BNET1

• The Find: Two thirds of firms recently reported not being immediately prepared to fill a vacancy at the top of their organization, though the very biggest companies seem more prepared than the rest.
• The Source: A recent survey from the Institute of Corporate Productivity.

The Takeaway: One assumes that almost all companies understand that their chief executive is a pretty important guy (or gal), and that not having one (or not having a good one) would be a very bad thing. Yet somehow this sense of a CEO’s value isn’t translating into a healthy concern for what might happen should a CEO suddenly depart. When the Institute for Corporate Productivity surveyed 275 organizations of different sizes, two thirds admitted to not being immediately prepared to fill a suddenly vacated leadership position. Well that’s OK, you think, they’ll just hire an interim executive. But no. One third of organizations haven’t even identified an interim successor.

The survey did reveal one spark of hope: big companies. Firms with more than 10,000 employees reported being significantly more prepared should top leadership vacate their posts. Here are the cheerier statistics on succession planning at the biggest companies:

• 66 percent of organizations said they are prepared or very prepared to immediately fill a leadership role,
• 75 percent have identified an interim CEO successor
• 86 percent reported having a succession plan in place

Now if only smaller firms would get on the ball and make a plan of some sort for a change at the top.

The Question: If your firm falls in the two-thirds majority without a well thought out succession plan, explain yourself; what’s holding you back?

(Image of CEO search jokster by Peter Kaminski, CC 2.0)

• The Find: Business gurus often talk about the need for straight talk and hard truths, but at least one professor and author is championing the value of bullsh*t.
• The Source: A Financial Times column by Stefan Stern addressing Beyond Bullsh*t: Straight Talk at Work by Stephen Culbert, a professor of management at the University of California in Los Angeles.

The Takeaway: Whatever the case may be in PR or sales, in management BS isn’t generally regarded as a skill to be proud of, but we all know it’s omnipresent at the office. Culbert for one feels that’s just how it should be (or at least how it’s going to stay). His basic position: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, and be positive about it:

Bullsh*t has become the etiquette of choice in corporate communications. It has become so deeply ingrained in the workplace, and so much part of the normal, everyday run of things, that, in the majority of cases, it is probably better not to question people’s use of it.

Before you hit the comments button to express your rage at Culbert and argue that the path of BS ends at the doorstep of Enron, consider that what we think of as BS might be better thought of as tact. Stern opines: “Management is not like speed dating. You can’t go too far too fast. There is inevitably a getting-to-know-you process before moving on to the direct, unvarnished stuff. That is where necessary bullsh*t comes in.”

Possibly. But whatever your view of the value of BS, make no mistake about how widespread fudging the facts is in the workplace. Stern points out that when former G.E. CEO and rabid BS-hater, Jack Welch, and his wife ask conference attendees how many received a frank and honest performance evaluation in the last year, only a tiny ten percent say they’ve been told the unvarnished truth. Could something so widespread be so utterly counter-productive?

The Question: Bullsh*t: a valuable tool in the business toolkit or the first step on the road to perdition?

(Image of shaggy bull by Sister72, CC 2.0)

• The Find: HR functions can sometimes seem far removed from a company’s strategic core, but new techniques of “evidence-based” HR are allowing much-maligned talent managers to show the links between soft HR programs and the cold, hard realities of the bottom line.
• The Source: A soon to be published study from the Conference Board.

The Takeaway: In the abstract, everyone acknowledges that talent can make or break a company, but HR still retains a less than glamorous reputation as an unscientific warren of paperwork and gut instincts far from a company’s strategic core. Perhaps that’s because it’s been hard to link specific HR practices with a company’s bottom line. The Conference Board is stepping into this gap with a new report entitled “Evidence-Based HR in Action,” which shows how HR departments can make the seemingly intangible, tangible.

What’s evidence-based HR (or EBHR)? Using newly developed HR metrics to “empirically demonstrate [human capital’s] impact on business outcomes.” The Conference Board acknowledges that the approach is not yet widespread but offers case studies to show how EBHR can benefit a range of organizations.

The human resources folks at Capital One, for example, not only do the all the usual hiring, paperwork and employee performance evaluations, but also have a “workforce analytics function.” Using EBHR they have developed quantitative measures that establish links between touchy-feely HR policies like the executive coaching program and key performance metrics such as “teller attrition, customer satisfaction, and revenues per account at retail branches.”

The Conference Board also takes a look at two other companies that have jumped on the EBHR bandwagon - Harvard University and Hewlett Packard - to see how they have put they put the idea into practice. Intrigued? The full report will soon be available at the Conference Board’s website.

The Question: Is HR “possibly the most vital yet overlooked means of establishing competitive advantage” as the Conference Board claims?

