“Apple today announced executive management changes that will encourage even more collaboration between the Company’s world-class hardware, software and services teams. As part of these changes, Jony Ive, Bob Mansfield, Eddy Cue and Craig Federighi will add more responsibilities to their roles. Apple also announced that Scott Forstall will be leaving Apple next year and will serve as an advisor to CEO Tim Cook in the interim,” said a press release.

Apple doesn’t giver any additional information on what led to Forstall’s ousting. But the mobile software head and 15-year veteran of the company is said to have left due to a scuffle over Apple’s failed Maps product launch. The Wall Street Journal reports that Forstall was asked to exit his role after he refused to sign an apology for the problems with Apple’s recently-launched Maps product. The New York Times also says that this incident was the catalyst for his departure, but also adds that tensions had been brewing for some time.

Apple also ousted newer hire John Browett, saying “a search for a new head of Retail is underway and in the interim, the Retail team will report directly to Tim Cook.”

One of the big stories from this management shakeup is the rise of Jony Ive. As part of the stated changes, Ive will now head all of Apple’s product design.

Here’s what Apple had to say in a press release:

“Jony Ive will provide leadership and direction for Human Interface (HI) across the company in addition to his role as the leader of Industrial Design. His incredible design aesthetic has been the driving force behind the look and feel of Apple’s products for more than a decade.”

You probably know Ive best from his role as product walkthrough guy in all of those Apple videos you see for various new products (recently the iPhone 5 and the iPad mini).

Others like Eddy Cue, Craig Federighi, and Bob Mansfield will also take on bigger roles.

LinkedIn introduced Talent Pipeline back in April to make it easier for recruiters to stay organized. Here’s a rundown:

“On LinkedIn, tens of millions of members are now following companies that interest them,” says LinkedIn’s Parker Barrile. “Each one of these individuals has raised his or her hand and asked to hear directly from the company they’re following – some want to hear news or product announcements, but even more are interested in working there. In fact, when we surveyed Followers, 70% said that they follow companies primarily to hear about career opportunities.”

The feature will launch this month. Followers will be visible with an icon in Recruiter search results and profile pages. There is also a new search filter that lets you find Followers based on roles you’re trying to fill. You can add other search terms and filters like location.

“And since your Followers want to hear from you, they’re much more likely to respond when you contact them about a career opportunity,” says Barrile. “In fact, InMail response rates are 80% higher for Followers than non-Followers.”

Facebook deemed the practice alarming. One senator declared that employers asking for Facebook passwords should be illegal.

Now, more companies are getting involved in the discussion. Groupon posted the following message to its company blog:

There have been more than a few articles floating around the interwebs about employers asking for interviewees’ social networking login information and password. This is not just a bad idea and unnecessary for us, but also could be a violation of privacy.

A blood sample, SSN, and ATM PIN number are just fine for us here at Groupon…

Oh, that Groupon. Always with the wit and humor.

Once, in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a woman kissed the android Data. She then asked him what he had been thinking about at that particular moment as they kissed. He replied:

“In that particular moment, I was reconfiguring the warp field parameters, analyzing the collected works of Charles Dickens, calculating the maximum pressure I could safely apply to your lips, considering a new food supplement for [his cat] Spot…”

Data was multitasking. We don’t do that. Sure, we can engage in one activity (kissing) while thinking of another (NCAA basketball tournament brackets). But, we aren’t thinking of more than that at any given moment. Our attention can only sustain so much.

A person on a riding mower, listening to a foreign language learning podcast through headphones, may appear to be multitasking. The mowing is almost on autopilot, subconscious. But, the moment the mowing task requires more attention (an object is seen in the yard, for example) his attention is diverted from the podcast. He may get back to it fast enough to not miss a beat. But, it was a false sense of multitasking.

Efficiency experts and managers pay attention to this. Work environments and assignments have to be set up to work with how the human mind actually operates, rather than some pop culture notion of multitasking. Otherwise, business does not get done in a productive manner. The claim of being able to multitask has grown in popularity as employees try to distinguish themselves as skilled and worth promoting (or, in this economy, hiring in the first place). A good manager pays attention to what an employee is actually capable of doing.

In my work environment, it is not unusual for other people around me to talk, necessarily. I work best in silence. So, I commonly wear headphones with music playing. (I dig Spotify.) The music is handled much more easily by my subconscious (like the mowing, above) than conversation is. It is a great trade because I can focus and get more done.

In an upcoming PBS program, Dr. Adam Gazzaley addresses multitasking and how the human mind deals with distractions. The program is called The Distracted Mind.

