Run for your life.

I'm running further now than I used to and that's a good thing. It's a good thing I can still run, a good thing my distances are increasing and a good thing for all the health reasons thrown at us by every government department, media campaign and gym membership junkie we get accosted by on the way to work. The downside to the running is the need to release stress and the triggers of the day that sometimes make you want to slap someone in the head because they have caused you grief, most often because they didn't think of the consequences of their actions. The annual Labour Day survey in the US points out half of Americans are somewhat or extremely stressed at work and a shocking one in six workers reported being "angry enough to hit a co-worker". So the longer distances point out an obvious correlation to my work day, let alone the safety of colleagues from an errant right hook.

Like many buzz words that linger too long in the corporate lexicon, stress has many iterations including, excessive hours, performance demands, physical environments, noise, health and safety risks, company culture, communication problems, office politics, lack of autonomy and job insecurity. I look at that list and think a run is not going to be enough so maybe the answer, is to download a de-stress app of yoga music with a kaleidoscope of sunrises and manicured mountain meadows on my favourite hand held device while lighting a scented candle? Sorry, too easy to be facetious and poke fun at a serious subject.

Medical studies have shown that stress is causing more long term absenteeism than the old chestnuts of repetitive strain syndrome, skeletal injuries and medical conditions including cancer. Australian studies have indicated a loss of $15 billion to the economy each year due to this absenteeism along with a direct loss of $10 billion to employers. With figures showing healthy employees being three times more productive and unhealthy ones taking nine times more sick leave, employers need to find that fine balance between profits and giving their people the best place to work.

If employers can find that balance, then onus on the employee, is to also work on that balance, finding ways to combat stress in ways that best suit their personality. Like fighting off a cold, bandaging a cut or rehabilitating an injury we work on the obvious ailments but often let stress compound till it requires major restructure in our lives, radical redirection of thinking or a total change in environment. Drinking to excess, eating disorders, withdrawal, drugs, procrastination and general disengagement are obvious signs in the work place, unless of course you are an ageing rock star and then it's just a normal day.

There are the obvious Ms, meditation, music and massage that always get a mention but most experts contend taking back control of your life to bring down the stress levels. Learn to say no, take control of your environment, avoid the conversations that trigger anxiety, communicate concerns early and avoid bottling, work on compromise as opposed to disappointment to gain better perspective, get over the things you can't change, find a stress buddy to talk over frustrations and get out there and pound the pavements. Of all the recommendations, health seems to play the biggest part and no end of coffee, cigarettes, alcohol or self medication come close to being substitutes for any of the above.

Wherever you go and whatever you do, you'll encounter levels of stress that need an outlet. There are plenty to choose from, so in the end, use whatever it takes and if that happens to be an app and a scented candle or a long run, make it your own and go the distance.

Time is Money.

New surveys have shown the seconds it takes you to read this sentence is longer than many people spend on a website, especially if it doesn't load immediately. Seems technology has shortened our tolerance to such an extent, that 4 seconds has become the bench mark for waiting on a site or app to load and if it doesn't load within that time, indications are, 25% of people move on. Move on to a competitor website, move on to another net distraction, move on to an email that has just lit up our in box or just grow frustrated with the lack of resolution sought. Immediacy has taken on a new meaning where expectations thought unimaginable previously are now standard and the future now seems seems just seconds and minutes away, not years.

This new level of tolerance, or intolerance, is having an effect on everything we do when it comes to waiting. The old adage of "if we don't serve you within a certain timeframe, it's free", made famous by McDonalds all those years ago, was a precursor to our instant demand and instant gratification society. The net can be blamed for a lot of things but who knew we would develop such onerous time expectations for our life directly attributable to how we surfed the web? No wonder the search for warp speed results is pushing the processor and app developers to provide solutions quicker and quicker.

Bench marks indicate, people are no longer patient enough to wait in line longer than 15 minutes, with 50% saying they will never go back to that establishment. Watch out if you get so successful you have a line up outside your establishment because the likelihood is, you will lose many of those clients regardless of how good your product is. For websites this has seen behemoths like Amazon calculate that a page load slowdown of just one second could cost it $1.6 billion in sales each year. Google, who make their money from advertising and speed have calculated that by slowing its search results by just four tenths of a second they could lose 8 million searches per day, meaning their capacity to advertise would be severely impacted. Time is money, has been pared down to the minutest detail where parts of a second now mean money.

