There’s an interesting discussion at the Harvard Business Blogs on the value of social media, Is Social Media Worth Your Time, in light of Beware Social Media Snake Oil in Business Week.
I like social media, especially in the workplace, but I will be the first to admit that it’s time consuming. I’ve found that the most I can do with social media is belong to Linkedin. I can’t do Facebook or Twitter. But if what you’re seeking if buzz, then you need to consider it.
Apparently it may be in your best financial interest to default on your home loan if your home is underwater (worth less than you owe), but for emotional reasons (e.g., shame) many people will not consider it:
Contrary to reports that homeowners are increasingly “walking away” from their mortgages, most homeowners continue to make their payments even when they are significantly underwater. This article suggests that most homeowners do not strategically default as a result of two emotional forces: 1) the desire to avoid the shame and guilt of foreclosure; and 2) exaggerated anxiety over foreclosure’s perceived consequences. Moreover, these emotional constraints are actively cultivated by the government and other social control agents in order to induce homeowners to ignore market and legal norms under which strategic default might not only be a viable option, but also the wisest financial decision.
It’s an interesting issue, really. You choose to play by one set of moral rules, and your lender (and the industry) use an entirely different set.
Read the abstract of an academic paper examining the issue here.
When Being Positive Is Entirely Meaningless is a great post about the need to mediate incessant positivism with some reality.
Our brains seem to fixate on the number three, and three is just enough times for something to be mentioned in a work of fiction for the reader to take note.
In management, the rule of three can also be a general guideline for when to address a management issue. If something happens once, it’s potentially an accident. If something happens twice, it’s a potential pattern. And if something happens a third time, it’s a recurrent issue, and time to have a chat. And it doesn’t just apply to managers and traditional workplaces. You can also use this rule as a consultant:
If someone makes a joke about my consulting rates — maybe they say something like, “well, with rates like those, it’s a good thing you add value (chuckle, chuckle).” I might laugh along with them but I notice my discomfort. The second time I smile but don’t laugh. The third time I say “This is the third time you’ve joked about my rates — I know it’s a joke but I also wonder if you feel like they exceed my value. If so, I’d like to talk about it with you.”
Several studies show that in order to increase “productivity,”* it is important to provide workers time for breaks, including around the water cooler. Through using badges with mics to monitor interactions, scientists recorded sociability as well as work habits:
….we monitored IT workers and their productivity using similar badges. Once again, we found that group cohesion was a central predictor of productivity. In fact, workers whose group cohesion was in the top third showed an increase in work productivity of more than 10%. In addition, workers who had access to more people, that is, their network of company contacts was larger, also demonstrated increased productivity. In this case, workers whose network access was in the top third of the group showed an additional productivity increase of 4%
So although you may feel guilty about time spent around the water cooler, it’s important to being human to connect with one another (and leads to an increase in “productivity.”)
*Productivity will be shown in scare quotes as it’s notoriously difficult to measure.
Bob Sutton has a great post on the tension between getting it done and getting it done right. He describes this as the tension between the need for completion and the need for perfection.
The discussion about perfection and completion reminded me of a job that I had as an editor in which I was consistently sent back to the drawing board to rework whatever idea we developed. I never completed a project because of a boss who was a perfectionist. But this was almost the perfect antidote to life in traditional publishing in which project after project had to be completed on a rigorous schedule without regards to quality.
Apparently those of us who still call our voice mails to check messages are in the minority. Many people have their voice mail electronically transcribed and sent to them.
Who knew customer service reps were so unhappy (you probably did) or had such dark senses of humor.
Of course, AT&T says it’s not true.
I don’t read a lot of Mommy Blogs mainly because too much talk about children makes me want to poke out my eyes. (And, yes, I am a parent.) However, I have been struck a number of times when I pass by a Mommy Blog by the amount of consumption that is often included as a key part of parenting. There’s always mention of a great snack picked up cheaply at Target, some great pair of $50 leopard-print toddler sneakers with sequins, or maybe a trip to Disneyland to take rides and buy Mickey Mouse undies. The entire subject matter makes me want to gag.
I’m sorry. But. Disney. Leopard-prints for toddlers. Snacks at Target. Gag.
But, yes, excessive consumption is nauseating to me. Not the consumption that is necessary to survive, because, yes, we all must remain clothed most of the time, and fed. But the sort of glorification of consumption as if it is not only edifying, but cleansing, clarifying, and deeply religious.
It never occurred to me that most of these Mommy Blog posts were from parents who got the stuff for free, but apparently that’s the case.
I feel so naive. I even get stuff offered to me, occasionally, but most of it is workplace-related (often software), and not that interesting, and I always say no.
I think, in the interest of full disclosure, it would be ethical to tell readers when you were received merchandise for free.
We’ve heard of the banning of pens in the workplace before, right? At least I swear we did in Weird Workplace News regarding a phone call center where pens were banned. In an age, where you can take a photo of just about anything with your cell phone, it doesn’t make sense to ban pens, but apparently a customer at a makeup store who was conducting research was banned from writing anything down.
Because without a separate non-work email address, you might be tempted to use your work email to communicate with your lover and you might accidentally cc the entire workplace, which would be Cornell University.
I am mortified on this person’s behalf.
Resisting the Urge to Gossip discusses a study that suggests that there are three ways to derail gossip in the workplace:
Of course, you probably don’t want to target someone else with gossip, but it’s worth thinking about ways that have worked for you in the past.
