I was talking with a chap yesterday who works in the telco business. We were chatting about Google Buzz and both of us said the same thing – Who on earth could have thought this was a good idea?
In case you don’t know Google Buzz is a social networking tool set up to piggy back on gmail. There’s an interesting article about it by Karlin Lillington in today’s Irish Times. The problem with the system is that it draws in all the people you most frequently e-mail. I might e-mail my accountant or a business associate a lot but it doesn’t mean I want them in the same social network as my close friends or family. Seems pretty obvious doesn’t it so how come it wasn’t obvious to the Google bods?
Any Google people I’ve ever met seemed to be sound thinkers with a passion for their business and a real sense of trying to do things right. So what went wrong? Were they so desperate to get on the social networking bandwagon that they ignored common sense? Was there a boss pressing so hard for results that it was easier to give in? Were they so caught up with enthusiasm for the idea that they simply didn’t stop to think of the downsides?
I was talking with a business consultant last week who specialises in helping businesses where conflict between management and staff has escalated - he's a kind of human resources fireman. We agreed that when times were good businesses could paper over the cracks usually by throwing money at a problem or at least agreeing concessions to make the problem go away for the moment. They can't do this now and consequently this man told me he'd never been so busy. He also said he's been quite amazed at some of the poor management behaviour he has encountered.
It got me thinking. So many companies have cut their training budget and have cut back on the training suport they give managers when ironically they actually need to be offering more support. On the surface it appears to be an easy saving but it's probably costing these firms far more in terms of settlements and poor output. And paying for the 'fire crew' as well of course!
Amazing the treatment you get for being a loyal customer. I’ve just been on the UPC website to upgrade my NTL Chorus TV service. We’ve been with NTL for years. The package I want costs 25 euro per month if you’re a new customer. But for an existing customer like me it costs 26 euro.
So what does that say to me about the company’s view of their customers? Well it certainly lets me know my place and doesn’t exactly give me a warm fuzzy glow when I think of UPC.
This is madness. It costs far more to replace a lost customer than to retain one. Look after your existing customers well, give them good reason to recommend you and the new ones will come.
I attended the launch this week of the Transparency International Report “An Alternative to Silence” and their meeting discussing why encouraging whistle blowing is important. I wrote some years ago in the Sunday Times about the sense of having proper whistleblower protection in Ireland and considering the horrors that have been uncovered in Irish institutions it seems incredible that we still do not have universal legal protection for those that raise concerns in good faith.
Much of the meeting is available on You Tube. For anyone who still thinks whistle blowing is an easy path to take or a charter for people with grudges I encourage you to listen to what Tom Clonan who uncovered sexual abuse and harassment in the Irish Army has to say. He spoke clearly and movingly about his experience and it is clear that despite the passage of time he is still scarred by what happened to him.
Unfortunately his piece is across two videos but if you want to listen to just him start Part 3 video at 7 minutes 15 seconds and watch part 4 from the beginning to 3 minutes. Of course you may want to listen to all of the videos and it’s certainly a good start in educating oneself about why we need to encourage whistle blowers.
Two incidents this week got me thinking about that old chestnut – are we really being good if an act of charity isn’t totally selfless?
The first incident was that I became aware through friends on Facebook of an initiative called Talent for Haiti. I investigated and it turned out that the proprietors of a shop called Bow in Dublin’s Powerscourt Shopping Centre had started this to get people to donate items to an ebay auction they were running in aid of disaster relief for Haiti.
Musicians and designers had already given some great stuff but they were also accepting items from those of us with a less creative bent. I brought in some jewellery that I’d never worn and actually felt guilty about having in my wardrobe. They’ll do the work of auctioning it for me which is great. I hadn’t been to the shop before and I was really impressed. It’s a lovely space with gorgeous stock. I commented that the initiative was also a good way of getting visitors to the shop. The two women I was speaking with were a bit embarrassed by this and went to pains to assure me this wasn’t the reason behind their actions.
But if you think about it why not? Strictly speaking a business should not be using its resources for any project unless there is a business benefit. To do otherwise is stealing from the owners and shareholders in the business. Not only is it OK for the business to benefit from their charitable act it should be a requirement. I think it’s admirable that this encourages people to learn about the shop and visit it. It’s a great idea, they’re putting effort into it and as well as helping people in dire need they’re getting much needed PR for the shop and for many of the creative people who’ve donated.
The second incident was hearing a radio piece (listen here) about the Irish Young Scientist of the Year, Richard O’Shea. It’s clear from the piece that this young man has very socially aware parents who have brought him up to be mindful of those in the world who have less than he does. He’s also very clever. He’s invented a biomass cooker that is designed to use very little fuel and produce no smoke. As well as the obvious benefit this offers to the very poor in developing countries it is also easily constructed from readily available components.
He’s said that he doesn’t want to make any money from his invention, just wants to see it being utilized by aid organisations. While this seems laudable I’m not sure it’s right. This stove was 18 months in development. The Richards of this world can’t spend that kind of time on projects that give them no payback. Wouldn’t it be better if he was rewarded for his time and effort so that he can embark on other projects that yield similar benefits for those in most need?
Rather than seeing charity as valid only when totally selfless we need to recognize that it’s more likely to happen and to be sustainable in the longer term if the givers also benefit.
