Come tweet with me

This week's Q&A topic has probably been written by many others before me, and I may not be saying anything new, but I wanted to put it out there to see what opinions are around. My question is this:

Is it possible for organisations to use social media for employee engagement?

Here's my thinking. The trend for employees to have a social media account of some sort is increasing constantly. At the moment, here's how most of those accounts are being used:

Facebook - personal relationships, event type pages, uploading videos and photos of company events
Twitter - networked relationships, creating a 'personal brand', promoting your message to the world
LinkedIn - professional relationships, job opportunities, conference promotion
Yammer - in-tact relationships, deeper discussions on topics selected by people regularly working together
Blogs - individual voice, rants, thought pieces, attract a following
Foursqaure - competition element, checking in, winning badges, special offers for 'mayorships'

And that's just a selection of what's out there. So we can take each of those and think - how can an organisation use any/all of those to engage with their staff better? Cynicism aside - truly aside,

Facebook - so it seems 500 million of you have a Facebook account. I don't for what it's worth. but I'm in the minority it seems. Imagine if you would, a company friends you. Not to follow what you have to say, but so they can update you on company communications. We're holding a company meeting, we're hiring spread the message, there's a new starter today say hello, did you know Bob is wearing a red pyjama outfit for Comic Relief?

Twitter - not so different about the kind of message that can be spread from Facebook, just a different way of sending that message out.

LinkedIn - encouraging your staff to connect with each other, but with the aim in mind of developing a strong employer brand. Brands in this day and age know the power of a collective and crowd sourcing. So you have a strong public brand, but what about a strong professional brand?

Yammer - wikis and intranets are still the way to go, but Yammer offers an additional way to talk to each other. Remember that internal training on Assertiveness? Let's talk about that a bit more. What about the new internal product we've rolled out? Discuss and comment.

Blogs - blogging is an interesting beast, but all the same there's a lot of people at it. Done something you're particularly proud of? Ask someone to write about it on their blog. That's right, on theirs, not yours. You already have a company blog which will have a corporate message. How about hearing the same message articulate differently? Are you brave enough?

Foursquare - 'checking in' presents an interesting opportunity for rewarding being 'present'. A slightly more organisational bent, rather than engagement - but rewarding people for 25 check-ins, with a free coffee? A mayorship with an Amazon voucher, or additional company discount?

I know there will be heavy cynicism from a fair few of you, and that's all good, but indulge me for a moment.

The question then:

Is it possible for organisations to use social media for employee engagement?

Death to the CV!

A few weeks back I met a Twitter friend Mervyn Dinnen for the first time and had a very good chat about all things social media, how we found ourselves using it, and about life in general. Mervyn's at a point in his career where he's trying something daring and I wanted to support this with a post of my own. He's looking for his next career opportunity, and I don't doubt that he'll find something. You can read his dedicated blog to find out what he does and what he wants to do. I will tell you though about his methodology for finding this job.

He is doing it without any form of a CV at all. Instead he is using purely social media/networking tools to help him find a job.

A quick point, Mervyn is in a fortunate position that he can invest time in this experiment. I wish Mervyn the best of luck in doing this.

He's calling it social recruiting. Makes sense. What I want to do is take a look at the idea of this and provide some of my thoughts. In effect, Mervyn is saying if a company is interested in him, he won't send over a CV. He wants his blog, his Twitter account, his LinkedIn profile, all to be the source of information that any potential recruiter would need. And based on that, they can contact him for an interview.

What fascinates me about this, is the sheer challenge to conventional job seeking methods. The Employ Kyle campaign saw some innovative use of social media to promote himself. And there have been many people using YouTube to promote themselves. Recruiters in the world today (in-house as well as out-sourced) should take note of what's happening in the world of social media, and learn quickly. I'll make mention of one other recruiter I know on Twitter, Andy Headworth. Andy is an absolute advocate of social media, and puts a lot of time and effort into figuring out how the various tools can be best used. You should check out his site.

