Showing posts with label Engagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Engagement. Show all posts

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

#CIPDSocial11 & Social Engagement – in the socialmedia garden

 

night garden flower   I’ve had a couple of conversations with Michael Silverman, Unilever’s ex-head of engagement research, since meeting him at a Symposium event earlier this year (eg at CHRU, and the Personnel Today awards, where Michael and Unilever won the award for the best use of HR technology).

Michael uses a new research tool called Opinion Space, developed with Hybrid Wisdom Labs, which uses the new technique of ‘collaborative discovery’ to help communities suggest ideas and develop understanding about particular issues – eg engagement.

I have to say I don’t really understand the full science behind this:

(Taken from Info and Help)

 

(!!!)  But to me, the benefit of the technology is largely the same as any social media tool – 1, it allows people to collaborate together and 2, it’s visually appealing.  Add these two points together and it means that it’s fun and compelling.

As I wrote before, this is quite useful in engagement research.  I agree with Michael on this – it seems oddly dissonant that the tool most organisations use to measure engagement generally disengages people.  It’s another area that shouts out to be social medialised!

To give people a chance to experience the technology for themselves, Michael is running an open access research study.  And since it’s run using social media, we thought it would be interesting to apply it to the use of social media.

The starting point is to answer five questions about social media as well as contributing a suggestion about the main barriers for organisations adopting social media.

  1. Using external social media sites at work makes people less productive.  (Yes, I think it can!)
  2. I feel heavily involved in social media.  (Err, yeah!)
  3. My organisation has embraced social media.  (This one was was difficult for me to answer, so I thought about my average HR client!)
  4. HR is best placed to lead social media. (I think it should.)
  5. Successful implementation of social media is about technology not leadership. (Absolutely not!)

 

So these were my responses:

 

“HR still hasn't woken up to the opportunities provided by social for media.  In so many organisations which do use social networks if you look at the departmental take-up, everyone is there (led by IT) but not HR.  I hope the CIPD conference and this research will help generate a bit more interest.”

 

The thing about the garden is that then the whizzy technology displays your responses as a ‘bloom’ within a garden, where surrounding blooms are the other participant responses which are most similar to yours.  Or something.  Neat, anyway.

 

And then the even more neat bit it that you can vote and comment on other people’s suggestions (which changes the size and colour of the blooms).  It’s this social experience which is the key innovation for me.

Anyway, here are some slides from Michael on the results so far:

 

If you want to try the system out, and / or contribute to the research, you’ll be able to get an access code – here – soon (by about Friday – come back to this post then).  Have fun!

 

 

  • Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
  • Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

.

Sunday, 30 May 2010

Confidence, engagement and human capital

 

   Indy replied to my recent post on engagement, and my question about why Kenexa’s, and other, engagement surveys don’t seem to pay as much attention as I’d expect to the social aspects of engagement.

His view:

“Who's right and who's wrong? That's a big discussion - but my instinct is to take the middle road and say rather that you and Jack are talking about two different things.


Assuming the picture shows some of his results, he's talking about the commitment of an employee to an organisation - or possibly a "job." The social stuff is about how connected someone feels about the work that they do. The decisions people make are a mixture of two axes...

Actually, now I've typed that, I don't know if there's a clear divide, the axes are not orthogonal. My experience is that even if someone really enjoys their work in a social sense, they may move if some of Jack's factors are a problem. And vice versa...

One thing I'd throw in is that there are different situations, but a lot of the time, individuals in a job are choosing between staying, or moving to one that is essentially similar. Social engagement is often a tipping point issue..”

 

I think Indy’s right.  These are different, albeit interconnected, things.

And actually, something similar was thrown up at the conference.

So Kenexa define their engagement index as the average level of agreement for:

  • I am proud to tell people I work for my company
  • Overall, I am extremely satisfied with my company as a place to work
  • I rarely think about looking for a new job with another company
  • I would recommend this place to others as a good place to work.

 

But in one session, we looked at another survey on employee confidence.  I’m not sure if this survey focuses on activities or outcomes, but Thomas Rasmussen from A.P. Moller Maersk certainly defined it as the end people outcome of:

  • Employee Engagement
  • Good leadership (leading at the right level)
  • The right organizational setup (large enough roles.

 

There’s certainly no reason that confidence couldn’t be an outcome based index.

It goes back to the point I made last year as part of a longer series of posts on engagement surveys that we should really be focusing on surveying much more than just engagement:

“In my last post, I provided some advice on surveying the engagement of your workforce.  But why stop there?  What's so magical about engagement which means this is the only thing you think about surveying, when human capital consists of so much more?  As I've described, engagement is just one bucket inside the bigger bucket of human capital.  And this itself is contained within the even bigger bucket of organisational capability (human + organisation + social capital).  So why not survey these?”

 

The need for social connection may not show up as part on an engagement index, depending on how you define it (pride, satisfaction, retention, advocacy in the case of Kenexa), but this doesn’t mean that this, or things like confidence, can’t have a sizeable impact on discretionary behaviours and business results.

It’s important to focus on outcomes rather than just activities, but we need to ensure that we’re paying attention to the right ones.

Any more thoughts?

 

Cross-posted from Strategic HCM.

 

  • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
  • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
  • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
  • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com
  • .

Friday, 28 May 2010

Promotion (and salary) envy

 

   My last post argued that despite Jack Wiley’s findings, the workplace is a very social environment, and we need to influence its sociology, if we want to maximise engagement and collaboration.

And as I stated at the summit, social media has a role to play in this, but so does lots of other things we’ve traditionally done within HR.  Like the way we promote people, and pay them…

Interesting then to see these two articles today:

1.   The workplace is a seething hotbed of promotion envy – HR Magazine (UK)

“A survey of more than 1,300 employees finds the office is dog-eat-dog after 34%, of employees in small businesses said that they would purposely sabotage a colleague's chances of a promotion, rising to 62% in larger businesses.”

And why?  “because they believe their co-workers would do the same to them if the situation were reversed”.

 

2.   BT union demands inflation-busting pay rise or they'll strike – Management Today

“It’s a bit hard to imagine anyone looking at the strategy currently being employed by the unions at BA and using it as model for their own industrial relations. But that appears to be the case at BT, another once-nationalised giant that’s been feeling the pain lately: its biggest union is threatening to walk out on strike unless management agrees to an inflation-busting 5% rise. Now it’s true that things are looking up at BT, and the £1m bonus CEO Ian Livingston stands to pocket as a result is being used by the unions as justification for their demands. But at a time when we’re barely out of recession, when unemployment is rising and BT itself has just shed 35,000 staff, isn’t it about time the union faced up to harsh economic reality?”

 

Yes, but if we see organisations as societies in their own right, and acknowledge that people will behave dysfunctionally if they believe they’ve been treated unfairly in just a relatively minor way (eg being passed over for promotion), then how do we think people are going to react when their CEO gets paid 40 times their average salary (£850k salary plus £1.2m bonus never mind his share options compared to an average salary of £50k)?

Is it really that hard to predict?

 

As Andy Kerr, deputy general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has said:

"It's all about fairness. We don't mind senior executives getting bonuses, but we want all staff to share in the success of the company."

 

Well, yes.  It is.  I’ve used the terms envy and dysfunctional in this post.  But I don’t mean to indicate that they’re that negative, that they’re things we should expect people to be able to avoid, or that they’re limited to a small group of people (let’s just call them ‘C’ players, shall we?).

I don’t and they’re not.  They’re  very natural emotions, behaviours and reactions that affect us all.

We’re human.  We’re social animals operating in social environments.  We’re not cogs in a wheel.