More than a decade ago, I taught at a small, private school for Native Americans in Santa Fe. There were only about a dozen faculty for our school in grades 7-12, and we were close.
It is with great sadness that I read about the murder of one of my former colleagues, Sister Marguerite, on Halloween. She was extremely kind to me when I was a fledgling teacher, and she was greatly committed to social justice work in the poorest communities. My prayers are with her roommate, and my teaching mentor, Sister Magdalena, and the community of Navajo, New Mexico.
I’ve noticed that many of us have become addicted to our Blackberries. We bring them everywhere; we check them incessantly. But how do you get the attention of a group of people who are using Blackberries rather than listening to a presentation? Or using Blackberries rather than participating in a meeting? Or using Blackberries to fact check you as you are speaking? This article, How to Deal with a Blackberry Junkie, addresses the issue in part using K-12 teaching techniques:
Make meetings more interactive. Push for participation. Call on — and call out — that CMO. Create expectations that inhibit leaning back and promote the lean forward. If people think they can get away with diverting their attention, they will. Do you think commercial airline pilots all over the world will think twice before they spend more than 15 minutes on their laptops doing non-flight-related calculations? I do. Do you think students will think twice about IM-ing their sweetheart if there’s a better than even chance they’ll be called on in class? I do. Do you think a CMO will think twice before checking her messages if two of the best-regarded advertising agencies simply shut up — or decline to present — until she makes it clear to everyone in the room that she’s fully engaged? I do.
It’s not bad advice, but I wonder if it will work if we are dealing with genuine addictions to electronica. Thoughts?
Tenure is a big deal in the academic community. It’s the equivalent of a permanent position, and most of us in other areas of the workforce know how rare those are.
At DePaul University, five of seven professors denied tenure were women, and four of them appealed the decision, but were turned down by the president. The tenure review process is described this way:
Professors are initially evaluated by their departments and colleges — that is, by colleagues in the same field — but ultimately by a universitywide academic board. Under that system, the task force concluded, “the judgments and expertise of dozens of faculty are overturned by the majority of a small committee, most of whom may not have any expertise in the areas they are assessing.”
Unlike at other universities, the tenure review board at DePaul does not just defer to the judgment of a professor’s departmental colleagues. That board’s actions go to the president for a final decision.
Tenure review isn’t fair, and can determine the composition of a university in terms of professorial makeup for decades to come. But how can you fix a system, such as the one at DePaul, when management doesn’t think it needs to be fixed?
How to Spoil a Day at the Office has numerous real-life examples of passive-aggressive behavior. What is striking is how proud of their behavior people are! You can read the entire article here, but here’s an example:
I have a co-worker who relies on e-mails and phone calls anytime he wants to communicate–even though we all work together in the same office building, on the same floor! Most of the time, it would be quicker for him to just get up out of his seat and tell me something face-to-face than it is for him to dial my extension or type it out, but he always avoids personal contact. It is really annoying, so I make it a point to never answer phone calls when I see they are from him and to ignore anything he sends in an e-mail!
In light of David Letterman’s statement, “I have had sex with women who work for me” a former writer on Late Night with David Letterman has written an essay in Vanity Fair that describes the workplace:
Without naming names or digging up decades-old dirt, let’s address the pertinent questions. Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no.
And the writer did what many of us do: we walk away. Talking to someone in HR seems too difficult, and too filled with potentially devastating reprecussions.
Surviving the Workday contributor, GhostGirl, wrote a post on meeting anxiety a while ago that has received many hits recently, and even some new comments. This makes me wonder if our recession is causing us to be more anxious about meetings in the workplace.
Generally speaking, I think meetings make people anxious when they don’t know know what is going to happen at the meeting and what their role might be. Will I be called on? Will I need to lead a portion of the meeting? Should I do anything to prepare for the meeting? This leads to a sense of uncertainty about the meeting, which can cause anxiety. As a meeting organizer, you can address these concerns by clearly assigning roles in an agenda, which is distributed ahead of time. It seems obvious enough, but often is not done.
What makes you anxious about meetings?
Why Contracting May Be Your Next Move seems to be a pretty biased article masquerading as journalism. However, the comments seem to provide far more realistic feedback about the realities of contracting. Although the article does describe the drawbacks (less of a sense of permanency, less benefits, less chance to search for permanent work), these seem underplayed when placed against considerable benefits named of contract work (get hired faster, build your resume, boost your confidence, expand your network, it goes on and on in this fashion). It’s worth reading in case you’re considering contracting, but please don’t consider it necessarily factual.
I hear that the Millennials are Poised to Replace the Baby Boomers in the workplace:
In the coming years, Gen Y will replace the Baby Boomers in the workplace. Gen Y brings its own unique demands. Cathy Benko, co-chairman of Deloitte, in her book, Mass Career Customization, sees the corporate ladder motif being replaced with a latticework based on workers’ personal goals and aspirations.. Smart companies are reacting to the new workforce conditions dictated by Gen Y. And while Gen Y likes the 24/7 social networking connection and dislikes long working hours , they are fundamentally conservative in their lifestyle, with a dislike of ambiguity and risk.
I’ve heard this notion of Baby Boomers being replaced by Millennials a number of times. The article suggests that Generation X has family issues to deal with and is in the process of shifting in and out of the workforce, so that Boomers will be replaced by Millenials rather than Gen X.