I've not read this book, and it looks good. Going to add it to my ever-growing list of must-reads.
This book, along with stumbling into a couple of situations from my long-ago past made me think hard about this topic. Here's the thing: When it comes corporate apologies, they have to occur in an environment where everyone is on-board with the apology. And, in addition to the apology, the company in question HAS to take action to address the base cause of the error as fast as possible.
Were I the CEO, I'd have one or two people I'd turn to in these cases, just to make sure there is no weaseling around going on with either the apology, or the actions.
Aside from being good corporate advice, what does this have to do with you, the job hunter? Simple. Your brand will irrevocably be tied to your employers. Before you accept a given job at a given company, check out the stumbles the company has made, and see if you're O.K. with their response. If not, add that to 'Against' column on your For & Against list.
Should be great grist for the SHRM mill. And, a great recommendation for those starting up their new company.
One nit I saw was that if market salaries decline for certain level, then their logic probably would state that they'd also reduce, too? Looks like a morale killer to me, if they were to pursue such a course.
Mark Anderson has a very thought-provoking post about Corporate Board composition.
To whet your appetite, he starts with the notion that intellectual honesty in the business world went by the wayside a few years back, and we have been off track ever since (how things work v. how they ought to work). And then, he goes on to make a suggestion as to what should be done about it.
I love that about Mark's writing. He tells you what is wrong, and then almost always, makes recommendations about what to fix.
And, yeah, he's right, there's a very high signal to noise ratio when you go looking for talent in this market.
But that whole A-Player thing? Not so much.
All bosses think they are A-Players. But, if you think about the whole A-Player framework, it's a fallacy, because once you move up a level, you automatically get assessed by a new set of criteria. And, this is where the A-Player framework breaks down for me. I've experienced too many BAD BOSSES who think they are A-Players when it comes to building a team. And guess what they say after they've hired someone who doesn't work out?
"Oh, they just didn't meet expectations, they aren't an A-Player"
Um, yeah, right. Did you look in the mirror before you said that?
It's very hard to turn on the news, or check your blog reader and not get hit my something by an Economist pontificating about the state of our current economy.
Face it, bad news sells.
What's interesting is that these people are now looking for the bottom, and they are also trying to figure out what the upcycle will bring.
Depressions are just as much about a depressed economy as they are about the collective state of mind of a given population. And, the problem with Economists is that they are very rooted in the past, so they dredge up all kinds of examples that look like what we are going through now to illustrate how things will go.
Problem is, there is no time like now. Really.
There are three or four major differences between now and any other period of history the Economists might point to. One is that the U.S. is not an agrarian-based economy, though it was during the 30s (and pretty much any time before that). Second, our ability to handle infromation is exponentially better, faster, cheaper than during the 30s. Third, we live in the Internet age, and not only do we have almost instant access to news and information, we also have instant access to our banks and firms we do business with (the Internet of the 30s was the radio). And fourth, and maybe most importantly of all, our population is just North of 300MM, whereas the U.S. was around 125MM in 1933.
These points all matter a great deal because they have a direct impact on a key financial concept, the velocity of money. This is a measure of how frequently money changes hands, or is spent over a given period of time. In a bad economy, and/or when people hoard money, this measure declines. When people are feeling good about the economy, this measure increases.
My theory is that because of these four attributes to our economy, our turnaround is going to look a lot like a light switch getting turned on, as opposed to a slow trickle that gradually swells into a river.
Now, this light that we will see is not going to be like the sun - it's going to be more like a light bulb. But, it will be a light, and it will get brighter, and much faster than is being predicted.
How much faster? Hmm, let's see here. Fast enough that it will almost guarentee that President Obama will be relected for a second term.
One of the things that always struck me odd are Women in Software Engineering groups. It's not that I don't agree with the notion that it's hard for women in software engineering, but to say that gives the notion that it's easy for the guys, which is BS. It's hard for everyone, because the leaders are just as screwed up for the girl as for the guys, and more to the point, everyone is different. So, your point of view about a given problem/situation will necessarily be different than anyone else's, regardless of your sex.
So, it's not surprise that Penelope Trunk's article, The G-20 is Complete BS for Women, really struck a chord for me. It makes one think twice about long-cherished views regarding women and men in the workplace.