Getting used to the speed of all the technology we carry around today is producing expectations that will eventually not be met and what will that do to the psyche of those that have always had that immediacy? It's good to know what a line was like, while waiting at the RTA, it's good to know that great food isn't made in a hurry and it's good to know that certain friends will always be late. Otherwise how else do we appreciate time savings made by technology advancement?

Yet if the bench mark on our expectations becomes measured in seconds, then our appreciation will surely wane for all the things worth waiting for, like love, a good pizza, the ice cream man on a hot Summer's day, the last chapter of a great book, the latest iPad and the next blog from me. Time is tight but it's not about money, it's about appreciation of what it can bring.

Analyse This.

Some time ago I wrote about my consternation regarding the number of Facebook friends I had in relation to how many people I could actually communicate with and what number was appropriate to being liked enough. That consternation was allayed some as I started connecting with some old friends I hadn't heard from in some time, allowing my numbers to grow. So now, to my dismay I find the latest survey, and I believe them all, telling me if I have too many friends I'm a narcissistic grandiose exhibitionist with entitlement and exploitive tendencies. Time to throw out the hair products?

The journal of Personality and Individual Differences found people scored very high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory survey if they had more than the usual number of Facebook friends, tagged themselves at every opportunity while updating their news feeds, profile photos and taking offense at derogatory comments made about them. So what the social site was designed to do, connect and socialise, effectively classifies those with hundreds and thousands of connections, mostly Gen Ys, into the above categories. I say Gen Ys because not many in the age bracket above, know 1200 people, let alone friends.

The research showing more young people becoming obsessed with self image led Western Illinois University to point out higher levels of GE (grandiose exhibitionism) and EE (entitlement exploitiveness) in Facebookers with friends in the hundreds. Facebook "offers a gateway for hundreds of shallow relationships and emotionally detached communication," said Professor Christopher Carpenter who conducted the study. They found that the so called pro social Facebooking is giving way to a self absorbed, self centred, anti social look at me, I need to be the centre of attention Facebooking for many teens and that is the concern for sociologists and parents alike. Many are calling this the dark side of Facebook and are having difficulties finding ways to address the issues.

So the dilemma now, has me pitched against all that Facebook wants to extoll. What's my solution to having too many friends, having the occasional spa treatment, the new George Clooney eye rejuvenation cream or the photo shopped profile pic? Should I get rid of friends who haven't been to the gym in years? Should I slash and burn through the connections that sometimes tell the truth about the stupid things in the news feeds? How will my self esteem recover if no one notices me?

In the end I ask a few simple questions, is it fun to find old friends, connect with people via photos and stories, make fun of politicians via YouTube entries, like what your friends are up to and interact with people all over the world? Common sense tells me yes and like all countries and society which contain the outlying disengaged, Facebook is no different. It will take time for a balance to be found between what Facebook was designed for and the elements that want bring up only the dark side of people.

While it continues to connect what was lost for many, while it continues to provide platforms for new relationships, continues to be fun and while it works for the 99%, Facebook will remain relevant and common sense tells us to lighten up on the psycho analysis. For kids will always be hard to figure out and not all of them turn out the way you want, irregardless of Facebook or any of the new social networks. I also know, that no matter what I think, my bum doesn't look big in this outfit because my friends tell me so and I have Facebook to thank for that. LOL.

Parting Shot.

Steven Slater works for text company Toktumi as the official spokes person for crazy airline stories, texted in by passengers who then win prizes for the wackiest story. Steven you may recall, finished his flight attendant career with JetBlue in 2010 by grabbing a six pack, deploying the emergency shute, giving the finger and sliding into the sunset, after an obscenity laced tirade aimed at his customers on flight 1052. In two years time, will people be asking whatever happened to Greg Smith?

Greg Smith left Goldman Sachs last week, concerned over the direction of the company, concerned the company's culture had gone haywire and concerned the company was putting its own interests ahead of its clients, ala Gordon Gecko. Valid concerns for any employee and cause enough to look for another employer. Resigning in the modern way, by email, Greg took it upon himself to publish his feelings in The New York Times, 15 minutes after sending his resignation email. Of course the Times article included juicy elements and finger pointing, to which Goldman Sachs took offense, giving Greg the lead in the race for the 2012 Steven Slater trophy for parting shots.