(Image of tape measure by aussiegall, CC 2.0)

Every year hordes of undergraduates fill out questionnaires and dutifully agree to perform a wide array of odd activities for some pocket money and the benefit of the field of psychology. The lab may seem far from the world of management, but the cumulative lessons of these ever-willing study subjects have yielded some practical tips for business executives. The PsyBlog helpfully rounds them up, offering the top ten insights the mind doctors can offer the managers. Among them:

1. How to detect lies
2. How to make your smile more attractive
3. How to persuade others your opinion represents the whole group
4. How to have a refreshing holiday

Thanks to the How to Change the World for the pointer.

(Image of man of many hats by Jeff the Trojan, CC 2.0)

• The Find: If you’re thinking of packing your bags and taking your business acumen abroad, a recent survey provides useful insights into where you’re likely to enjoy living most.
• The Source: The HSBC Bank International Expat Explorer Survey ‘08.

The Takeaway: HSBC asked more than 2,000 expatriates living on four continents about their lifestyle and earnings to rank the best places to live abroad. Which destinations topped the list overall?

1. Singapore
2. The United Arab Emirates
3. The United States

The UK and France were found to be the least popular relocation destinations due to the low standards of accommodation and the relative lack of luxury.

For those worried that moving abroad might make a dent in their savings, the survey has some reassuring news: 58 percent of expats claimed they save and invest more when living abroad than they did in their home countries (with a full 82 percent of expats in India saving more due to the lower cost of living). And if financial concerns are paramount for you, consider India and Hong Kong. Expats there have the highest salaries with close to half earning more than £100,000 (slightly less than $200,000 depending on exchange rates).

The Question: What’s your dream (or nightmare) overseas assignment?

(Image of Singapore at night by *etoile, CC 2.0)

• The Find: In a recent survey nearly half of senior executives interviewed said they believed employees are more competitive now than they were just ten years ago.
• The Source: A survey of senior executives from OfficeTeam.

The Takeaway: Apparently, it’s not just in Beijing that the competition is heating up, things are also getting tense in cubicles across America. When an independent research firm commissioned by OfficeTeam interviewed 150 senior executives at the 1,000 biggest American companies, 46 percent said they thought employees are more competitive now than they were ten years ago.

Dave Willmer, executive director of OfficeTeam speculates that perceived job insecurity in a tough economy may be partly to blame for the more cut-throat atmosphere at many companies. “This pressure to perform may result in rivalries between employees,” he claims. OfficeTeam also helpfully identifies five types of competitive employees, each with their unique strategy for getting ahead at others’ expense, and offers a recommended management strategy for each:

• The sprinter tries to beat colleagues to the finish. To get the most out of a sprinter, “encourage him to avoid cutting corners.”
• The weightlifter focuses on quantity rather than quality and often overburdens herself. Solution? Redistribute the work and refocus on quality.
• The gymnast is the team-phobic perfectionist whose quest for excellence needs to be more oriented .
• The pole vaulter attempts the seemingly impossible, which can be a great thing, just don’t let her monopolize the high profile projects.
• The saboteur is the cheater- found in every sport and office. OfficeTeam suggests explaining the value of playing by the rules, but simply getting rid of this type of competitor might be a better bet.

The Question: Do the survey’s conclusions mesh with your own experience — is office life getting more and more competitive?

(Image of competitors on the starting line by Jon_Marshall, CC 2.0)

• The Find: One marketing pro claims to have found a way to “virtually guarantee” a message reaching its target, no matter how flooded their inbox, by taking advantage of our inflated egos.
• The Source: The Influencial Marketing blog of Rohit Bhargava, Senior Vice President of Digital Strategy & Marketing at Ogilvy 360 Digital Influence.

The Takeaway: Sometimes a business term, like Chindia, is descriptive, boiling down something we’re all already talking about into one handy word. But sometimes a business term coinage actually introduces a new idea to our collective consciousness. Bhargava uses his blog to do just that: introduce us to not just a word, but to a concept we’re all sure to hear more about: egocommunication. Here’s the definition:

Egommunication is a form of communication where you can share a message or piece of content with someone based on their own consistent habit of checking mentions of themselves and their content online … in other words, relying on their ego as a channel for your message to get through… In effect, you take advantage of the fact that just about everyone in social media is self-googling on a frequent basis.

In his post, Bhargava lays out several examples of how you could use egocommunication and also offers up a succinct explanation of its unique utility as a form of communication: “It’s the only communication form I can think of where ease of connection is inversely proportional to the internet fame of the person you are trying to connect with. Think Guy Kawasaki is unreachable? Send a tweet mentioning his name and see what happens.”

Neat. And Bhargava is putting the idea to the test by including the names of bigwigs like Kawasaki, Robert Scoble, John Bell, and Ann Handley to see if any can be tempted to post a comment on the post. Thanks to Web 2.Oh… really? for the pointer.

