LINKEDIN ... INSIDE

Now that the economy’s percolating a bit, the “gotta meetcha” dance has begun.

Or maybe it’s the spring onslaught of SpeedWorking (our term for the job-search waltz), business card exchange, and other tangible symbols of networking.  Bernanke and other gurus, after all, predicted that many who stayed in jobs for security reasons would be poised to move at the first signs of recovery.   

No question, many career moves are predicated on relationships – and long-term ones, at that.  On the other hand, many false steps are made when applicants get in touch so they can tout they’ve met so-and-so, ask to be introduced to such-and-such, or have divined the department’s long-term mission and, yes, are ready and willing to help.

That kind of networking isn’t our definition of an authentic relationship.

While thinking about true relationships, we’ve been increasingly drawn to the social architecture of LinkedIn and its applications inside.  The site clearly says you’ve somehow got to be connected – as friend, colleague, classmate, or other bond.  Otherwise, your introduction will be second-hand, through the kindness of a [check one] friend, colleague, classmate.  It’s a good way to ensure there’s a mutual benefit to Linking In.

The same is true for work relationships.  Connections matter.  More, better work gets done faster, say experts, with emotional ties that bond.  Gallup states that one measure of engagement is having a best friend at work. 

Which is why it’s so curious that facts and statistics, not emotions, seem to dominate many internal messages.  Rarely, in our experience, have we seen the type of rallying cry that resonates with the hearts, not just minds, of employees.  If there is some sort of appeal, it’s short term, limited to a specific initiative or project.  There appears to be little need, at least right now, to appeal to employees’ EQ into the future.

Once the market truly begins to offer plenty of new positions, we’ll watch with much interest what happens inside companies.   Productivity is tied to performance, which, in turn, is linked in part to forming and expanding the network of business friends.  Building on those relationships demands we, as staff, as managers, as leaders, and as consultants, open up, connect, and communicate with credibility, with empathy. 

Otherwise, we become the weakest links.

MULTIPLE CHOICE

We’ll admit it (if you will):  We’re addicted to those ten or so-question quizzes that pop up, every month, in some magazine or on Facebook or on our smartphone apps.

And yes, we do take them, score ourselves, then, after seeing the results, wonder why we got suckered into it.

Yet thinking about the behavior behind those quizzes gives us pause:  Obviously, the content has to be compelling enough for us to spend 10 to 15 minutes filling it out and then seeing where we fall on the spectrum of personality or health or change. 

There’s also something about the seduction of knowing – in other words, being able to characterize or “type” ourselves with a bit of certainty.  Finding out that we’re extraordinarily charismatic or more apt to accept change or healthier than the average test-taker feels like we’re a step up on the rest of the population.  No matter if it’s true or not.

Sharing and applying that new self-knowledge works for businesses, too.  How often do we survey our customers – and our employees as well – when new products and new programs are in the offing, to test the marketplace or assess the internal environment?  At the same time, how frequently do we communicate the results of those multiple-choice exercises, and what they might mean to the success of the venture?  

No matter if it’s a major or minor change – from, say, revolutionary self-cleaning tissues to the use of a different process in filing expense reports – the test/quiz results, when explained and communicated, shed a light on individual and collective behaviors, present and future. After all, when we finish the media quizzes, the answers are at the bottom.  In real life and work, who wouldn’t want that kind of information?

THE TYRANNY OF LISTS

Almost every month in the year unveils the latest top 10, top 50, or top 100 list.

 A few weeks ago, Time magazine profiled its 100 world influencers, from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to comic actor Kristen Wiig.  The Wall Street Journal routinely anoints people to watch and calls the year’s hits and misses in different industries.  Fortune has an iron grip on two of the most coveted:  “most admired” and “best places to work.” 

All of which spawn trade and local media cover stories on the “best” and “worst” and “on the fence.”

Sure, these kinds of headlines sell magazines and newspapers.  Any editor worth his/her stock options would tell you that.  But spare us.  Please. 

Behind what seems like an innocuous pastime, one that might be credited, in part, to Richard Blackwell’s Ten Worst Dressed Women’s list (now going strong via the Huffington Post) is an amazing industry.   What does it mean to achieve these somewhat elusive accolades?  Hours and days and weeks are spent crafting the right prose for award – er, list submissions.  Weighty binders stuffed with testimonials and factual documents crowd judges’ desks.  Real-live business firms specialize in managing and/or measuring entries, helping validate the winners. 