Following close behind is James Whittaker who's parting shot on recently leaving Google, described a company praised for its innovation in the beginning which now had a corporate mandated focus as an advertising company. We've all been there, or we know someone close who has and it's the worst place to be if you think you have more to offer but the company doesn't see you. It's the choices you make in these situations that distinguish your character and give credence to your brand image, ever after.

Maybe it's the new social landscape and new communication channels that are giving employees more scope to relay their message? Maybe it's finally having a voice that can reach so many more and maybe it's something that companies will need to consider with departing employees? After all, how many exit interviews go from HR to senior management and if they do, how many are acted upon if major flaws in company culture, corporate direction or employee issues are identified? Today's buoyant employment market gives employees scope to move around and the social media channels give them scope to comment if they feel disengaged and disconnected enough. Companies need to be aware that lack of respect for employee departures now have a significant downside if not handled properly.

The above are options for any employee but considerations and common sense questions need to be asked if you are contemplating a meltdown in print. Do you like the industry you work in and do you want to continue working in that industry? Do you really "hate" someone or are you just emotional and some distance would give you clarity in the choice you are about to make? Do you understand your own brand and what permanent damage can be done by scathing attacks on former employers?

You always have a choice on how you leave and it says more about you, if you choose to do it with integrity. Like a divorce that started out a wonderful marriage, leaving a company should be about what was good and what attracted you to begin with. That way you take only the best with you where ever you go, people will welcome you with open arms and they won't be asking what ever happened to so and so, two years later.

Selfish Media.

If you asked most people on social media, whether they were interested in the goings on of their friends and their social circle, the answer would be yes. If you asked the same people how often they collaborated with their social media friends on projects, initiatives and tasks, the answer is likely to be never. Seems the voyeuristic side of us is still glued to social sites and our interest is constantly piqued by new developments in each other's lives but it wanes quickly and is replaced by self interest. The celebrity syndrome is alive and prospering through the ability to look but not interact online and also because we all see ourselves as the star in our own movie.

Yet isn't it all about being social and getting together on the new platforms? Getting together to do what? The very early detractors of sites such as Facebook commented on the amount of self preening done with the "look at me, look at me" syndrome driving up the numbers of members because everyone had something to say or to show. So are people really interested in your last holiday snaps, the Birthday party you catered and dutifully photographed and uploaded or the self serving retweets of a story from The Economist to make you look intelligent? Not really, seems the people most interested in us, is us.

For all of the social interaction numbers quotes in the hundreds of millions, it seems online, we are quite happy to play on our own, making sure we have the nicest pictures, the nicest apps, the nicest music and the nicest stories about, you guessed it, us. That slide show of your trip to Bali used to bore even your Mother but now you don't care because you are sure everyone else is interested in viewing your page. With the proliferation of sites like Pinterest el al, the opportunity to get down to the smallest ecosystem of interest, gives people even more chance talk about themselves in siloed silence.

It's this self interest and lack of collaboration that is causing the media pundits concern. Seems many were convinced social sites would bring a strong sense of community and collaboration back to the individuality of the last few decades. Guess the "Like" button hasn't quite measured up to building new communities and no amount of holiday pics will engage any more than a passing interest. Or is it social fatigue being inundated by the flood of information about others, when all we want is more attention ourselves?

Still all is not lost as social collaboration sites develop to bring people together in social wikis, social search, groupware and software that has an aim and an objective of action.
Clay Shirky defines social software as “software that supports group interaction". If we can collaborate virtually like we can in real life, then there is hope for the social landscape to develop into more than a self interested, self centred destination, just ask Karsten Horne.

5%.

Who cares how many hours you spend at work, as long as desired results are achieved? Who cares if you are not at your desk every day, as long as goals are reached? Who cares how many reports you produce, as long as you succeed in your aims? Unfortunately too many in upper management care, they still have a factory mindset on staff being seen, staff producing masses of reports and staff taking designated meal breaks as set by company policy. The reason for that management mindset of mandated policies rests with the 5%, the 5% of employees who are unmotivated, the 5% unengaged looking for ways to rort the system, the 5% that spend all their time looking for loop holes and ways to avoid making a difference. The 5% that need to be managed and the 5% that make it hard for the rest to succeed.

Society long ago figured out people want and will do the right thing, with only a small minority upsetting the status quo. That small minority, like the bastards that just robbed my elderly parents, (sorry I digress) require police, rules, regulations and make insurance companies rich. Yet those rules and regulations have been vetted, adjusted and balanced so that society has the freedom and flexibility we are used to living with today. It's that freedom and flexibility that is missing in many corporations today as they look to policy their employees into submission.

