It was hard for my parents to understand the concept of renting when they first arrived in Australia after owning their house, but they had to accept it as a consequence of the big migration to the "sunburnt country". Renting has long moved on from the family abode, the crash pad, the one bedder or the single room in a house of six. In fact renting has long since moved from real estate into the mainstream as Millennials (we are going to run out of letters eventually, so why not give them a proper name?) look to rent everything from the classic TV, through to technology, cars, husbands and wives, dogs, toys, celebrities and all of the other things in life that make you happy.
The concept of shopping to own, is transforming to a concept of renting, products, places, ideas, people and clouds. For many the last example is seen as the major shift where technology becomes the enabler for you to store information, ideas and products in the cloud and not have them hanging around your lounge room. Seems a lot of the owning angst is about mobility and having the ability to remain unencumbered by the weight of acquisitions. Why carry around stuff when you can rent and store it somewhere else, think goget cars, information that used to belong in books and music that was only available on vinyl.
Acquiring things was always about showing off, to someone who cared, (did they really), and it said a lot about the buyer. We all have varying perceptions of people who purchase luxury goods as status, expensive car drivers and that bloke who was always spruiking about his latest HiFi acquisition. The flea market that is the web, where you can buy anything, anytime, has become overwhelming and for many it's just easier to rent and not make life long decisions about acquisitions that eventually end up on eBay. Millennials have become known as the delaying generation, including growing up, moving out and purchasing assets, giving rise to a new rental mentality or even scarier, I want it free mentality.
Millennials want to connect and renting gives them more opportunity to do that rather than remain isolated within their singular purchases. Rentals are continuous connections and expose them to more than the one off shopping transaction. The purchasing of a car being replaced by the quick hour rentals is a major concern for manufacturers trying to influence the next generation as pointed out by US Toyota president Jim Lentz at a recent conference. He said “We have to face the growing reality that today young people don’t seem to be as interested in cars as previous generations. Many young people care more about buying the latest smart phone or gaming console than getting their driver’s license.” With half of potential drivers under 19 and less of the 20 to 24 year old holding a licence, as reported by The Times, it seems Mr Lentz has something to worry about.
Is this the extinction of ownership? With more Millennials staying at home, living in density in the city, who will buy the houses that Boomers will want to sell in the next decades? Who will buy the cars that Boomers so needed in the burbs? For Millennials a car just means parking challenges, for Millennials collecting means less mobility, for Millennials renting means freedom.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Cool is?
Used to be Steve McQueen was cool, a martini shaken not stirred was cool, Air Jordan sneakers were cool and so was being the first kid on the block with the latest gadget or piece of technology. Attitudes and mores of society change yet the concept of cool continues to fascinate us, even if we can never attain those lofty heights. Even with constant change the attributes of exclusivity, innovation, behaviour and influence remain pillars of cool. To be in the Zeitgeist, the minute, the moment as the leader, the innovator or just the epitome of social awareness grants you the right to be cool, however fleeting that moment may be. From the jazz cellars of the 40's where cool is thought to have originated to Marshall MacLuhan describing television as a cool medium, unlike the hot media of radio and print, because of its complex sensory involvement of sound and pictures, cool has looked to arbiters of taste to define it for the general masses.
So I chuckled when a UK judge decided that the Samsung tablet was not as cool as the iPad, in a copyright verdict handed down this week. Cool was never a definition handed down by authority, in fact it was usually the opposite as the elusive essence of cool was the domain of a few in tune individuals willing to pass it on or point it out. It is the ultimate social label everyone craves but if something cool suddenly becomes mainstream acceptable, it all too quickly fades back into the suburban. The very nature of cool is only 5 minutes away from being ordinary if mass acceptance brings with it imitations and copies. Sunglasses at night was the height of cool for jazz musicians but has become mundane as we watch C grade celebrities aspire but fail the test of chill.
There is cache attached to cool that today can be turned into money. Apple didn't turn into the world's most valuable company by just building computers, Mr and Mrs Smith aren't just hotels and Johnny Depp isn't just Jack Sparrow. So the search for the next cool thing continues as boundaries are pushed, creativity springs forth and televisions get paper thin. From music, through celebrities, fashion, cars and attitudes, cool dances in our heads and becomes an aspirational aim for many but only a few get to decide what's in and what's out.
The critically self aware, the intrinsically cognisant and the perpetually observant among us, are the arbiters, bringing forth ideas, products, behaviour and style that becomes a substance, a state of cool obvious once we encounter it but invisible if you are not tuned in. Personality wise, you either are or aren't cool, depending on your style, your bearing, your sentience and it is a difficult comportment to fake. You certainly cannot call yourself cool because that would be the most uncoolest. Yet today you can be cool, just by the accoutrements you carry, especially if it happens to be the latest piece of technology.
So is there really a short cut to becoming cool, staying cool and being cool? Technology says yes if you are an early adopter of the right innovation but that will only get you so far, because eventually you'll have to talk, relate and communicate, signalling you either have it, or not. For some, cool is a perpetual state of being, which brings us back to Steve McQueen, still cool.
So I chuckled when a UK judge decided that the Samsung tablet was not as cool as the iPad, in a copyright verdict handed down this week. Cool was never a definition handed down by authority, in fact it was usually the opposite as the elusive essence of cool was the domain of a few in tune individuals willing to pass it on or point it out. It is the ultimate social label everyone craves but if something cool suddenly becomes mainstream acceptable, it all too quickly fades back into the suburban. The very nature of cool is only 5 minutes away from being ordinary if mass acceptance brings with it imitations and copies. Sunglasses at night was the height of cool for jazz musicians but has become mundane as we watch C grade celebrities aspire but fail the test of chill.
There is cache attached to cool that today can be turned into money. Apple didn't turn into the world's most valuable company by just building computers, Mr and Mrs Smith aren't just hotels and Johnny Depp isn't just Jack Sparrow. So the search for the next cool thing continues as boundaries are pushed, creativity springs forth and televisions get paper thin. From music, through celebrities, fashion, cars and attitudes, cool dances in our heads and becomes an aspirational aim for many but only a few get to decide what's in and what's out.
The critically self aware, the intrinsically cognisant and the perpetually observant among us, are the arbiters, bringing forth ideas, products, behaviour and style that becomes a substance, a state of cool obvious once we encounter it but invisible if you are not tuned in. Personality wise, you either are or aren't cool, depending on your style, your bearing, your sentience and it is a difficult comportment to fake. You certainly cannot call yourself cool because that would be the most uncoolest. Yet today you can be cool, just by the accoutrements you carry, especially if it happens to be the latest piece of technology.
So is there really a short cut to becoming cool, staying cool and being cool? Technology says yes if you are an early adopter of the right innovation but that will only get you so far, because eventually you'll have to talk, relate and communicate, signalling you either have it, or not. For some, cool is a perpetual state of being, which brings us back to Steve McQueen, still cool.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Should I go or should I stay?
The Clash may have been talking about girl trouble but they could just as easily have been talking about how long you should stay in a job nowadays. Over the past several months, friends and colleagues have been asking themselves the above question, with many taking the opportunity for change and others continuing to struggle with the question. HR and recruitment companies indicate that over 30% of employees will leave their employer this year, with another 50% seriously thinking about it. This morning I heard that 50% of all nurses will leave their profession within the next decade, showing that even the most dedicated of professions are asking themselves the question. Many leave for cultural, monetary, promotional, recognition and management reasons and most saw the signs early, helping to validate their reasons for departing. As Joe Strummer so eloquently puts it, there could be trouble if you stay, there could be trouble if you go, so look for signs you've been working too many hours, working with the wrong people, working for the wrong company.
The gold watch for lengthy stays has long disappeared and the reality today, is even a few years, can be a long time in one place, with technology prolonging your days. A two year job stint, can look and feel like a four year stint if you add up all the hours you work. Surveys indicate that emails start getting checked at 7.30am and don't generally finish before 9.30pm, giving you a solid 14 hour day. Even if you don't recognise it, that's close to 50% more work time than most people get paid for and no matter how convenient it may feel, with technology as the enabler, it is time away from the important things in life. Sometimes the signs are obvious, as in hours to satisfaction ratio but often people "just do" their job and never notice how the little things creep up and accumulate. Is the extra time spent at work, worth it? Is the extra time spent at work, making a difference to your work? How long do you keep this up?
So how long to stay, when to start looking and when to leave are tough questions and difficult answers to find if you are not aware of your circumstances and the landscape around you. A recent trip with a client walking through an airport where he knew everyone from the sandwich lady to the check in attendant gave rise to a few laughs but the serious side of so much time away from his family, didn't go unnoticed by either of us. The throw away line of not knowing his neighbour as well as the people at the airport should be a litmus test, a bench mark, for realigning work hours, for a change at work or perhaps to leave for greener pastures. If you don't recognise some of the more serious signs, you could end up under the greener pastures.
It sounds serious but in today's climate of low unemployment the indications to change shouldn't be mounting up until you can no longer suffer the weight of expectations, hours required to do a job or the concern of changing jobs more frequently. If you know the flight attendant, the cleaning lady or even the boss better than you now your family and friends, you should be asking yourself the question.
The gold watch for lengthy stays has long disappeared and the reality today, is even a few years, can be a long time in one place, with technology prolonging your days. A two year job stint, can look and feel like a four year stint if you add up all the hours you work. Surveys indicate that emails start getting checked at 7.30am and don't generally finish before 9.30pm, giving you a solid 14 hour day. Even if you don't recognise it, that's close to 50% more work time than most people get paid for and no matter how convenient it may feel, with technology as the enabler, it is time away from the important things in life. Sometimes the signs are obvious, as in hours to satisfaction ratio but often people "just do" their job and never notice how the little things creep up and accumulate. Is the extra time spent at work, worth it? Is the extra time spent at work, making a difference to your work? How long do you keep this up?
