Written on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 by Eva
So by now, we've all seen the liquidation signs for Circuit City, and maybe even indulged in some discount shopping. The first question I had, though, was not
what can I get but
how did this happen?
A quick overview: The Startup Years
1949: Samuel S. Wurtzel establishes Wards Co. and opens the first retail television store in Richmond, Virginia. Sales reach approximately $1 million
1966: Alan Wurtzel joins the company as vice president for legal affairs. Sales reach $23 million
1972: Alan Wurtzel is named chief executive officer
A Period of Greatness
1982: Sales hit $176 million
1984: The entire company is called Circuit City Stores, Inc. Sales increase to $357 million
1991: Sales increase to $2.3 billion
2000: Circuit City beats the market 22:1 over past 18 years.
2002: Sales grow to $9.96 billion
2005: The company announces plans to open 30-40 new or relocated stores. The company rejects an unsolicited $3.25 billion cash buyout offer from Boston investment firm, Highfields Capital Management
CEO Alan Wurtzel's attitude during this time? Delivery drivers are the last contact the customer has with Circuit City, so it's important they're the best. In his words, "I spent a lot of time thinking and talking about who sits where… instead of firing honest and able people who are not performing well, it is important to try to move them once or even two or three times to other positions where they might blossom."
The Decline (or if you prefer, a picture)
2006 Mar.: President Philip Schoonover is promoted to CEO
2007 Mar: Falling prices and heightened competition cause Circuit City to plan the closure of 69 stores in North America. Circuit City fires 3,400 salespeople and reveals plans to replace them with lower-wage workers
2007 Dec: Circuit City approves cash awards designed to retain upper-level executives.
2008 Jan: The retailer says December sales at stores open at least 12 months fell 11.4 percent
2008 Apr: Circuit City balks at Blockbuster's unsolicited $1.3 billion acquisition offer
CEO Schoonover's attitude during this time? Those employees interacting with the customers aren't really all that important. In explaining Q3 results, Philip Schoonover said, "We underestimated the financial impact from the disruption of our transformation work."-December 21, 2007 (the failed turnaround efforts included laying off experienced employees, opening smaller stores, seeking potential buyers, changing management, and closing stores....what kind of financial impact did you expect, exactly?)
Alan Wurtzel's comments? Circuit City didn't take the threat from Best Buy seriously enough and was too focused on short-term profit rather than long-term value.
So what happened?
Read more...
Posted in
Organizations,
Talent Management
|
Written on Saturday, February 21, 2009 by Eva
When I tell people I have two jobs, they look at me like I'm crazy. Or, with recent economic conditions, they ask me if I'd like to give them one of them. Actually, I wouldn't. I love both and I appreciate both.
There are such benefits to having two jobs. What I learn in one carries over to the other, just like what I learn at work carries over to my personal life. In addition, what I learn at work now carries over to my future.
See, one of my big goals in life is to never do what I don't want to do. And to actually do what I want to do. 100% satisfaction in both life and work. That's my work/life balance. Ultimate flexibility. And generally that can't happen when you are working for someone else. Sometimes your taking a month away from your desk to go explore Asia doesn't fit in with the organization's strategic objectives. Unless you work at corporate for Best Buy.
So since the options for companies offering Results-Only Work Environments (ROWE) are limited, I'll work now and have balance later. Like other Gen Y kids, I don't necessarily prioritize life over work, or work over life. It's more that they're fully aligned and integrated. I'll put life in the backseat so I can work 100 hours a week during January to roll out Project X, but I also expect to put work in the backseat during December when I go traveling.
Most Gen Y's have a similar view of work. That is good news. In fact, research shows you don't need to be a workaholic to have a successful career. In a July 2008 article, the authors found a positive relationship between work-life balance and career advancement potential (based on self, peer, and supervisor ratings) in 9,627 managers from 33 countries. The findings were equal for both men and women.
What we know about work/life balance:Segmentation model: work and non-work are two distinct domains of life that are lived separately and have no influence on each other. Just disregard this theory, there is no evidence.
Spillover model: one domain of life can influence the other in either a positive or negative way. Duh!
Compensation model: what is lacking in one area, (i.e., demand, satisfaction) is compensated for by the other.
Instrumental model: activities in one area facilitate success in the other.
Enrichment perspective: involvement in multiple roles expands the limits of attention and energy to mitigate the stress associated with multiple roles.
Expansionist theory: performance in each role is enhanced by the involvement in other roles.
Conflict model: when high levels of demand exist in all areas of life, difficult choices have to be made and conflict and overload occur.
Scarcity perspective: those involved in multiple roles have less time and resources to focus on each.
Personality integration: those high on the Big 5 personality trait
conscientiousness experience less stress and work-life conflict and more competent performance in each position.
Most of the recent research has focused on D and E. The findings generally say that as long as you do it right, life enhances work and vice versa. So I wonder, as our workforce moves toward ultimate flexibility (and thanks to Gen Y and the web in general, it will) will the work/life balance and work/life conflict idea cease to exist?
Read more...
Posted in
Development,
Gen Y,
I/O Psychology,
Organizations,
Personality,
Talent Management,
Web
|
Written on Thursday, February 19, 2009 by Eva
"Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s minds, imagine themselves into other people’s places." -J.K. Rowling
A key component of what we do at my organization is emotional intelligence. So of course, questions come up about empathy, a component of EQ. During a recent presentation, someone asked How can you empathize with someone if you haven't been through that particular situation?
Can you understand how someone is feeling if you haven't experienced it? I say that yes, as human beings, we come wired for that ability. But not everyone will use it. If someone can empathize, the reason is not because they have been through it, but because they developed the ability to identify with and understand the others' situation, feelings, and/or motives.
Here's why I think that. There are many theories about emotions, but basically you have a classification system, and then you have a level of intensity or valence within that. The image below is an example of a classification system:
Take any state on that picture, and within that exists a continuum of low to high. Everyone experiences general highs and lows in mood and everyone experiences some level of anxiety at some point, for example. There is considerable variation in the intensity of emotions. As with most things, there are variations within individuals (i.e., one day I'm sad, the next day I'm happy), between individuals (i.e., Ellen is more relaxed than Paul), and between groups (i.e., Americans are more stressed than Europeans). Sometimes that intensity is extreme, as in anxiety disorders or mood disorders. Those extremes are due to a dysregulation of the control mechanism in the brain that manages these states of being. But.. if you have ever been anxious or sad, you have tasted a small aspect of what others feel like. The difference is that the intensity is on a different level. But it comes from the same place, the same biological mechanism.
Each event will affect everyone differently anyway, so there's no logic in saying because you haven't been through it, you don't get it. Would it bother you if someone stole a pen off your desk? How much would it bother you if you failed an exam? How would it personally affect you if your neighbor's dog died? Some overreact, some underreact. That reaction is the result of the sum of their past experiences.
When negative events have happened to me, I intellectualized it and said, it's no big deal, everyone goes through this eventually, right? My experience is not extraordinary. But it is. Everyone's experience is unique by the very nature of human beings. Dynamic situation, different personalities, different past experiences, different factors.
So I say yes, we can understand what someone else is feeling. But there is nothing special about going through the experience that gives you that ability. Even when two people are affected by the same exact experience they can't know for sure how it is affecting someone else... but they do have a better ability to understand.
Read more...
Posted in
Development,
Psychology
|
Written on Thursday, February 19, 2009 by Eva
I think every blog should have a
Why I Blog post. This is mine.
There are thinkers. Academics and researchers do a lot of good work and they know a lot about their interest area, which is generally a very specific and specialized area. There is a very protective frame of mind in academia about who said it first, whose idea it was, and how much one has contributed to the advancement of knowledge in a particular domain.
There are doers. Employees working in organizations implement. They create processes and get stuff done. The best ones get stuff done quickly and efficiently and with follow-through. It's not about who thought of it but about who did it. But a lot of times they don't actually know the best way. So they benchmark, which is not always the best way either.
