Low Value Programs Killing Business Is Killing Jobs

Do things that create profit matter for business anymore?  Does a little money from the government outweigh the value of business reputation or the big money from customers?

 It seems that the writer of the Forbes article  "The Business Case For Diversity (DEI) May Be Backfiring" thinks it should not matter as much as the feelings of potential employees - not current staff.  If a company does not value generating profit, then how can it afford to keep or hire employees?  If it does not have innovative, trust-worthy, flexible, and qualified personnel; how can a business succeed?  These programs are not resulting in qualified hires, instead they have led to experienced employees complaining about and leaving some companies.  Most employees complaining said they felt less valued so their productivity, creativity, quality, and participation in teamwork suffered.  Those employees then exposed why they left and showed samples of training matierials in videos and on social media.  That exposure led to customers finding out, about the programs that were vastly different from what they valued and then looking for alternative companies to fill their needs.

Still want diversity and equality?  "Why Diversity Programs Fail" in Harvard Business Review says to stop forcing re-written EEO-type initiatives based on race or gender, instead promote volunteer training and mentorship.  The studies this article shares show people get along better working together equally, rather than being told what to do or not do based on gender or race criteria. It now seems that diversity and equity programs tend to divide people instead of increasing inclusiveness, motivation or unity.  The technology areas seem to be suffering the most due to falling quality in systems because of limited qualified candidates in quota related hiring.  So why do government agencies want force or reward these programs?  Why do consultants still push the programs if they do not meet the client's needs? Are the consultants hurting the economy by personally getting richer if their client companies profilts decline or start on a path of going-out-of-busines?  

Understand these terms and the history:

• DEI =Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion  - 2021 Executive Order  
• Government subsidized on-the-job re-training to promote exclusion
• Government sponsored education prior to joining workforce to discourage equality
• Education substituted SEL & CRT (mutation of Karl Marx's Critcal Theory) 
• EEO =Equal[ity] Employment Opportunity (jobs) - 1964 Civil Rights Act of Congress
• Open education and job options to promote a diverse workforce at all levels  

What is the difference between Equity and Equality?  Basically, some are treated differently or all are treated equally.  The majority of people want to be treated equal to others, a few want to be better than others, while none want to be less than others.  Most workers find these forced re-training programs more divisive, not inclusive.  So which kind of employer should companies try to be?  Common sense says treat everyone the same. If not the same, at least based on productivity and responsibility instead of some physical trait that they have no control over. Will businesses expect education to change or will they continue to look for certifications rather than degrees for competent people?  Will human resources have to go back to looking for qulaiied workers tather than some abstract number?

If installing these programs adversely affects ingenuity, morale, productivity, motivation, or profits; will it kill business?  If businesses get boycotted when customers find out they are doing this newest training, will that affect their bottom-line profits?  After seeing what this program does to business, should this acronym be redefined as Death to Empowerent and Innovation? (Or as recently published Discrimination, Exclusion, Indoctrination in Twitter MEME as well as the trending hashtags #DeathToDEI and DEIisDead...)  If businesses die, where will people work?  Logically, when there are less businesses, then there will be less jobs.  Less jobs means killed jobs, which means fewer opportunities for employment.

POST SHORT URL = https://tinyurl.com/2s2pbdmn

Are Social Media Outlets Hiding Information From Users?

In the past few years, we have learned that most social media providers are not about their users or about promoting free speech as was designated as their original purpose for existing.  No, they are a business with customers who are not necessarily the same as their users.  Most social media outlets are about profit through advertising dollars and promoting the beliefs/values of the outlet's owners.  Social media  platforms keep changing who they allow to voice opinions on their networks and what they will allow the remaining network audience to see.   A few of these actions may be directed at preventing "misinformation" or encouraging  "disinformation" to appease the government or other powers, but more are about controlling what facts social media users see. Whether hiding select information is done at the direction of owners, advertisers, or politicians is not shared with their users.  

POST SHORT URL = https://tinyurl.com/5n7ye8e9

Well-known social media platforms continue hiding information from users by constantly changing how the information is displayed.  When hiding started in 2020, Facebook users were encouraged to either view a "fact check" or "alternative view" article first before clicking through to what they wanted to view.  Twitter did something similar with a friendly warning pop-up when users wanted to share "questionable" items and forcing user to choose to continue by clicking option in pop-up or outside of it to cancel communication.  Now, the user sometimes also may click an additional option on the post to see one-time view of the article image link or video link.  To prevent the complaints, users are allowed to go to a "security" option to turn-off the platform's latest change or opt-out of tracking history. 

