Etikettarkiv: LinkedIn

So why are weekly commutes so scary, again?

When job hunting you come across the oddest reasons for being turned down, one of the oddest is geographic proximity. If I look for a job in the London area, a likely scenario, what is the big deal with me doing a weekly commute? On my dime and time, might I add. As long as I’m in the office 8.30 Monday morning isn’t that all that counts?

Is is this purely a UK issue? It being an island and all?

I frankly don’t understand, which is why this BBC article is so strange for me. While we’re not all property tycoons living in South of France I still don’t see the big thing about weekly commutes.

On the contrary, I see it as a possibility to personal growth and professional development.

Google’s Tribulations – Déjà-vu all over again…

By now it hasn’t escaped many that Google’s UK boss Matt Brittin didn’t know his own pay when asked in the cross party hearing about Google’s UK tax polices. While it must be a nice problem to have, that’s not my gripe. Nor am I discussing the tax deal whether it was fair or not. But I wonder about why Google seemingly doesn’t seem to see the PR snafu in this story. If I headed up a company and a senior company representative floundered like this at a question and was called “evil” on camera I’d definitely consider that as something of a [minor] PR disaster.

The whole thing reminds me painfully about the SOPA hearings, the same thing there – the IT industry at large sent one lawyer that like the Lone Rider faced a committee of hostile Senators and even more hostile pro-SOPA representatives. And if companies like Google hadn’t shut the Internet down for a day, SOPA would have been introduced there and then.

I so surprised every time I see this happening. One of the biggest companies in the world and they behave worse than a start-up managed by a 20-year old from Mother’s walk-in closet. It’s like Google don’t care about their reputation. Or does Google think that their reputation is so good that they are impossible to harm? Or that because they of their size and market position have nothing to worry about? I find their arrogance amazing. And what more I find their attitude to me as a customer demeaning. Look at the situation – Prime time TV and one of the main star actors doesn’t know his lines. One can argue that Mr Brittins salary wasn’t the subject of the hearing, but he should have been prepared. I feel a little bit insulted on behalf of my métier, weren’t we (and I speak about PR and Communications practitioners) involved in the preparations? Or did Google didn’t feel it was necessary?Where we involved, but not listened to? Did Goole think that this was purely a fiscal question? And that once the deal with the UK government was closed, that was it? No repercussions? No questions asked? And what more, why seemingly no preparations, foresight or strategy from Google’s side?

As said, Google’s tribulations and floundering – déjà-vu all over again…

“It’s nothing personal” – “Please don’t take it as a reflection of your competencies” ‑ so they say

When applying for jobs one must grow rhinoceros hide and learn to accept rejection after rejection. Of course I get disappointed when I get a no, I mean I applied for the job. At the same time, it goes without saying that in a hiring process the company should identify and hire the person they feel can do the job. Identifying the right candidate is after all the goal with any hiring exercise, no question about it. And in a hiring situation there are more concerns to take into account than I can being to understand.

However, the thing I find hardest to handle are the comments that comes with the rejections, the ones going along the line of “It’s nothing personal and please don’t take it as a reflection of your competencies.”

You know what? With the risk of sounding like Donna Corleone, this IS personal. We are talking about my competencies, my experiences. It is me, myself and I that is weighed and found too light. I am the one rejected, not the competition. Of course I accept the message. There is after all not much else to do.

When to update your LinkedIn profile?

When is the best time to update your #LinkedIn profile? Before or after an event?  I am not talking about a job change here because that are sensitive matters, but events e.g. presentations.

Before you’ve held the presentation or after?

Social media – does it really work? And three more questions…

Social media is (was) supposed to be the silver bullet for better and interactive contacts between customers and companies, between citizens and public officials, between activists and stakeholder groups.

But is it? Does it really work? Or do I simply ask for too much, too quick? And why are we as consumers accepting this state of affairs?

I am not speaking about the number of likes on a Facebook page, pins on Pinterest, retweets on Twitter. I’m speaking about real constructive interaction between a customer and a company. Is social media becoming another hype that “has to be embraced” and then turns into yet another failed communications tool? One reads in the papers about how someone tweeted and got a job, someone else got a new ticket, a third won against a company and got a failed product replaced. But is this all? It feels like having 200 TV stations while only watching 2.