 

Interestingly, I included BT as a case study organisation in my presentation on social media and HR.  And think that in many other ways, it’s a very people-focused business – for example, its long-standing policy of avoiding compulsory redundancies  (it’s also a former client).  But with this sort of pay differential, can any organisation really be that socially functional, or that effective?

 

Picture credit: nicked from HR Magazine’s article, sorry.  I did want to include a picture of someone ‘slapping their forehead’ but they don’t seem to have any of these in wikimedia commons where I try to take my pictures from – and I didn’t think its alternative suggestion of ‘shopping in moorehead’ was that relevant!

 

Cross posted on Strategic HCM

 

  • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
  • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
  • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
  • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

.

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Justmeans Social media and stakeholder engagement conference

 

   In a month’s time (19th March 2010), I’m going to be moderating one of the sessions at Justmeans’ Social Media and Stakeholder Engagement conference in London.

Building on the success of the inaugural event worldwide on Social Media and Sustainability, this event will bring together the top minds in sustainability, marketing, innovation, and technology.

It will focus on how social media is changing the way companies engage key stakeholders, whether employees, customers, activists, investors, or the media.

Topics covered include:

  • Transparency and authenticity as cornerstones of the new business reality
  • Stakeholder engagement as it relates to employees, customers, and activists
  • How to mobilize support for adaptation of new technologies to advance social and environmental initiatives
  • A look at various techniques on how to break through the clutter with your message.

 

Other speakers and moderators include:

  • Lee Bryant, Co-Founder and Director, Headshift
  • Jean-Philippe Renaut, Manager, Engaging Stakeholders Program, SustainAbility
  • Bjorn Edlund, Executive Vice President, Communications at Royal Dutch Shell plc
  • Tim Callington, Communications Consultant, Edelman
  • Robert Nuttall, Director, GreenMandate
  • Tim Johns, VP Corporate Communications, Unilever
  • Ed Gillespie, Co-Founder, Futerra
  • Marcia Stepanek, Publisher, Cause Global
  • Dr. Dan McQuillan, Head of Digital, Enterprise UK
  • Karina Brisby, Head of Digital Campaigns, Oxfam (UK)
  • Renate Nyborg, Director, Social Media & Engagement, IF Communications
  • Jo Confino, Executive Editor and Head of Sustainable Development, Guardian News and Media
  • Neville Hobson, Head of Social Media Europe, WeisComm Group
  • Tom Raftery, Social Media Consultant, GreenMonk
  • Antony Mayfield, Head of Social Media, iCrossing UK
  • James Farrar, Vice President of Corporate Citizenship, SAP
  • Amit Mehra, Managing Director, Reuters Market Lite.

 

For more information on the event, please contact Serina Mufti at smufti@justmeans.com or +44 (0) 203 238 2121.

And if you’re going to be there, do come and say hello.

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

.

Saturday, 6 February 2010

Work sucks, play games!

 

World of Warcraft  Ive recently been reading a new book, ‘Total Engagement’, by Byron Reeves and J Leighton Read and it’s one of the most interesting books I’ve read during the last year.

Despite the title, there’s not a lot of new information in here on engagement, but there is a lot on gaming (the book’s sub title is ‘Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete’) and on gaining Social Advantage too.

 

Gaming Engagement

I should explain that I’ve never really spent any time playing computer games, never mind massive multiplayer online role-plaing games (MMPOLGs).  I have experimented in Second Life but the type of environment the book describes is quite new for me.  Nevertheless, I’m happy to go along with many of the authors’ conclusions.  I can believe games are fun, and I completely support the ideas that people should have more fun at work.

I also believe that gaming can develop useful skills.  The book Leaders make the Future, which I reviewed recently on Talking HR, suggested that game players would stand an advantage in leadership roles in the future.  This book’s authors support this conclusion and also claim that every skill in the list of O*NET generalised work activities is included multiple times in gamers’ experiences.

