bring your expertise to this 45-strong team, working both within and outside your specialism.

An experienced HR professional with CIPD membership (or equivalent accreditation) or equivalent experience, you’ll have worked on Talent and Leadership programmes before. You’ve shaped strategies and designed processes, drawing on your knowledge of current talent management practice. This should cover leadership and development, and selection and engagement. You’re also a skilled project manager, with a proven ability to deliver change. Now you’re ready to use this expertise plus your collaborative approach to create an outstanding leadership team. One that can make a real difference to the Met and, ultimately, the people of London.   

To apply, please visit our website to download a role specific information pack and application form.

Completed applications must be returned by Friday 27th February 2015.

We view diversity as fundamental to our success. To tackle today’s complex policing challenges, we need a workforce made up from all ofLondon’s communities. Applications from across the community are therefore essential.

LocationLondonSalaryc£43,000Reference392357Contact NameRecruitment

Shape the MPS of tomorrow

To protect London and fight crime, the MPS must be the best it can be. That means our leaders must be trained to provide support, direction and vision for a truly exceptional team. That’s where you come in. As a Strategic HR Talent & Leadership Specialist, you’ll be the driving force behind our talent programmes, making sure senior figures are fully equipped to excel.

This is an exciting opportunity to design and develop MPS Talent & Leadership programmes. You’ll make sure senior leaders have the experience and skills to fulfil MPS goals, through expert support, interventions and training. You’ll also design assessments that help us evaluate leadership potential. It’s your chance not only to influence the Met at the highest level, but to join Strategic HR, which delivers our overall People Strategy. You’ll bring your expertise to this 45-strong team, working both within and outside your specialism.

An experienced HR professional with CIPD membership (or equivalent accreditation) or equivalent experience, you’ll have worked on Talent and Leadership programmes before. You’ve shaped strategies and designed processes, drawing on your knowledge of current talent management practice. This should cover leadership and development, and selection and engagement. You’re also a skilled project manager, with a proven ability to deliver change. Now you’re ready to use this expertise plus your collaborative approach to create an outstanding leadership team. One that can make a real difference to the Met and, ultimately, the people of London.   

To apply, please visit our website to download a role specific information pack and application form.

Completed applications must be returned by Friday 27th February 2015.

We view diversity as fundamental to our success. To tackle today’s complex policing challenges, we need a workforce made up from all ofLondon’s communities. Applications from across the community are therefore essential.

Apply now

View the original article here

The Real Reason Companies Are Spending Less on Tech

by Justin Fox  |   9:00 AM August 28, 2014

After the dot-com bubble, investment in software and information processing equipment in the U.S. tumbled, and stayed down. As a percentage of GDP, it’s now back to mid-1990s levels:

There’s a version of the chart above in the much-discussed paper that MIT economist David Autor presented last week at the Federal Reserve’s annual Jackson Hole meeting. As part of a thoughtful and generally sanguine look at whether machines are going to take all of our jobs, Autor wrote that whatever might happen in the future, computers and their robot friends didn’t seem to be taking our jobs now:

As documented in [the chart] the onset of the weak U.S. labor market of the 2000s coincided with a sharp deceleration in computer investment — a fact that appears first-order inconsistent with the onset of a new era of capital-labor substitution.

Autor suggested that financial-market troubles (first the dot-com bust, then the global financial crisis) coupled with “China’s rapid rise to a premier manufacturing exporter” probably played much bigger roles in U.S. job market troubles of the past decade than new technology had. That seems reasonable enough.

But I couldn’t help but fixate on that information-technology chart, which seemed to show corporate America giving up on IT. Maybe it was Nick Carr’s famous May 2003 HBR article “IT Doesn’t Matter” that did it. Or maybe corporate executives found that all that money they were pouring into computers wasn’t really paying off, or that even if it did, stock buybacks were an easier and safer path to keeping their paychecks big.

Or maybe modern information technology just keeps getting cheaper.

The software and devices of today can do vastly more than those of a decade ago, usually for the same or lower prices. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis try to adjust for such quality changes in calculating inflation and real GDP. They catch some flak for this from those who think they are understating inflation, but it seems like a necessary exercise, especially in IT. So I set about redoing the above chart using the “chained-dollar” inflation-and-deflation-adjusted versions of both GDP and investment in information technology equipment and software. I could only easily access data back to 1999, and I should note that the BEA explicitly cautions users of its data against doing what I did, “because the prices used as weights in the chained-dollar calculations usually differ from the prices in the reference period, and the resulting chained-dollar values for detailed GDP components usually do not sum to the chained-dollar estimate of GDP or to any intermediate aggregate.”

Got that? Anyway, here’s the chart:

So despite small drops amid the dot-com bust and the financial crisis, real investment in information technology has continued to rise. Well, sort of. The amount of money corporations have been putting into IT, relative to the size of the overall economy, dropped sharply in the early 2000s and has stayed down (that’s what the first chart shows). But the estimated value that they’ve been getting out of those investments has continued to rise.

I don’t think this chart helps a lot in answering whether the machines will take our jobs. The two charts together, though, do illuminate much about the strange economy of the past decade-plus.