I notice there's kind of a disconnect between the thinkers and the doers. They don't speak the same language. The thinkers have such an intricate mind map with super-connected synapses so they are like, "this is so obvious, A leads to C when moderated by B, why don't you get it?"
While reading tons (literally) of research in grad school, I was thinking, this is good stuff, this link between psychology and orgs., why don't people use it? This includes theories and articles from the 1970's, by the way, so it's not like we haven't had the time. The thing is, for people who don't have the desire to read 30-page, size-8 font, technical articles... bite-size, easy-to-remember information is key - especially if it comes in a diagram of some sort. And so the disconnect is perpetuated, because people who think up innovative, useful, valid theories don't have time to draw diagrams.
So I thought, there needs to be a middle man. Then I realized, I'm good at synthesizing complexity and making it simple to apply, I have time, I'm good at drawing diagrams, I can be that connection. This blog is a way to organize my thoughts about that. It'll carry over into my work life.
OK and from a selfish and personal point of view, I want to increase my self-awareness and be able to explain things more effectively. I tend to under-communicate and be overly concise, especially verbally, so I need to practice the opposite.
Posted in
Development,
Web
|
Written on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 by Eva
With unemployment on the rise, we all know someone who has been cut. In many cases, that person was a valuable asset to the organization. Personally, I have a friend whose company moved her to a new city and invested in her training, only to let her go just a few months later during an episode of mass layoffs that affected 8,000 people. They paid them all severance. That's a waste of their money, why hire in the first place? It's poor planning.
Sure, I sort of get it. My cable service is a relatively valuable asset to me, but if I wasn't being paid and losing hundreds of dollars each month to basic sustenance costs (food, roof), I'd cut it. But the thing is, I have an emergency fund and several savings accounts. I have a back-up plan for my back-up plan. And I'm only playing with fractions of pennies and considering just my own needs compared to these corporations. So I also don't get it. There just has to be an alternative, maybe like... work harder or get creative.
I'm not anti-layoffs though. Sometimes they're needed. Like when you undergo a major shift in strategy because you're about to bankrupt. But that should never be the back-up plan. The potential for disaster is elevated when layoffs are a quick fix without any consideration to talent management. "Let's cut project Z, and since Jane, Jack, and John work on that, let's cut them too." Never mind that project X has much potential and is in serious need of Jane and Jack.
One of the subprinciples in the book Good to Great is to be Rigorous, Not Ruthless when it comes to talent management:
"To be ruthless means hacking and cutting, especially in difficult times, or
wantonly firing people without any thoughtful consideration. To be rigorous
means consistently applying exacting standards at all times and at all levels,
especially in upper management. To be rigorous, not ruthless, means that the
best people need not worry about their positions and can concentrate fully on
their work."
On the other hand, there's the Global Head of Talent Management from a billion-dollar organization (emphasis mine):
“I would recommend that every CEO and HR Executive should learn to use social
networks to communicate with expert groups and top performers and to know who
their top networkers are. Knowing which employees are the nodes and connectors
in the corporate network will enable it to leverage those individuals for
communications and avoid inadvertently downsizing key nodes during layoffs.”
If that doesn't speak to our contentment with the culture of ruthless hacking and cutting we have going on, I'm not sure what does. And at some point, the quick fix will bite back.
Pretend for a minute you are the top 20% delivering the 80%. If a large portion of your team has been laid off, without much credible reassurance from management, what are you going to do?
Cut costs, not assets. And plan ahead.
Read more...
Posted in
Organizations,
Talent Management
|
Written on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 by Eva
In
college, I was the leader of a group project for a sociology class and decided that we'll all come up with our own research individually and then I, as the group leader, will collate the info into one coherent document. Several deadlines later, I finally get something from everyone. I was shocked at the varying quality of work I received. One student in particular gave me a copy-and-paste from a Wikipedia entry. All I had to do was Google a sentence and I found the original source. Since the project was research-based work, I asked the group members to provide citations if they had not done so already. He sent me a link to the aforementioned Wiki article.
