Big Brother (Your Boss) Really IS Watching you at Work

Karen Mattonen wrote an article essentially complaining about lack of employee privacy in the workplace. She didn't outright say employees need more privacy on their computer but she definitely implied it. Personally I don't have any problem with employers monitoring my every key stroke on their computers while I'm being paid by them. I feel that there is no expectation of privacy for what I do on my employer's computer so I should be very careful about what actions I take while on the computer.

I figure employers can go one of two directions in order to protect themselves when it come to internet and phone activity. They can limit the sites that their employees have access to. This could be accomplished by blocking all websites except those deemed necessary to do ones job. Similar action would also need to take place with regards to file sharing and cell phone usage. Or, the company can allow it's employees unfettered use of all the technology at their disposal, but monitor it. To me, this is a much better solution for both the employer and the employee. The employee has more freedom to do whatever needs to be done to get the job done and the employer has the ability to make sure the employee is not doing anything improper.

One statistic that Mattonen used that suprised me is that 92 percent of employers monitor their employees in some way or another. To me it is astounding that 8 percent of employers don't protect themselves in any way. To not know what is being done by your employees with your property is to ask for trouble. It could invite any number of lawsuits. Also, it's just asking the dishonest employee to push the limits of trust and to use your property improperly.

Social Networking Profiles and the War for Talent

I just read a very nice article with a lot of great suggestions for both recruiters and applicants with regards to social networking sites. In the article Pamala Moore sets out a few common sense guidelines for making sure to not use the information gather inappropriately.

My favorite of her points is that, "you might have some questionable behavior in your past that never stopped you from being great at your job." This, I believe, is the essence of how we use social networking sites for recruitment decisions. One mistake should not be used to rule out a candidate. This could result in the ruling out of a candidate who might have otherwise been the most qualified of the pool. Moore points out that it is always a good idea to use as many sources as possible to make your hiring decision. It's ok to use information found on the internet, but you risk limiting your talent pool of you don't look at enough other factors.

The other of Pamala's points that I appreciated was that if the information that you find on the internet pertains to a person's race, gender, national origin, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability, marital status, or veteran status then you probably have not business using it to make any sort of hiring decision. In general, I believe, her main point was you cannot rely too much on what is found on the internet.

As for the applicant, her advise was simple: if it's on the internet, people will see it. Be smart what you leave on the internet.

A quote that she had in the article: “…like it or not, as a general proposition, employers are free to make unfair, stupid, arbitrary, and wrongheaded hiring and termination decisions, even based on false information, as long as in doing so they do not violate some specific law.”

- George Lenard of Harris, Dowell, Fisher & Harris, LC

- So true

Time to re-direct the focus of my project

So, as some of you may or may not remember from class, Jun gave us the specific instructions to NOT simply stand in front of the class and say, "this is my problem. I solved the problem by using Google Sites." I'm not sure if that was in direct response to my blog on my project, but that was exactly what I had planned for my presentation. Now it's time to refocus more toward a process oriented approach.

To recap, at B&L Bike Shop we have no written policies and very little formal training. This has made things very difficult on new staff and has increased the work and stress level for the more experienced staff. I want to look into ways to solve this problem.

Key to the solution is going to be change management. Currently we have a culture of blame and defense. This means that if you can, make sure to blame the problem on someone else, and if you can't, defend yourself to the very end. When someone makes a mistake the approach is how can I cover my rear end(I have the feeling this is not a dynamic unique to the B&L work place). We need to change how we look at problems that arise from one of cover one's posterior to one of trying to make it so the mistake does not happen in the future. In essence we will need to shift to culture to center more around the learning process. This means that if there is a problem with inventory, or a customer policy is not followed properly we need to look at it as a structural flaw, not a personnel flaw.

This aspect of the project will be very tough. I don't know quite how I will be able to change the company culture without the help of the owner/manager. As I get further and further into this project it is become more and more clear that this will have to happen from the top down, not from the bottom up as I had originally hoped.

Tell me about Jibber Jobber, Roy!

As many of you may know, I am currently seeking employment outside of the bicycle retail environment. As such I've started using Jibber Jobber as a job searching tool. It is also a networking and application tracking system. To me, it essentially feels like Avature, intended for the job seeker instead of the applicant seeker. The experience feels mostly web 2.0 to me. I can tell the developers have worked very hard to put a lot of tools into the website while still attempting not to clutter it.

One module that it incorporates is a networking tracking tool. The idea of it is that you use it similar to LinkedIn. When you meet a person important to your career network you note the person's specifics as well as making notes. You are then able to schedule follow up reminders. You're able to enter in the person's work and personal information as well as many other details.

