employment | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Bringing your own device and business change

how the Bring Your Own Device philosophy is changing the businesses operate.

Two years ago I realised that the management trend of staff bringing their own computers to work – BYOD – was more than a fad when I noticed executives were bringing the then new iPads to meetings.

Most of these executives worked in organisations where IT departments had waged war on employees connecting their own equipment to the corporate network, so this was a serious development in the computing world.

In many ways employees had been bringing their own technology devices to work for years. It was, and still is, quite common to see public servants and those working for other bureaucratic organisations arriving at meetings with an underfeatured work supplied handset and their own smartphone.

IT managers hated this as they saw those private devices as a security risk and another headache for their overworked staff to deal with.

When the iPod was enthusiastically adopted by the executive suite, the game was over for those IT managers. Suddenly they had to deal with these devices and the issues involved.

At a seminar run by systems integrator Logicalis earlier this week looked at some of the issues around BYOD for companies. What was striking in their presentations were the need for HR and legal departments to be part of the process for adopting this philosophy.

The BYOD philosophy is a big jump for organisations as it means relaxing controls on employees and for many managers that is the biggest challenge.

Part of that challenge is controlling the organisation’s data on devices that could be going anywhere and doing anything.

While companies like Logicalis and Citrix address this with remote desktop applications that create a virtual Windows desktop on the employee’s device, networking giant Cisco offer their ISE devices to run “identity services” that set up rules controlling what staff can access and where they can access it from.

Cisco Australia’s Chief Technology Officer Kevin Bloch gave a good round earlier this week up of where they see BYOD driving business. To Cisco, the move to mobile devices is irresistible as shown in their Global Mobile Data Traffic Update.

Interesting both Kevin and the Logicalis speakers see BYOD as being part of the recruitment process. Increasingly younger workers expect they will be able to use their own devices rather than relying upon employer issued workstations and mobile phones.

According to Kevin, Cisco’s research is finding many employees would trade salary for the right to bring their own device which is something that should grab the attention of budget constrained managers.

This also ties into other employer trends such as Activity Based Workplaces where companies provide hot desks and staff are expected to store their items away at the end of each workday.

Ross Miller of the GPT Group described how this is another trend driving the paperless office as staff using hot desks find packing away files and paperwork each day is an unnecessary hassle.

What we’re seeing with businesses adopting BYOD policies is a big change in the way places operate and this has consequences for all divisions of an organisation from HR and legal through to marketing and corporate affairs. It’s a genuine game changer.

How the BYOD philosophy is changing business is good example of technology driving our habits and work practices in ways we don’t always anticipate.

One thing is for sure, the workplace of the future is far more autonomous and diverse than those we’ve been used to for the last hundred years, the businesses who don’t adapt are those being left behind.

Inflating titles, inflated apirations

How job title inflation can affect an organisation

This story first appeared in Smart Company on 19 April 2012.

“She listed her job on LinkedIn as my ghostwriter,” reflected the journalist about his publishing business’ Gen-Y staff member.

The journalist’s lament reflects an unexpected corporate risk in social media; that of employees giving themselves grandiose and sometimes damaging job profiles.

Over the last 20 years, title inflation has been rife in the business world as corporations and government agencies doled out grandiose titles to soothe the egos of fragile management egos.

So it isn’t surprising that many of us succumb to the temptation to give ourselves a grand title online.

In the journo’s case a young graduate working as an editor in his publishing business listed herself as his ghostwriter, risking a huge dent to his credibility among other the lizards at the pub or the Quill Awards.

That business journalist is not alone, in the connected economy what would have been a quaint title on a business card or nameplate is now being advertised to the world.

Making matters worse, we now have tools like LinkedIn and other social media sites to check out a business’ background and who are the key contacts in an organisation.

So what your staff call themselves is now important. It can confuse customers, cause internal staff problems (“how come he’s an Executive Group General Manager?”), damage business reputations and quite often put an unexpected workload on a relatively junior employee.

In your social media policy – which is now essential in any business that employs staff – you need to clarify what titles your people can bestow upon themselves.

As well as making this clear to new staff, a regular web search on your business that includes all of the popular social media sites should be a regular task.

Just as economic inflation can hurt your business, so too can uncontrolled title inflation. Watch it isn’t affecting your operations.

Passion and pain

Being passionate about work can bring on its own problems

“Don’t buy the hype about following your passions”, is the advice from business writer and entrepreneur Penelope Trunk in her blog post The career passion myth and how it derails you.

