Social Media Phenomenon

Social media is a much misunderstood business phenomenon. There are those who just see no relevance in the voyeuristic time-vacuums of on-line social engagement. Then there are others who are creating professions prophesying the relevance of being digitally socially engaged.

There are many social media mediums; from QQ and Renren in China to Facebook, Linked-in or Twitter in North America. Many opportunities or many distractions, depending on your perspective.

With an election underway and another pending, social media will become an increasingly critical tool for those trying to influence the masses. Like it or not, expect to be socially spammed and lobbied electronically.

This past week I received an e-mail from Reid Hoffman, perhaps many others also received a similar message. Reid Hoffman is the founder and Chairman of Linked-in, in my estimation the premier business social media application.

Mr. Hoffman was announcing that Linked-in had just surpassed 100 million subscribers. (I was number 35,351 about a decade ago). Currently 41 per cent of members on linked-in are female and 59 per cent are male. Twenty-one per cent are between 18-24 yrs of age, 36 per cent are between 25-34 yrs, 36 per cent are between 35-54 yrs with only 7 percent 55 yrs or older. Full 72 per cent between 25-54; a very mature and marketable group.

For anyone who has recently watched the movie The Social Network, it is hard to imagine that in only seven years the power of this application has managed to topple governments in the Middle East.

Today there are more than 500 million active users engaged with Facebook. Fifty per cent of active users log on to face book in any given day. The average user has 130 friends; collectively people spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook.

Entrepreneurs and developers from more than 190 countries build on the Facebook platform. There are more than 200 million active users currently accessing Facebook through their mobile devices. In 2011 social network spending is estimated to reach $6 billion, according to e-marketer.

Facebook had topped Google, Yahoo and Microsoft for user engagement in 2010. Ninety-six per cent of the world’s population under 30 years of age has joined a social network. One-in-Eight couples married in the US met via a social network. Like it or not, this phenomenon does have some momentum!

These stats are revealing as to who is using Facebook: Barack Obama has 18,913,409 Facebook fans, Lady Gaga has 31,277,377. Stephen Harper has 44,195 people who like his page, Michael Ignatieff has 42,630; SpongeBob Square Pants has 19,158,703. (Too bad SpongeBob was not on the ballot).

Twitter is five-years old. There are 1 billion tweets posted per week, as recently as March 11th, 2011 there was 177 million tweets posted on that single day.

The Internet does provide great opportunities for those of us isolated in geographically rural areas like Prince Edward Island. Perhaps too does social media. To quote Eric Qualman, “We don’t have a choice on whether we DO social media; the question is how well we DO it.”

Get the Most from your Human-Capital Investment

How important are people to the operation of your business? Are you getting the most from the investment which is, arguably, the most important asset your company has? Are your people committed to your organization – are you committed to your people?

Treating employees well may be one of the most critical variables to keeping people motivated and productive. Some studies suggest that only 24 percent of those in the workplace are really engaged in their job; a shocking 76 percent are not engaged. How effective and productive are employees who are not fully engaged?

What are employees looking for? For certain they want to be treated fairly and with respect. This is a concept that will improve employee retention if sincerely adopted by the hiring organization.

Business organizations are now expanding their energies toward preserving their investment in people. Why is this occurring? Organizations are finally realizing the economic costs and time investment put into the recruitment and training of employees. Once this investment has been “sunk” into creating valuable employees, this asset must be preserved. The costly alternative is to invest again in the recruitment and training cycle for replacements.

Businesses are motivated to retain the services of any asset for the expected useful life of that asset. Organizations recognize the importance of human capital (people) and that this is an invested asset which should be maintained with as much care as any other key asset class.

There have been many human resource models created to support the identification, selection and retention of employees. One of the most straight forward and pragmatic approaches was developed by Kevin Kelloway, a professor and researcher at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax.

Kevin uses the acronym HTML as his guiding principal for keeping good people. HTML, as many will recognize, is the open standard that allows information to be displayed over the Internet. In a similar fashion, HTML, as used in human resources, is also an open system that can be applied to any organization in the public, private or non-profit sectors.

HTML stands for: Hire the best, Treat them well, Manage performance, and provide Leadership. Any leader who follows this mantra will ensure a qualified team of committed professionals are working to achieve common objectives.

Hiring the best employees should be an objective of any organization. If you don’t have the best candidates, then you cannot expect optimal performance. When Jim Collins, author of “Good to Great”, analyzed companies that developed from good organizations to exceptional performers, he ranked hiring the best people ahead of strategy or any other managerial action. Hiring the best people is recognized as a critical factor in success.

Treating people well is a universally understood statement. People respond well to a good environment and will perform to the extent of their capabilities when they feel appreciated.

Managing performance is an issue that most managers have some difficulty with. Measuring and rewarding performance is an awkward responsibility that few relish. Setting specific, challenging but attainable goals is an effective method to establish performance standards and gauge success attainment.

Finally Leadership, it is the leaders’ responsibility to provide a safe and stimulating environment. The leader must encourage the growth and productivity of the people they are responsible for. Without good leadership even the best resources cannot achieve maximum efficiency. Transformational leadership measures effectiveness in terms of motivating employees and challenging them to increase performance.

