Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Stakeholder

Social Networking: Make Room for the Introverts

Bokeh

I see the terms “social media” and “social networking” used a lot.  Really, a lot.

Susan Burns makes an important distinction between “social media” (a collection of tools) and “social networking” (the application of social media):

Social networking is pursued with the underlying intention of dialogue, engagement, and interest . . . If you are simply pushing jobs out to Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn, you are socializing job postings by using social media, but not necessarily engaging in social networking. If you’re engaging prospective talent in discussions and building active communities, you are pursuing a social networking strategy.

A very valuable point.  But let’s say a company and its recruiters understand the nature of social networking and want to engage, build, and generally communicate on a community level.  There is an “easy” side to that strategy, in the sense that there’s an eager audience of social media users out there who will welcome the opportunities they are presented with.  They will naturally communicate and communitize.

Of course there is also a set of people who don’t have the connectivity and/or the technical capability to respond to social networking opportunities.  They will have to be reached by some other means—and that’s the challenge of the “digital divide.”  Although it’s less and less of an issue, it does still exist.

But there is also a third group, and these folks may be the most ignored.  Social networking is by its very nature geared toward outgoing, expressive personalities.  As well as ambitious, even aggressive personalities.  And these “extroverts” often have a natural knack for connecting via social media tools.

Yet not all potentially valuable employees will fall into this “extrovert” profile.  In fact, many highly successful executives are “introverts” according to a fascinating article in USA Today, which offers insights into the relationship of creativity, charisma, leadership, and personality type.

So.  Where do introverts fit into today’s world of social recruiting?

A thoughtful post by “Cincy Recruiter” Jennifer McClure explains that the difference between extroverts and introverts is not what most people think.  Extroverts are not necessarily non-stop socializers, and introverts are not necessarily shy and retiring.  According to McClure, one big difference is that “introverts recharge by spending time alone,” while “extroverts recharge by being around people.”

That rings very true in my experience—and it also accounts in part for why the two types are not always clearly differentiated by Myer-Briggs and other personality tests.  McClure goes on to offer some connecting/networking tips for self-defined introverts, aided by a delightful slideshow for the “shy connector,” created by Sacha Chua.

Although McClure herself is a recruiter and an introvert, the great majority of people in sales/recruiting/HR are extroverts themselves, and so may take that state of mind as the norm.  Therefore!  Anyone attempting to develop and implement a social networking strategy would do well to read McClure’s post and give some thought to creating an integrated approach that will appeal to quieter types as well as go-getters.

PS:  Attitudes toward extroversion and introversion have a definite cultural aspect.  In the U.S., for example, extroversion is generally considered “normal” and introversion is viewed by many as falling short of the personality ideal.  That’s not true everywhere, and may actually be reversed in some cultures.  But there may still be lurking bias—especially in interview situations—toward more outgoing candidates or prospects.


(Thanks to kevindooley for the illustration of bokeh–a photographer’s term for the diffused light that appears in an image when the light source is unfocused.)

Explaining Corporate Culture: How Well Are Websites Doing?

Culture

Here’s a smart, useful summary of the components that make up what we call “corporate culture”:

Culture includes a wide range of social qualities such as beliefs, sense of mission, values, norms, traditions, how victories are celebrated, physical layout (e.g., open plan vs. closed offices), how conflicts get resolved (e.g., consensus vs. command-and-control), leadership style (e.g., team-based vs. “Lone Ranger”), communication style (e.g., candor vs. diplomacy; speed vs. deliberation), and interpersonal practices (e.g., formality/informality).

The description is from a blog post by Robert Bruner, Dean of the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, and the rest of his commentary is well worth reading.  The main theme is how transactional and relational business cultures differ—and why understanding the difference is important.  “A failure to read correctly a firm’s culture,” Darden asserts, “can have catastrophic consequences for one’s career.”

The reverse is also true.  Failure to present a firm’s culture correctly can have catastrophic consequences when it comes to attracting the best potential employees.

Since the corporate Careers site is a key tool in communicating the company culture, it’s worth a careful review to determine whether the site is doing a good job.  Now here’s the tricky bit:  In order to measure the website’s success on this point, it will be necessary to have a solid definition of what the message actually ought to be.

Looking back at Bruner’s list of factors, it won’t take long to notice that few of them are actually addressed or even implied on most sites.  There may be a statement of corporate philosophy that hints at “beliefs, sense of mission, values, norms”; there may be something about rewards/recognition that suggests “how victories are celebrated.”  There might be some facility photos or even a video tour that depicts “physical layout.”  But I’ve seldom seen anything about “traditions.”

And it’s extremely rare to find any of Darden’s other factors (conflict resolution, leadership style, communication style, and interpersonal practices) explicitly described on a corporate site.  At best, there are implications embedded in the design and conveyed in the tone of the content.

That implicit messaging might or might not accurately reflect the corporate culture.  Does a bright-and-breezy site promise an open, informal atmosphere?  Does a button-down pinstripe site forebode a restrictive environment?  It would be an interesting project to determine whether there really are any correlations in most cases.