Corporations have been spending relatively less on IT and getting dramatically more for the money. Their biggest area of capital investment, thus, has been something of a free lunch. The result: big profits, low capital spending, and big piles of cash that executives and boards don’t quite know what to do with.

You might think that the ever-bigger bang for the buck in IT would lead corporate managers to double down and invest even more, but as Clayton Christensen and Derek van Bever argued in the recent HBR article “The Capitalist’s Dilemma,” a variety of financial pressures are pushing them to focus on efficiency and performance improvement rather than investing in innovations that might create new markets.

The pace of improvement in IT is a giant gift that, since the early 2000s, only a few have been rushing to open.

View the original article here

Cancelling One-on-One Meetings Destroys Your Productivity

We all can agree that we have too many meetings. From the one-off event to the weekly check-in with an employee, meetings are taking an increasing amount of time in our daily work. But removing meetings from your calendar isn’t always the best way to take back your time.

When faced with an onslaught of regular meetings, many managers fall into the trap of believing that they’re too busy to keep their one-on-one meetings with their direct reports, figuring that these sit-downs are not as important as all the other items they have on their agenda. They assume these meetings can be substituted with an email exchange or an open-door policy, whereby people can stop by with a quick question, instead of demanding a 30-minute chunk of a day. But this strategy is highly inefficient. It’s true that canceling one-on-one meetings can appear to open up more space on your calendar, but in my experience as a time coach, I see again and again that not taking the time at the front end to effectively manage your direct reports leads to a lot of wasted time on the back end.

There are some obvious issues that come from cancelling these meetings with regards to your direct reports’ work. Not having a predictable scheduled time with you can lead employees to work on something incorrectly, which can cause unnecessary emergencies and wasted time fixing errors. Or it can lead to a decrease in productivity because employees are confused and unclear about their priorities and therefore don’t accomplish much.

But the costs of not keeping one-on-one meetings — and not running them effectively — are in fact much, much higher in terms of your own time management and productivity. When you don’t commit to specific time with boundaries when you will devote your attention to your direct reports, they need to find other, much less effective ways to connect with you. They may start sending you lots of e-mails because, as questions come up, they’re unsure of when they will meet with you next. They may hover outside your office trying to catch you in between meetings. This is not only a waste of their time, waiting for a response or hanging out like lobbyists in hopes of catching a few distracted minutes with you, but also this leads to you feeling no sense of control over your schedule. You’re constantly distracted. You never know when someone will be at your door, so you don’t feel like you can plan to get your important work done (or even answer e-mails) in the gaps between meetings. If they knew they could count on their one-on-one time with you, they could save those questions and go through them with you all at once.

How to make them more productive.

When you cancel one-on-ones and compensate with an open door policy, your time investment mimics that of a call center employee who takes requests in the order they are received, instead of an effective manager and executive who aligns his time investment with his priorities. Yes, giving feedback and support is part of your role, but it’s absolutely not all it takes to operate in an effective way in your position.

To help reinstate a sense of predictability with your direct reports, get in place weekly or biweekly recurring meetings. Make a commitment to do whatever possible to keep them, even if it means you connect by phone instead of in person or for a shorter amount of time.

Then, as you increase your level of commitment to your employees, require that same level of commitment from them by holding them accountable for the effectiveness of their interactions with you. Request that tracking documents are updated in advance of your meetings and reports on action items are sent in advance for you to review quickly. This teaches your staff to think activities through, anticipate issues, problem solve on their own, and effectively leverage your time instead of dropping by whenever questions come up. Your one-on-one time can then be spent on answering questions, problem solving, and strategic thinking instead of status updates. This is also an opportunity for you to offer direction on priorities and strategy, since with your uninterrupted open time, you can think strategically about what’s happening and communicate that to your direct reports.

This also means that you want to create the expectation that all nonurgent items will be covered in your scheduled meetings and that it’s not acceptable to drop by on a frequent basis with questions that could easily be covered in a one-on-one. You can also save your nonurgent e-mails and reply to them all verbally when you meet.

To maximize the effectiveness of this strategy — especially when you’re retraining your staff — you may need to close your door during some portion of the day so you can focus on the activities you need to get done, whether it’s strategy work, prep for a presentation, or simply pounding through some e-mail. Closing your door isn’t saying you don’t care about people or their work problems, but it is saying that you honor your commitments to yourself and other important work. Your direct reports are less likely to violate this uninterrupted work time, since you’ve shown them the respect of making and keeping your one-on-one meetings with them. They should have what they need to move forward with their own projects, so you can focus on yours without concern that you’re the bottleneck.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that you keep your door closed all the time or that you never accept questions in between one-on-ones. But by creating a culture where these regular meetings are respected and dropping by is the exception, not the norm, you create a much more respectful, efficient, and effective culture in which everyone has a better ability to align their time investment with their priorities.

View the original article here

Restore Trust at Work with These 3 Words

by Reid Hoffman, Ben Casnocha and Chris Yeh  |   8:00 AM July 10, 2014

We are allies. Three simple words. Yet when spoken by a manager to an employee, these may be three of the most powerful words possible.

Most of us spend the majority of our waking hours at work, on our way to and from work, or thinking about work. When we meet someone new, the first question Americans ask and are asked is typically, “So, what do you do?” When we describe someone else, we usually lead with their profession: “She’s a doctor.”