Dr. Kelloway offers a closing comment that accurately summarizes this approach, “Common sense is not always that common and the HTML acronym helps us to remember what truly matters in managing people. Hiring the best, treating them well, managing performance and leadership are the principles that work in organizations of all shapes and sizes, in all industries and at all levels.”

The Business of Giving

Having just survived the frenzied fall season of solicitation as both a collector and donor, I thought it would be appropriate to examine how Islanders respond to the barrage of requests for donations. Statistics Canada keeps tabs on what is reported but there are countless activities that go unrecorded due to the size and method of the donation.

The first source of information to examine is the Fraser Institute’s annual “Generosity Index”. In 2005, this index focused on two primary measures the percentage of tax filers who donated to registered charities and the percentage of all personal income donated to charity. This study concluded that Canadians are less generous than our American counterparts on both accounts. Keep in mind; Americans also have a much lower taxation burden which may account for increased disposable income and a greater tax advantaged propensity to give.

The study also reveals some characteristics of those who give. On Prince Edward Island, 25.9 per cent of people who filed tax returns made charitable donations. This generosity allows Islanders to rank fourth in the country behind Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan. We also donate roughly 0.72 per cent of our annual income.

Although Islanders do not donate as much per person as some of our provincial counterparts, our donations as a percentage of income has steadily increased over the last number of years. This generosity may be explained by our smaller and closer communities and our general willingness to support community fundraisers in aid of special causes. For instance, benefits in aid of individuals, group activities or centers of interest such as local hospitals.

In comparison, when Statistics Canada’s most recent information is examined, Islanders are shown on average to be moderately more generous than the national average. The average charitable donation per person across Canada is $230, while on Prince Edward Island it is $340 annually. This amount appears even more generous when one compares the Island annual median income of $35,000 to the national median of $44,000.

Donations are a vital source of revenue for most charities. The generosity of Islanders is impressive and consistent. However, the funds available for charitable giving is finite and organizations must be increasingly creative to capture a share of this pie. The more creative the organization, and the more dynamic the team of fundraisers, the more successful the organization will be in raising money. Charitable giving has transformed from a loosely structured cause to a well-managed business.

The next evolution for the enterprise of charitable donation is Social Entrepreneurship (more on this in subsequent articles) where creative entrepreneurs offer their business expertise for the benefit of a socially conscious charity. When business aligns with charitable causes the results are often self-sustaining charitable enterprises and a much-enhanced opportunity to accomplish the objectives of the charity.

Businesses are motivated to support the community in which they serve; the more vibrant the market area, the greater the potential for profit. This obligation is accomplished through multiple levels of taxation. In addition to taxes paid many businesses do support charitable community initiatives.

The personal benefits of making a financial contribution go beyond the gratification of assisting a cause of interest. There are taxable benefits to making contributions as well. Depending on your personal income and the amount of your donation from 25.8 per cent to 32.7 per cent of your total charitable contributions may be deductible from your taxes payable. The maximum allowable amount of donations in a given year is 75 per cent of your income.

There are many dimensions to generosity and charitable donations, but at the end of the year Islanders remain among the most generous in the country.

How to Improve Your Organization – Hire More Women

I am sure this headline will have all the men’s activist groups lobbying me; so let me explain.

I came across a study completed by Anita Woolley, Carnegie Mellon University, and Thomas Malone, MIT Sloan School of Management, which suggested adding women to teams, makes the teams smarter. As a father of three daughters I was intrigued (but with one son, I remained 25 per cent skeptical).

The study looked at 192 distinct teams. The findings suggest that there is little correlation between a groups collective intelligence and the individual team members IQ’s. However, if you add more women to the team, the collective intelligence rises.

Collective intelligence of a team is not simply a reflection of how intelligent the individual members of the team are, but how intelligent the team becomes through the impact of the team members.

The authors confirm that group diversity is good, but groups of women tend to be smarter than groups of men. (I am happy for my daughters, but feeling a little personally snubbed).

Like myself, you may be wondering on what grounds could such a statement be made. It seems that social sensitivity is very important to group performance. Women tend to score higher on social sensitivity tests; but gender may not be as relevant as how socially sensitive the group members are.

When you hear about hyper-performing teams, you tend not to hear how smart the individuals are but how well they listen to each other, how open they are, how they share criticisms constructively. This is well documented in successful sports teams.

The benefit of this research is to carefully design teams that perform better. Can a group’s intelligence be changed by weighting gender or providing incentives for collaboration?

Does this research extend beyond small groups? Can it be applied to family dynamics, entire companies or even cities? The challenges of face-to-face collaboration increases as the size of the group increases; but perhaps technology can overcome the issues of scale? Consider how Google harvests knowledge or distributed platforms like Wikipedia achieve high quality products with no central control.

Men, rather than assume this research is placing us under siege; consider different methods of collaboration. Examine how we operate in groups and how we might be able to improve our performance by being more sensitive, open and considerate.

In business performance and productivity are what differentiates and creates success. If this study can improve the potential for greater performance and outcomes then it is worthy of evaluation.