Another tool that Jibber Jobber uses is a company tracker. It allows you to track the companies and jobs that you've applied for. It allows you to link the resume and cover letter that you applied with to the job which is linked to the company. From there you can schedule follow up tasks as well as keeping track of responses from the company - such as follow up interviews or rejections.
For me, so far, my favorite tool is the job searched and applied to function. It has a job searching function that I would say is very similar to Avature's resume searching function. It singles out specific jobs websites and allows you to search them for key works in job titles. While the function is not nearly as powerful as Avature's tool, it has helped to speed up the search a little.

I believe Jibber Jobber has the right idea with a lot of their tools, but still has room to grow. For instance, they could allow the job searcher to search more than one jobs website at a time. Or, once a job has been found, it would be nice if the job seeker could import that job directly into their positions module. Currently they need to enter jobs manually.

All in all I would say Jibber Jobber definitely has some useful tools, although I'm not sure if if it actually solves a problem for me. Like any new software I will need to use it for a while before I can be sure if it's any better than my previous method.

Let's Talk About HireVue

Though we have spoken briefly about HireVue in class I feel the need to review it more in depth for those of you who might want to know a little more about it.

First off, I have to note that I am in no way an expert on the program - in fact I haven't even used it. I have merely spent a bit of time reading about them on their website as well as a few reviews. From what I've seen, it seems that while they are not for every recruiter, they can be very useful for a lot of them.

HireVue is a SaaS that allows a company to send a USB web cam to an applicant anywhere in the world with in 48 hours. The applicant plugs it into their computer and answers interview questions through their web browser. The program also allows the company to post essay question, short answer questions, true/false and questions that require calculations. As soon as the applicant has completed their interview, it can be viewed from anywhere in the world by whomever the company wants to have access. Recruiters and hiring managers can type comments and rate the candidates. They can review answers to specific questions of each applicant back to back. They can even attach resumes, standardized tests and writing samples to the applicant's file.

From what I can tell, it seems to me that HireVue has two main niches that they are trying to fill within recruiting. One is globally sourcing specialized, expensive talent. The other is hiring lots of cheap local labor. Often times hiring for a specialized position will require a significant investment of time and resources to bring candidates to one location and to meet with many different managers - sometimes then needing to move the candidate to multiple locations for meetings, further increasing costs. The benefit of HireVue in this instance is obvious. It will allow for the recruitment process to proceed one step further before the need to invest significant capital into the candidate.

The second niche that HireVue can help with is with the recruitment of cheap local labor. HireVue can allow recruiters and mangers to review initial interviews exceptionally faster than the time it would take to be present at a large number of interviews. It also allows the user to review and rate the answers, making it easier to decide exactly who needs a more extensive follow up interview.

As I see it, the main downside to HireVue is that it must depend on well written questions. If the interview is not carefully scripted, the recruiters might not gain the rich data about their applicants that they had hoped for.

Of course, HireVue seems to only be useful as a tool for lowering the costs of the initial interviews. For now, companies will still need to invest significant time and capital in the final interviews where the actual hiring decision is made.

10 Commandments of Internet Candidate Research

Last month Moises Lopez wrote an article in which he describes the "ten commandments of internet candidate research." They were all pretty straight forward. Make sure to plan. Make sure to refine. However, a couple commandments caught my attention. The second commandment, "define what you are targeting," seems pretty straight forward. What I found interesting was his comment, "focus on the skill more so than the key word." It strikes me that possibly this should be the title of this commandment. I feel that with today's search engines like Avature it is so easy for recruiters to simply type in a few key words and use the number of responses to rank the resumes. While this seems like it'll narrow the search easily enough it seems to me as though it's a very easy way to ensure that you know nothing about the candidate pool. Very conceivably the recruiter might not even consider the top talent within the pool.

What I find confusing about the post is what exactly Moises does mean by "focusing on the skill." I'm not necessarily sure I know how one would do this without using key words. The idea is all fine and dandy, but I guess I just don't have enough recruiting experience to truly understand what he means by this concept.

A few other points are made that are worthy of mention. For one, Moises instructs us to define the search as much as possible. He says that a recruiter needs to use as many advanced Boolean searches as possible. Here, he probably could have made the point that if you're lazy, you may not come to the best possible outcome (as I suppose is one main rule of life).

The Uses of Social Networking in Tech Support

In one of Steve Boese's recent blogs he posts what seems to me to be a really decent idea. His thoughts are with regards to supporting a new enterprise-wide IT solution. He talks about the different phases of support. When a company first roles out a new technology most of the support revolves around making the system work. The end users most often have "how do I do. . . " questions. The answers are most often easy and quick to come across. After the initial roll-out phase, the company will then enter a functionality phase. Instead of wanting to know how to do something, the end-users will then want to know what more the program can do for them. This can be call the "but can it do. . . " phase. After most of the questions are addressed, Boese says most of the support issues die off. As time goes on they come back with a vengeance.

The issue here, is that natural attrition leads to a loss of talented individuals who understand how to make the program sing and dance. Now, we're back to the "how do I. . . " questions.

Steve's proposal is to form a sort of wiki for the end users. He argues that most of his questions after the initial roll0out phase are very repetitive. In fact, they are questions that almost always can be answered by other employees who have had the same problem. Steve wants to introduce structured, monitored forums where people can discuss problems that they've had and how they've solved their problems. This could have many benefits for the business.

The first would be that rather than everyone needing to wait for an answer from one place, they can often get the answer faster from an online forum. Second, Steve points out that a system like that would build a stronger, more shareable body of organizational knowledge.

Given all of the benefits and the relative ease with which a forum could be started I don't see any very good reasons not to give it a try. If such an program takes hold, then great. If it doesn't, the company has lost relatively little in terms of time and capital. The only down side I could see is if an over-zealous management tries to reduce costs by relying too much forums and cuts the tech support all together.

The British Government And Twitter

Low and behold, the British Government has released a 20 page document that instructs its civil servants how and what to tweet. This is groundbreaking. That the government of Gordon Brown - the analog politician in a digital age - would not only allow his government to tweet, but to encourage it is huge. This has completely changed my view on the long term viability of twitter. To me, Gordon Brown has just announced that Twitter is here to stay.

When Twitter was first explained to me by a friend this summer, I was unimpressed. My initial thought was, "how is that any different from Facebook status?" Wasn't there already was an outlet for that sort of thing? Evidently I didn't understand the nuances of microblogging.

Touching on a point from my previous posting, I was originally fearful that Twitter would faze out without reaching it's true potential. I thought that microblogging might fall out of favor and people would move onto a new fad. Apparently I was wrong. With the addition of the full force of the British government behind Twitter I feel that it can finally grow and blossom into a fully functioning member of our social and business lives.

On a slightly different note. It has occurred to me that Twitter is the only application I can think of that functions both for our children as a social device and for our business people and government officials and formal tool of communication. Fascinating!

Sourcing Disappears as Applications Pile Up for Overwhelmed Recruiters

I recently read an article regarding the challenges a recruiter faces when hundreds of applicants apply for a single position, as is the norm in today's market. The article mainly highlights issues related to discrimination. In an effort to limit the number of applicants that apply for a position companies are attempting to limit the number of people who view an open position. For many companies this means searching only within a known network such as employee referrals or posting position only to a small local network. The results have been a huge loss of ethnic and racial diversity amongst application pools.

What concerns me here is that companies may more and more rely on focused internet sites to fill positions. It is understandable the a company would look to recruit this way. As is pointed out in the article, much of the time the company has laid off their recruiters, leaving the hiring manager to take care of recruiting themselves. Because they do not have the time to lead an exhausting search they will go the quickest route. A lot of the time this means posting on one or two internet sites and relying on the responses in the first day to be the applicant pool.

I wonder if recruitment software such as Avature have tools to help recruiters reach out to minority applicant pools. I could see how, potentially, a hiring manager using Avature's software could significantly limit the diversity of their search. With how easy it is to gather qualified applicants I wonder if recruiters will really be doing all that is necessary to ensure the applicant pool is diverse.

Resume Key Words

In an article posted about a year ago, Resume Bear explains to its readers what resume key words are and why they are important. It explains that they are basically a technique that recruiters use to screen applicants based on a few "key" words that are searched for within a resume. The article highlights how an applicant might use key words to their advantage in an effort to increase their chances of getting an interview.

I think this articles points out one of the follies with using key words to screen resumes - they are easily manipulated. The article advises that all one needs to do is to evalute the job posting for what they think the employer might be using as their key words and then to use those words as many times as possible in their resume and cover letter.

It shouldn't be supprising to most of you that this idea bothers me. It should bother most people. However, it doesn't bother me that unqualified people can use this technique in order to gain an interview. I feel that this is the goal of most everyone when they are writting their cover letter and resume - they feel that even if they are unqualified that, somehow, if they fluff up their resume they will some how, miraculously, get the job. What bothers me most is that this technique might systematicly block out an otherwise qualified applicant.

