Zane Safrit

Employee Engagement is Your Social Media Engine

As Morgan* and I walked this morning this theme started to riff. It's not necessarily a new one for me. I've always said your social media, your customer service, your marketing starts with those in your organization. Maybe, what's new is the conciseness in this one sentence:

Employee engagement is your social media engine.

If you never turn that engine on, it will never run.  If you never turn your employees on, ignite their passions and incite and inspire their ideas, you can rest assured they will in turn do the same with your customers and prospects, vendors and partners.

The extent to which you allow your members to create a social organization, where they have vested interests in participating, where they are recognized and rewarded for their participation, where they can take ownership of the organization they create is the extent to which your customers will be inspired and incited, rewarded and recognized to do the same. By whom? By those employees whose engagement, passion and energy, now ignited becomes infectious, engaging, inspiring, exhilarating.

It's natural. That's the power of social media. It's social. We're social creatures. All we need are barriers to be removed. We'll do the rest.

Your social media engine runs as fast and smooth, and delivers the results that your employee engagement culture delivers. Every company has an employee engagement culture. Granted, most companies today have a culture where employee engagement is recognized by its lack. On average, about 30% of employees are actively engaged, emotionally and intellectually, with their work. 10-12% are actively disengaged, that means they actively subvert the efforts of those around them. The rest are just doing time.

And likewise, every company has a customer culture best described as indifferent. A few companies have a high percentage of customer vigilantes, e.g. U.S. airlines come to mind. And a few, Apple and Zappos and others have a customer culture marked by loyalty and passion, testimonials and customer evangelists (Thank you, Ben and Jackie).

Ok. This is all kinda nice and rhetorical. Show me the money, you say. Fine. I will. Thank you for asking.

Big companies, Fortune 500 companies, are putting the brakes on social media. That's right. Maybe they're too big to fail, but they're not too big to stop listening to their customers. And that comes on the heels of no longer listening to their employees, hence the layoffs that helped generate our recession. Fortune 500 companies are mature, by definition. Mature companies are more interested in maximizing efficiencies, less interested in innovation and new products and even less in the conversations, messy and difficult, that spawn those innovations and new products that open up new markets and generate revenue from new sources. As the author of this article, Why Big Corporations are Putting the Brakes on Social Media, wrote:

...very large companies like those ranked among the Fortune 500, have the most to lose by adding a fifth "P," Participation, to their traditional marketing mix of Product, Price, Place, and Promotion. Inherently risk averse and overly protective of their market positioning, corporate leaders have far too many lawyers and others spinning cautionary tales laden with drastic potential outcomes as a result of directly engaging their customers and prospects in full view of one another.

But, wait, smaller companies, ahem....fast growing companies use social media more. The same study cited in the above article also  revealed that:

the annual Inc. 500 listing of American's fastest-growing companies -- host twice as many blogs than their bigger, better-known brethren. And 71 percent of Inc. 500-listed companies have Facebook pages, while 59 percent use Twitter on a regular basis.

As I wrote earlier, your organization is already transparent. The conversations and culture you have internally is the same your members create with their external audience. Has to be. There's no way you demoralize your frontline employees and then expect them to inspire their counterparts, customers, to develop loyalty and increase their purchases. And yet, so many companies try to do that. At the same time, create an exciting and engaging culture and your frontline employees enthusiasm will translate into an exciting and engaging conversation with their counterparts - customers. That's regardless if you use twitter, facebook, youtube, yelp, blogs, microblogs, pinterest, tumblr, posterous, flickr....or just a cup of coffee.

The conversations allowed within your organization are the conversations that take place outside your organization. Outside your organization are conversations among your customers, prospects, vendors and partners, investors...about your organization. The catalyst for their comments about your organization are the conversations - ideas, feedback, performance, support, passion, energy, failures, policies, manuals, tools and technologies, recognition and rewards - that first occur among your employees and then are shared outside.

Employee engagement is your social media engine.

Rev it up.

**********

* Morgan is our 107-lb (last week), 11-month old, Malamute we rescued. Here's a peek:

 

 

Your Customers' Silent Plea in 2 Words

via thisisnthappiness.com

Unemployment Stats -Do They Add Up?

I'm thrilled with everyone to see that our economy is finally....generating jobs in a variety of sectors like professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing sectors.

But I'm not sure the numbers add up. I'm an art major so maybe my math is off. Help me out, be kind while you're at it.

243,000 net jobs were created in January 2012. That resulted in a drop of the unemployment rate by .2% or .002, from 8.5% to 8.3%. So, here's what I asked:

243,000 is .002 or .2% of what number?

Here's the formula: 243.000/.002 = 121,500,000.

That result, 121.5 million would be the total number of adult Americans available to work in January 2012. The total American job force.

