Jason-

I have been a little slow in getting back to the blog, but it has taken me a bit to fully recover from kicking off the Social Gravity World Tour in New Orleans at LASHRM12. Great show. Great people. Great food. Next we are headed to Boston for the HR Excellence Conference and this is also kind of an important gig for us.

We are rolling out some new content in Boston and while we are still in the kitchen cooking and mixing, this message is largely about authenticity, integrity and daring.

One of the questions at the heart of this message is, this:

Who / what determines who you are?

We are pretty susceptible to being influenced by the people and things around us…and if we are not careful, we can lose sight of what really matters to us.

We behave according to our title, rather than our identity.

We settle on someone else’s definition of success.

One of my absolute favorite books is Orbiting the Giant Hairball: A Corporate Fool’s Guide to Surviving With Grace by Gordon MacKenzie. One of the things that has always stuck with me from this book is MacKenzie talking about his experience interacting with students. When he went into classrooms and asked kindergarten students how many of them were creative, nearly all of them would raise their hands. By 5th or 6th grade the number of students who considered themselves creative would be cut in half and by graduation only about one student per class considered themselves to be creative.

How many of us have just stopped considering ourselves to be creative…or catalysts…or leaders?

Most of the book is focused on the workplace and how hard it is to stay true to who you are and probably my favorite passage is on page 53.

“When you come into an organization you bring with you an arcane potency, which stems in part from your uniqueness. That in turn, is rooted in a complex mosaic of personal history that is original, unfathomable,  inimitable. There has never been anyone quite like you and there never will be. Consequently, you can contribute something to an endeavor that nobody else can. There is a power in uniqueness…an inexplicable, unmeasurable power…a magic.

But if you are hypnotized by an organizations culture, you become separated from your personal magic and cannot tap it to achieve the goals of your organization. In losing connection with your one-of-a-kind magic, you are reduced to nothing more than part of the headcount.”

How can we help people hold on to their personal magic in the workplace?

How do we support people in claiming their unique role?

-joe

We are going to try to do something about that.  Most of you know that our passion and what we do best is speaking—delivering high energy, kick ass keynotes that inspire people to go back to their workplaces and make things happens, to be the hero of their own story.   And frankly, people are always more inspired to buy a book after they’ve heard the authors speak, so we decided to launch a tour in promotion of our book.  Rock stars have tours when they release a new album, so we thought we’d do the same thing.  There will be posters.  There will be T-shirts.

We are kicking the tour off live today at the Louisiana SHRM Conference (in fact, every attendee at this conference is walking away with a copy of the book thanks to a great and generous sponsor).  If you can’t join us in the Big EAsy, we are also kicking things off virtually today at 12:30 p.m. CT on DriveThruHR Radio with our friends, William Tincup and Bryan Wempen.  We are going to be talking about the book, the tour, and hopefully taking zingers and questions from you through phone and Twitter.  If you have 30 minutes free at 12:30 p.m. today, join us.

The reason for the tour is to give us an excuse to talk about the book and to remind you that we want to come to your town, to your event and light it up.  As we inspire people along the journey of the tour, people will learn about the book and hopefully, some might even buy one.

So, if you are involved in an event, let’s get it on the tour.  If you know people who do events, send them our info.  We want to bring some Anarchy your direction.  Thanks for following, reading and supporting us along the way.  We appreciate all of you and hope to see you soon.

Good post, I think even those of us that are pretty deliberate about building dynamic networks of relationships do not always grasp the role that those people play in our lives. A lot of interesting studies in the past decade have shown the way that ideas and information move through these networks and have even shown correlates regarding things like happiness, physical fitness, and divorce between ourselves and the people that we are connected to.

It reminds me of something that Marshall McLuhan said:

“We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.”

We might do well to remember that the network we put in place around us is going to shape us in many ways.

I think that our networks easily become dominated by like minded folks especially from our geographic community and / or our profession. If we take a look at our two LinkedIn networks I would guess that would be the case for both of us.