Gamers gain other benefits as well – they are apparently physically healthier, work harder, make better grades, earn higher salaries and are more socially connected than those who play less or not at all.

So I’m quite motivated to try some games out – but probably not until I’ve finished my Social Advantage book (although I make try out 10 day free membership to World of Warcraft at some point in the next few months).

However, I also feel that the book pushes the argument for gaming  a bit too far.  The authors note that work is often repetitive and dull; that workplaces are legacy-bound and risk averse; and that workers are overloaded with information and worried about the future.  But is bringing games into the workplace, or making work more game-like, really the solution to these problems?

This situation clearly needs to improve.  Particularly since, as the authors point out, the future of work is going to be more about engaging people than commanding them.

Leighton Read writes about his experience attending Gary Hamel’s MLab meeting in Half Moon Bay in 2008 (which resulted in the Moon Shots for Management which are the focus of my ning community).  He describes the group’s conclusions about the remedies for work and management as:

  • A sense of purpose (mojo)
  • Connected structures that minimise degrees of separation between workers and actual customers
  • The end of short-termism, micro-management and burnout from corporate initiatives.

 

Well OK, so games provide the same ingredients that will help solve these business problems.  But suggesting that games are the definitive model of engagement is a bit far fetched. 

But I am prepared to accept the points it is a model, and that some people will soon do their jobs inside a game (perhaps a ‘mixed-’ or ‘augmented-reality’ one).

Supporting this, I’ve also seen a very compelling presentation from Microsoft’s Ross Smith (who is referred to in this book) at a MLab Management 2.0 event, describing how his team test software in a game type environment in order to make this work more interesting.

Also, as the authors write,

“Games can make huge improvements in work with only small adjustments to current practice and technology.  You don’t have to build an entire game to use games at work.”

 

Meez at Work

Examples of these small adjustments include using three-dimensional environments allowing you to do things otherwise impossible in the real world.  But more than anything else, the authors focus on the use of avatars (see their blog / recent HBR post too), providing people the opportunity to try out new styles, new behaviours and so on:

  • Customised avatars increase engagement and affiliation compared to impersonalised activities (a personalised avatar provides ownership and arousal leading to engagement, commitment and learning in a similar way to taking an action in the real world)
  • The use of avatars can create emotional and social connectlons
  • I also like the authors’ comment that social trumps efficiency (“‘efficiency isn’t the sale criteria by which virtual [I’d suggest any] interactions should be evaluated’).

 

The authors expect use of avatars to further increase with growing expressiveness as facial features become more distinct, movements more lifelike and user control more richly intuitive (they become ‘mini-me’s’):

“It’s the equivalent of looking in the mirror, only the character in the mirror has a lot more freedom to do things you can’t do yourself.”

“At IBM, thousands of employees meet weekly, using their avatars , in a virtual space to talk about business (dubbed the company ‘intraverse’.”

“A majority of the Fortune 100 companies we’ve spoken to in the last three years have at least one virtual-world prototype that makes use of avatars.”

 

I also think it’s interesting that I probably get more verbal comments about the Meez avatars on my blogs than anything else.

But I still don’t think that work necessarily needs to become a game in order to improve…

 

Taking Lessons

The authors note that “gamers don’t discuss hypotheticals or simulate play when the real thing is readily available”.  So why simulate business as a game when the real thing (ie work) is readily available too?

So I’m probably more interested in the use of gaming to support work, than to replace it, for example in development:

“We also believe that companies could explicitly include multiplayer entertainment games as part of their leadership development programs.  These would be like' ‘management flight simulators’ for softer aspects of leadership, as opposed to the more analytical aspects for which simulators and spreadsheets are available.”

 

And for me, the even bigger opportunity to those I’ve described above, which seem to assume that work can’t be improved other than through gaming, is to use the lessons from gaming, rather than gaming itself, to make work in the real world more engaging.

I’ll be coming back to write more about this soon.

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

.