So how long to stay, when to start looking and when to leave are tough questions and difficult answers to find if you are not aware of your circumstances and the landscape around you. A recent trip with a client walking through an airport where he knew everyone from the sandwich lady to the check in attendant gave rise to a few laughs but the serious side of so much time away from his family, didn't go unnoticed by either of us. The throw away line of not knowing his neighbour as well as the people at the airport should be a litmus test, a bench mark, for realigning work hours, for a change at work or perhaps to leave for greener pastures. If you don't recognise some of the more serious signs, you could end up under the greener pastures.
It sounds serious but in today's climate of low unemployment the indications to change shouldn't be mounting up until you can no longer suffer the weight of expectations, hours required to do a job or the concern of changing jobs more frequently. If you know the flight attendant, the cleaning lady or even the boss better than you now your family and friends, you should be asking yourself the question.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Opinions matter.
I've left the occasional comment or opinion on web sites, travel sites, blog sites and forums come chat rooms. There are a lot of sites and reasons to leave those comments and I don't know if I have enough time, to help out, leave complaints or show allegiance and commitment to my favourite brands, products or people? There are many reasons people leave comments online with boundless opportunities and avenues to communicate and connect. It is the psychological reasons for leaving these comments that bind us together.
A need to help, a selflessness as altruistic intention, is a major rationality behind a lot of what we do on the net when we leave a little bit of ourselves behind. From what we consider informed and insightful shopping information, through likes and twitterings for brands to improve and discernment of the best places to eat, holiday and enjoy ourselves, it becomes obvious we want to do the right thing by others. The net has given us a single entry point to the world and how we see it for ourselves and how we'd like to see it for others. This desire to help in an online community defines many as valued members of that community, which is often difficult to attain for many in our maladaptive, dysfunctional society. So don't stop giving those opinions and insights, for there is no better reason to leave something of yourself, than to help someone else.
The other side of the coin is the fine line where you get arguments on both sides as to whether the leave behind is a complaint or just a strong opinion. Yes we love to have a whine and complain about the state of the planet, the runny peanut butter that says crunchy on the jar or anything else that cheeses us off on the day. What better place than the web, where we can voice complaints behind anonymity, voice complaints behind a basic human right to "kvetch", all the time knowing a punch in the face is not coming down the broadband. This is something that still surprises some companies that allow comments and are then astonished when comments are not enthusiastic but derogatory. I complain, therefore I am, is the catch cry for many who cannot find the appropriate outlet outside the net.
Along with helping out and complaining on the net, psychologists point to our need for attachment and celebrity on the net, as we align our thinking to brands, products, companies and personalities. Alignments that see us develop a loyalty we are happy to propagate, shout about, generally celebrate in comments, gossip, remarks and observations. This is not the loyalty attached to a frequent flyer account but the loyalty of an Apple "fan boy" who lives and breathes loyalty within a community and is happy to shout it from the rooftops. It's about a loyalty that can morph into renown as people themselves become the celebrity. Everyone needs to be noticed and comments and opinions can lead to the rarefied air of "going viral" and thus becoming something they would never achieve in the real world.
In the end, the net gives you a voice no one was listening to before, that can now be heard by multitudes and regardless of the psychological reasons, can introduce us to the world. I think that's a good thing, psychologically speaking.
A need to help, a selflessness as altruistic intention, is a major rationality behind a lot of what we do on the net when we leave a little bit of ourselves behind. From what we consider informed and insightful shopping information, through likes and twitterings for brands to improve and discernment of the best places to eat, holiday and enjoy ourselves, it becomes obvious we want to do the right thing by others. The net has given us a single entry point to the world and how we see it for ourselves and how we'd like to see it for others. This desire to help in an online community defines many as valued members of that community, which is often difficult to attain for many in our maladaptive, dysfunctional society. So don't stop giving those opinions and insights, for there is no better reason to leave something of yourself, than to help someone else.
The other side of the coin is the fine line where you get arguments on both sides as to whether the leave behind is a complaint or just a strong opinion. Yes we love to have a whine and complain about the state of the planet, the runny peanut butter that says crunchy on the jar or anything else that cheeses us off on the day. What better place than the web, where we can voice complaints behind anonymity, voice complaints behind a basic human right to "kvetch", all the time knowing a punch in the face is not coming down the broadband. This is something that still surprises some companies that allow comments and are then astonished when comments are not enthusiastic but derogatory. I complain, therefore I am, is the catch cry for many who cannot find the appropriate outlet outside the net.
Along with helping out and complaining on the net, psychologists point to our need for attachment and celebrity on the net, as we align our thinking to brands, products, companies and personalities. Alignments that see us develop a loyalty we are happy to propagate, shout about, generally celebrate in comments, gossip, remarks and observations. This is not the loyalty attached to a frequent flyer account but the loyalty of an Apple "fan boy" who lives and breathes loyalty within a community and is happy to shout it from the rooftops. It's about a loyalty that can morph into renown as people themselves become the celebrity. Everyone needs to be noticed and comments and opinions can lead to the rarefied air of "going viral" and thus becoming something they would never achieve in the real world.
In the end, the net gives you a voice no one was listening to before, that can now be heard by multitudes and regardless of the psychological reasons, can introduce us to the world. I think that's a good thing, psychologically speaking.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Who is 'i' ?