It is really important to consistently introduce novelty into your network. As you said; “The social capital available in your network increases in value as the diversity of your network increases because it then gives us more diverse sources of information and perspective to access.”

So, I think that part of the message here is to make sure and be a pioneer somewhere. Go be the oddball somewhere. Leave the confines of your professional network where you know the players and the lingo and find an opportunity to start making connections in different professions or different industries. Maybe start attending a conference or subscribing to a journal that does not have anything to do with your work.

Your network if going to feed you “the normal stuff”…be deliberate about bringing some abnormal stuff in as well.

-joe

Something I’ve been thinking about lately is the affect that our network of relationships might be having on our thinking and our point of view.  Thanks to the internet and social web, information is being created and shared at a pace today that makes the head spin.  The amount of content available for consumption on the web is growing at an exponentially faster pace each week.  And, I know that I, for one, can’t keep up.

For example, there are a few dozen blogs that I’d like to read every day, but I  just can’t make that happen.  Then there’s magazines and journals like Fast Company and Harvard Business Review that I’d like to read from cover to cover each month.  Add to that some daily news sources, new research papers, etc.  Nevermind actually trying to read an entire book.  I can’t do it.  I’ve lost that battle a long time ago.

So, instead of trying to keep up with everything, I’ve come to rely on my network, predominantly through social media, to bring great content to my attention.  I’m not sure that this is the best or most reliable method of determining what to read, but it’s my way.  Most every thing I read these days comes to me through a recommendation of some sort–retweets, shares, recommendations, etc.  I’m trusting my network to help me find good content to consume.   Sure, I still have some blogs that I religiously follow, but much of the rest comes to me through the network.

As I was thinking about this, I realized how much influence I’ve given to my network.  They are literally telling me what to read.  And what I read affects what I think about and, often, how I think about it.  That’s a lot of trust that I’m putting in my network.  I’m conscious of the fact that this is happening in the same way that I’m conscious of google tweaking my search results based on my past searching or amazon making recommendations to me.  I know that I am opting into information that comes with a slant.  But, I wonder how many people aren’t aware of the power they are handing over to their network.  And, I wonder at what cost some people are unknowingly allowing others to influence what information they are consuming.

I think that this is yet another reason to be very intentional in our networking efforts.  We need to be thoughtful about who we give such great powers of influence in our lives.  I’m not suggesting that if we allow someone into our network, that they suddenly possess some kind of mind control over us.  Rather, I think that if we only let in certain types of people to our network(typically people like us who value the same things we do) and we aren’t conscious about putting diversity into our network, that we can end up creating a pretty one dimensional network which could make our thinking and perspective one dimensional.  The social capital available in your network increases in value as the diversity of your network increases because it then gives us more diverse sources of information and perspective to access.

Perhaps I’m over thinking this, but I feel it’s important to pay attention to what information you are feeding your brain and where that  information is coming from.  In today’s hyper-connected world, one of the ways you do this is by paying close attention to who is in your network and why they are there.

Jason

Great question: How do we avoid jobs and companies that suck?

It is heart breaking to me when I see talented people trudging away in jobs that either they don’t love or at companies where they don’t fit.  And, as you hint at, in almost every situation when you talk to someone who is in this kind of predicament, they almost always say something like “This isn’t at all what I thought it was going to be.”  They were toast before they even showed up to new hire orientation.

I’ve been in that spot a few times myself.  I’ve felt the pain of waking up to the very crushing reality that you made the wrong choice when you decided to take the job.  I felt discouraged.  I felt deceived.  I felt lost.  It sucks.  It’s a terrible thing to be in a job or a company where you don’t belong and where you can’t utilize the best of who you are.  And there are way too many people stuck in this situation.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

You asked what we can do to avoid ending up in the vortex of work suckage.  I’m no expert, but I’ve seen it enough to offer up some thoughts and suggestions that might help.