     Example of Twitter Popup when Retweeting Website/Articles 

     Example of Twitter Text on select Website/Video as of 3-4-2022 

     Example of Twitter Text on Blocked Video Sites as of 6-1-2022

     Example of Twitter to Change View Settings (from above) to Prevent Blocking 

     Example of Twitter Terms to End Accounts for ANY/NO reason effective 6-10-22

Are these new changes letting users control more of what they see or is it still about the social media outlet keeping control of that?  Will users take the 2nd or 3rd click/step required to see the hidden information from selected sites?  Will other platforms choose to change "sensitive" view options that make it sound like users will see pornography instead of platform-deemed "questionable" information.  Are social media owners hoping users will not exercise their personal choice by making the extra effort to click again?  Is the reason platforms are requiring the extra clicks so they can track user choices better or find out what is most popular topics?  Will any of it make a difference to owner's profits, advertiser's bottom-line, or to the user's free speech?  Do social media users still have the option to gather their own facts and form their own opinions? 

Articles and videos continue to get blocked, not because they have been individually "fact checked," but due to the main URL of the .com/.net/.org being targeted for reasons known only to the social media provider.  Or in the case of a video, it might it be a particular YouTube (and competitors), TV, or cable channel suppression.  So where do users go to find truth/facts or lies/fiction now?   

Yes   that's a lot of embedded questions above that are definitely NOT hidden from view!  Why?  Because  questions make you think.  If you think, then you can form your own opinions.  Sharing opinions in an acceptable and respectful way is allowed freedom of speech. The user should have the opportunity to decide, not the social network outlet.  History will tell us if the user's decision is important to the platforms they use.

NOTE:  Twitter changed ownership in 4th quarter 2022, now transparency of past and current processes is ongoing under the new management that is promoting "freedom of speech" but not necessarily freedom of reach?  See December 2022 deletions and solutions articles plus January 2023 infographic, regarding #TwitterFiles compiled data of free speech suppression and hidden truths for political reasons currently being ignored by mainstream media news that proves partisan censorship. 

ADDED NOTE: What about Facebook/Meta Media Mix? FB uses a little italicized i to make it look like users can get more related topic information, but often it tricks people by showing a list of prejudiced articles that express the social media owner's views. Although, upon occasion, it will share if a link site has/hasn't an FB page or other recent videos from that site only if it is "news" site.  But they still limit or outright  block free speech of most vocal conservatives, medical experts, Christians (formerly religious freedom to Bible), and politicians that do not buy into Zuckerberg's obvious malarkey meant only to get FB owner more money - not actually help people. In 2021, Facebook Admits in Court That ‘Fact Checks’ Are Just Opinion - in other words, what the boss wants communicated or NOT.  Then the following year, at Congressional hearing, Facebook CEO blames the government for selected censorship.

Google is no longer in the social media game, but are they a "Big Tech" who is still censoring topics in searches and pushing political ads as actual news? What about those MSN searches, will their AI bots censor even more?

UPDATES: Did DNC government try to crush USA citizens' FREE SPEECH?  Will it ever be fully restored on social media platforms? Will the government and "Big Tech" try to do it again?

Holiday Concerns in Current Business Climate

The holiday season is hectic and often stressful for employees and employers.  Wholesale supply chain issues make it hard to provide what is needed for manufacturing products or selling consumer goods. Piling on the stress for employees is schools choosing to restart on-line learning or reducing the hours on campus during the holiday season.  This forces parents to either take-off from the workplace that they recently returned to or work remotely to cover childcare and insure lessons get done.  It forces employers and their human resource departments to either do without some of their workforce or scramble to create workarounds to continue productive performance.  

New government mandates also add to this stress by telling individual and companies what they have to do and not how to pay for it without increasing the already rising inflation and the cost of doing business. "It pits government against private employers instead of working with them to create a safe working environment” says Retail Industry Leaders Association.  Employee moral and motivation may be at an all-time low with the continued restrictions, changing narrative, and perceived violation of personal rights.

These challenges make it hard for companies to take advantage of the holiday season opportunities to bolster their profits after a particularly hard past tow years.  The economy is on a downward trend making it hard for both employers and employees to look forward to a bright future.  Even though it seems hard to trust that success is around the corner, with the possibility of new "health" lockdowns as occurred in 2020, goal-setting and flexibility are very important to making the next year better for business.  

Where Are Women's Rights in the Workforce?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically required equal treatment of individuals regardless of gender. This meant qualified women should be considered for hiring and promotion if they match the job requirements as well as a man.  The oldest and most accepted definition and/or synonym for the word sex is gender.