'A' used to be the most powerful letter in the alphabet. 'A' was the alpha when it came to companies wanting to be first on alphabetical lists, first in the phone books and first in our minds. I remember working for AAA Destinations, where the A's didn't stand for anything, but they made sure we were always at the front of alphabetical searches. That was before the net did away with that particular search and now companies pay for search based on optimisation algorithms only the boffins at Google understand. The net did away with looking at information from an A to Z view and we now target single pages of particular information. Yet one letter has stood out and grown in popularity over the last 5 or 6 years, especially when it comes to searching and thinking about identifying a growing market segmentation.
I give you the small 'i', which has become the most ubiquitous letter in the alphabet and today stands for ideas and concepts, established by one company but used by many, hoping to ride their coat tails to success. It's not like we haven't been using 'i', it is the fifth most common letter in the English language, it is the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun in Modern English and used to refer to one's self and is capitalised. So who is 'i' today, who do we associate with 'i' and why 'i'?
For most, the answers are obvious and referring to oneself is a pillar of Apple thinking as they develop technology for our lives, our business and our culture. Great marketing along with innovative products associated with the small 'i' and you get a global leader building a brand that captures the imagination of all who come in contact with its sphere of attraction. Everyone knows the Apple story and can see the wide ranging affects a powerful brand, let alone a small letter, has on the bottom line. There will always be those looking to prosper from the success of such power and Apple has its hands full protecting its intellectual property, branding and marketing because of this.
A logo may not be a brand, but people associate one with the other and for Apple that has meant a whole other story in ambush marketing by anyone in technology wanting to get noticed by a single letter placed before their names. As a rule, not many think to use or steal words or letters from global brands to identify themselves as something they are not. After all what can you do with Walt, Micro, AT, Voda, Ama or even 3 to identify what industry you are working in or what you are trying to say about your product?
Yet the small 'i' has become the singular nomenclature identifying innovation technology today and the small 'i' has been used and abused far more than Apple ever thought it could be. According to iGoogle (?), there are 60 million companies worldwide, with approximately 4-5 million IT companies. It seems half of them have decided to use 'i' as a prefix to show consumers, customers and prospects alike, they too are innovators, they too belong in the rarefied air with Apple and they too get the search optimisation associated with that tiny letter. It's time we agreed to whom this letter belongs, just the way the letter 'C' belongs to the Count on Sesame Street, just the way 'O' (?) belongs to Business, so does the small 'i' belong to Apple.
The only one I know who has really gotten away with it so far, is over a hundred years old and they use a big I in IBM, so I'll give that to them. The rest need to work on their own identity.
I give you the small 'i', which has become the most ubiquitous letter in the alphabet and today stands for ideas and concepts, established by one company but used by many, hoping to ride their coat tails to success. It's not like we haven't been using 'i', it is the fifth most common letter in the English language, it is the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun in Modern English and used to refer to one's self and is capitalised. So who is 'i' today, who do we associate with 'i' and why 'i'?
For most, the answers are obvious and referring to oneself is a pillar of Apple thinking as they develop technology for our lives, our business and our culture. Great marketing along with innovative products associated with the small 'i' and you get a global leader building a brand that captures the imagination of all who come in contact with its sphere of attraction. Everyone knows the Apple story and can see the wide ranging affects a powerful brand, let alone a small letter, has on the bottom line. There will always be those looking to prosper from the success of such power and Apple has its hands full protecting its intellectual property, branding and marketing because of this.
A logo may not be a brand, but people associate one with the other and for Apple that has meant a whole other story in ambush marketing by anyone in technology wanting to get noticed by a single letter placed before their names. As a rule, not many think to use or steal words or letters from global brands to identify themselves as something they are not. After all what can you do with Walt, Micro, AT, Voda, Ama or even 3 to identify what industry you are working in or what you are trying to say about your product?
Yet the small 'i' has become the singular nomenclature identifying innovation technology today and the small 'i' has been used and abused far more than Apple ever thought it could be. According to iGoogle (?), there are 60 million companies worldwide, with approximately 4-5 million IT companies. It seems half of them have decided to use 'i' as a prefix to show consumers, customers and prospects alike, they too are innovators, they too belong in the rarefied air with Apple and they too get the search optimisation associated with that tiny letter. It's time we agreed to whom this letter belongs, just the way the letter 'C' belongs to the Count on Sesame Street, just the way 'O' (?) belongs to Business, so does the small 'i' belong to Apple.
The only one I know who has really gotten away with it so far, is over a hundred years old and they use a big I in IBM, so I'll give that to them. The rest need to work on their own identity.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Binge drinking.
"Let's go to the pub and have a few drinks and we'll sort it out", a common line heard around many work places as the days end or the week comes to a close and not every work issue has been solved. A few drinks and we seem to be on fire, shooting off opinions and answers to problems that have had us stumped all day. A few drinks and we really mean what we say, with more creativity than we could muster in that 10 o'clock meeting. A few more drinks and we need to know when to go home.