Given how important work seems in our lives, it is tragic that most employment relationships are built on a lie.

Managers pretend that employees have a job for life. Employees pretend that they intend to work for their company for the rest of their careers. But deep down, both parties don’t believe their own words.

You can’t build a trusting relationship on a foundation of dishonesty and self-deception.

Yet the “honest” approach of considering every job temporary, and every employee a “free agent” leads to a bleak, cynical world without trust or loyalty.

The answer is for managers and employees to treat each other as allies: Independent and autonomous players who voluntarily come together to work towards mutually agreed upon goals.

Treating employees like allies allows managers and companies to build loyalty without lying. Successful alliances can be renewed and updated, allowing employees to construct a successful career filled with professional growth without ever changing employers. And employees who choose to leave can do so on amicable terms and with fond memories of what the members of the alliance achieved together.

This open, accepting approach allows managers and employees to be honest with each other, providing a solid foundation for mutual trust, mutual investment, and mutual benefit. It creates a bigger pie for everyone rather than treating our work relationships as a zero-sum game.

We’ve thought a great deal about this approach and how to put it into effect, including concepts like Tours of Duty, Network Intelligence, and Corporate Alumni Networks. We’ve tried to build a rich framework that lets managers change their employee relationships, whether you’re a Fortune 500 CEO or a newly minted team leader.

But, really, your journey as a manager will begin the next time you meet one-on-one with an employee and speak the three simple words that show that you’re committed to an open, honest approach: We are allies.

View the original article here

Get More Done During Your Commute

By now, we all know multitasking doesn’t work. Our brains are incapable of focusing on more than one thing at a time. We might think we’re multitasking as we scan our email while on a conference call, but we’re not. We’re actually switch-tasking – quickly shifting attention from one thing to another and then back again — diluting our focus and losing precious seconds each time we switch. Those seconds add up to many hours of wasted time every week.

So why do so many of us still try to multitask? We’re too busy with too much to do and too little time to do it in. The temptation to accomplish multiple things at the same time is practically irresistible. Even when we know it doesn’t work.

I was thinking about this temptation as I rode my bike to a meeting downtown, about five miles from my apartment in New York City. As I breathed hard and felt my heart beat, I suddenly realized that I had overcome the multitasking hurdle. I was simultaneously getting 30 minutes of exercise and commuting to my meeting.

In other words, you can multitask as long as you’re doing two things that don’t tax the same parts of your brain. Email while on a conference call? Bad idea. But exercise and commuting? It’s a perfect multitasking marriage.

What makes it so perfect isn’t simply that it’s doable. It’s perfect because each activity is enriched when combined with the other. My commute is shorter and more predictable on a bike compared with a subway and I arrive refreshed and energized. And my ride feels more purposeful when it’s taking me to a destination — commuting is the motivation I need to get on the bike.

It turns out that commuting time is a great multitasking partner to a number of different activities. And, since so many of us spend a considerable part of our day commuting, it’s worth being strategic about using that time. So what’s the best way to do that?

First, identify the most prominent gap in your life. Do you need more relaxation? More exercise? Are there things you’ve been longing to learn? Are you feeling disconnected from others? What in your life do you feel gets short shrift?

Once you’ve identified the gap, use your commute to close it. If it’s exercise you need, then bike or walk to work, even if it’s just partway. If it’s relaxation you’re missing, then do nothing or read a fun book. If you want to learn something, then read about it or, if you have internet access, watch a video or participate in an online course. If you’re feeling lonely, write some emails that will reconnect you to people you cherish.

You need to factor in your mode of transportation of course. I wouldn’t suggest reading or texting while driving. But an audio book (relaxing/learning) or a hands-free phone call (reconnecting) would work well.

How to be more productive at work.

Here’s the point: Don’t simply default to your typical time fillers. Use your commuting time to bring yourself closer to the life you want to live. Make a choice that will leave you feeling more accomplished and refreshed when you arrive at your destination.

And, no matter what gap you’re filling and what mode of transportation you’re using, there are two things all of us should incorporate into our commute every day:

During your morning commute, spend five to ten minutes preparing for your day and, during your evening commute, spend five to ten minutes closing it down.

In the morning, think forward through your day, hour by hour. What will make this day a success? With whom are you meeting? What are you trying to accomplish? What might throw you off? How will you handle it? Do you expect to have any difficult conversations? How will you approach them? Any risks you want to take? How will you initiate them? Your day is much more likely to be productive if you think it through and plan it out.

Then, during your evening commute, think back through your day hour by hour and glean wisdom and connection from it. How did the day go? What worked? What didn’t? What do you want to do the same – or differently – tomorrow? With whom can you share feedback? Who should you thank? What happened today for which you can feel grateful?

Your morning commute will prepare you for a productive day and your evening commute will help you learn, grow, and connect.

Not only will you be productive while traveling, but your work during the commute will also make you far more productive after traveling. That’s productivity times three: triple-tasking.

If you do it all on a bike, you’ll be quadruple-tasking. You’ll have commuted, exercised, prepared for your day, and, since the ride will leave you energized, you’ll also be emotionally ready to face any challenges with courage and power.