In a sense it reminds me about when e-mail and e-commerce came (yes, my dears there was a time before “e” and I remember that time) and how we whom already worked with both advised corporate strategists and communicators “Answer e-mails within 24 hours during the working week and 48 hours in the weekend. And put in place an automatic answer to the sender and say this so the customer knows what to expect.” These advice seems to be gone with the wind. I don’t expect instant contact but I do expect contact within the above given time frames. But after implementing social media (mostly I get the feeling this means a Facebook page and a corporate Twitter account) companies seems to feel that they are relieved from this. Because: “We have social media, so we remain in contact with our customers.” But it is still far too often the same one way communication and no real contact with us as customers. Sometimes I feel that the so often beleaguered public sector actually is better and more responsive than private companies when it comes to customer contacts. Even if customers is not the correct term when it comes to the public sector but I trust you understand what I mean.

And to answer my third question:

No, I don’t think I ask for too much too quick. On the contrary, I feel we as consumers are quite wonderful in our patience.

Even if the “I have always had Internet” generation is just coming of age, PC’s and various forms of digital interconnectivity have been around so long they are an inherent part of our every day lives, professional and private, so having grasped how to work with on-line tools (which after all is what Social media are) should be a normal as pen and paper. As should developing services that actually use the opportunities this brings rather than just automating old badly working paper based processes. But from what I see, it doesn’t seem to happen.

But I have no answer to my fourth question – do you?

And what can we as corporate communicators do to change the situation and to turn our organisations into leaders in the area?


In recruitment – should the cobbler stick to his last?

Are we forever stuck to working at the same type of companies? Are consultants always doomed to be consultants? Big company employees always big company employee? A public servant always a public servant?

I just ask myself that question, when reading profiles on LinkedIn there always seem to be a pattern of the above – you start out as say a consultant, are you forever going to stay in that role? Why does it seem that a willing candidate can’t change from one type of working environment to another? Are the working environments that different? Of course there will be new ways of working on a new work place, there always is.  There will be a period of adaptation, of course. That’s what changes means, so there are no news there.

This is not a new phenomena so it isn’t linked to the crisis and more cautious recruitment policies. It’s not even a new trend, it just seems to be a rule laid down in stone.

So why is it then that it seems virtually impossible to make these cross-over changes?


LinkedIn – can it go back to basics?

My latest post Does LinkedIn actually work? has sparked quite an interest and a wee debate both on my blog site and in various groups. Interesting enough, representatives from LinkedIn itself has not deigned itself to get involved, a rather alarming argument that my suspicions that the barge is navigating without direction holds some truth.

The more I see the more I think that the basis of all the discomfort so many LI members currently experience with LinkedIn is that it has spread itself too thin. You can simply not be a mädchen für alles, you just end up being nothing for all. It is really very boring, but concentrate and stick to core business is really what makes a success of everything in the long end. Trying to snatch just gets you into trouble. There is success to be had in patience, persistence and keeping your eyes to the ball – much as I hate to admit it being of somewhat impatient nature myself.

LinkedIn started out to be a professional, dedicated, source for business contacts and on-line networking. End of story. It was quite good as that. Then I can only assume that someone at LI benchmarked Facebook and its incessant chatter and thought “We should to that too!” Bad mistake. Their latest infatuation with Twitter just add further injury to the already bleeding victim. I suppose it all really started with LinkedIn went public. Members, members and more members at any cost is their mantra. There is ad revenues to be had with us as a base. Fair enough. But if I had been an investor I would have been more careful with my money (which is why I am not an investor) not wanting my investments to be scattered to the winds. I would have expected some long-term return on investment, preferably not killing the investment on the way. Which is what LI and its investors are doing right now.

But can LinkedIn clean up the more Facebook like traits it has gained lately? Should it? Can it go back to basics? It will risk members leaving, which I suppose will not sit very well with a faceless investor or two.

Still that a few members leave, isn’t that better than LinkedIn disappears all together?

%d bloggare gillar detta: