You'll need to zoom in (Ctrl+) to see the details but the colour coding helps to give an at-a-glance overview of 10 of the most well known brands.
My second pick appeared on Malaysia Tomorrow and was authored by Sara LaForest and Tony Kubica. In Succession Planning: How to Meet Future Talent Needs the authors provide 3 reasons "why you need to immediately implement a succession planning strategy":
Three To See this week features posts on differentiated talent management, overcoming inertia and cultivating candidates.
My first pick is Workforce of One, an interview with David Smith of Accenture which was posted to the Harvard Business Review blog:
In the interview Smith proposes 4 differentiated talent management practices to engaging, retaining and maximising the contribution of employees:
Segmentation
Modular Choices
Broad & Simple Rules
Fostering Employee Defined Personalisation
Smith's proposition hugely challenges the prevailing culture in many a workplace - something that is not lost on Oscar Berg in his post to Content Management Connection: There's no shortcut to the future workplace.
Berg writes about the importance of culture in the successful implementation and adoption of Enterprise 2.0 practices stating;
"there must always be a spark somewhere - a culture or subculture (a social group that shares certain values and behaviors) - that initiates this change."
"A social network helps you gather potential candidates together and it provides a way to deliver and receive information. But typical social networks tend to be weak at getting candidates excited and engaged about working for you. Part of this is because we have not yet embraced the idea of creating communities rather than talent pools."
Before going on to observe that;
"A community is entirely different. First of all it is two-way: both you and the candidate exchange information and both of you give and get. But a community also has several other distinguishing features:
Collaboration and Sharing
Feeling Included
Similar Values
Openess
Engagement"
I think its helpful post that makes a clear distinction between the two approaches and the different resourcing considerations of each at a time when some practitioners are under pressure to build sustainable talent pipelines for future roles.
This post comes from Su Oakley, Best Practice Consultant, with StepStone Solutions. In this post Su discusses the use of social tools for recruiting.
Social recruiting is a hot topic amongst many of the customers I work with and something that most recruitment teams think they should be part of, though many are yet to identify how it fits into their recruitment and resourcing strategy and the approach they should take - this is not surprising, according to Department for Work and Pensions three quarters of employers are missing out on candidates by failing to use social networking sitesto recruit staff.
Looking at some of the adoption statistics it would seem that the social web has a momentum that makes it compelling to recruiters:
Socialising has become the number 1 activity on the web
It took Radio 35 years to reach 50 million users, TV 13 years, the internet 4 years and iPod 3years. Facebook had 100 million users after less than 9 months.
If Facebook were a country it would be the 4th largest country in the world.
There are currently somewhere between 3000 and 5000 social sites.
By the end of 2010 generation Y will outnumber baby boomers, 96% of them will have joined a social networking site.
Ringo makes some interesting comments on the interplay between the CHRO and CIO, the role of HR and the increasing use of specialist solutions for talent acquisition and management.
Hebert shares the chart below as a primer for achieving particular business outcomes by inciting the desired behaviours of people in a range of roles - not solely through sales people hitting sales targets.
In the post he says:
"Your expertise in understanding your company and the costs and revenues that drive your profitability aligned with an understanding of how to influence behavior correctly (that’s a key word – don’t skip over it) can have a huge impact on your business bottom line.
Don’t assume that sales is the only place where incentives can have an impact. Review the chart and ask yourself – “Are you doing anything in any of the areas other than sales to positively impact behavior?”"
The post contains links to some great reference material and insightful comment - such as this statement that I think helps to describe the difference between social media and social networking:
"it's not the person or where they 'hang out', congregate, or lurk on the web that matters - rather, it's their pattern of connections, and more importantly, how and who they connect with online."
Letourneau ends on the point below:
"Now, I'm not suggesting that passive identification of other A-players through the strength of their ties is a fool-proof magic-bullet to solve all of Recruiting's woes. However, I will go on record to say that this technique is much more offensively aggressive than hoping A-players make employee referrals on their own."
Two posts on differentiated workforces and a third on personal reputation management In this week's Three To See.
ProfessorDick Beatty of Rutgers University talksabout the importance of differentiation in Be Strategic With Your Workforce on the HarvardBusiness YouTube Channel.
How do you differentiate? Who are really the High Performers?
How do you create more of these High Performers?
So what does this mean to HR?
In his answers he refers to the challenge of identifying "pivotal" talent (a term that cropped up in "The New Science of Human Capital" featured in last week's Three To See) and a technique that he describes as "a "heat map" of the specific characteristics which "define" high-performing managers in this particular company."
Owyang outlines the Control Rating, Opportunities, Risks and "What No One Tells You" about your online footprint, reference submissions, LinkedIn references, Unvarnished references and Google listings. If you've not yet heard of Unvarnished, Owyand describes it as "a website where people you’ve worked with can leave anonymous comments about working with you, both good –and bad."
This is an interesting post that puts individuals in the same position as organisations in having to deal with the perceptions propogated by others - sometimes a welcome, solicited endorsement but at other times a much less welcome "anti-referral" - perhaps because it is negative, unsolicited or accidental (i.e not intended for public consumption) - another useful contribution to the online background checking debate.