Here's where I see the math break down. In 2005, the total US Labor Force was 149,000,000. And .002 of 149,000,000 = 298,000. If we were in 2005, see, we'd need to create 298,000 jobs, 55,000 more than we created in January 2012 in order to see a .002 change in the 2005 unemployment rate. See? Or am I missing something.

So, what is the total labor force figures for the US? You'd think you'd find it in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Maybe. I couldn't. However, the OECD reports the labor force (citizens 15 -64 years old) for the US is equal to 66.7% of the U.S. population in 2010.

According to the US Census Bureau, the total US population in 2010 was 308,000,000.

So, 66.7% of the US population in 2010 is...206,000,000. Here's the formula: .667 x 308,000,000.

And .002 of 206,000,000 = 413,500. Here's that formula: .002 x 206,000,000 = 413,500.

For our unemployment rate to drop by .002 from 8.5% in December 2011 to 8.3% in January 2012, the NET job increase figure must be at least 413,500.

The difference between these numbers is 170,500. That is the difference between the 243,000 jobs, net jobs, created in January 2012, we're told and the real number of net jobs needed to effect a .002 change in unemployment, 413,500. Formula: 413,500 - 243,000 = 170,500.

What did I miss?

Now, this is not a passive, implied screed against this administration or this president. I am not carrying the water for Fox News & Friends who should never ever quibble about accuracy of data, or even just data. Curious and curiouser numbers and terminology, as Alice might call them, have been used to report employment statistics for a long time, certainly from before the previous administration. It's a bi-partisan nod-nod, wink-wink, a nod is as good as wink to a blind horse. We, the voters being the blind horse not in reality but in functionality. We refuse to look at these numbers, think about these numbers. In effect, we chose to not only remain blind, but we put our own blinders on and keep them on, and keep our mouths shut, as we're led...wherever.

You see, the unemployment rate as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not report the number of unemployed. No. Unemployment figures reflect those who file for unemployment. And in today's jobless recovery, those whose unemployment benefits have run out, or to put it another way, they remain unemployed for 50 - 60- 99 weeks or more....well their unemployed status does not count towards the unemployment figure. Again, because they are not filing for unemployment benefits, not because they remain unemployed.  Note the irony: those unemployed longest, who suffer the effects of this economy the longest, are not included in the figures handed to us, fed us, on the issue of unemployment and job creation or its lack. Again, it's a bi-partisan issue we enable as we snort and stomp in place, chomping on our bit, with the reins around our necks.

The only way we'll have an honest, open, discussion about this challenge even from this administration who touts its transparency is we expect honest data to be shared openly, transparently. And it wouldn't hurt if mainstream media fulfilled its responsibilities as the 4th Estate and looked closer at these numbers in the future. Otherwise, they lose credibility and audience as they continue to merely regurgitate what's fed them.

Again, do the unemployment stats add up? My crayons and math skills say they don't. What do you think?

Concept Vehicles by Chrysler - What Happened?

via mediagallery.usatoday.com

Disclaimer: And it's an obvious one.I only know Chrysler by observation. Not as a customer, just a curious bystander, really. 

I found some of these models dazzling, creative, adventurous. And they were conceived 15 - 20 years ago.

So, I ask the question:

What happened? Some of these designs are so forward-looking...even now. And instead Chrysler chose for its market,  global now, got...Big trucks. Big...gas-guzzling trucks.  Yeehaw! And how did that work out for everybody?

(Ok, in all fairness they also rolled out the Chrysler 300, which...I liked it for its bold design. Granted its MPG was sacrificed for the big bold grill and the big bold engine. But still, it made you look. )

Back to the question. What happened? What happened to those designs?

Where in the design process, the innovation process, the discussions, were these designs killed?

How can that not be repeated?

And since Chrysler, with Clint Eastwood and an excellent ad agency,  announced It's Halftime in America...will the 2nd half find us oooing and ahhing over these models heretofor considered by Chrysler to be...too adventurous. Because, at halftime now, you stand a distant 4th among the Big Three...and that's after a 44% increase in sales, then you really need to be adventurous in the 2nd half.

And will the employees of Chrysler no longer be blamed for producing what they were given? Had they be given some of these designs, instead of Dodge Trucks (Dodge Trucks are Ram Tough...), then questions of their pay and benefits would have been irrelevant. Why? Because consumers would have bought Chrysler models and their cash-flow would have been positive, not negative.

How US Lost Out on iPhone Work

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

via www.nytimes.com

Yeah, ok. American workers will always remain uncompetitive if being competitive means living in dormitories, available at a moment's notice from a kinder and gentler foreman who quietly knocks on your door and offers you a biscuit and a cup of tea, in return for rousing you from your dorm-room slumbers.

The question is how long will those current workers who live in dormitories sacrifice their lives to satisfy the digital fetishes of ...us? Or anyone?