Sonja Lyubomirsky talks about workplace engagement as a result of having control over one’s time and being able to make people feel good. Janitors, she finds, are happiest at work because they can control their workday and they can see immediately how they are helping people. Lawyers, by contrast, are the most universally unhappy, because they have little control over their hours and they are generally dealing with people who hate that they have to hire a lawyer, whatever the lawyer is doing.

Penelope has a good point and it’s something I encountered in my business with passionate staff – the most committed and dedicated are also those most prone to burn out and depression.

In the computer business, good technicians have a combination of two character types; the geek and the concierge.

The concierge attribute like to help people; this the key character trait for successful hospitality and customer service staff.

Geeks are the garage tinkerers; they enjoy being confronted with a technical issue and fixing it. Nothing makes them happier than being confronted with a tough problem and a successful resolution.

What I realised in watching computer techs over time is that both personality traits were driven down by the nature of the industry.

As Penelope points out in her article, lawyers aren’t happy because people don’t want to deal with them; this is common in the repair industries. Customers aren’t happy to see the tech and are suspicious that bills may be being padded out.

This was particularly true during the spyware epidemic of the early 2000s; often an effective fix involved backing up data, reformatting the system and then rebuilding it. Often the technician’s bill was more than the cost of buying a new computer.

Making matters worse was often the spyware infection was due to a family member or trusted employee visiting inappropriate websites. Having to explain to a staid matron that her husband was downloading megabytes of hard core pornography is a diplomatic skill in itself.

Naturally horny husband or frustrated staff member would be on those sites again shortly after the technician’s visit so the freshly cleaned computer would often be infected again and the customer would, understandably, be cranky at the tech for having another expensive call shortly after the first one.

Along with spyware, it’s common that technology products from big vendors don’t deliver on the flash marketing promises or aren’t as reliable as a customer has a right to expect.

This would become the technician’s problem again.

Many of these problems would be outside of the tech’s control which is devastating for one’s inner geek that takes pride in fixing problems.

All of these factors would eventually grind both the geeks and the concierges down and they would become demoralised over time.

For the most passionate this would manifest itself in burn out and often depression. In fact, I started feeling this myself and was one of the reasons I had to step away from the PC Rescue business.

Being passionate about your work is great; but passion and depression are often close together if you feel your love is not being requited.

As an employer, it’s important to watch those passionate staff members as the risk of burn out is real.

The social maze

What are the risks in business social media?

Towards the end of 2011 we saw a surge of stories about companies and employees fighting over the ownership of corporate social media accounts like LinkedIn contacts and Twitter feeds.

For the social media community this is encouraging as it shows that businesses are beginning understand there the value in online networks. It also illustrates the risks for both businesses and employees when these tools aren’t properly understood in the workplace.

The employer’s risks

As social media sites are one of ways businesses communicate with the public, managers have to understand these services are an asset too important to be left to the intern or youngest staff member in the office.

Should that intern move on – possibly at the next college semester – the business may find they are locked out of the account or it is even deleted.

Business pages and accounts should be set up in the name of senior people in the organisation and, where possible, administration should be shared by the relevant unit in the organisation (customer support, marketing or whatever).

The nominal owner and administrators should understand that the account is the property of the business and all posts on it will be work related and not personal.

When one of the administrators or owners leave the organisation, login details should be handed over and passwords need to be changed. Where possible, the ownership should be changed to another employee – this is one of the current problems with Google+ accounts at the moment.

Employers need to understand that the professional contacts individuals make during the course of their work isn’t their property, so trying to claim the personal LinkedIn contacts and Twitter followers of an employee’s private account probably will not be successful.

Similarly social media services like LinkedIn are not Customer Relationship Management programs (CRMs) and using them that way, as a company called Edcomm did, will almost certainly end up with problems and a possible dispute.

Traps for employees

When given a work social media account to maintain, it’s best to consider it as being like your work email – it’s best to use it for business related purposes only and you’ll have to give it up when you leave the organisation.

If you’re being held out as a representative of the business, as we see in the Phonedog_Noah dispute over a business Twitter account, then it’s best to set up a private account for your own use and not use the business account after leaving the organisation, even if they don’t ask for it when you leave.

On sites like LinkedIn and Facebook you should change your employment status as soon as you leave an organisation to make it clear you’re no longer working there. If you’ve left on bad terms, resist the temptation to insult your former employer when you change your details.