As to overt statements—a quick check of five major company sites produced even less than I expected.  Most delivered the culture message via employee testimonials, ranging from anonymous text snippets (“my co-workers are fun and friendly”) to fully produced videos that include scenic footage and background music.  One site had twenty videos, adding up to an hour of people talking directly into the camera about all the jobs they have had and how much they like Company X.

I’ll end by just wondering what it would be like if every company site had to provide a short, clear statement about each category in Dean Bruner’s post.  Or if they had to define their culture in terms of the Denison Model.

That would be . . . cool.


Glanbia–Ethics and Employees

Glanbia is an Ireland based diversified food company. Their website could be a model for good business and financial reporting. The Homepage is a gem–

Observations–

  • Letter and picture for the Managing Director
  • Good display of the business and performance
  • Links to more information about the company

Well designed, organized and eye appeal with sacrificing content.

Next, go to the Strategy section where there is a graphic and narrative description and targets that are boldly displayed–

How’s that for Transparency!

Hurray, the Annual Report is online —

Navigation is provided and you get a menu of services such as–

  • Create a PDF of the page
  • Send the company feedback
  • Print
  • Put page in a print basket

Very nice indeed. Another notable feature of this site are short narratives from employees–

This feature sends a message that the company values its people and gives a sense of humanizing an otherwise static medium.

Finally the company discusses Integrity–

  • The Board applies integrity, principles of good governance and accountability throughout its activities and each Director brings independence of character and judgement to the role. All of the members of the Board are individually and collectively aware of their responsibilities to the Company’s stakeholders. (2008 Annual Report), (Governance Report)
  • We encourage all our people to ‘Make a Difference’ through:
  • high energy performance;
  • constant innovation in the way we work and openness to change;
  • clear accountability and delivering on our commitments;
  • personal integrity and pride in Glanbia. (Corporate Culture Statement)
    • The Directors are responsible for the maintenance and integrity
      of the website.(2008 Annual Report) This is unique. I have not seen this on other corporate websites.

    All notable since Integrity is amplified by the “Tone at the Top”. The company would benefit greatly by adding an Ethics/Integrity Process that would integrate these statements.

    Website Impressions: Faster than a . . .

    Umpqua

    Looking for some insights into website design, I found myself time-traveling back to 2005.  That was the year two well-publicized studies appeared: one on first impressions, the other on gender preferences.  Although there have probably been some shifts in the meantime—as more people (and especially more women) have spent more time on more websites—the basic findings of these two studies almost surely continue to offer useful information.

    First: The Human Oriented Technology (HOT) lab at Canada’s Carleton University found that people made their judgments about a site in 50 milliseconds—and those judgments did not change much with extended viewing.  (Here’s a BBC summary of the HOT study.)

    Obviously that instantaneous impression is created by the graphic design, not by usefulness of content or ease of navigation.  It turns out, however, that the initial pre-cognitive response creates a “halo effect” which carries over into the visitor’s perceptions about everything else on the site.  So a positive first impression creates positive expectations—and since people like to be right, they tend to continue reinforcing their own opinions.

    The HOT study does not provide details about just what attracted/repulsed test subjects.  When viewers spent a longer time looking at the sites, they were asked to rate on broad categories such as “interesting/boring” and “good design/bad design.”  So the major takeaway from this study is . . . whatever you do, it had better work really fast.

    Second: A study at the University of Glamorgan found significant differences in site design preferences between women and men.  (Here’s a BBC summary of the Glamorgan study and here’s the more detailed Glamorgan account.)  Generally, men preferred straight lines and formal language, while women liked rounded shapes, more color, and informal language.  That in itself may not seem too surprising, but the study also found something we might not have anticipated.  When asked to evaluate the websites of more than thirty websites from higher education institutions, the male test subjects preferred sites designed by men, and the women preferred sites designed by women.

    Problem?  Most of the websites (92%) were designed along the “masculine appeal” lines by male web designers.

    It’s important to note that the websites evaluated in the study were academic institutions—which typically have the need to attract people of both genders.  And in that, they are very like the corporate Careers site.

    Once I started thinking about this, I realized that a substantial majority of the Careers sites I visit are arranged on a straight-line grid, with a limited palette and a fairly formal approach to language.  Put another way:  they are designed to appeal to men.  And that may be why I (not a man) find so few that really appeal to me.

    For example . . . this probably accounts for why I especially like the Umpqua Bank site.  It is very slightly feminine.  Not, I think, in a way that would offend men, but there is a bit of curviness (subtly placed in the background pattern) and the design is more colorful and less formal than the majority of sites.

    Obviously, what’s wanted is balance.  So consider whether the landing page for your company’s Careers site offers visual elements that appeal to women as well as men—in one-twentieth of a second.

    A Super-Simple Website Checkup

    The holiday season has begun, and it’s also nearing the end of the calendar year.  That means the workplace is either extra-busy or extra-lazy, or (more likely) an unpredictable combination of both.  So you might find an hour or two available for a little creative research.  Why not assess your company’s Career site?

    Here’s a speedy approach that will hit the highlights and produce some useful insights.