Ethical violations and plagiarism aside, I maintain that Wikipedia gets a bad rap. Earlier versions of the site may have been flawed, but today their content actually goes through a pretty rigorous review process. Here's an example. A friend of mine tried to post his company history and related info, and was turned down and nearly banned for spamming. Why did they turn him down when there are plenty of
company pages? Wikipedia will only publish
neutral and
verifiable content, and as his company was relatively new with no other published sources writing about it, it was considered a personal view/
original research.
Consider published work. Sure it's not easy and a lot of work goes into it, but there's a limited amount of editing that is done from idea to print. By a limited amount of people. Wikipedia has no limits. It is a perpetual work in progress. You don't like it? Change it. Typo? Fix it. If your input has any merit, it will be noticed. Conversely, if your contributions are BS, you'll be found out. This type of
writing and publishing model has so much potential.
Just as you wouldn't write a paper based on an abstract, or write a biography from one person's recollection, Wikipedia isn't the answer to everything. Google on the other hand. . .
Read more...
Posted in
Research,
Web
|
Written on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 by Eva
A lot of self-help books and sites talk about the comfort zone and how
you need to step out of it. Like any coaching advice, it's too simplistic without taking into account personal style and disposition. My main issue is with the broad statement that change takes a lot of effort and mental energy.
But doesn't it? It depends. When it comes down it, there are two types of people, those who score high on Openness and those who score low on Openness of the Big Five Personality Measure. Those who score low generally love their routine. They get up at X:00 and go to bed at Y:00 and do laundry on Wednesdays and catch up on their DVRs on Sundays. Just like some people could never imagine moving out of their hometown or giving up their cushy corporate gig. Others can't function that way. They are naturally curious, seek out new experiences, prefer complexity, and they "step out of their comfort zone" quite often. They are not the ones that need the tips on how to expand their comfort zone. That's their fun. If anything, they just need focus.
Regardless of the group you fall into, expanding your comfort zone just for the sake of expanding your comfort zone is a waste of time. What are you trying to accomplish? How will you know if you have succeeded?
Instead, think about what you want. What you really really really want. And then think about what you need to do to get that. Create action items, then start doing. Some things will be easier to accomplish than others, but that's the point. It all gets easier eventually. It takes everyone some time to get over the mental barrier of expanding boundaries, especially boundaries that have strong emotional ties. The difference is that some people cross that hurdle within 10 seconds and others hit a wall that lasts a lifetime.
Blogging is out of my comfort zone. At least today. But that's what I do. A few weeks from now it'll be like nothing. In contrast, some people will never blog. Which one are you?
Posted in
Development,
I/O Psychology,
Learning,
Personality
|
Written on Monday, February 16, 2009 by Eva
When I say measurement 2.0 I'm not just thinking of measuring the effectiveness of social media marketing. That's great and important, but I'm thinking bigger. Technology in general and open-source collaborative technology, in particular, is making life easier. How can we use technology to make
our lives easier?
For years experimental research was done by professors on unsuspecting undergraduates. No longer. We all know about the college kid with a computer who revolutionized the way we use the web… now meet the college kid with a computer who built a business around the research collected during a class project. His sample of 7,000 students and 235 employers would have taken years and an entire research team just a few years ago.
This change is important to recognize. By 2011, 80% of active internet users will have a second life in a virtual world. With Google sites, anyone that knows how to click a mouse can make a webpage. With SurveyMonkey anyone can create a survey. And this is just the beginning. The other day I had a dream that Google came up with a new, free app that did content analysis. Soon enough, soon enough...
Consider the possibilities in our future:
Pretty soon, we may no longer have a need for convenience sampling.
Research can be done when it's relevant and with more accuracy.
Benchmarking doesn't need to be limited to just annually and by well-connected industry experts.
And of course, there will be both positive and negative implications. Easy knowledge sharing means faster implementation but a small barrier to entry will lower standards (ahem, Wikipedia).
Read more...
Posted in
I/O Psychology,
Measurement,
Research,
Web
|