A research paper "Lost in the Sauce" recently published by the University of Pittsburgh and UC Santa Barbara, looking for that creative link between just the right amount of alcohol and brilliant ideas used vodka and cranberry juice to bring out some interesting results. Researchers at another University in Chicago, also looked at alcohol as the release trigger to creative thinking, giving me hope that Universities have not strayed too far from my days at the Uni bar, where the most original thinking took place.
Seems the research showed dramatic improvement in solving puzzles, maths equations and word association tests, with people describing their answers as more intuitive and indicating their thinking was less constrained and more open to creative solutions presenting themselves. Neuroscientists long ago described the power of alcohol as aiding the mind to wander without inhibitions and opening up connections not obvious in linear thinking. With your mind free to wander around the problem without so called cognitive processing, answers come from areas we don't often use or connect. Sounds like the neuro boys liked a beer after work.
The alcoholic research was also published in the journal of Consciousness and Cognition with the theory stating alcohol caused people to pay less attention to the distractions of tasks, giving them access to "solution cues that would otherwise be ignored". So should we bring back the boardroom bar, the beers in the kitchen or the long boozy lunch? Maybe the boys on Madmen have the right idea with the clinking of whiskey glasses at all hours of the day, getting their creative juices flowing and coming up with the iconic advertising phrases of the 60s. Alcohol seems like a good idea for some, but what researchers are trying to get to, is the time we are most open to creative thinking is when we relax, take a breather, get away from work and maybe even day dream in the park at lunch time. How often has a solution come to me on the way home from work, on the treadmill at the gym or just sitting with a coffee enjoying a quiet moment?
So if your company doesn't provide the beanbag room or pool tables to relax, maybe it's time to walk up the street and into the pub. After all, why should you be apologising for that drink in the middle of the day, you are only getting creative and that's good for the company. Anyway I'm off to the pub to write my next blog.
A research paper "Lost in the Sauce" recently published by the University of Pittsburgh and UC Santa Barbara, looking for that creative link between just the right amount of alcohol and brilliant ideas used vodka and cranberry juice to bring out some interesting results. Researchers at another University in Chicago, also looked at alcohol as the release trigger to creative thinking, giving me hope that Universities have not strayed too far from my days at the Uni bar, where the most original thinking took place.
Seems the research showed dramatic improvement in solving puzzles, maths equations and word association tests, with people describing their answers as more intuitive and indicating their thinking was less constrained and more open to creative solutions presenting themselves. Neuroscientists long ago described the power of alcohol as aiding the mind to wander without inhibitions and opening up connections not obvious in linear thinking. With your mind free to wander around the problem without so called cognitive processing, answers come from areas we don't often use or connect. Sounds like the neuro boys liked a beer after work.
The alcoholic research was also published in the journal of Consciousness and Cognition with the theory stating alcohol caused people to pay less attention to the distractions of tasks, giving them access to "solution cues that would otherwise be ignored". So should we bring back the boardroom bar, the beers in the kitchen or the long boozy lunch? Maybe the boys on Madmen have the right idea with the clinking of whiskey glasses at all hours of the day, getting their creative juices flowing and coming up with the iconic advertising phrases of the 60s. Alcohol seems like a good idea for some, but what researchers are trying to get to, is the time we are most open to creative thinking is when we relax, take a breather, get away from work and maybe even day dream in the park at lunch time. How often has a solution come to me on the way home from work, on the treadmill at the gym or just sitting with a coffee enjoying a quiet moment?
So if your company doesn't provide the beanbag room or pool tables to relax, maybe it's time to walk up the street and into the pub. After all, why should you be apologising for that drink in the middle of the day, you are only getting creative and that's good for the company. Anyway I'm off to the pub to write my next blog.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Wasted days and Wasted nights.
Freddy Fender may have been talking about a lost love but the title of his 70's hit could just as easily have been about unproductive employees in today's workplace. The latest Ernst and Young productivity survey puts the cost of wasted time at $40 billion per year, focusing on workers wasting an average of 23% of their time on the job. Now the first thought that comes to mind is the distraction of the net and social media, as people update their profiles and chat with friends but productive time lost, is about attitude, culture, meetings, sick leave and the general malaise that comes with disengaged employees.
So to get time to waste, you first need someone to give you that time and what better person than your employer, who looks to you to be a productive part of the company but without engaging you, can turn you into a slacker. Now we all know someone like that, hiding behind the tidy desk, never being involved in the "big" projects and generally uninvolved in day to day work activities. Interestingly enough, the survey turned that opinion on its head indicating unproductive employees actually took less breaks and less recreational time, not recognising work life balance and instead becoming “a slave to the job but only doing it because it is a job.” So it's not always about the time spent at work but how that work is accomplished and what results come from the work.