1. Seek out a job before it’s a crisis.  If you really need a job or are desperate to leave where you are, you will almost always make a knee jerk decision because anything looks good when you are in that situation.  To make great decisions, you need time and perspective.  And, you need to be not only able to but willing to walk away from any job or company if it doesn’t feel right.
2. Know what is most important to you.  Sadly, most people don’t spend the time to understand what really matters to them.  What kind of culture is a fit for you?  How do you know?  What kind of work do you want to do?  What kind of manager do you want to work for?  What kind of people do you want to work with?  If you can’t answer these questions with clarity, there is no way for you to evaluate a new opportunity for fit.  By not answering these questions, you are leaving the “fit” entirely up to luck.  That’s bad strategy.
3. Interview the company.  Ask to meet with a number of people individually at the company you are considering and have a set of questions ready that are based on your answers to the “fit” questions above.  For example, you might ask the question “Tell me about the culture here” or “How would you decribe the atmosphere here at the organization?  Listen for consistency.  In a strong culture, all of the answers will sound similar.  If they aren’t, that’s a huge red flag.  When you interview the company, it’s not about showing them that you are interested, it’s about legitimately deciding if this is the right company for you.
4. Look for reasons not to take the job. My experience has been that most of us go into a job interview looking for reasons to join a company so we tend to see only the things that appeal to us.  Instead, I think most people would be wise to go into a job interview looking for reasons not to join the company.  That doesn’t mean tanking the interview or being a jackass, but just being constantly on the lookout for danger signs.
5.  Seek out people who had what you want and left.  With social media, particularly LinkedIn, it’s easy to find people who have worked in the company you are considering, maybe even having done the exact job you are considering.  Ask them the same questions you asked in the interview process.  Ask this person why they left and if they’d ever go back.  Listen intently to what they say and how they say it.  Then, ask them if they know of others who have left who you could also reach out to and talk to.  The more info you collect, the more likely you are to have a really accurate picture of the company with which to make a decision.
6. Don’t suck.  All of these suggestions assume that you are a desirable and sought-after talent.  So, you have to always be working to expand your value and your options.  Build your network.  Read a lot of books.  Take on stretch assignments in your current job.  Always be in the process of building your own value.  The more valuable you are, the more options you have.  When you don’t have a lot of options available to you, it’s likely you will have to adapt the strategy of simply taking the job available to you that sucks the least rather than going after a job you’d truly love.

The foundation under all of this is to treat the decision of where you will work as the critical, life-changing decision it is.  A great job at a great company can positively impact every aspect of your life for the better.  And, a terrible, soul-crushing job can negatively impact every aspect of your life.  This is a really important decision and we need to treat it with the respect it deserves.

The great news is that we have control.  We get to make the decision about where we work and how we work.  The real issue is whether we’ll put in the time and energy to ensure we make the right choice.

What did I miss?

Jason

We know smart people.

We have this consistently growing collection of really smart and talented people spread out around the world. It is awesome to see so many of them thriving, affecting change and blowing stuff up. It is also incredibly frustrating to see some of them jammed up in bad gigs. It is difficult to see talent being wasted.

We have talked here before about why people stay in bad jobs, but I am a little more interested today in how people can better avoid bad jobs, bad organizations, bad bosses.

In many cases, people go into their new job blind. There are certainly some exceptions to this; we recently spent some time with some of the Rackspace folks for example. There are organizations that provide some real insight into their culture and are very intentional about who they bring in to that culture. But, most job interviews are about as authentic and candid as a first date.

There is today, more information available to applicants, thanks to sites like Glassdoor and others. But it still seems to me that awesome people still have a hard time avoiding jobs, employers, bosses that suck.

You are a recovering HR leader, any words of wisdom?

-joe

Contracts huh?

I had to sign a contract last week, and the lady that I was working with placed it in front of me and said “take as long as you need to read through this so that you understand it and can sign it.” After skimming the first paragraph I responded by saying “I am not ever going to understand this. So I’ll just sign it and we can both pretend that we made some real agreement here.”

I hate contracts.

I hate the legal language and fine print. There is probably at least some part of every single contract I am involved in right now, that I do not understand and could not understand without paying for legal expertise.

Contracts are not the answer.