The Question: Do you think egocommunication can cut through the clutter and get you on a bigwig’s radar, or will it just amount to more spam for high profile individuals?

(Image of very big wig by celesteh, CC 2.0)

Our previous post, Loved or Loathed?, based on a new Harris Interactive poll that rated how the public feels about a range of industries, garnered quite a response from readers, and prompted a follow-up post about people’s attitudes towards Big Oil.

Now we offer a full table of results from the poll, which summed the positive and negative feelings people had about each industry based on the question: “Do you think… generally do a good or bad job of serving their consumers?”

While it seems natural that tobacco companies and oil companies are in the negatives, it is surprising that hospitals are near the top while their corresponding HMOs and health insurance companies are at the bottom. In fact, according to Harris, hospitals have done well for the decade that the study has been undertaken.

“Folks appear to have always had good feelings about hospitals, mostly because they actually do stuff that makes sick people better, and you usually don’t have to pay for it,” says David Hamilton, BNET Industries editor and author of the Health Care and Pharma blogs. “I suspect that’s not going to last, as hospitals get more aggressive about billing.”

And indeed that might already be happening, because while hospitals remain highly ranked, over the course of the study they have dropped a cumulative four points, and dropped five points between 2007 and 2008.

Question: Where does your industry rank — and why? And if your ranking is low and your industry sick, what would you do to bring it back to health and into good public opinion?

Leave a comment and let us know.

(Image courtesy Library of Congress via pingnews and Flickr)

• The Find: It’s natural to feel elated when you make it through a first interview and are invited back for a second, but don’t lose your head and miss these six danger signs that the job may not be for you.
• The Source: The BusinessWeek Managing blog.

The Takeaway: Affirmation and positive feedback feel great. Sometimes so great that it can make a candidate lose her critical eye and fail to assess whether the job in question is really a good fit. So no matter how charming the hiring manager, beware the following:

1. Asking for references too early: your perspective employer is “sending a signal that the valuable time of your reference-givers is not nearly as valuable as the time that the company would waste in interviewing you before checking up on you. Your cue to bail.”
2. Asking for a credit check or social security number too early: “This type of batch processing shouts, ‘Get in line to genuflect.’ Keep looking.”
3. Online tests or questionnaires before any human contact: “‘Prove to us that you’re worth our time’ is not the message that a talent-aware employer sends to the talented people” it’ trying to hire.
4. Unreasonably short notice to travel for the interview: It’s exciting to be flown somewhere cool for an interview, but don’t forget to pause and ask whether the employer took your schedule into consideration. If they don’t now, they certainly won’t later.
5. You can’t meet the team before an offer is extended: “You need to meet your co-workers. Period.”
6. All communication goes through the headhunter or HR rep: “If you’re really interested in a job and have a question for your prospective manager, the manager absolutely needs to take that call. If you can’t get the manager’s attention now, what makes you think you’ll be able to when you work there?”

For much more on job interview warning signs, check out the full post.

The Question: Any other interview red flags to beware of?

(Image of run away cartoon by hunterseakerhk, CC 2.0)

• The Find: When CareerBuilder.com asked nearly 4,000 American women if they felt they have equal opportunities for career advancement compared to men, 26 percent said no.
• The Source: A recent CareerBuilder.com survey.

The Takeaway: It may have been a break-through year for women in politics, but when CareerBuilder.com asked Harris Interactive to poll nearly 8,000 U.S. employees about their feelings on discrimination in the workplace, they found that all is not right between the sexes at the office. Slightly more than one third (34 percent) of women surveyed feel then are paid less than men with equal qualifications and experience. Eleven percent of men claimed they are paid less than their female counterparts.

Whatever glass ceilings may have been shattered elsewhere, this figure remains basically unchanged since the last time the poll was taken two years ago. In addition, a quarter of female workers say they have fewer opportunities for career advancement opportunities than men with the same skills and qualifications. 18 percent say they get less training than the boys and 17 percent say they are not afforded the same degree of workplace flexibility.

The survey also revealed that the level to which women perceived workplace discrimination varied by industry. Industries in which women have traditionally played a large role such as health care, hospitality and education, had fewer female workers who felt they were treated differently because of their gender. The number of women in IT and banking and financial services reporting discrimination was near the average. Manufacturing, retail and professional business services would seem to harbor more than average discriminatory behavior based on the CareerBuilder results.

The Question: A thoroughly unscientific BNET poll: do you believe you have equal opportunities for career advancement compared to the opposite sex? (Commenters please indicate your gender and your industry).

(Image of woman at work, 1942, by Alfred Palmer via pingnews.com, CC 2.0)