From the Santa Fe Productions website:

The Distracted Mind with Dr. Adam Gazzaley explores the impact that multi-tasking has on our safety, our memory, our education, our careers and our personal lives. Most importantly, The Distracted Mind tells us what we can do to improve our attentional abilities and our focus as we age, and as media continues to dominate our landscape. From changing our behaviors, to literally changing our brains, Dr. Gazzaley shares information you need to survive and thrive in the information age. Hosted by renowned neuroscientist and M.D., Ph.D., Dr. Adam Gazzaley, The Distracted Mind delves deeply into attention, distraction and the myth of multi-tasking and how to use the latest research to possibly improve our skills and abilities at any point during our lives. While the brain can seem almost boundless in its potential, it has limitations, such as processing speed, attentional limitations, working memory limitations and sensitivity to interference, which can be both internal and external.

The firm measured LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter’s frequency of usage by recruiters and their effectiveness for sourcing candidates and found that “LinkedIn is blowing away the competition in terms of job views and applications.”

“Even Twitter (Twitter!) is ahead of Facebook in these metrics,” a spokesperson for the firm tells WebProNews. “For job applications, LinkedIn is driving almost nine times more applications than Facebook and three times more than Twitter.”

Here are a few more specifics from the report:

• LinkedIn adoption growing the fastest. Despite earlier adoption among recruiters, LinkedIn continues to grow at the fastest pace. The average recruiter adds 18.5 LinkedIn connections each week, compared to 3.3 Twitter followers, 1.4 Facebook friends.
• LinkedIn leads job views. LinkedIn drives more views per job than Twitter and Facebook, generating three times the amount of views of Twitter and six times the amount of Facebook.
• For job applications – LinkedIn gets it done. Recruiters who post jobs on social networks are likely to receive more applications from LinkedIn, with the social network driving almost nine times more applications than Facebook and three times more than Twitter.
• Twitterers are more likely to apply, though. Looking at the relative number of applications per contact, a Twitter follower is almost three times more likely to apply for a job than a LinkedIn connection.

Bullhorn also put together the following infographic based on its findings:

The geniuses at Mindflash have created an infographic called: “The Ghostbusters Guide To Management.” It contains wisdom for managers everywhere by taking quotes and events from both Ghostbusters films and applying them to the workplace.

It contains great advice like, “Don’t be afraid to cross the streams” and “Negative attitudes create a river of slime.”

It seems silly at first, but it really does contain great advice that management should take to heart. This does pose a great question though. Should managers be forced to watch Ghostbusters as part of their training now?

by Mindflash via

I have been immersed in the social web for more than three years. It’s a big part of my job.  I teach about it. I consult about it, and of course I write about it. And here is a conclusion that I can confidently make: Social media marketing can be very, very difficult to do successfully.

Why force social engagement?

So why do so many people insist that we should be shoving social media down the throats of employees at every level of the company?  This is like forcing me to do accounting.  It would not be a good fit … I just don’t have that mindset.  Not every person has the right mindset, ability, or openness to succeed with social media but that doesn’t mean they can’t still fit in your company.

Of all the people I interact with on the social web, I would say I am most in-tune with Jay Baer. He is a true intellect and I highly recommend a regular dose of his blog Convince and Convert. But we disagree somewhat on this point.

I’m not picking on Jay … his viewpoint is widespread.  But his recent post Speak No Evil – Why Trust Isn’t a 4 Letter Word in Social Media, is a good focal point for the issue.

A hiring problem?

Jay concludes that “it’s everyone’s job to represent the company on the social Web” and that if you don’t have employees who can represent you, ”you don’t have a social media problem, you having a hiring problem.”

The underpinning of this hypothesis is that every employee should be both skilled and trustworthy on social media or you are not running your company well. This logic gets further twisted for me with claims that people are communicating stupid things to the outside world in emails any way … so why not trust them to put it out into public on the social web?  Seems like apples and oranges. Emails don’t go viral.  Just ask NFL player Rashard Mendenhall.

Should everybody tweet?

Jay uses the example of Mendenhall and his recent litany of tweets that were outside mainstream American thinking.

Let’s look at the Mendenhall example. Yes, he was out of step with mainstream thought.  But who isn’t to some degree? The man was hired to carry a football toward a goal line, not necessarily to “stay on message” during a news event.  So did the Steelers make a ”hiring mistake” because he sends out stupid tweets?  No.  The guy is one of the best football players on earth.

Part of the ”social media is for everybody” myth is that we should humanize our companies — trust people to be themselves and everything will be OK. Again, this is just too simplistic and disconnected from reality. You just might get what you ask for, as the Steeler ownership discovered.