What we need are more agreements made between people, out loud and in public…more open, honest conversations. We do not need to increase the role of lawyers, legal departments or the corporate entity and I do not want to give organizations more tools to define the employment relationship.

I do not want it to be harder for people to leave their jobs, I want it to be easier. All beta everything.

I believe that work wants to find its match in talent and that talent wants to find the work that it is called to. Making it easier for that movement to happen increases the evolutionary pressure on the organization. I do not think that a more dynamic and fluid work relationship means that it is a mess, I think it just means that it is different.

Organizations will compete through providing great work and a great work experience, and both parties will share power in mediating that relationship moving forward. Contracts are about control, they are the opposite of what is needed today.

-joe

Back in the early days of Talent Anarchy when we were speaking about generational diversity in the workplace, we talked a lot about how the employee-employer contract has been broken and all but vanished.  The contract we were talking about wasn’t formal, but rather implied and part of the fabric of what it meant to work for someone.  In the old days, if you showed up consistently and gave an honest days work, you were taken care of by the company–not just today, but for your entire career.  Companies were loyal to people and people were loyal to companies.

Part of why that contract worked between employees and employers was that the nature of work at that time made it much more challenging to move from one job to another (if you were a machine operator in one place, that didn’t necessarily transfer to being a machine operator in another because equipment might be very different) and, for the same reason, it was very challenging for companies to replace people when they left.  Also, the availability of information about other employers and other employment options was much less available that it is today.  Ignorance can be blissful.

But, today, things are very different.  We live in the era of knowledge and design work which means we  are the means of value creation and we can easily move from one company to the next.  Plus, you can’t log into your computer these days without being confronted with information about jobs and opportunities.  Anyone with an internet connection can look up salary information to determine how much other people in other jobs are making.  All this means that people are more likely and willing to move.  Companies know this and they also know that can find other people to fill your role.  This relationship is a mess.

I wonder how much of a negative impact this talent mobility has had on organizational and individual growth and productivity.  Loyalty is dead and gone–that’s pretty clear.  Our businesses and our employment relationships aren’t built on trust, they really can’t be.  Employees know they can be laid off at any moment if the business needs to maximize profit.  Companies know that employees will leave on a moment’s notice for a few more bucks or an extra week of vacation.  The relationship has become pretty dysfunctional because both parties feel vulnerable and frankly, frustrated.

So, this got me to thinking about how we might fix this.  And I’m wondering if it isn’t time to introduce actual formal, legal employment contracts as a part of the employee-employer relationship.  If every employee had to negotiate a contract with their employer upon accepting employment, perhaps we could start laying the foundation for trust again in this relationship.

Here’s how I imagine this could work.  The “offer” part of the recruitment process is replaced with contract negotiations.  The company agrees to a contract term for the employee that includes:

• Guaranteed term of employment which could range from 1 month to 10 years.
• Compensation and benefits package
• Performance expectations of the employee
• Training and Development Plan
• Promotional opportunities based on achievement of performance and development targets.
• Penalties for violation of the contract

The idea being that both parties lay out in great detail the expectations and length of their relationship before it even starts.  Obviously, there may be other considerations involved, but because it is a legally enforceable agreement, both parties would be pretty focused on making sure it’s clear.

Here is what I think this approach could do:

• Creates some comfort for both sides because they are sharing risk and making a commitment to one another for a period of time and that commitment is legally protected.
• Reduces tension in the relationship because both parties are clear on expectations.
• Takes out uncertainty over compensation because it’s pre-defined.
• Increases engagement because it removes the “should I stay or should I go” mindset for employees.  When you are locked in, you have to find a way to make it work so you are naturally more engaged.
• Puts pressure on the organization to be a place that people are willing to make a long term commitment to.

The model that keeps coming to mind for me is the military.  When you make a decision to enlist, you are making a long term, contractual agreement to serve.  You remove quitting as an option which means that no matter how much it might suck at times, you find a way to get through it and make it work.  The military is effective for a lot of different reasons, but I think that this contract is certainly part of it.