Who says you can’t multitask?

View the original article here

Personality Tests Can Help Balance a Team

It’s just plain hard to get people working together the way you’d like. That’s because, left to our own devices, we are often too greedy and self-centered to collaborate, preferring instead to compete as individuals. Sigmund Freud made this point, comparing humans to hedgehogs in the winter: When hedgehogs get cold, they huddle together to warm up, but then things become unbearably prickly as they sting each other with their spines.

We are the most social species on earth — but also inherently selfish. Darwinian theories of organizational behavior support Freud’s view, highlighting the fundamental tension between “getting ahead” and “getting along” in the workplace.

Resolving that tension involves balancing individuals’ agendas and the goals of the group. To do that, it’s critical to select the right team members — people who are likely to gel, particularly when the pressure is on. Even the most successful leaders, such as Sir Russell Coutts, who led Oracle Team USA to win America’s Cup in boat racing, admit that this is “one of the hardest things to do.”

Many leaders choose team members purely on the basis of functional skill — treating them, essentially, as fungible assets or the individual components of a machine. Others, perhaps driven by their own narcissism, pick people who are like them, which kills diversity and breeds groupthink. Alternatively, they just assemble the smartest folks they can find.

None of these tactics work, because, as research shows, the dynamics of interpersonal relationships depend on individuals’ personalities, not on hard skills or expertise. You can put world-class talent together on a team, and it may still fail to perform as a cohesive unit. In fact, the only way to create a team that’s worth more than the sum of its individual contributors is to select members on the basis of personality, soft skills, and values.

To that end, a number of organizations are using personality profiling to build their teams. For example, Edmunds, a sort of TripAdvisor for cars, uses personality tests to identify the most promising candidates for its executive team. Buffer, a social media firm, uses them to create virtual teams and pilot novel organizational structures that eschew managers and formal roles.  The New Zealand Army, which of course does have formal roles, molds teams based on personality for its outdoor development races through the mountains.

Sponsored by Accenture How tools are changing the way we manage, learn, and get things done.

The science behind personality assessment has advanced well beyond the Myers-Briggs, a relatively poor and discredited psychological tool. Rigorous assessment tools reliably predict real-world behaviors and desirable business outcomes. Although many tools exist, they fall into three basic categories, because they evaluate three core elements of your personality: the bright side (how you behave when you are at your best), the dark side (how you behave when you are stressed or under pressure), and the inside (your needs, motives and preferences).

Importantly, assessment tools can be used to profile not just individual team members but also entire groups — and they can indicate whether the group is likely to bond or fracture by examining qualities that predict both success and failure.  For example, we know that teams with members who are open minded and emotionally intelligent leverage conflict to improve performance, whereas neurotic and closed-minded teams fall apart in the face of disagreement. A well-known example is the disintegration of the French national football team at the 2010 World Cup.

Although Deloitte recently complained that the field of people analytics is “stuck in neutral,” using the whole group as the unit of analysis is a real breakthrough, because it enables focused coaching for the team.  In our consulting work, we use a personality test to see whether teams have people playing five key roles necessary for performance: results, relationships, process, innovation, and pragmatism.  We are finding that typical top leadership teams are heavy on results and light on relationships and process.  As a consequence, they need to moderate the tendencies to compete internally, generate too many action plans, and leave follow-through to others.

Teams also perform better when their members share work values.  A long series of studies conducted in the British National Health Service has shown that teams whose values cohere identify more strongly as a group and display greater levels of innovation. Because values are a guide for behavioral choices, group members who share similar values are more likely to agree about group actions, and vice-versa.  In assessing the leadership team of a charity for maternal health, we found that it fell apart when it was unable to reconcile altruistic motives held by some members with new board members’ commercial imperatives.

Most leaders understand the benefits of collaboration — they’ve seen plenty of evidence that it increases firms’ competitiveness and solves thorny problems. But they’re straining against the fact that humans are naturally social animals within bounds — of geography, ethnicity, and loyalty. By building teams that can collaborate across those boundaries, they’ll be better equipped to deliver what their organizations need, even in this age of matrixed reporting and globally dispersed workforces.

View the original article here

Learning & Development Business Partner - North East

Learning & Development Business Partner - North East Home Based, Areas covered: Felling, Northumberland, County Durham, Tyne & Wear, Teeside, and North Yorkshire.

With extensive experience of best practice L&D delivery solutions, you are ready to develop your career in a business that will encourage your insight and input, welcome your ideas and act on them. That business is AkzoNobel. Home to the Dulux Super Brand and world class products including Sikkens, Cuprinol and Polycell, we are looking for a senior level L&D professional to lead and manage the deployment of our UK L&D strategy. This is a high profile role within our business, part of a new global L&D operating model combining global aligned programs with local bespoke initiatives.
We operate in a number of important market segments ranging from buildings and infrastructure to transport, industrial and consumer goods. We’re also the sector leader in sustainability and number one in the renowned Dow Jones Sustainability Index. We are also named amongst the Top Employers in the UK.  You can’t make a great impact like this without having great people. We want to be the best – to use our leading market positions to deliver a leading performance – and for that, we need the best.  Is that you?
As the Learning & Development Business Partner for the North East you will provide high level Account Manager consultation support for this region. Working alongside senior local HR Business Partners you will be responsible for developing and implementing L&D strategic plans for each business.  You will analyse skill gaps, gain insight of key development needs and challenges and formulate plans to improve internal capability, people engagement and performance.  As the Subject Matter Expert on a country-wide basis for Commercial L&D Capability, you will partner with global and local commercial excellence teams to provide high level L&D consultation to drive people capability within UK Commercial functions. 