Coming back to Mervyn though, he's got some real challenges that stand in his way:
1) Recruiters will insist on a CV - they will not understand how you can't have one, why you haven't got one, and what you possibly think to gain by not providing one.
2) Companies will put pressure on recruiters and on Mervyn for providing a CV - because they want the paper trail. They want the safeguard that says, "we choose to go no further because blah blah blah".
3) Practically, people haven't got time to engage with a candidate in this way - the beauty of what Mervyn is trying to promote here is, you have to visit his site, you have to read his tweets, you have to search him out on LinkedIn. That's far too much time to invest in a time poor economy.
4) It's just not the done thing - regardless of the ways social media is providing new ways of communicating and providing information, at risk of a cliche, the world just isn't ready for things like this. Challenging recruiting conventions is almost as laughable as challenging airport security.
5) His approach will be classed as the latest social media fad/gimmick - companies haven't got the time to indulge an approach like this. Social media? Just stick to email and phone thanks.

I am following Mervyn's job hunt with interest. I hope either you do too, or are interested enough that you'll pass on a recommendation for him.

I'm a dreamer

In the world I live in, we are all capable of doing great things, birds are singing, children play happily and safely, work is meaningful and everything is rose tinted. So that's an insight into my value set. Ok I'm being facetious, but you can see what I'm saying. But that's how I think about the world. Which is also why I'm such a believer in positive psychology as I've mentioned so many times before.

In this rosy world I live in, I also believe in complete openness and transparency. Even down to revealing personal foibles. I'm not a negative person, and I don't (well I try not to) judge others for any reason. And I'm not talking about diversity here, I'm talking just day to day stuff. A street beggar, the newspaper you read, the clothes you wear. I may take the piss, but I won't judge you for it.

Anyway, back to this world of openness and transparency. There's been many a time when I've thought to myself - am I too open? Do you need to know half of the things I talk about? And come on, I do talk a lot of shit. I know that, but is it ok? Actually the fundamental question is this:

Am I putting the sense of professionalism you may hold about me into question when I tweet completely non-work / non-industry related things?

A while back (June me thinks?) I posted a tweet asking should I have 2 separate accounts. One for personal ramblings, and one for the professional / industry / work related stuff?

You may think this is navel gazing stuff, and here's why it is. I have no problem in being open with the world. Especially now that I engage in social media type stuff so much. And I've talked on blogs before about how your career is now open to the world to see, and most people will accept that to be the case. So I'm interested in your opinion on this:

Should I have a 'professional' me, a 'personal' me, or stick to what I have (or something else)?

Are L&D losing the battle?

In a summary post earlier this week, I outlined the key points from the L&D2020 workshop with the Training Journal. Today I'd like to address some of the points raised from that meeting and voice my thoughts.

The future skill set

So the one over-riding feature about the day was it was all very present based. That's to say, there was nothing about the future. There was lots about what L&D needs to do today in order to be successful. And I agree with most of the things there. L&D has to be business focused. There's no two ways about this. Gone are the days you can come bounding in saying "I've got a great idea for a training course", and commence to put everyone through it. But this isn't anything new. Businesses are moving so fast and agile these days that L&D has to move with the same pace.

I've been lucky in that my career to date has exposed me to a lot of business practices and ways of working so that I am confident in my ability to consult the organisation, and provide solutions based on the needs, as opposed to my ego.

There was talk of L&D being 'T-shaped' people. There's many an analogy you could use for what an L&D person needs to be like. It does fundamentally come down to the fact that you have to be able to describe what the business does as well as the CEO. There was a great quote from the day which I strongly believe - "you have to love the business you're in as much as, if not more than, learning and development". How true. I quietly believe save the senior management team, I'm one of few people in the business who could accurately describe every function we have, what they do, how they do it, and what their names all are.

No mention of digital

I was surprised there was no mention of digital, social media, Generation Y/Millennials. This was a real missed opportunity. Let's take each of those things in order.

I've spoken about digital in a previous post and would encourage you have a read of that here.

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know I enjoy social media. There is so much happening in the interwebs that if we aren't involved in those discussions we're never going to understand the world we live in. It really is a fundamental shift in human behaviour we cannot ignore.

The possibilities that social media and digital open for L&D is immense. Informal learning as we know it traditionally is nothing compared to what is currently available. And it's all free. Open source technology means you don't have to pay for anything and even though some information may need to be paid for, you can guarantee in a short space of time, someone will have found a way to make it free and open for all.

Generation Y/Millennials for those who aren't sure are those generation of people born in the mid 1980s to early 2000's. L&Ders haven't really had to deal with this group in any pro-active way yet, because they're only really entering the workforce in a significant way now and are on the radar as ones to develop. The challenge here is to not be complacent and think they can be dealt with in the same way as other generations. There are characteristics that it's worth learning about, but I'm not going into that here.