    First Impression. When a visitor arrives at the home page of the Careers site for the first time, they will instantly have an impression along one of these lines:

    Positive:

    1. Bold/energetic
    2. Crisp/professional
    3. Warm/friendly
    4. Interesting/unusual
    5. Inviting/appealing

      Negative:

      A. Messy/confusing
      B. Dull/lifeless
      C. Cold/formal
      D. Typical/boring
      E. Superficial/not worth my time

        There could be a few other variants, but that’s enough to work with.  And different people will have different reactions–but the majority of visitors will probably fall into one of these categories for any given site.  So . . .

        Step 1: Look at your company’s Careers site and decide where most people would put it.

        Step 2: Decide whether the majority impression fits the company accurately.  If the impression is positive (1-5) and the fit is accurate, jump to Step 3.

        If the impression is negative (A-E) . . . now it gets harder.  Is the website Dull/lifeless or Typical/boring because the company is?  Or because the company refuses to invest in a better site?  If either, stop reading and find something more useful to do.

        But if not—that is, if the website is Cold/formal but the company is actually Warm/friendly (for example)—then you have identified an opportunity. Add it to the opportunity stack, and move on to Step 3.

        Step 3: Count the number of clicks it takes to find some jobs, using reasonable criteria.  Now go to your company’s two nearest competitors and do the same thing.  Compare the ease of search, and find out if your site is at an advantage—or a disadvantage.

        Step 4: Repeat Step 3 for a job application, but use minutes instead of clicks.

        Step 5: Count the number of interesting/useful items on the site.  Count the number of useless/uninteresting items on the site.  Which number is larger?

        If the comparisons in Steps 3, 4, and/or 5 reveal weaknesses, you have identified additional opportunities.  Add to stack.

        Step 6: Review the opportunities and decide which ones could be addressed under current circumstances in this company.  If none, put a reminder on the calendar to review again in future.  If several, prioritize and add to task list, or pass on some suggestions to the appropriate people.

        Done!

        PS:  For another approach, revisit a previous post titled Test Question.

        What’s in a Name? When Companies Rebrand

        Remember in 2007 when Apple changed its company name from Apple Computer to just plain Apple?  Don’t worry.  Most people can’t remember.

        And that’s the point.

        The Apple brand name had become so powerful that the ancillary word which could have pigeon-holed the company into a single line of business had already become meaningless.  Consumers barely noticed a change when Apple dropped Computer from its name shortly before the iPhone hit the marketplace.  Today, most people can’t even remember a time when Apple was followed by Computer at all.

        That’s successful branding!

        So what can we learn from Apple’s story and other companies that have found themselves in similar positions where their names limit their growth potential (you can read a few more stories in this New York Times article)?

        First, it’s important to have foresight when it comes to branding.  Great brands live for a long time and the world around that brand is likely to change.  While it’s great to have a brand name that is specific and clearly defines what the brand is and stands for, it’s even more important to ensure that brand name can withstand the test of time.  A company like Apple began with a narrow focus, but as happens to all companies, growth creates expectations for more growth.  Typically, in order to keep growing, a company needs to expand into new businesses.  What happens when your company or brand name doesn’t fit with those new businesses? You have two choices — don’t expand (not usually an option) or change your brand name.  The latter is usually the preferred choice.

        The biggest problem in changing an established brand name is giving up the equity that you’ve built into that brand name over the years.  Fortunately for a company like Apple, dropping a word from the company name had no impact on the business, but many companies aren’t lucky enough to find themselves in a similar position.  That’s often the case after a merger or acquisition.  Even companies with similar product lines and consumers have been known to merge and be afraid to let go of one or both company names for years (consider Price Waterhouse Coopers).  The investment in establishing awareness, recognition and trust in a new brand name can be big in terms of money and time.

        Of course, there are some companies that attempt to insulate themselves from similar branding problems.  For example, Johnson & Johnson operates in a decentralized manner with the Johnson & Johnson company name being a secondary piece of the branding puzzle.  Instead, individual business units and specific product brand names are the ones promoted to consumers, and that’s where the company’s investments into building brand equity are made.

        There is no way of knowing where your company will go in the future, but it’s best to think big.  Position your company and your brand for long term success by considering the best case scenario for your company’s growth, and develop the branding strategies that are likely to help you reach those goals in the most flexible manner.

        Consider this story as an example of what not to do — in the United States, there was a fast food restaurant that began in 1985 and grew in the early 1990s called Boston Chicken which served a variety of rotisserie chicken meals.  Boston Chicken got fairly popular and began to expand from its New England roots across the country.  As time went on and more healthy fast food choices were introduced to major chains, Boston Chicken began to lose business.  In 1995, the time came to expand the menu to include non-chicken items.  What’s a company called Boston Chicken to do?  The name changed to Boston Market.  It was a small change, but for a brand that was still fairly new, the timing and necessary investment were not good things.  In 2000, McDonald’s purchased Boston Market for its real estate but left some locations open primarily because the brand name still held some value.  McDonald’s sold Boston Market to a private investment company in 2007.  I’m not saying that Boston Market failed because of the brand name change, but it certainly didn’t help — just an example of a narrow branding mistake to learn from.