Staff using social media have to be aware that can be held accountable in the workplace for things they do on their personal online accounts; sexual harassment, abusing customers and workplace bullying through a Facebook or Twitter account can all result in disciplinary action.

In many ways the disputes we’re seeing on social media services reflect what we’ve seen in many other fields over the years – the ownership of intellectual property, professional contacts and even access to websites have all been thoroughly covered by the courts over the years and there’s little in these disagreements that would surprise a good lawyer.

With all business disputes though, it’s best to resolve them before lawyers and writs start being involved. Clearly defining and understanding what is expected of both employers and staff can save a lot of cost and stress.

It’s you, not them

Sometimes management are the problem, not the staff

An article in Bloomberg on The Three Types of People To Fire Immediately is a classic example of mistaking symptoms for the cause of an organisation’s problems.

G. Michael Maddock and Raphael Louis Vitón write that the biggest blockers to innovation in a business are the employees who can be roughly divided into four groups; the ones who welcome innovation and the three groups who block it – “the victims”, “the non-believers” and “the know it alls.”

Vitón’s and Maddock’s advice is to sack those in the three groups of blockers.

If anything sacking the “know it alls” means you will lose valuable corporate memory, the “non-believers” maybe the dissenters who are critical in keeping visions in contact with reality and the “victims” may actually be the most passionate people in your organisation.

Those “victims” are often the people who’ve tried to make a difference early in their careers, their attempts failed and they found themselves sidelined and embittered within the organisation.

I came across many of these when I was working with the state government, they’d had good ideas and continuously found themselves belittled when they’d tried to implement them.

To add insult to injury, many of those ideas would be adopted some years later to great fanfare with credit given to the same managers who’d stifled the earlier suggestio

Rather than giving those “victims” a pink slip, it might be worthwhile talking to those staff and finding why they are negative and where the system can be improved.

If you have a workplace full of negativity then the blame for a dysfunctional culture usually lies in the management suite.

Perhaps it’s the managers who need to be fired for creating a nay-sayer business culture of victims and non-believers.

My concern with Vitón’s and Maddock’s advice is that it seems to play to the conceit of executives who think they, and their organisations, are something they are not. That’s nice for management consultants stoking corporate egos but a lousy deal for shareholders, staff and customers.

Sometimes it’s better to understand what your business is and where the organisation’s strengths lie – both in management in and staff – before jumping on the innovation bandwagon.

Transition effects and changing employment

As the economy changes, so too do the opportunities and threats to our livelihoods

On Australia Day, it’s worthwhile considering one group of convicts in the early fleets who stood against an earlier time of economic change.

As the automation of the cloth weaving process accelerated through the 18^th Century, many trades in the English fabric industry, such as Croppers, found their skills in great demand.

Yet by the early 19^th Century, their trades were near extinct as automation reduced the cost of weaving fabric dramatically and labourers replaced skilled workers.

This massive wave of change and loss of once well paid skilled jobs helped accelerate the Luddite movement, many of whom were transported to Australia for their role in attacking factories using the new technologies.

We should keep the plight of the croppers and Luddites in mind in today’s period of massive economic and technological change.

One notable aspect of the workforce when industries are going through major changes is how many high paid skills and business niches pop up for a short time before being overwhelmed by change.

We shouldn’t consider that many of the services and opportunities in today’s economy are permanent, quite a few businesses and skills that have appeared in the last two decades might not survive this one.

A good example is the web designer. In 1996, a punk with a little basic HTML knowledge could call them selves a web developer and three years later many of those punks were driving Porsches and Lamborghinis. By the mid-2000s most of those expensive cars were just memories for those who assumed those basic skills set them up for life.

Today we see the same thing with social media, group buying and cloud computing. Many of the services we see – some of them being valued for billions – are transition effects as markets adjust to changed conditions.

As we begin to understand the effects of trading our privacy for connections, trusting valuable data to anonymous corporations and mass selling for discounts, we’ll see consumers, governments and business adapt.

Some of today’s superstars will adjust to those changes and become the next Microsoft or General Motors while many others will fond memories after their reason for existing vanishes.

We should grab opportunities when we see them – many of the thousands of Groupon clones are doing exactly that – but we shouldn’t assume they are permanent and forever.

A time of change means none of us can assume our livelihoods, skills or assets are safe, just as those 19^th Century industrial workers found when they were transported to Australia.

Mule-spinning room in Chace Cotton Mill in 1909 by Lewis Hine courtesy of Wikimedia