The survey did agree with some obvious observations, taking excessive sick leave, with three weeks to three months per year seen as an unproductive indicator, no kidding. Other findings included spending all day at your inbox and answering every email, even when you are just CCed. The inbox has everyone captive but research indicates focus on projects keeps people away from email, not looking at every opportunity but doing it in batches. Scheduling also comes in for a hiding as time wasters fill their diary up with the most inane meetings and committees that have nothing to do with accomplishing tasks or achieving success for the company. This high end scheduling gives great cause for excuses not to be involved and is seen by many in the office as fudging the real work. Companies that adhere to the "without a meeting we can't make a decision" syndrome are just playing into the hands of wasted time.
Research on wasted time in the office, split employees into four groups, super achievers, solid contributors, patchy participants and lost souls, saying at some stage in our working lives, we all rotate through those groups depending on circumstances. The patchies and the lost are finding less places to hide nowadays as companies run lean, marry their staff to targets and KPIs, eliminate distractions and try to motivate staff with realistic goals.
It's the motivation and engagement that become crucial as businesses trend in cycles of success and failure. Both become easy cycles to hide in, if management doesn't understand their employees. So ask yourself, who's doing what and what is being accomplished by whom? You'll find your slackers pretty quickly, unless they are off on sick leave.
So to get time to waste, you first need someone to give you that time and what better person than your employer, who looks to you to be a productive part of the company but without engaging you, can turn you into a slacker. Now we all know someone like that, hiding behind the tidy desk, never being involved in the "big" projects and generally uninvolved in day to day work activities. Interestingly enough, the survey turned that opinion on its head indicating unproductive employees actually took less breaks and less recreational time, not recognising work life balance and instead becoming “a slave to the job but only doing it because it is a job.” So it's not always about the time spent at work but how that work is accomplished and what results come from the work.
The survey did agree with some obvious observations, taking excessive sick leave, with three weeks to three months per year seen as an unproductive indicator, no kidding. Other findings included spending all day at your inbox and answering every email, even when you are just CCed. The inbox has everyone captive but research indicates focus on projects keeps people away from email, not looking at every opportunity but doing it in batches. Scheduling also comes in for a hiding as time wasters fill their diary up with the most inane meetings and committees that have nothing to do with accomplishing tasks or achieving success for the company. This high end scheduling gives great cause for excuses not to be involved and is seen by many in the office as fudging the real work. Companies that adhere to the "without a meeting we can't make a decision" syndrome are just playing into the hands of wasted time.
Research on wasted time in the office, split employees into four groups, super achievers, solid contributors, patchy participants and lost souls, saying at some stage in our working lives, we all rotate through those groups depending on circumstances. The patchies and the lost are finding less places to hide nowadays as companies run lean, marry their staff to targets and KPIs, eliminate distractions and try to motivate staff with realistic goals.
It's the motivation and engagement that become crucial as businesses trend in cycles of success and failure. Both become easy cycles to hide in, if management doesn't understand their employees. So ask yourself, who's doing what and what is being accomplished by whom? You'll find your slackers pretty quickly, unless they are off on sick leave.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Connected or not?
The story isn't new, it's been going on for the last decade as technology infiltrates all the nooks and crannies of our lives and brings about changes, some good, some we think are good and some we just have no idea about. The big story of connection has been publicised, commercialised and most of all socialised as our lives become running serials played out on all manner of internet stages. The net has become the great detective, delving back into our lives to reconnect, for just a second, with that long lost boyfriend from school, past colleagues and the flotsam and jetsam that made an impact but not always enough to be worthy of belonging to your inner circle.
The post office no longer delivers letters because we have become accustomed to instant replies and quick snatches of conversation over WiFi that make the walk to the letter box obsolete. Those letters were a connection to anyone outside your town or city and the more you wrote the better connected you became. They usually consisted of relevant news, a show of undying love for someone, family ties and a link across the miles to make someone feel closer. Letters were bulky, lengthy, involved, complicated, heartfelt and took a while to compile and because of this, you chose wisely, the recipients who would read your thoughts with reverence attached.
Aside from people you saw everyday, letters were the closest thing to a connection or relationship, until that new fangled technology, the phone, turned up and we embraced another avenue to connect. Technology hasn't stopped since then and today it has fragmented our relationships into bytes of connections that scatter our affection and our attention so wide, sociologist think it has become impossible to give everyone the time they deserve. When they look at relationships, it is face to face that is considered the most important with great worth attached to conversations over a meal, a gathering of friends at the local, or to be in the moment with someone close? These are the difficult measures within the new technology landscape where we say we are connected, but to what extent?
Sociologists and psychologists suggest we are not as connected as we used to be and our online connections are shallow and not worthwhile and point to internet activities like online dating, where connections seldom reach a relationship stage, even after finally meeting. The nearly one billion on Facebook would likely disagree and see their connections as worthwhile and talk about the changes in relationship, where the focus is on many not just a select few.
We are becoming used to the speed of our world and always being connected and maybe our relationships don't require as in depth and lengthy touches as the letters of bygone years? If we are always connected and touch, ever so briefly, on a more constant basis, then we are surely making up for the long letters no matter how heartfelt they may have been. Constant touch gives a surety to relationships, which the net has been able to reproduce in many forms. Who hasn't sent pictures to Grandma, who hasn't sent an e-Birthday card and who hasn't marvelled at a smiling face Skyping from far away? All done quickly, all done easily and all done with forethought for the receiver.
