Friday Fun :-)

It’s that point in the week – you know, it’s nearing lunchtime on a Friday, you’ve got nothing but the weekend on your mind, and you’re convinced an hour has gone by when only 15 minutes have passed.  To somewhat echo Office Space, “sounds like someone’s got a case of the Mondays Fridays.”  Except having the Fridays is a good thing and essentially the opposite of the Mondays.  FYI.

So, to cap off the week, I’ll leave you with this link.  Click on it, and hover your mouse over the parts of the picture.  I think you’ll see that this pic accurately sums up many a conference call / business meeting, hehehe.  Not to say that all meetings are like this, since I’ve been to a number of them that do actually accomplish things.  But some of them…gah…

Thanks to my awesome fiance James for sending this to me. 😉

Is there such thing as an “executive personality?”

So in the course of my career at IBM (short though it might be at this point), I’ve heard personality descriptors such as “type A,” “dynamic,” “driving” and “strong” thrown around quite a bit in the workplace.  Just last week on a conference call, one of my coworkers was being, well, how shall I say…a little less than tactful.  Comments were worded poorly, and this person was bossing people around and, essentially, not having regard for the feelings of others.  The person also didn’t have an actual plan of action for the complaints that were uttered.  Not really what you’d call constructive criticism.  When the conference call was over, another team member said, “Well, it will be interesting to see where he/she goes in a few years, since the executives act like that.”

So, I say unto you:  Whaaaat?!

To me, someone who is in a leadership role shouldn’t be there merely because of his/her personality.  Managerial positions should be (and from what I’ve seen at IBM, I think are) held by those who actually think about other people’s feelings, who have great ideas, who speak up about those ideas and who act on those ideas.  In other words, and to use a cliche, you can’t be all talk and no action. 

And, fortunately, in my experience at IBM, I can honestly say that all of my managers are very caring people who would never belittle me, but rather, treat me like an equal, despite my young age and my position on the corporate totem pole.  I’ve always felt like they value my ideas, and reward and encourage them.  These people are more than a personality – they are actual people with a great deal of concern for their roles, and especially for others.

Why should people be put into boxes labeled according to their personality types?  That strikes me as an unfair thing to do.  It implies that all managers are cold and uncaring (not true!) and that all non-managers don’t speak up enough.  Now, I’m not an aggressive person, and tend not to interrupt people and act bossy.  However, I do try earnestly to be assertive, a good listener and someone who gives her input when it is relevant and helpful to the conversation (basically, I don’t just say something just to make myself sound smart).  I think that I have some good ideas, and that I act on the ones that I have.

But, was this person saying that, because I’m not aggressive, that means that I can’t get to the top?  Have I hit the glass ceiling in my early 20’s?  Am I doomed because I don’t possess a certain personality?  Or, should I compromise who I am, become a mere “personality” and stop caring just so I can climb the tiers of corporate management?

That’s just plain wrong.

I’m going to continue to do the best job that I can in Corporate America, despite other team members applauding the “personality” of my coworker.  I think that I, too, have a place in the corporation, and can make it just as high as anyone else – with or without this fabled personality.  I’m truly hoping that I wasn’t naive to think that I’d be rewarded and promoted for my efforts rather than for my personality type.  But, judging by how supportive my managers act, I think I just might have a chance. 🙂

Corporate Word of the Week:

versioning (v.) – The corporate verb form of “version.”  Often used when one actually means “product branding.”

ex. – We need some customer quotes about this new product.  They’ll really help us with the versioning.

Publications: Which Is Better – Online or Print?

Today, it seems as if publications are split between appearing online, and in print.  But which is better?  Should a company embrace both of these options?

Online-only publications seems to work best when there is a short amount of information to read and digest – only a few paragraphs and some links, at most.  Computers are breeding grounds for distractions and almost seem to encourage all of us to develop ADD-like behavior, so less is certainly more in this case.

However, If your company publishes a full-length magazine complete with ads and photos, as a consumer of information, I’d caution against having an online-only version of your publication.  It’s hard to digest text-heavy pieces when reading them on a computer – it strains your eyes, and I often find myself visiting about five other websites while I’m reading.  If it’s feasible and affordable for your company to have an online publication in addition to a print version, then that’s awesome – this will maximize the number of places where readers can access information.  Having the publication both online and in print also works out well when you want to access past issues of a magazine – going through online archives is much easier than sifting through hard copies.

I personally find that full-length magazines with longer articles and a good number of pages are much more enjoyable in print version.  I like flipping through a magazine while sitting on the couch, at work, or on a trip.  One thing I especially like is when companies offer an online supplement to their print publications.  For example, my Martha Stewart Weddings magazine (don’t laugh at me) directs readers to go online for more pictures and ideas for flowers, cakes, favors, etc.  This doesn’t take the place of the print version, but rather, enhances it, and offers readers more info should they want it.  This actually makes me want to go online and see what they’re talking about (and, I actually do just that).

Corporate Word of the Week:

Siloed (adj.) – A fake word that people use to refer to data that isn’t stored in one place, but rather, in many locations.  Note that the word “silo” really can’t be used as anything other than a noun.

ex. – The company’s information was siloed, making it difficult to access.

There’s a social network for THAT?!

In this era of social networks, headed by sites such as Facebook and MySpace, it seems as if there’s a network for, well, everything.  I’ve seen ads for social communities surrounding everything from horses to weddings to wine and beyond.  But this seems like a good way to get your company involved with Web 2.0, right?  Umm, maybe not. 

To me, this raises some questions: 

Do some things really need social networks?  The answer to this is a resounding “no.”  For example, the leader of the social marketing team I’m on mentioned this community for cat litter.  Now seriously, why does cat litter need a social community?!  I definitely don’t think it does.  I mean, is this cat litter that great that people are dying to join the community and participate in discussions about this and watch kitty-litter-related videos?  I think you can answer that.  I would suggest making this group more general – people would definitely join a social community about cats…and maybe the cat litter company could sponsor the site and offer coupons or something.  Think about whether or not your company’s product would benefit from having a social network surrounding it:  Would this draw new customers?  Would this reinforce positive feelings in current consumers?  Would this just be a huge waste of time and money?

Should you just use an existing site such as Facebook or MySpace?  In most cases, I would say “yes, it would make sense to just create a group or a page off of Facebook or MySpace.”  For example, maybe the kitty litter people could’ve just created a Facebook group for free rather than wasting money on creating a page for their own network.  Millions of people are already members of Facebook and MySpace, and might be interested in becoming fans of your product, so this is always a good resource to tap.  The Facebook-MySpace realm is also a good place to test out whether or not it would make sense to create a separate social network site for your company or its product – if you get a ton of people to join your group, then maybe it would make sense to have your own site specifically devoted to this.

Is this market overly saturated?  It sure seems that way.  I think this cat litter site marks the exact point where social networks outside of the mainstream jumped the shark, so to speak.  There’s another reason right there to shy away from making your own social network – with way too much out there, it makes your social network more difficult to search for and find.

Corporate Word of the Week:

Viralize (v.) – A verb meaning “to make viral.”  Note that this is not an actual word and makes it seem like you’re trying too hard to sound smart.

ex. – Let’s use YouTube to try and viralize the new corporate video.