Let's say that an applicant mentions that they have a certain skill set once and feels that once it has been written this should be enough. They believe in the wisdom of the hiring manager and that an applicant should be truthful and let their experiences speak for themselves. In the case of using key words to screen applicants, the best applicant could be completely ruled out, thus ending the company's hope of filling the job with the perfect employee.

The goal of recruiters should be to get the absolute best talent available, not to try to make their own job as easy as possible. If key words are used, it should be used merely as a secondary piece of information that a recruiter might use to fill out a picture of a resume - but not as a filter.

Re: Does Social Media Produce Group Think?

The question posed in the title is a very interesting one to consider and it is one recently explored by Ron Callari. Does the fact we can ever more read other people's opinions hurt or help us? What about using social networking as a means of getting information. Is that bad?

When I first thinks about the use of social networking in a business setting I think of how useful it would have been at previous jobs. I think of how nice it would have been to have been able to just ask the cloud what they thought of a certain idea or what ideas they had to solve a certain problem. I think of how I wish I could have just asked the cloud why we did something a certain way. Mainly, I thought about all the cool things I could have done with these tool. After reading this article, it shocks me into thinking about many of the possible down sides.

First and foremost, as pointed out by the article, is social networking's ability to compound or amplify the problem of group think. Group think is when do to the dynamics of group interactions people who would usually come to completely different conclusion individually, come to the same conclusion as a group - most crippling for a business, this conclusion can be completely inadvisable. One person makes a point and in an effort to be appreciated by the group others agree and build on the same idea. Those with opposing ideas are shunned so that others with opposing ideas feel the need to keep quiet. This leads a vicious feedback loop that can lead a group all the way to bankruptcy.

To me, this means that companies aiming to employ the benefits of social networking need to also be aware of the perils of group think. These companies need to make clear a culture of independent thinking. One where dissidence is not only not frowned upon, but can encouraged. This way an opposing opinion will hopefully be heard and the group might come to a better solution. In a company with a very week culture of acceptance, social networking might not be such a hot idea, as is could have disastrous consequences. However, at a company that embraces dissidence, the perils of group think might be of little concern.

Cloud Computing and the Future of HR Tech

An article in this week's PC World highlights possible future impacts of Google's Chrome OS. The writer points out that while it is very debatable whether or not Chrome OS will have a measurable impact on MS sales, it will impact the future of in house computing.

What Google is proposing, is essentially to make all programs a SaaS. If Google succeeds in their quest to ruin on-computer software it could completely change the nature of HRIS. As people become more and more comfortable with doing all of their computing online, they will become more amiable to the idea of doing their business computing through a browser. I honestly feel that one of the factors that is holding back SaaS is peoples' inate feer of doing their computing through a browser. We like what we are use to and we're use to having the program on a hard drive that we can see and that we can control.

In a previous job I was part of rolling out a company-wide program that was exclusively over the internet. I had a close friend and coworker that was absolutely terrified of the idea. Even though he had countless problems with the old program causing his computer to crash he still liked that better than having a server based program. He exclaimed many times, "what if the internet goes down?" "What if the server crashes?" "What if someone hacks the server?" All of these points were relevant, but none made the new program any less reliable than the old. Eventually he warmed up to the idea, but this illustration shows how fearful we are of the idea of internet computing. It's completely irrational

Google's Chrome, if it does nothing else, will help us all to become more comfortable with the idea of cloud computing, thus allowing our companies to be more comfortable with the idea as well. I think as Chrome becomes more popular, we will all see the end of in-house HR computing solutions. Maybe Oracle sees it coming, maybe not.

In an effort to better define and focus my class project I will put it down in words in order for all to see. Simply put, I'm looking to develop an on-boarding solution for my company. At B&L Bike Shop we have had roughly an 80% turnover in the last year. New employees are constantly being quickly and sloppily trained in an effort to pick up the slack from being under staffed. New employees receive basic overviews on how to use the computer system and then are required to "shadow" a more experienced employee for a week or two in order to learn procedures. Most of the time, new employees have little or no bicycling experience, thus, they are attempting to learn store procedure, inventory and general bike knowledge all at the same time. The result is a drop in service quality for the customer and an increase in workload for experienced employees.

I do not aim to try to immediately solve the inventory knowledge problem for new employees. Only they can do that. What I would like to do is to be able to develop a sustainable resource by which new employees can learn B&L policies and procedures.

The first option one might consider is to simply make an employee hand book or a policy and procedures manual. However, I have already explored this route. In a conversation with the owner's influential advisor it was explained to me that B&L would never have a policy manual because they are (paraphrasing) just a means by which HR professionals aim to ensure their own job security.