Why couldn’t this also work in business?

Jason

Thanks for your post, and I agree with everything that you said about conferences. I really like what you said about the emerging conference as a “gathering of the tribe.”

It also occurs to me that your four points might be leading us toward more and smaller conference events. Large formal conferences are obviously not going to disappear in the next year, but we might see a continued growth of events like HREvolution, TalentNet Live, Brand Camp, Secret School of Business, etc. It seems to me that larger conferences are hard pressed to accomplish the things that you are talking about, with SxSW as one of the glaring exceptions…possibly.

Smaller events would seem to make it easier to focus on (and possibly be driven by) the tribe, obsess about the experience and make it more interactive and more affordable.

Smaller events also make it easier to get out of those awful, square and sterile conference spaces that we keep putting people in. If we are really going to be about experience design, the look and feel and vibe and smell and sound of the space has got to be a primary concern. Putting people in an art gallery, a children’s museum or a zoo for a couple of days truly puts them in a different place for rubbing their brains together. You can feel the difference.

I also think that social technology provides nearly countless ways to connect and engage the tribe before, during and after a conference…regardless the size of the event. I do not see a lot of events seriously pursuing that potential yet, but it might be that event planning teams need to add some additional capacity to their teams.

I personally, need some variety and am a fan of events that mix it up with their format. For example, I love it when conferences include some Ignite type presentations or some opens space sessions, I think there are multiple benefits to this. I think that open space is a big part of the future of conferences. I also like it when conferences have longer, more intense “deep dives” of 3-4 hours available.

And, I appreciate some mixing it up with speakers as well. With a few exceptions, I do not see a lot of risk taking here. It seems like everyone has to know you and your message for you to get on a big keynote stage…which means by the time you get on a big keynote stage, everyone already knows what you are going to say. Which does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

You can have some fan favorites, and some big names, but I think it is also important to put some new voices on that stage. I think it is important to bring people from outside your industry and I think that there continues to be a stunning lack of diversity on most conference agendas. More experimentation and risk taking is needed with format and agenda.

Like you, I have always liked conferences. And like you, I am needing them to evolve. There is obviously some evolution already underway and it is exciting to think about what the next couple of years will bring.

-joe

]]> http://talentanarchy.com/2012/03/12/the-emerging-conference/feed/ 2 http://talentanarchy.com/2012/03/07/designing-the-new-conference-experience/ http://talentanarchy.com/2012/03/07/designing-the-new-conference-experience/#comments Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:53:21 +0000 Jason Lauritsen http://talentanarchy.com.s120267.gridserver.com/?p=734 Joe,

Thanks for the invitation to talk about the conference experience.  I’ve written on this topic in the past, primarily to make the point that new and innovative approaches are emerging that, I think, will change the way we think of conferences forever.

Let me start by saying that I have always loved conferences.  I still love conferences, but the reasons have changed.  Early in my career, conferences offered an opportunity to learn and be exposed to ideas that I wasn’t finding elsewhere.  It was an opportunity to hear people either telling their story (case study) or talking about a new approach (concept).  Both were really valuable to me.  But, at that time, there weren’t a billion blogs and twitter and the Human Capital Institute or TLNT.  So, getting access to new ideas and information was a lot more challenging than it is today.  Today, I could sit at my desk to read and watch webinars all day, every day about case studies and new concepts online.  I have access to more information than I can digest–particularly the mainstream stuff, so hearing that same information presented at conferences isn’t nearly as valuable as it used to be.

The other reason I loved conferences in the early days was for the opportunity to network with peers in other parts of the country.  I’d meet other smart, motivated professionals at a conference who loved to talk shop.  Then, we’d schedule phone calls after the conference to talk more and share information.  It was my only reliable way to build a network of peers outside of my local area.  Obviously, this dynamic has changed tremendously as well.  Today, social media has shrunk the world.  I can find and connect to HR peers in all corners of the globe fairly easily.  Not only has social media made it easier to find people with whom to connect, it’s also made people generally more open to the idea of connecting and forming networks.  All good things, but certainly this changes the value a conference creates for the participant.  It’s no longer the primary way to build network, it’s simply another way to meet people.