Degree qualified (or equivalent experience) you will have proven high level experience in L&D strategy at senior level and be a competent high level facilitator.  Ideally a CIPD (or equivalent) member with a recognised coaching qualification would be an advantage. You will be commercially astute, results focussed and a team player.  You will champion and drive the transition to a learning culture and self-managed development.  You will be effective at analysing needs and devising cohesive solutions, great at motivating and engaging diverse audiences and be a skilled influencer.

At AkzoNobel, we believe we can only grow our business as fast as we grow our people, so if you want to be L&D Business Partner in a business that will invest in you and give you the opportunity to develop please apply below.

AkzoNobel. Where your ideas go far.

LocationHome Based, Areas covered: Felling, Northumberland, County Durham, Tyne & Wear, Teeside, and North Yorkshire.SalaryCompetitive Salary & Benefits - up to 10% company bonus, company car, 25 days annual leave, pension, BUPA health insurance, 50% discount on our products.DurationPermanent full timeReference1400063EContact NameN/A

With extensive experience of best practice L&D delivery solutions, you are ready to develop your career in a business that will encourage your insight and input, welcome your ideas and act on them. That business is AkzoNobel. Home to the Dulux Super Brand and world class products including Sikkens, Cuprinol and Polycell, we are looking for a senior level L&D professional to lead and manage the deployment of our UK L&D strategy. This is a high profile role within our business, part of a new global L&D operating model combining global aligned programs with local bespoke initiatives.
We operate in a number of important market segments ranging from buildings and infrastructure to transport, industrial and consumer goods. We’re also the sector leader in sustainability and number one in the renowned Dow Jones Sustainability Index. We are also named amongst the Top Employers in the UK.  You can’t make a great impact like this without having great people. We want to be the best – to use our leading market positions to deliver a leading performance – and for that, we need the best.  Is that you?
As the Learning & Development Business Partner for the North East you will provide high level Account Manager consultation support for this region. Working alongside senior local HR Business Partners you will be responsible for developing and implementing L&D strategic plans for each business.  You will analyse skill gaps, gain insight of key development needs and challenges and formulate plans to improve internal capability, people engagement and performance.  As the Subject Matter Expert on a country-wide basis for Commercial L&D Capability, you will partner with global and local commercial excellence teams to provide high level L&D consultation to drive people capability within UK Commercial functions. 

Degree qualified (or equivalent experience) you will have proven high level experience in L&D strategy at senior level and be a competent high level facilitator.  Ideally a CIPD (or equivalent) member with a recognised coaching qualification would be an advantage. You will be commercially astute, results focussed and a team player.  You will champion and drive the transition to a learning culture and self-managed development.  You will be effective at analysing needs and devising cohesive solutions, great at motivating and engaging diverse audiences and be a skilled influencer.

At AkzoNobel, we believe we can only grow our business as fast as we grow our people, so if you want to be L&D Business Partner in a business that will invest in you and give you the opportunity to develop please apply below.

AkzoNobel. Where your ideas go far.

Apply now

View the original article here

Low-Skilled Workers Everywhere Are Getting Squeezed

by Walter Frick  |   5:00 PM May 7, 2014

The supply chain for German cars is significantly more globalized than it was a decade and a half ago. In 1995, 79% of the value created in the process of manufacturing a German automobile was captured by domestic firms and workers; by 2008, German companies and workers captured only 66%.

The difference is explained by the phenomenon of “production fragmentation,” in which different firms (and countries) specialize in producing different parts of a final good. German car companies still assemble the final product, but the value chain leading up to that last step has become more fragmented in recent years, and the role of foreign firms has increased.

A recent paper from the Journal of Economic Perspectives looks at the phenomenon of fragmentation in manufacturing and seeks to determine who is capturing value in today’s more global supply chains, as well as who is getting left behind.

To answer those questions, the authors look at the share of value in manufacturing captured by high-skilled workers (those with a college degree or equivalent), medium-skilled workers (high school degree), low-skilled workers (less than high school), and capital. (The latter category includes machinery, factories, and other physical capital, as well as natural resources, intellectual capital like patents, and returns to financial capital.)

This method of accounting looks at the sale price of a product and subtracts the cost of raw materials and other inputs. What is left over is the financial value created by the production process, which is split up between wages paid to workers, and returns to capital.

The paper reveals a shift in who captured value from 1995 to 2008, away from low- and medium-skilled workers and toward high-skilled labor and capital. That trend is visible in the context of German car manufacturing:

Globalization, and the resulting fragmentation of supply chains, hasn’t just shifted the geography of production. It has meaningfully changed the returns to various stages of the production process. As the paper explains it:

Production processes in manufacturing have increasingly fragmented across national borders, and the change in their factor content was clearly biased towards high-skilled labor and capital. This pattern was not only found for activities carried out in high-income countries, but also in emerging economies.