Recently, the "educated" members of the Supreme Court and Congress decided to redefine the word sex from the previously accepted gender to indicate terms of private intimacy preferences. In essence destroying the gender equality portion of the Civil Rights Act and replacing it with behavior-based concepts. What does this mean for the working woman now? 

• Since gender is not an issue, does it mean wages and job options will recede to pre-1963 when equal pay for equal work was enacted?
• Since sexual orientation is now the issue, does it mean that sexual harassment may increase over what it was in the 1980's and become even more prevalent in the future?
• Since gender equality is not important, will women lose their jobs and  be forced to return to pre-WWII stay-at-home status?
• Since gender is gone as an issue, what is next to lose -  women's right to vote which was gained back in 1920?

What has happened to business leaders saying workforce diversity is important for idea generation and problem solving?  Where are all the so-called feminists hiding that allowed this to happen? Is everyone so focused on face masks and other protest actions that what has already been gained is allowed to slowly die away? 

Obviously there are not enough women on the Supreme Court or in Congress to protect female rights. Will women's right continue to go backwards as Twitter video clams?   Perhaps it is not about gender, maybe it is an attempt to increase lawsuits against businesses?  Maybe the reasoning is business and personal values are not as important to economy as a backlogged legal system is...

Pray fro women's rights, not only in USA, but everywhere around the world.  Taliban rule will be 'a long slow death' for women,

POST SHORT URL = https://tinyurl.com/2d46c8bm  

Always Check the Facts Before You Share the Story

With the increase of "fake news" and revival of "yellow journalism," it is important to check the facts before you decide to share a story even if you are leaning towards it as a possible truth.  Spreading distortions,  libelous stories, and downright lies is irresponsible behavior.  Even if you know the story is satire, you need to make that distinction before you hit the "share" or "retweet' button in order to not mislead other readers.  Not everyone understands sarcasm and therefore they might retaliate.  Going viral is NOT worth the harm it can do to yours or another's reputation.

So how do you check the facts?  In the past, we could rely on journalistic ethics and real research to check the facts and verify statistics.. However the desire to sell stories has changed the media from presenting impartial facts to generating sensationalism and repeating social media to not get scooped on a story.  As proof of this, we were incredulous when TV news shows added a Twitter feed or Facebook trends to their news hour.  Of course they had to spend time saying what was true, false, or unproven.  Doing so took away from "real news," weather, and sports because there was no guarantee people stayed tuned for that last part of social media reports.  So some reputable networks have finally discontinued that ridiculous source of news.  Forbes Survey Of Journalists Suggests Accuracy Is More Important Than Being First shows discontinuing that was the right thing to do.

Formerly, the daily newspapers provided details we did not get from TV reports.  However, many print newspapers have gone on-line and have to compete with other web sources to get your attention.  Therefore, they may provide sensational headlines to get attention before presenting the details.  Unfortunately many people are lazy about getting all the news and only read the headline plus the first paragraph or two.  So they do not get the full picture or miss where something was fully presented or falsehoods disputed.   Hopefully, if you want the full story, you check multiple sources to be sure.  According to Business Insider chart, these were the most and least trusted news outlets.

One source historically considered impartial in finding the facts was Snopes.com.  Then Forbes magazine told us that we cannot trust them in the article Fact Checking the Fact Checkers.  In the past, many of us used that site for finding out if a story was true or false.  After reading they considered a a skewed story on their site as TRUE after reviewing the full video (story supposedly based on a few  minutes near middle of the hour) and written transcript portion that they said proved the story, I saw a definite misconstruing and misinterpretation of what was said to support a falsehood.  What the story quoted the presenters as saying was never actually said.  For anyone who understands English, the result of fact checking should have been FALSE.  Or they could have at least responded MIXED and said a slip-of-the-tongue seemed to be misunderstood by people not listening closely or reporters were choosing to take a statement completely out-of-context.  Other popular (supposedly non-partisan)  fact-checking sites include:  AllSides, PolitiFact, MediaBiasFactCheck, and NewsGuard. So now, not only do you have to double-check the facts of the story, you must verify the accuracy of the fact checkers!

Has journalism moved from being an extension of the English department to under Political Science or Marketing?  Is sensationalism more important than communication of the facts?  It is shame that you have to be distrustful of your news sources in order to be a responsible person and citizen.   Please do not accidentally or purposefully spread lies.  Remember always check the facts and/or statistics before you share a story! As much as possible, you want to be right so you are not shown to be wrong in the future.  You also want to be honest, which:  shows integrity, gains respect, and builds trust.

For more reasons to research for bias, see Harvard Business Review long article "Why the News Is Not the Truth."