I work with an extraordinarily gifted man who is one of the best sales people I have ever met. He is kind of “folksy,” maybe even leaning toward redneck.  But he is a perfect fit for his marketplace and there is nothing he would not do to serve his customers. The man is a star and he has single-handedly built up his business — he’s probably the most valuable employee in the whole company.

Putting this fella into the public social media spotlight 140 characters at a time would be a disaster.  I imagine his tweets would come across as incredibly embarrassing — taken out of the context of the individual and his environment. Does this company have a “hiring issue?” Of course not!  His customers understand and love his quirky humor but that doesn’t mean the whole world would.  Here is what I would say to him — “You just keep selling your heart out buddy. Don’t worry about Twitter.”

Uniform political correctness is impossible

When consultants pontificate that every employee should have enough common sense to be on the social web, what they are really saying is we need to hire people who are always politically correct. Which of course will create the most boring, ineffective companies — and who would even want to work there?  Not every employee has good judgment about everything — especially when we are turning them into public spokespersons.

Before you drink the Kool Aid on this perspective of “cover the world with social media,” ask yourself one question. Think about some of the best bosses and employees you have ever had. Would they take naturally to the social web? And if not, does that make them a bad hiring decision?

Let’s put this into a practical context

Theoretically I agree with Jay. But I think applying social media effectively requires business sense and balance. We wouldn’t force everybody into a sales role. We wouldn’t put everybody into the glare of the six o’clock news in a PR role. Why would we set an expectation that everybody should be able to have a role in social media or that is a sign that we have a “hiring problem” if we don’t?  Being adept at social media is NOT EASY for everybody. And we should be able to live with that human diversity.

Instead I think it makes sense to encourage social media participation in the context of the goals of the company, the available resources, the competitive environment, and the talents of the employees:

1. I agree with Jay that the PR or marketing department hasn’t cornered the market on social media greatness. Certainly employees can become online ”beacons” for your brand, but don’t force them to do it or dismiss it as a “hiring problem” if they don’t want to blog or participate in Twitter.
2. Acknowledge that social media participation is going to occur, sanctioned or not.  An explicit social media policy is a must.
3. If employees do want to be formally active on the part of a company, give them the training and guidelines they need to do it well. Explain how it connects to strategy and the implications of representing the voice of the company.
4. With the increasing importance of social participation, start adding this to the job requirements of new employees, if that is key to their role in the company.  For example, I certainly would not care if a star engineer doesn’t want to blog. You know, some people have to be about the business of actually making stuff.  Again — “context.”

What do you think?

So I absolutely recognize and appreciate the opportunity that Jay and others put forth, but I think this nuance is important –  It’s not that everybody SHOULD be a marketing voice for you company. It’s that everybody COULD be a marketing voice for your company depending on context.  This approach simply recognizes human diversity and that an employee can be extremely valuable … even if they don’t participate in the social web. What do you think?

Originally published at {grow}

This stemmed from a quip Gary had made to an event attendee who was asking a few times about the ROI of social media, to which Gary replied, “What’s the ROI of your mother?”

A throwaway quip, but one I thought was indicative of why so many people are confused (or afraid) when it comes to using social media for business. I said as much in the comments, and Chris Theisen raised an interesting point with his question: “Do companies actually measure whether each employee has a positive ROI on the company?”.

If they don’t, then they should.

What’s the point in running a business and employing the folks you need if you’re not measuring their impact? Questions you should be asking (and measuring) include:

• Does John the sales guy bring in enough sales to cover his costs? Great, he may be bringing in $100,000 worth of sales, but if they’re to 100 different customers and I need to hire more customer service advisors to handle their queries, John’s value immediately diminishes.

• Does Karen the customer service advisor upset my customers? She may be awesome in the office, but if she’s caused 10 customers to leave in the space of twelve months, and they each spend $5,000 per year, her salary of $30,000 per year is now actually $80,000 per year.

• Does Peter the marketing guy piss off fellow team members and lower their morale because he thinks he’s “all that”? If so, does that stop them doing their job properly and cost me sales, or quality service for my customers? Does it make my employees want to leave, costing me more money to train new hires (not to mention losing the team spirit that had been fostered before Peter’s arrival)?

These are just three examples of where you could start looking, and measuring the impact each employee has on your business. There are many more, and some that are unique to individual businesses and industries – but they’re good starter points, and a pointer for a full organizational development analysis. This can then tell you how to make sure your employees feel as valued by you as they are valuable to you.

If you’re not already measuring the ROI of your employees, then are you really measuring the success of your business?

image: TruthOut.org

Originally published at dannybrown