Is this a sustainable business model? Ultimately, no. Look at the picture with the article at this link. Lots of people offering their resumes. Look again, these are not dormitory dwellers. They have expectations that their education and their skills will give them access to the lifestyles they see, locally and globally.

Maybe today, maybe tomorrow. But one day somebody's going to say I don't want to live in slavery, I mean a dormitory so this company can continue to put profits over lives.Sure. Maybe in China there remain enough unemployed who see dormitory life in their golden years as a great step forward. But word-of-mouth is universal. And words from the mouths of those who've lived in and worked from those worker-paradise dorms will soon turn employee evangelists into....employee vigilantes.

Stories like this, also from the NY Times, will help change the conversation, the choices being made, about our favorite digital product:

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

From Mother Jones comes this,

A few weeks back, there was an incredible episode of This American Life, wherein Mike Daisey, a monologist and "self-described worshipper in the cult of Mac" visits the Foxconn factory in Shenzhen, China, where iPads are made. What he finds there is mind-boggling. First, the sheer size of the place: 34,000 workers. The cafeterias seat thousands, and the dormitories are so crowded the beds remind Daisey of coffins.

Daisey meets a young woman who cleans iPad screens and discovers that she is just 13. While he is there, a worker dies after a 34-hour shift. But the most chilling part was Daisey's description of the factories as virtually silent. There's no thrum of machinery, he realizes, because there are hardly any machines. What we miss when we wax nostalgic about a time when things were made by hand, he says, is that "There are more handmade things now than there have ever been."

I write this on an iMac. I love Mac products. Reliable, smart, easy to navigate, fast, safe, secure as compared to PCs.  Ok, the reflective screen on the Macbook is ...an interesting choice. Nobody's perfect.

But under Apple's business model it is an either/or choice. Bestest, fastest, coolest gadgets and rising profits, Apple Surges on Net Income Doubling ....or....not.

It's not an either/or choice: Profits or Lives. That's a false dichotomy. That dichotomy leads to radically unequal wealth distribution, unmotivated workers...What's the point, there is no place to get ahead...you mean a bigger dorm room? Awesome...

Eventually social unrest.

Isn't the real choice the choice of how to make profits and grow lives? That's sustainable. Your profits grows as do your people. I guarantee your profits cannot continue grow as the numbers of workers per dorm room grow, or the number of biscuits and cups of tea per employee decline. Your company grows as do the people engaged in creating that company. No engagement, no growth.

Update from ProPublica, By the Numbers: Life and Death at FoxConn. Here's a few:

70: number of psychiatrists employed by Foxconn to prevent suicides, according to a 2010 announcement by CEO Terry Gou.

100: Estimated number of employees at a Foxconn factory in Wuhan who stood on the roof of a factory building this month to protest working conditions and wages. Several threatened to commit suicide, according to the New York Times.

20: number of employees sometimes packed into a three-room apartment.

200: Reported number of police officers who responded to a Foxconn dormitory riot.

Do You Know Your Company's Already Transparent?

“You can’t be the best place to buy, if you’re not the best place to work.” - Fred Reichheld, author of The Ultimate Question Survey.

Exactly.

Is it possible for a company to be particularly and disproportionately good at social media and external-facing social business first, and then shore up their culture and employee focus second?

In a word, in the only word....No.

Oh sure, take a snapshot of time and you can fool some of your stakeholders, customer and employees, some of the time. But truth always triumphs, as hard as it is to say that in these day, and social media and its power to share experiences honestly, openly, transparently with no filters or permission needed from management, PR firms or spin doctors is the hammer of truth.  

Can you make your customers happy without having happy employees first?

In a word, in the only word....No.

C'mon, think about it. Can the employee made miserable today, desperate and depressed and denied, bring happiness to their colleagues today...or customers tomorrow? A headache starts as I write that question. It's the headache of cognitive dissonance. I can wrap my head around a lot of things, things that even scare me (President Newt Gingrich...yeah, that scared you, too.). But I can't wrap my head around this idea that unhappy, disenfranchised, disengaged employees can create anything but a mirror of themselves in their customers: unhappy, disengaged, indifferent.

Back to the title of this post. Your business, its brand and message and promises,  is already transparent. As a business leader, you created it then, you create it now. You may be opaque about it, as you hide behind reports or customer service scripts or customer return policies or infantile HR policies and manuals.  But that is wiped clean when your phone rings or email bongs with a customer who wants your promised offer.

And this is so easy to understand, so seamless in its execution, I have a hard time understanding why so many companies led by truly smart, well-educated, folks pretend to not grasp its power. 

This riff was inspired by a great post by Jay Baer at his site Convince and Convert. They post is titled Comparison of 100 Top Companies on Social Business and Corporate Culture. (Sounds kinda academic. It's not. Very readable, very useful. ) All three quotes above are pulled from that great post.