Truth:  How much weight do ordinary folks, like you and us, give to these lists?  How much does it influence our choice of whom to work for and where to invest? 

As a very random and definitely unscientific sampling, we asked some of our younger relatives and friends’ kids about their college choices.  No surprise these days, tuition cost was number one for selecting post-high-school institutions.  As were location and environment, where their friends were matriculating, and whether the higher form of education offered courses and majors in their fields of interest.  [Okay, sometimes the school’s party-party reputation factored in too.]

Then we showed them different publication rankings.  Sure, they’d seen them.  On the other hand, not one of the teens really cared.  [Their parents did, though.]  Said one:  ‘I wanted to find a good school, close to home, where I could get a ROTC scholarship and support for my dental degree.”

Wouldn’t it be great if that kind of pragmatism infused American businesses?  Then list-making would revert to its original purpose:  A bona fide way for individuals and teams to schedule and track what was accomplished – or not.

A NEW KIND OF Q

It’s okay to cry at work.

Once taboo, tears are now out in the open … cubicles.  According to author Anne Kreamer (It’s Always Personal), our next step is to manage those tears, positively.

In a sense, Kreamer’s findings after two years of feelings’ research expand on the concept of EQ, or emotional quotient.   EQ principles, best publicized by Daniel Goleman in the mid-1990s, have everything to do with understanding , first, then managing our behaviors at work, from customer service to interpersonal relationships. 

What’s more, past studies demonstrate that, when used the right ways, skills like self-control, empathy, and teamwork contribute mightily to the effectiveness of managers and supervisors.  [And leaders, too, we add.]

Seriously, we’re glad.  Conventional IQs, by themselves, limit our perceptions about behavior, and exclude all the things that make us human.  Like anger.  Anxiety.  Fear.  Uncertainty.  And plain old stress.

Something’s missing, though.  How about exploring a third “Q”?   We’re talking VQ, or visual intelligence quotient.  Our go-to search engine tells us the closest relative is a company that develops “cross-channel marketing intelligence software, looking for insights hidden within data.”    Amazon’s got a few puzzle books that promote Visual IQ.  Not what we were visualizing. 

A few facts supporting our VQ idea: 

• Visual thought is 400 times faster than verbal. 

•  For years, psychologists have demonstrated that images, way more than words, trigger a wide range of associations. 

• When pressed, advertising gurus admit visuals, at their best, have the power to capture the essence of a brand’s differentiation. 

Plus, no surprise: Today’s media – pictures and photos, videos and films – favor the visual.  So do most generations, from Boomers to millennials.

You’ll agree, then (we hope):  Let’s incorporate VQ into our work to drive behaviors at the office – and in the marketplace.  Without that kind of intelligence, we won’t get the whole picture. 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ... TO ME?

Every year, without fail, we’re asked to blow out the candles on at least one corporation’s cake.

It could be 25, 50, even 100 (in the case of IBM last year).  That’s a lot of lung power to use.  It’s also a lot of self-congratulations to absorb.

No question, IBM produced a thoughtful purview of its history, its innovations, its contributions to the world, and its future, covering both successes and failures.  In 2,592 words, no less.  Via four pages in The Wall Street Journal.

Noticeable?  For sure.  [Not to mention some pretty fabulous media attention.]  Yet we can’t help wondering how much more impactful the anniversary would have been if the actual ad had been designed for longevity.  Which was the point of all those words:  That IBM has been managed – and managed well – for the long term.

This is a great example of our contemporary quandary:  The demands of social media in 140 characters or less contrasted with our need to understand, pay homage, absorb, and remember critical events and activities.  No, we’re not advocating that the tech giant resort to tweeting about its centennial.  Especially when much of the Journal’s readership hails from investment banks, financial institutions, pension funds, and other shareholders.

On the other hand, a visual timeline of hits and misses, along with the salient quotes from founder Thomas J. Watson Jr., et al., just might have become a terrific springboard for ruminations, past, present, and forward.  Even more if breakthrough technology (a talking newspaper, for instance) kicked off the celebration. 

We don’t know how this message was communicated inside.  Nor about all the various internal forms it took, including great citizen contributions like the company’s Corporate Service Corps or a reprise of the 2003 “values jam.”

One hundred is a very big number, one that deserves major applause.  To us, it also signifies a time to ponder – and do things just a bit differently.