So, how does the conference look in this brave new world of social technology?  Here are a few thoughts I have about where conferences are headed.

1. Conferences should becoming a gathering of the tribe.  I think the days of a conference just being a two day event (read learning experience) that happens and then disperses are over.  Successful conferences are going to simply be a part of a larger effort to create a community, or more powerfully, a tribe.  To create a cohesive tribe, it will be important to get very clear about who the tribe is for.  We’ve been at a lot of HR conferences over the past year or two.  In HR, there are different audiences, there are entry-level, mid-career, and leaders/executives.  There are also major HR differences between industries like healthcare versus manufacturing versus professional services.  There are progressive HR folks and traditional HR folks.  Who do you want in your tribe?  Once you define that, the conference organizer needs to create an ongoing way for people to belong to and participate in the tribe (online, in person, etc.).  HR Tech is a conference that seems to do this fairly well (check out their LinkedIn group).  The point of all of this is that the conference becomes a gathering of the tribe.  It’s a chance to get together with people who have common interests to yours, some of who you already know, for the purpose of deepening connections, creating shared expeierience, and talking about content and ideas that are important to the tribe.
2. Conference experiences need to be carefully designed.  Few conferences do this really well.  Design means starting with the question, “How do we want our participants to feel about this experience?’ and then designing every part of the process to create that experience.  For example, if you want your participants to leave energized, then you need to think about creating an experience that creates and maintains energy.  That means spaces that might be a little small for the number of attendees.  That might mean energetic music playing in the hall ways and conference spaces.  That might mean a compact agenda that moves at a brisk pace.  Contrast that with a conference design where your primary goal is to talk about change.  If your theme is change, then you should work in change throughout.  Maybe you pick a non-traditional venue versus a hotel or conference center.  Maybe you put the speaker in the middle of the room instead of on a stage.  Maybe change the agenda half way through the conference, by design, just to keep the topic of change top of mind.  Design can mean the different between not remembering the name of the conference you went to last year and telling everyone you know about it.
3. Conferences have to be interactive.  The days of putting on conferences that are an endless parade of talking heads are gone.  It’s still okay to have a few traditional power keynotes on the agenda, but the experience has to be an interactive one.  We live in a world where everyone carries a personal computer and gaming system in their pocket.  And, the popularity of “livetweeting” at conferences has made it okay for people to sit during a session and play with their phone (regardless of what they are doing on it).  People are increasingly treating a conference presentation like a webinar you watch at your desk even though people are presenting right in front of you.  If you are interested, you pay attention.  If you don’t get pulled in right away, you do something else.  I actually witnessed someone at a conference recently sitting in the front row, reading the newspaper while a speaker was talking.  There are two ways to work with this trend.  First, have incredibly compelling content and speakers (easier said than done).  Second, design sessions at your conference to be interactive, shared learning experiences facilitated by experts who are skilled teachers.  You can’t play Angry Birds or catch up on email when you are in a session where everyone is expected to contribute to the discussion.  And, if you are engaged, you are more likely to learn and have a great experience.
4. Conferences must be more affordable.  If your focus is to make money off of your conference, you will likely fail.  The days of big, juicy profitable conferences are gone–at least until you amass a large, loyal and fierce tribe.  Until then, the conference experience needs to simply be a piece of a larger strategy to build community within the tribe.  Large professional associations and industry groups will continue to cling to the old model for now, because they are profiting.  They have a built in tribe that will attend their show, regardless of design.  But, for those who don’t have that luxury, the cost of attending your conference needs to go down.  Travel is more expensive than it’s ever been and budgets are tight.  If you build a tribe and design an experience that appeals to the tribe, they will come (if you make it affordable).  And sponsors who have products for the members of that tribe will be happy to help you subsidize it.

So, that’s my take on the future of conferences.  I’ll be interested to hear if you agree or if your perspective on conferences is something different.

Jason