What this means for L&Ders though is we have to be far more agile and nimble in our approach to L&D as a whole - not just to Gen Y. Individuals will want more focus on their development as they learn they can grow careers quickly and develop skills in their own time. Does that mean the end of training courses 2 days long, residential and expensive? Not necessarily. It means L&Ders (both internal and external professionals) need to really get into the needs of the business, develop a plan and be willing to adapt as they roll it out.

E-learning and social learning tools will be a growing part of that new learning. Open source technology will allow information that was once premium only to suddenly become free and available to all. Even I, who am a hardened face to face L&D believer, am waning to the fact if I don't learn about what these tools offer, and how to use them effectively, I'll be screwed.

Is Donald Clark right?

Donald Clark is a blogger who is a harsh critic of the current face of L&D/HR/CIPD and education. He has some hard views about things, and unfortunately he may be right on a lot of them. He reminds me of the heckler in the group who is a harsh cynic, not because he doesn't buy into the message, he just doesn't agree with the delivery.

The challenge here is how to prove Donald wrong. Well first I'd like to have him in a room with me. I've had enough mistakes of training delivery, delivered Diversity training to production operators at a car manufacturers, and faced the darkest side of cynicism. And through my training career to date, I'm confident I can engage with my audience, learn what their needs are, and ensure they leave my room having learned something. I'd say my batting average is about 80% success rate in being able to do so.

However, a main criticism of Donald's is his stance on the lack of effective use of technology in delivering a message. And here I fall down. I am a strong believer in the superiority and power of face to face learning over e-learning type events (notice the language I'm purposefully using?). And this is what I need to learn better. How can I hold myself up as a believer in L&D if I'm not utilising the technology available to deliver messages in equally effective ways? Therein lies the nub, which I think is true of many L&Ders in this world.

Is the future bright?

I think the future has a lot of exciting prospects. Coalition government in the UK, new administration in the USA, global recession, China and India on global rise. Digital, ever increasing broadband speeds, social media and new technologies. Climate change, oil spills, being green, corporate social responsibility. All of these things are factors L&Ders have to understand and develop ways of thinking how to provide solutions to these through the businesses we work with.

The stock and trade of what L&Ders do will be the same. Effective management of the L&D cycle. It's the continual learning we have to engage with that the challenge lies in. Short of going to Roffey Park, paying £0000's and learning some core skills, I have very few options open to me to develop this growing skill set. There are few 'learning institutions' aimed specifically at L&Ders. A lot of what you learn is on the job, through those senior to you, and through trial and error.

I'm confident in my abilities as an L&Der to deliver a message, but as I've mentioned above, e-learning and social learning tools are providing so much accessibility to a growing workforce (virtual and static) that us stock and trade L&Ders have to get on that bandwagon or we face a losing battle. And that is a horrid thought for me.

If you're of the trainer ilk that says I have a great solution and it's just right for your organisation, you're old news. You either need to think of 100 variations of that solution, or learn how to develop consultancy skills instead of selling skills.

L&Ders have a great opportunity to help businesses and organisation deliver be successful. As one of the points raised at the workshop, L&D are the best Trojan horses for organisational change. This, I truly believe.

Do we still need traditional CVs?

Hi all, it's been a long while since I last blogged. Mostly to do with lack of time. Time off here, looking after kids there, getting courses delivered. You know, life. I am tweeting a lot though - A LOT!

Anyhow, this week I went to the L&D HRD exhibition hosted by the CIPD. By Lord, we do like our acronyms don't we. It was a good day of conferences, seminars, topic tasters and learning arena sessions. I appreciated some presentations more than others, and that's partly because I think I'm a bit of a know it all. Partly because I'm quite harsh on presenters. Partly because the content wasn't anything new. All that aside, I did come away with a lot of food for thought.

One of these is about the use of the traditional CV. In an age when social media and social networking sites are central to how you live your life, the question has to be asked - do we still need traditional CVs? Well let's first discuss the role of a traditional CV. Your CV should give an immediate insight into your key skills, abilities and experience. That's always been the tradition. And, you know, include things like: education, qualifications, opening statement, personal details. Sure, fine, great. I've said this in a previous post (http://pabial.blogspot.com/2009/12/those-damned-cvs.html) - this tells the potential employer nothing about you as an individual and how you may approach work, your attitude, and your probable fit to the company/organisation you're about to be part of.