Given that any sort of formal, written document appears to be off the table, I am aiming to develop a less formal and thus less threatening tool by which new employees can learn all they need to know in order to not be a drag on the rest of the employees.

This new tool will need to be sustainable. It will need to be relatively simple for everyone to share their thoughts and experiences. If the user interface is not simple and self explanatory then people will not use it. If the contributed content is weak and incomplete, people will not use it.

In order for this tool to be successful, a large percentage of my coworkers will need to use it. Traditional business forms of motivation will not work in this instance because the manager will not initially be on board with the idea. My thoughts are that it will need to be easy enough to use so that experienced employees will want to take some of their own time to make contributions. I fully intend to play on peoples inherent want to be needed and to be appreciated. On top of that, in theory, this tool should make every one's life a bit easier, thus hopefully motivating everyone to help.

The last obstacle that will need to be addressed will be legal and privacy issues. As Employee Manuals are often sited in lawsuits, I wouldn't want the site I create to put management in a compromised situation. It will need to be incredibly well documented that this program is not monitored or endorsed by B&L ownership (not initially anyway). The other issue I will need to address is privacy. As internal B&L policies will be discussed on this website, it will be important that the information cannot be searchable. I don't think security encryption is crucial, as there shouldn't be too many people who are super interested in the internal employee policies of a local bike shop. However, it would be best if none if it were easily accessible over the internet.

Younger Workers Push Employers for Wider Web Access

In an article for the Associated Press, Martha Irvine discusses new ways that employers are opening up internet access for their employees and why. The traditional employer internet policy dictates that no employee may use company computers for personal use. Companies normally go further and block certain websites such as Twitter, Facebook or ESPN. However, recently there has been a move toward opening up the internet policies to allow for a little bit of flexibility.

Irvine reports that companies are changing their internet policy from one of zero tolerance to one that espouses responsibility. The motivations for opening up the internet to employees are many. Some argue that it helps with morale, others say that it is required in order to attract and maintain an internet reliant, younger generation of workers. Whatever the reasons, employers have found mixed results.

Of course there are many cases of abuse, writes Irvine. However, there are also cases of success. Employers are finding that recruiters are able to use Facebook as a recruiting tool. Other employees, while chatting with friends, might be tossing back and forth business ideas. Lastly, even if an employee uses the internet to allow their mind to escape from the workplace for a few minutes, employers and allowing it just so long as all work is being completed responsibly.

In the context of our HRST class we all know how disabled Jun would be if his employer limited his internet access to only work related sites. In these ever more connected times access to the entire internet is often required to be able to do ones job. Businesses need to find more ways to use these often taboo websites. As Jun has proved time after time, websites such as Twitter can be used as a powerful collaboration tool.

If the job market ever becomes competitive again and talent becomes scarce, it is my opinion that companies will learn to embrace and open internet policy. Companies should preach responsible internet use and measure an employee's performance based on results, not just blanket use of time.

People feel that they need to be connected to their world and allowing an employee to remain in their comfort zone has its perks. As we move forward in the brave new world, employers will learn to help their employees embrace all aspects of the internet. Once restrictive internet policies will be changed to monitor productivity, not just use of time and facilities.

"Communicate like hell"

In his opening address at the recent annual conference of the Society for Human Resources Management, Jack Welsh was less than flattering of the HR profession. In reading this article I couldn't help but to think back to a common theme throughout the HR classes at the UCBX as well as what my HRST teacher has been telling us from day one. HR needs to be more integrated into a company's strategic planning. Welsh made many points that may to ring flatteringly in many HR professional's ears however.

Welsh's main point that while most HR professionals like to complain about HR's place in the company, or the lack of respect that they receive from their coworkers, they have nothing but themselves to blame. When asked how many people in the crowd came from a company where the chief HR officer was on the same footing as the Chief Financial Officer only a hand full of hand went up. "Damn it! Not enough," exclaimed Welsh. The point that piqued my interest the most was that rather than blame this dynamic on non-forward looking executives, he blamed it on the HR professionals themselves. He said that it is up the the HR professional to put themselves in a position to where they need to be considered on the same level as the CFO.

Welsh's points went hand-in-hand with what Jun has been telling us all summer - make yourself more valuable to the business. If the HR professional waits for the business to make them more valuable they are going to be doing themselves and their business a disservice. As Welsh said, HR professionals need to "Deliver, deliver, deliver. Over-deliver. Make your boss smarter than the question. Give top managers the stuff they've never thought of."

In this time of great challenge to all of us in the HR profession I feel we need to take this as a call to action. Any employee who is not actively looking for a way to make themselves more valuable to their company is in danger of being laid-off.