It’s no secret that in developed economies, high-skilled workers are leaving their low-skilled counterparts behind. More interesting is the dynamic in emerging economies. Despite the fact that low-cost labor is a source of competitive advantage for many of these economies, the share of value captured by low-skilled workers has decreased in these countries as well:

The bulk of value in emerging market manufacturing is captured by factory owners, financiers, and the like, because these investments are in shorter supply than is the low-skilled labor that complements them. But while capital’s share of value captured did increase between 1995 and 2008, on a percentage-basis it was high- and medium-skilled labor that increased the most.

Behind all of this, the authors argue, is “a pervasive process of technological change that is biased towards the use of skilled labor and capital.”

Less skilled workers in developed nations may be losing jobs to those in developing ones, but ultimately both groups face the same challenge. No matter where a product is assembled, high-skilled labor and capital reap the highest returns.

View the original article here

How to Manage Remote Direct Reports

Geographically dispersed teams are increasingly common in the modern workplace — perhaps you’re based in your company’s New York headquarters and your team works out of offices in Denver and Charlotte or maybe you’re in San Francisco and manage telecommuters in LA and a group of developers in Minsk. How do you overcome the challenges of supervising employees in different locations and time zones? What steps should you take to build trust and open lines of communication? How should you establish routines? And how do you help remote workers feel part of a team?

What the Experts Say
One of the biggest misconceptions about managing remote workers is that it requires an entirely different skillset. “We have a tendency to overcompensate and approach remote workers and virtual teams as these mythical beasts,” says Mark Mortensen, an associate professor of Organizational Behavior at INSEAD. “But you shouldn’t think about them in a fundamentally different way. They are still people working in an organization to get stuff done. Treat them as such.” That said, managers must put in extra effort to cultivate a positive team dynamic and ensure remote workers feel connected to other colleagues. It requires a “proactive approach,” says Keith Ferrazzi, the founder and CEO of Ferrazzi Greenlight. So, whether your team is comprised of people in far-flung locations in faraway time zones or employees who work from home (or a combination of both), here are some pointers to keep things running smoothly.

Set expectations
“As the manager, you need to set clear, deliberate expectations in advance and establish ground rules for how interactions will take place,” says Ferrazzi. If you fail to do this, “things will break down immediately.” He recommends “establishing clear lines of accountability” from the outset of the working relationship by setting monthly, quarterly, and yearly performance goals as well as “targets for what ‘hitting it out of the park’ would mean.” Then, just as you would with employees working down the hall, “you should check in regularly on progress” through an agreed-upon schedule. Mortensen adds: be sure to make it clear that you’re “applying the same metrics to the rest of the team.” Remote workers “need to know that they’re not being treated differently and there’s no inequity.”

Visit on a predictable schedule
There are no rules governing precisely how often you need to see your remote workers in person, but Mortensen recommends visiting them regularly especially in the early stages. “If you can get yourself to their location when you first start working together, that’s invaluable,” he says. “Seeing people one-on-one, face-to-face sets the tone and gives people a sense of comfort.” As the arrangement stabilizes, “predictability is more important than a particular frequency,” he says. “If your direct report knows you’re there every six months, it helps build trust.” When you’re at their location, make an effort to “understand their environment and get a sense of what it’s like” to work from afar. “Join in on a conference call to the home office so you can get a glimpse of [the situation] from their perspective,” Mortensen says.

Encourage communication
The key to managing relationships with remote employees, says Ferrazzi, is to “set an appropriate cadence” of communications—including how quickly employees need to respond to email; what follow-up steps should be taken; and on which days check-in calls should occur. “If you, the manager, don’t create good, open communication channels, the remote worker will feel, well, ‘remote’ and forgotten,” he says. It’s also important to establish frequent, recurring team meetings that at least attempt to accommodate everyone’s schedule, he adds. In light of time-zone constraints, it’s considerate to set up the meetings on a rotating schedule so that no one team member or region is unduly burdened or disrupted. Encourage the use of instant messaging, blogs, wikis, and other online collaboration tools and apps. Your team must “understand that they have an obligation” to stay in regular contact, says Mortensen.

Leading Teams Article Four elements are crucial for success.

Spark impromptu interactions
Unplanned conversations between coworkers are “important for flows of knowledge throughout an organization,” says Mortensen, which is why you — the manager — have a responsibility to “literally create water cooler moments.” Video links between offices “create a shared space and provide more opportunities for these spontaneous — but often very productive” workplace conversations, he says. “It might feel weird the first day it’s on, but by the tenth day, people are more comfortable.” When it’s not possible (or preferable) to have a camera that’s always on, Ferrazzi recommends regular use of technologies like Skype and WebEx. Video technology, he says, “brings us together and connects us, increasing the intimacy of our relationships with one another.”

Nurture familiarity
Building trust and familiarity with your direct reports requires you get to know them on a personal level. With remote workers “this takes additional effort,” says Mortensen. He suggests reserving the first few minutes of calls and videoconferences to simply “chew the fat.” You should talk about “the things you usually talk about at work”— weekend plans, kids, pets, or last night’s big game. Encourage your direct reports to do the same with their remote colleagues. This social bonding “builds essential empathy, trust, and camaraderie,” Ferrazzi says. “What binds together virtual teams are the personal details.”

Make them feel part of the team
Physical distance can sometimes create an “us versus them” feeling. Mortensen says it’s critical that you “watch the language you use when talking about remote workers and make sure you’re not creating fractures within your team.” Concentrate on what you and your direct reports have in common ­— organizational goals and objectives, for example. Remember, too, that remote team members often feel somewhat invisible and “that their actions and efforts aren’t noticed.” Being generous with public praise and acknowledgement of remote employees helps “make sure their work is recognized” and is a signal to “coworkers that they’re pulling their weight,” says Mortensen.

Principles to Remember

Do

Get to know your remote reports on a personal level by reserving a few minutes during meetings and calls for casual workplace conversationsEstablish a schedule of communication both between you and your remote employee and between the remote employee and the rest of the teamUse video technology to spark spontaneous interactions among your team members

Don’t

Evaluate the job performance of remote workers differently from the way you assess co-located colleagues — apply the same metrics across your teamWorry too much about setting up constant in-person meetings with your remote workers — predictable visits are more important than frequent onesForget to acknowledge the work of remote workers so their efforts don’t go unnoticed

Case Study #1: Unite employees around a common goal
Arvind Sarin, the co-founder and CEO of Copper Mobile, a mobile app development firm, manages over 100 employees split between the company’s headquarters in Dallas, Texas, and its office in Noida, India. The majority of the company’s clients are in North America. Because of the difference in time zones, there was some resentment between team members. “There was still a feeling of: ‘Oh, that team over there rolls out at 6pm while we’re here working late into the night,’” he explains.

To mitigate the building resentment and bring the team together, Arvind decided to be more open about the company’s overarching goals and financial targets. He took a new approach with a big project Copper Mobile was working on for an LA-based dating company. “In order to get everyone on the same page, I painted a picture of our strategy so that everyone — from developers in India to the leadership team here — would know what we’re doing,” he says.

His aim was to “lay it all out” for employees in both offices “so that everyone knew what to expect” and felt bonded by a common goal — to successfully execute the project. In a series of meetings, “we explained how much revenue this client would bring in, what the billing rates would be, how long we expected the engagement to last, what the workflow would be like, and how we viewed this customer as a strategic client.”

Arvind’s transparency about the project united the team and motivated employees to work together. The project was a big success. “When you don’t give people information, they assume the worst,” he says. “Restating our vision and reminding people of what we were trying to achieve helped a lot.”

Case Study #2: Seize opportunities for in-person team bonding
Manon DeFelice, the founder and CEO of Inkwell, a specialized professional staffing company, manages an entirely virtual team.

At the moment, she has eleven employees — all of whom work from home — spread across the US. Recruiting and business development are run out of New York; legal is in Washington, DC; she also has colleagues in Austin, Miami, and Minneapolis. Manon herself is based in Connecticut. “Because we’re a virtual team, we don’t have that daily office chitchat,” she says, adding she has to work hard to make sure she is close to her colleagues and that everyone on her team “feels connected to, and trusts, each other.”

To encourage bonding, Manon tries to seize every opportunity to gather the group together face-to-face. She recently had a big pitch meeting in New York City. Instead of enlisting the help of only local employees, she invited everyone on the team to the City and then took them all out for celebratory dinner. “We are not renting expensive office space so I like to spend money taking my team out to nice restaurants. I want people to get to know each other — to talk to each other about their kids and their spouses—just as they would if they worked in an office together.”

Another way Manon lifts team morale is by being generous with praise. She regularly sends company-wide emails praising the team and singling out colleagues for a job well done. The emails, she says, provide public validation. “In an office, your boss might call to you from down the hall and say: ‘Awesome job on that project!’ and your colleagues would hear that and know you’re working hard.” Remote workers, though, don’t have that happen. “So I do public thank-you emails, and CC others as a way for them to ‘eavesdrop’ on the conversation.”

View the original article here

In China, Breathing Is a Work Hardship

by Andrew O’Connell  |   8:30 AM July 25, 2014

Expatriate employees of Coca-Cola working in China receive 15% bonuses because of the country’s air pollution, according to a Bloomberg article about a report in the Australian Financial Review (local Chinese aren’t eligible for the bonus). Panasonic has announced that it too will compensate expatriates in China because of air pollution. The U.S. State Department offers a “hardship differential” to employees who serve in posts with difficult circumstances, including unhealthful conditions; the differential ranges from zero in Kunming, China, to 30% in industrial areas such as Shenyang.

SOURCE:  Coke Pays Employees to Breathe China's Air (Bloomberg View)

View the original article here

E-Learning Manager

E-Learning Manager Dartford

Laing O'Rourke is a leading international engineering enterprise with world class capabilities. With revenues of £4.4bn, a forward order book of £8.2bn and over 15,000 employees their focus on continuous improvement coupled with a cultural philosophy framed around 'Excellence Plus', every aspect of client partnering, innovation, safety and investing in people is given the focus it truly deserves. With a track record of delivering many complex high profile UK and international construction and engineering projects, such as the Olympic Park, Laing O'Rourke continuously demonstrates just how agile and collaborative it is.

Laing O'Rourke holds the reputation of being the company most committed to people development within its sector. To continue to lead the field in the complex engineering sector, new challenges constantly appear and new capabilities need to be built and enhanced. A critical area of focus in delivering competitive advantage is in building technical capability. To that end Laing O'Rourke are building an L&D Academy that across some 15 functions will ensure each employee will have robust, accessible Career Toolkits in which competency frameworks and career corridors are housed. The Technical Capability function will build and fine tune a development program curricula aligned to the needs the Toolkits highlight. These will be industry leading blended solutions, either e-learning accessible through a learning portal or classroom based. Laing O'Rourke now wish to make the key appointment of e-Learning Manager to work closely with the Head of Technical Capability and Talent in driving towards this goal of an accessible, branded, technical learning offering of consistently high quality.

The e-Learning Manager will work across a range of key functions to identify and work with key technical stakeholders to understand ongoing and future technical capability needs. Then using their knowledge of how adults learn, build effective learning solutions. These will be created using both in-house and external resources, so a good knowledge of instructional design would be a distinct advantage as would be knowledge of on line training content development tools such as Articulate or Moodle. As Laing O'Rourke rapidly increase the numbers of entry level technical talent they are hiring, the e-Learning Manager will also play a key role in building the technical development aspects of their structured programs and will play a support role in how Laing O'Rourke attracts that sought after talent to join them.

You will need genuine energy and passion to make a difference and the credibility to develop a network with Subject Matter Experts across the business to enable your work. You might be an e-learning manager or instructional designer currently or a Learning and Development Business Partner with a potential interest in a broad technical e-Learning development role. Either way there is real scope to create a legacy within this role for both yourself and Laing O'Rourke, and with a well structured Learning and Talent function Laing O'Rourke presents significant opportunity for personal career growth. Whilst the role will be based in Dartford, there will be some need for travel across Laing O'Rourke's operations and some scope for remote working.

To apply, please e-mail your CV and covering letter, detailing your current remuneration package to our retained recruitment partners Paul Tanton & Michelle Lawton, Directors at Consult HR by clicking the "Apply Now" button below. All direct and third party CV's will be forwarded onto Consult.

LocationDartfordSalary£45000 - £55000 per annum + car and excellent benefits packageReferencePTML5944Contact NamePaul Tanton

Laing O'Rourke is a leading international engineering enterprise with world class capabilities. With revenues of £4.4bn, a forward order book of £8.2bn and over 15,000 employees their focus on continuous improvement coupled with a cultural philosophy framed around 'Excellence Plus', every aspect of client partnering, innovation, safety and investing in people is given the focus it truly deserves. With a track record of delivering many complex high profile UK and international construction and engineering projects, such as the Olympic Park, Laing O'Rourke continuously demonstrates just how agile and collaborative it is.

Laing O'Rourke holds the reputation of being the company most committed to people development within its sector. To continue to lead the field in the complex engineering sector, new challenges constantly appear and new capabilities need to be built and enhanced. A critical area of focus in delivering competitive advantage is in building technical capability. To that end Laing O'Rourke are building an L&D Academy that across some 15 functions will ensure each employee will have robust, accessible Career Toolkits in which competency frameworks and career corridors are housed. The Technical Capability function will build and fine tune a development program curricula aligned to the needs the Toolkits highlight. These will be industry leading blended solutions, either e-learning accessible through a learning portal or classroom based. Laing O'Rourke now wish to make the key appointment of e-Learning Manager to work closely with the Head of Technical Capability and Talent in driving towards this goal of an accessible, branded, technical learning offering of consistently high quality.

The e-Learning Manager will work across a range of key functions to identify and work with key technical stakeholders to understand ongoing and future technical capability needs. Then using their knowledge of how adults learn, build effective learning solutions. These will be created using both in-house and external resources, so a good knowledge of instructional design would be a distinct advantage as would be knowledge of on line training content development tools such as Articulate or Moodle. As Laing O'Rourke rapidly increase the numbers of entry level technical talent they are hiring, the e-Learning Manager will also play a key role in building the technical development aspects of their structured programs and will play a support role in how Laing O'Rourke attracts that sought after talent to join them.

You will need genuine energy and passion to make a difference and the credibility to develop a network with Subject Matter Experts across the business to enable your work. You might be an e-learning manager or instructional designer currently or a Learning and Development Business Partner with a potential interest in a broad technical e-Learning development role. Either way there is real scope to create a legacy within this role for both yourself and Laing O'Rourke, and with a well structured Learning and Talent function Laing O'Rourke presents significant opportunity for personal career growth. Whilst the role will be based in Dartford, there will be some need for travel across Laing O'Rourke's operations and some scope for remote working.

To apply, please e-mail your CV and covering letter, detailing your current remuneration package to our retained recruitment partners Paul Tanton & Michelle Lawton, Directors at Consult HR by clicking the "Apply Now" button below. All direct and third party CV's will be forwarded onto Consult.

Apply now

View the original article here