Connections and relationships are what you make of them, no matter the medium and no matter the communication methods used. Why not sent Granny a text today?
The post office no longer delivers letters because we have become accustomed to instant replies and quick snatches of conversation over WiFi that make the walk to the letter box obsolete. Those letters were a connection to anyone outside your town or city and the more you wrote the better connected you became. They usually consisted of relevant news, a show of undying love for someone, family ties and a link across the miles to make someone feel closer. Letters were bulky, lengthy, involved, complicated, heartfelt and took a while to compile and because of this, you chose wisely, the recipients who would read your thoughts with reverence attached.
Aside from people you saw everyday, letters were the closest thing to a connection or relationship, until that new fangled technology, the phone, turned up and we embraced another avenue to connect. Technology hasn't stopped since then and today it has fragmented our relationships into bytes of connections that scatter our affection and our attention so wide, sociologist think it has become impossible to give everyone the time they deserve. When they look at relationships, it is face to face that is considered the most important with great worth attached to conversations over a meal, a gathering of friends at the local, or to be in the moment with someone close? These are the difficult measures within the new technology landscape where we say we are connected, but to what extent?
Sociologists and psychologists suggest we are not as connected as we used to be and our online connections are shallow and not worthwhile and point to internet activities like online dating, where connections seldom reach a relationship stage, even after finally meeting. The nearly one billion on Facebook would likely disagree and see their connections as worthwhile and talk about the changes in relationship, where the focus is on many not just a select few.
We are becoming used to the speed of our world and always being connected and maybe our relationships don't require as in depth and lengthy touches as the letters of bygone years? If we are always connected and touch, ever so briefly, on a more constant basis, then we are surely making up for the long letters no matter how heartfelt they may have been. Constant touch gives a surety to relationships, which the net has been able to reproduce in many forms. Who hasn't sent pictures to Grandma, who hasn't sent an e-Birthday card and who hasn't marvelled at a smiling face Skyping from far away? All done quickly, all done easily and all done with forethought for the receiver.
Connections and relationships are what you make of them, no matter the medium and no matter the communication methods used. Why not sent Granny a text today?
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mirror Mirror.
On the wall, who is the fairest of them all and who will get that job or that promotion? Studies show attractive women get all the breaks at work when it comes to getting to the next level because they are seen as positive, sensitive and poised. "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful", is the cry of many affected by the attractive gene, so how do the rest of us fight back? Haven't they seen Snow White and the evil Queen, okay maybe Charlize Theron is not a good example. The first 5 seconds, so important for making an impression, must seem easy for someone like Charlize and the "pretty" women who follow in her footsteps? I fully understand I am skating on thin ice but don't shoot the messenger, especially when there is a twist to the story.
A further study out of Ariel University in Israel, found attractive women going for employment, found it harder to get interviews than so called plain Janes. So the stereotyping taking place at work, where "pretty" women were seen as having the advantage, was in reverse for CVs, as companies correlated attractiveness with being less qualified and not as bright as the plain Jane applicants ( oooooh dangerous territory). Not wanting the "dumb blonde" monicker to be the final arbiter on the study, more research was done with photos rated on how intelligent people looked and found there was no correlation between beauty and not being able to hit the books, meaning they needed to dig deeper. Dig they did and the final assumption, finding, was related to the high level of women in human resources, tasked with choosing the applicants. Seems 93% of selectors were women and the study pointed at jealousy as the unavoidable conclusion, finding them choosing the plain Jane over the "pretty woman". I hope the researchers remain anonymous because if they ever need a job they had better find the appropriate head shot to get them to the first interview.
So thinking about the above, from my side, I had a chat with good mate Patrick Dobbin, who works as an image consultant for men only. Pease note the subtle and and yet slightly overt plug for Patrick Dobbin and Associates at http://imageconsultantformen.com.au/. As you might expect the above research did show that men who had made the effort to improve their image fared much better in interviews, promotions and general acceptance in the work place. Something that Patrick agrees with and something that can be accomplished with his help. Yes I thought about it, but came to the quick realisation that I'm beyond help and not even Patrick could work that miracle.
The fact remains we are still an image obsessed society and it spills over into the work place with both sides of the argument affected. We need to dig a little deeper into people and go beyond the veneer because skills, knowledge and ability to do the job are always more important than the next model that walks through your door. Patrick I'll give you a call later.
A further study out of Ariel University in Israel, found attractive women going for employment, found it harder to get interviews than so called plain Janes. So the stereotyping taking place at work, where "pretty" women were seen as having the advantage, was in reverse for CVs, as companies correlated attractiveness with being less qualified and not as bright as the plain Jane applicants ( oooooh dangerous territory). Not wanting the "dumb blonde" monicker to be the final arbiter on the study, more research was done with photos rated on how intelligent people looked and found there was no correlation between beauty and not being able to hit the books, meaning they needed to dig deeper. Dig they did and the final assumption, finding, was related to the high level of women in human resources, tasked with choosing the applicants. Seems 93% of selectors were women and the study pointed at jealousy as the unavoidable conclusion, finding them choosing the plain Jane over the "pretty woman". I hope the researchers remain anonymous because if they ever need a job they had better find the appropriate head shot to get them to the first interview.