Companies that grow and prosper with their employees are the ones that make the rules for the 95% who are motivated and engaged. The 95% that work well because they are trusted, given freedom to work the hours that best suit a productive workplace and have the results to back up the flexibility and immunity from constrictive company policies. Fewer rules always work better, as long as employees are treated as professionals with integrity, they will accomplish much more than working within a strait jacketed, unsubstantiated policy driven environment. What matters is what you get done and if you don't know what that success looks like, doing more is not going to help.

The social media storm that many in management are weathering, is a case in point, where camps range from no access to open access. Interestingly the open access companies are those with employees who don't abuse the freedom and use the new media for research and feedback valuable to work projects. One of the most venerable of companies, the New York Times recently employed a social media policy in one line, "don't be stupid", showing the trust they have in their staff to do the right thing and at the same time give them the freedom they deserve. The recognition given to the New York Times staff with this one trusting guideline enables them to keep their valued employees and stay the front runners in a most competitive media space.

For the enlightened companies, the factory mind of being seen for the requisite hours is giving way to change with studies showing that flexibility around work hours leads to increased retention and productivity. So companies shouldn't make their employees hang around, just because the boss decides to stay in the office till all hours, they should celebrate achievements by going home early. Why not give employees the freedom to take that afternoon nap, after all a NASA study has shown a 25 minute nap can increase productivity by 34% and would save on all that extra coffee needed after 3pm.

So don't let that 5% be the bench mark for your company culture, your company policies or your company future.

Luxury.

The four Yorkshire men of Monty Python had it right in their luxury sketch about living in a box or living in a hole in the road or living in a septic tank, each less luxurious to prove a point that luxury is relative to where you are in life but also how it is defined by society. To them it was the outwardly ostentatious, the gaudy, the over the top display of wealth that defined luxury to the four pub pals. Studies are finding definitions of luxury are changing with new generations coming into their own consumerism cycle and growing up with their own definitions of luxury.

Extravagance is giving way to uniqueness, ubiquity is giving way to scarcity and in a world where luxury is held privately for a few, the next generation would rather transparency and authenticity. Luxury today is much more personal and individual and consumers are looking at how a product makes them feel, not how it makes them look to the broader spectrum of society. It is less about the show and more about the know.

As the definition of luxury changes with the new mores of Gen Y, we are seeing new examples of what people consider luxury and it's not about the Nieman Marcus, Gucci, Pucci, Fiorucci and LVMH brand mentality that Baby Boomers aspired to. It can be found in the acceptance of Whole Foods as providore to the new generation and how much those premium priced containers of produce bring forth a feeling of authenticity in providing the best organics long lacking in the city. It can be found in the bespoke innovations in Steinway speakers, Endorfin hand made mountain bikes and it can be found in the works of Michael Van Valkenburgh as he transforms rotting docks and waste water facilities into enchanting environments.

With all of the changes in attitude to luxury, awareness plays a big part in the choice of what is considered luxury today. Information is part of the new luxury along with individual data that is processed to provide insight into what will make you feel relevant, enriched, engaged and good about your consumer choices. So where the four Yorkshire men one upped each other in the luxury stakes in reverse, today it's not about being that outwardly focused and more about what makes you feel good privately.

The willingness to pay for niche, scarcity, bespoke and hidden today points to a future where the old luxury will find its way to the emerging rich in China and Russia, wanting a piece of the west they had glimpsed from afar. For the Ys and the ones following, that luxury belonged to their forefathers and as such is resigned to history. The new luxury will include possessions but it will be woven into the fabric of their lifestyle of constant communication, constant movement and constant search the next new experience.

Accumulation of luxury items and products will make way for the most luxurious of all things, time. Time to experience life without the accumulations that weigh you down. Maybe the new generations have something to teach the Boomers after all.

Hey Hey.

"We're the Monkees.....we're the young generation and we've got something to say," and just like that, after two astonishingly productive years, they stopped having something to say. In their halcyon days of 1967-1969, they ruled the two main media channels but once they disappeared off TV, they ceased to exist, except for oldies FM or in vinyl. The passing of Davy Jones last week gave many who grew up with their infectious pop music, pause to reflect on what was and could haves been, what might and what might have been and how time remembers. Time markers come in many iterations but music as the gauge of a generation offers reflection on the past as artists pass away and draw attention to memories, memories that today are never forgotten in the daily web journal of the world.