POST SHORT URL = https://tinyurl.com/9zapm9z4  

Six C’s for Holding Others Accountable

In organizations today, everyone seems s to be having problems holding others accountable for individual job performance or group work processes.  Supervisors, managers and other leaders wonder how they can make their employees more accountable for finishing projects on-time or improving their overall job performance.  Teams wonder how they can make that certain team member more willing to take responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.  Below are six things to consider to help get others to be more accountable.

Six C’s for Holding Others Accountable:

1. Communicate expectations in advance.  This means what the goals and deliverables (finished product, service, or assignment) are and when they should be completed (phases and milestones help make it easier to meet final deadlines).  Write these expectations down so you can track progress against what you agree to later on.
2. Connect often to check progress and determine if additional resources or information is needed..  If you established phases and milestone deliverables early on, then both parties know when to verify if all is running smoothly or if additional help or training is necessary.
3. Critique based on facts not feelings.  Give honest feedback, whether it is praise for a job well done or expressing a need for improvement.  Be specific about what was done right or wrong and why.  What goals were met or deadline missed?  Do not wait until the end of the project or assignment – be respectful of others by doing this as needed when connecting and coaching.
4. Coach as needed to close gaps in understanding or knowledge to keep things moving along.  If leaders are not coaching, then their team members cannot become winners.  Accountability must go both ways, otherwise things will go nowhere and little will get done.
5. Consequences for not meeting expectations should be explained up front and reinforced.  If not doing a job on-time and correctly will cost the company something, the person(s) being assigned the work need to know this.  They are interested in what rewards they may personal get, but they also need to know how failure will personally affect them and their job(s).
6. Commitment will be achieved only if initial communication and continued support happens.  Clear expectations and follow-though are keys to everyone understanding their responsibilities and increasing individual/team credibility for actions. 

Millennials in the Workplace: Social Awareness for Business Leaders

In the 15 minute video below, Simon Sinek explains some of the issues business leaders face with millennials n the workplace.  A lot of it is funny, bur the message is really serious.  Managers need to be aware of the social issues this generation faces due to the "everyone is a winner" attitudes they were raised in.  The instant gratification of social media has caused some problems with their perceptions and self-esteem than management and human resources has to work to overcome.  An unexpected key message - no cell phones in conference rooms!  Cell phones are a distraction that well working teams can not afford.  Want more on dealing with millennials in the workforce, visit Millennials in the Workforce: Learn To Use It or Expect To Lose It.

Three Top Soft Skills Leaders Need Training On

 Have you ever wondered what benefit your business leadership gets from attending training workshops?  Did they not learn everything they needed in their MBA program that included finance, running a business, and strategic thinking? The answer is NO.  To stay current, good leaders are always learning and improving especially in the area of “soft skills.”

According to Paula Ketter, Editor of TD Magazine, “Leaders in the 21st century require myriad skills to be successful, and those skills are becoming more diverse every day. It is imperative that training professionals incorporate many of these soft skills into leadership programs for high potentials.”

What are the “soft skills” leaders need most?  Leadership development experts run the gambit on what they say are key skills.  Briefly listed below are the three top skills you can find on most of their lists.

1. Communication (see related Business Insider article) – This includes more than presentation or speaking skills, which may or may not have been offered in a business degree program.  Great leaders also listen well, gather input from all levels of the organization, and are good negotiators.
2. Self-Awareness – Whether this as defined as emotional intelligence (defined in Inc. article), behavior traits (example in Business News Daily) , or personality style (article from Fast Company); great managers understand themselves and acknowledge that others may think differently.  This knowledge allows them to: emphasize with others, develop change management plans with employee reaction in mind, plus modify their communication methods to better influence and motivate others.
3. Trustworthiness  (see related Forbes articles on Why and How with 8 C’s) – Building trust is a key component of customer relationships, collaboration with vendors, and employee team building; so it should be in the top three.  However, trust appears on many experts list, although lower than the more easily taught process skills.  

For thoughts on other leadership challenges, check out prior posts on Five Common Leadership Challenges and CEO Challenges.  For a list of additional leadership training ideas, check out older posts Leadership Development – Report Confirms Top Three Needs and Leadership Training – Report Indicates Top Four Needs.

If you can build and follow a process around it, then it typically can be defined as hard or technical skill wheras soft skills are not easily mapped into a step-by-step process. 

If you are designing or looking to buy a leadership development program, you may also want to read the 8-page white paper by Phillips: You Can Measure the Impact and ROI for Soft Skill Programs.

Post Sharing Short URL = https://tinyurl.com/2752cb2k