So thinking about the above, from my side, I had a chat with good mate Patrick Dobbin, who works as an image consultant for men only. Pease note the subtle and and yet slightly overt plug for Patrick Dobbin and Associates at http://imageconsultantformen.com.au/. As you might expect the above research did show that men who had made the effort to improve their image fared much better in interviews, promotions and general acceptance in the work place. Something that Patrick agrees with and something that can be accomplished with his help. Yes I thought about it, but came to the quick realisation that I'm beyond help and not even Patrick could work that miracle.
The fact remains we are still an image obsessed society and it spills over into the work place with both sides of the argument affected. We need to dig a little deeper into people and go beyond the veneer because skills, knowledge and ability to do the job are always more important than the next model that walks through your door. Patrick I'll give you a call later.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Safety doesn't happen by accident.
If you are looking to avoid becoming a crime statistic while travelling on your holidays, there are many ways to protect yourself, keep your documents safe and come home in one piece. Certainly a good dose of common sense goes a long way, along with knowing about your destination and travelling with experienced travellers or travel companies. Safe traveller advice from government sites, making sure you are adequately insured, mobile messaging and information and having the back up of international companies like iSOS also give travellers peace of mind.
If you want to avoid all of the above then the easiest way to stay out of trouble is to travel to only the safest cities. Just down the road from Disneyland is the city of Irvine, which has been nominated as the safest city in America, by the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, for the eighth year in a row. I used to visit my best friends, who lived there for a couple of years and "Disneyland suburban" is not a bad analogy for the manicured streets, row after row of groomed gardens leading to leafy shopping malls with not a policeman in sight. Irvine works hard at being a city looking to attract people on lifestyle choices and along with those choices, comes the safety factor which provides the cherry on top of a cake everyone wants to eat.
Along with FBI reports you can check out the Global City Reviews and Personal Safety Rankings by Mercer, which are based on measures of internal stability, crime levels, law enforcement effectiveness and host country international. It comes as no surprise that the cities high on the list of most liveable are also high on safety. European cities dominated the top ten most liveable cities with Vienna, again named best city in the world, along with Zurich, Munich, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Geneva and Bern. Our friends across the Tasman in Auckland and the always friendly Canucks in Vancouver also made it onto the top ten list.
With so many cities in the top ten, European cities rank high on the personal safety ranking, with Luxembourg, Bern, Helsinki, Zurich and Vienna ranking in the top five. Within the Asia Pacific region it comes as no surprise that Singapore ranks the safest, after all, benevolent dictatorship has a lot going for it, as long as you don't chew gum and wear long hair. Sorry that must have been a 70s flashback. Our capital cities rank 25th in safety within the Asia Pac region, which leaves plenty of room for improvement.
When looking at the Mercer lists, it becomes obvious the world we know is becoming a safer place to travel but for many that isn't enough and there will always be a need to visit the edges. Edges in Africa, Central and South America along with unexplored Asia will always attract travellers wanting to see the occasional gun, chaos and things not seen by their neighbours, who just booked on the latest European vacation.
If you want to avoid all of the above then the easiest way to stay out of trouble is to travel to only the safest cities. Just down the road from Disneyland is the city of Irvine, which has been nominated as the safest city in America, by the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, for the eighth year in a row. I used to visit my best friends, who lived there for a couple of years and "Disneyland suburban" is not a bad analogy for the manicured streets, row after row of groomed gardens leading to leafy shopping malls with not a policeman in sight. Irvine works hard at being a city looking to attract people on lifestyle choices and along with those choices, comes the safety factor which provides the cherry on top of a cake everyone wants to eat.
Along with FBI reports you can check out the Global City Reviews and Personal Safety Rankings by Mercer, which are based on measures of internal stability, crime levels, law enforcement effectiveness and host country international. It comes as no surprise that the cities high on the list of most liveable are also high on safety. European cities dominated the top ten most liveable cities with Vienna, again named best city in the world, along with Zurich, Munich, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Geneva and Bern. Our friends across the Tasman in Auckland and the always friendly Canucks in Vancouver also made it onto the top ten list.
With so many cities in the top ten, European cities rank high on the personal safety ranking, with Luxembourg, Bern, Helsinki, Zurich and Vienna ranking in the top five. Within the Asia Pacific region it comes as no surprise that Singapore ranks the safest, after all, benevolent dictatorship has a lot going for it, as long as you don't chew gum and wear long hair. Sorry that must have been a 70s flashback. Our capital cities rank 25th in safety within the Asia Pac region, which leaves plenty of room for improvement.
When looking at the Mercer lists, it becomes obvious the world we know is becoming a safer place to travel but for many that isn't enough and there will always be a need to visit the edges. Edges in Africa, Central and South America along with unexplored Asia will always attract travellers wanting to see the occasional gun, chaos and things not seen by their neighbours, who just booked on the latest European vacation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