Interviews/assessment centres/recruitment practices are designed to evaluate those things. But that's once they've got passed the CV stage when you're already committing time and resource to evaluate these candidates further. Wouldn't it be great to have a pool of 12 potentially great candidates all bringing something to the party none of the other offers, and have a hard discussion choosing who you think is the best of the best bunch?

This is where I think social media plays a part. We're in a world now where every employer is concerned about making the right choice, the first time. We want our new starters to fly through their probation, get confirmed in post, and ultimately make us money while enjoying the work they do.

At the HRD conference, one of the presentations was about how to get the best out of Generation Y - anyone born roughly after 1980. This generation use technology as part of their daily lives, not thinking about what life might be without them, or even being able to comment on how life used to be without them. The presenter (I forget his name, very bad of me, he runs Unlimited Potential), gave a story where the punchline was from a daughter to her father: "Dad, if I gave a presentation about how to use a fridge, would you want to hear about it?" in response to why she didn't watch her father deliver a presentation on how to use the internet. Gen Y see modern technology as being a fridge - it's there, it exists, you use it for what you need and when you're done you move onto the next thing.

So why's that important? Because more and more people are using social media and social networking sites to interact and learn about the world on a daily basis:

- In October 2009 LinkedIn had 50million users worldwide http://blog.linkedin.com/2009/10/14/linkedin-50-million-professionals-worldwide/

- Facebook currently has 400million active users http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

- Twitter currently has 21.2million unique visitors http://siteanalytics.compete.com/twitter.com/?metric=uv

(above sites all courtesy of http://socialmediastatistics.wikidot.com/)

These are staggering figures. Amazingly staggering. And that's not a complete picture of the social media space, just a choice of three. What does that tell us? Well here's some of the things I think are important from just the figures.

It's accepted now that you can be (and most likely will be) looked up through one of these social networking sites. That means in effect your potential employer has complete sight of what you are likely to bring to their organisation in terms of your: attitude, work ethic, potential fit, and a host of other traits not immediately obvious from your traditional CV.

What does that mean for candidates? They have to either be very deliberate about how they use these social networking sites, or be open to scrutiny from potential employers. As an example, I'm serious about L&D. It's my life and I love it. However, my twitter feed may not show that as I tend to rant a lot on there, or tweet about work/office/company related things, but not a lot about my passion for L&D. My LinkedIn profile doesn't say a lot about my work experience, my education or the skills/knowledge/abilities I have as an L&D professional. My blog, is the only place someone would know I care about L&D. Am I ok with that? Yes, I am. Only because I've made a very determined choice that I won't be deliberate about how I'm potentially perceived by future employers. There's a host of people who will violently disagree with my approach and will recommend that if you want to be serious about your job, future jobs, and your career, then your online presence has to reflect what you want to be.

But what about how employers should use social media to find out about you? I mean, they have to be open, fair, consistent in their approach and not allow prejudices or biases to influence their potential hiring decisions. Well this is a whole other can of worms. My initial thoughts on this centre on the following.

1) If a company wants to find out about you, they have to be open about that from the outset on their job advert/site/promotion. You as a candidate then have the option to either allow that to happen or not.

2) The company has to be explicitly clear about the criteria they have for the job role, and therefore what they are looking to find out about you from the sites you have a profile on.

3) If they choose not to bring you in for interview, there must be a direct piece of feedback that relates to the above, and informs the candidate why they weren't chosen.

4) Once you've been chosen to be brought in to interview, your use of social media has to be part of the equation as that's part of how you were selected in the first place.

There's a lot to now consider in the role of recruitment. Recruitment agencies need to be clear about how to advise candidates how they use social media. Employers need to be clear about what's acceptable and why they may want to search social networking sites. Candidates need to be clear about the information they make available to anyone with internet access. Eventually this will lead to further guidance from governing bodies such as the CIPD, ACAS, legislation and employment law professionals. But my impression is that's a long way off.

So is there a need for traditional CVs? Yes. Are they the be all and end all of what an employer will use to select you for future roles? No. How do you then decide to act on any of this for the future? Talk to someone who is best placed to advise about any of this. In this day and age, recruitment specialists are not the purveyors of all recruitment best practice. Look around you, you'll be surrounded by people who use social media in one form or another. They're the ones to seek input from and in some instances, advice from.