Like all the musicians of that time, the Monkees only had a few channels to bring about change and achieve success. Once the were off the air, no matter how much of a fan you were, there were no avenues to follow the fortunes of the pre fab four. So for many years they lingered in the nether world of club tours and shopping centre openings and if they happened to be in your town you might go along, just to see what they looked like now. Back then the half life of a group like the Monkees was only a couple of years because traditional media was only interested in the now and unless they made it onto the back page of a music magazine with a nostalgia tour, they basically disappeared.

Today the half life of someone like Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber is closer to 1000 years and beyond. Every facet of their lives is chronicled by all of the digital media available every day, every minute, every second, along with every performance and interview, captured and kept for eternity on the web. The Monkees lasted a meteoric two years on TV with their music lasting slightly longer on nostalgic FM radio but imagine what they could have been had they been around today?

Lady Gaga with 20 million twitter followers and Justin Bieber with 18 million twitter followers have gained more fans in a couple of years than the Monkees did in five decades. It's hard to imagine how big Justin Bieber could be if he had half the resume the Monkees had over two years? Starting in 1967, they had the two highest charting songs for that year, they were the first music artist to win two Emmys, they had four number one albums in one year, they held the number one spot for 31 consecutive weeks on the Billboard album chart, in four years they released 122 songs on 10 albums, they have the 12th biggest selling album of all time, also the longest stay at number one for a debut album until 1982 and finally they introduced Jimi Hendrix to America as their opening act in 1967.

So imagine young Justin with just a couple of those statistics? He would be the sun and the stars for every person under 16 on the planet and his twitter account would no doubt count in the hundreds of millions. The question regarding a legacy fifty years from now for Mr Bieber will revolve around the celebrity and the amount of web universe he took up and less about the music he left behind. Vale Davy Jones.

Tele what?

Working in pajamas with a cup of tea, while watching morning TV, not worrying about office politics, what tie to wear, the morning commute and standing in the rain waiting for the bus. Not being concerned about when the IKEA delivery man arrives, always being there when your kids come home and folding underpants while on a conference call. It's that nether world of working from home, it's that perceptually challenging opinion from your office work mates thinking you are slacking off at the beach and it's the fastest growing segment of today's workforce. A work force segment gaining popularity with service industries, call centres and companies not wanting to lose intelligence and competence built up over many years.

Working from home or telecommuting as the consultants call it, comes with pros and cons, some of which centre around perception and motivation required to work in a fully unsupervised environment, with what many consider more distractions than the office water cooler. In Australia, telecommuting employees not coming into the office, are closing in on 10% of the available workforce. Of course home is not the only environment to replace the office, cars, cafes and planes have all taken their toll on the missing faces in the lunch room.

Surveys taken, indicate people would sacrifice things such as daily showers, social media, chocolate, salary increase, holidays and even their spouse to be able to work from a home environment and avoid the daily commute. Who knew divorce was about avoiding the office and a comfortable couch to do your monthly reports? Any way you look at it, telecommuting has become an emotional subject for HR and the ones left behind to suffer the unnerving stare of the boss.

As desirable as the home office has become there are tangible issues impacting employees wanting to cut that office umbilical. The first being, you still have to work and accomplish objectives and results and as such are as responsible as if you were office bound. The boss may not see you but it will become patently obvious if you produce no work because Ellen had a three hour special on Justin Timberlake and you missed your deadlines. Work also has a habit of invading more of your time if the office is just down the hall because the ease of looking at the emails while the spaghetti is cooking will quickly become an unbreakable habit.

While you may avoid the boss and the office politics that drove you home, it has been shown career advancement is precarious unless you have adequate relationships with your superiors on a day to day basis. Also important relationships with co workers and clients are harder to build and nurture from your back room. So while you can communicate effectively via all the technology available today, it is still inappropriate to take your meetings with clients over the kitchen table, unless you are the local Avon Lady. Aside from your jealous office bound co workers, you will find confusion amongst your friends who see your car at home and want to drop by for a coffee or a chat on the phone. Will they consider you rude when you don't take the calls or put the do not disturb sign on the front door? After all, what can a little coffee hurt?

So if you can navigate the above and are a highly motivated, self disciplined individual willing to sacrifice formal office engagement, telecommuting could be for you. There are always compromises with such a set up, I don't think chocolate needs to be one of them but if fluffy slippers suit your work outlook, then it's time to ask the boss for that home broad band connection.