About a year ago my husband introduced me to Twitter. I've been hooked ever since. If you haven't heard of it by now, Twitter is a social networking service that allows users to follow each other based on their "tweets" or answers to a simple question: What are you doing? While there are thousands of users on Twitter, I am surprised by how many of my friends and colleagues still don't know about it or are disinterested in using it. Here is my attempt to change their minds.
Twitter allows people (or Tweeple, if you prefer) to connect to other users based on a common interest or topic. The idea is to expand your network without necessarily having to know the person you want to connect with, as with Facebook. In this way, you could follow people whom you share common interests with.
Since you are given 140 characters per feed to say what you want, many users have started using Twitter for research purposes or to have their questions answered by other Tweeters. For example "Should I get the Wii Fit or EA Sports Active?". So, unlike with Google where you have to directly do the work and read a bunch of material to find the answer to your question, Twitter allows your question to become an "open forum" for discussion.
In this same fashion, you can also follow discussions or questions posted by other users on Twitter. Since the service does not stop you from following people you don't know, you can gain insight by reading opinions of others on topics that interest you.
Twitter has tapped into another aspect of social networking that genuinely sets out to connect people throughout the world rather than keeping them connected to the same social pool of which they have always been a part, such as Facebook or Myspace. So here is my advice to those who still haven't become a part of this new pool: go tweet tweeple!
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Salary Reduction or Job Reduction?
Which one would you choose - a reduction of your overall salary or being laid off? In my opinion, the answer seems simple - take the pay cut to save jobs on the whole and help to reduce our increasing unemployment rate. But surprisingly, many would disagree.
There are employees that believe that they are carrying their weight better than their neighbor, or that they are more qualified and more indispensable. This, as I have seen first hand through my own lay off in December, is a misconception. The lines for reduction in work force are not that clearly drawn. While there are under-performing employees that are let go, some good performers go with them as well. This can be due to several reasons: overall compensation, reorganization of the team, team considered an "overhead", length of employment, low level of billability (not necessarily controlled by the employee himself), etc. Additionally, many good performers, even if they haven't been laid off, will jump ship to avoid hostile work environments or the fear of more upcoming lay offs.
I've also been trying to understand the pros and cons from a corporate perspective. Why not give people a pay cut instead of letting them go completely?
I've heard that one of the cons of cutting pay is the fear of reduced morale. To that I say, have you noticed the lack of morale in the country in the past year!? I would think a cut in work force would cause a greater morale reduction. Luckily, I've been back at work (at the same company)for the past 2 months. What I've noticed though is that the morale due to the cuts has people depressed, unconvinced their work is being appreciated, and worried of unknown upcoming events. My employer became one of the 66% predicted to announce salary reductions from the top level down recently. While people weren't thrilled to see their pay checks diminished, their reactions were better than when the lay offs were announced. Most people went home relieved that they had a job in these turbulent times, even if it meant less take-home pay.
Cutting workforce sends a stronger negative message to investors and shareholders, than does cutting salaries. This can be detrimental to the health of many smaller companies that do not have the capital backing to support their institution besides with the help of their investors.
Additionally, and as mentioned before, a believed benefit to cutting workforce is trimming fat. This, however, is not always the case since many times valuable workers also get reduced for other reasons. Further, the employees who have not been cut are forced to take on additional work to compensate for those that have been laid off.
From a corporate standpoint, cutting pay may also help to equalize salaries that may have been to high due to the past economic boom.
While there are obvious financial benefits to reducing workforce, this shouldn't be an option considered by employers until all others have been tested such as, hiring freezes, travel reductions, cuts in charity events and advertising, tools consolidations to avoid unnecessary redundancies, and of course salary cuts.
There are employees that believe that they are carrying their weight better than their neighbor, or that they are more qualified and more indispensable. This, as I have seen first hand through my own lay off in December, is a misconception. The lines for reduction in work force are not that clearly drawn. While there are under-performing employees that are let go, some good performers go with them as well. This can be due to several reasons: overall compensation, reorganization of the team, team considered an "overhead", length of employment, low level of billability (not necessarily controlled by the employee himself), etc. Additionally, many good performers, even if they haven't been laid off, will jump ship to avoid hostile work environments or the fear of more upcoming lay offs.
I've also been trying to understand the pros and cons from a corporate perspective. Why not give people a pay cut instead of letting them go completely?
I've heard that one of the cons of cutting pay is the fear of reduced morale. To that I say, have you noticed the lack of morale in the country in the past year!? I would think a cut in work force would cause a greater morale reduction. Luckily, I've been back at work (at the same company)for the past 2 months. What I've noticed though is that the morale due to the cuts has people depressed, unconvinced their work is being appreciated, and worried of unknown upcoming events. My employer became one of the 66% predicted to announce salary reductions from the top level down recently. While people weren't thrilled to see their pay checks diminished, their reactions were better than when the lay offs were announced. Most people went home relieved that they had a job in these turbulent times, even if it meant less take-home pay.
Cutting workforce sends a stronger negative message to investors and shareholders, than does cutting salaries. This can be detrimental to the health of many smaller companies that do not have the capital backing to support their institution besides with the help of their investors.
Additionally, and as mentioned before, a believed benefit to cutting workforce is trimming fat. This, however, is not always the case since many times valuable workers also get reduced for other reasons. Further, the employees who have not been cut are forced to take on additional work to compensate for those that have been laid off.
From a corporate standpoint, cutting pay may also help to equalize salaries that may have been to high due to the past economic boom.
While there are obvious financial benefits to reducing workforce, this shouldn't be an option considered by employers until all others have been tested such as, hiring freezes, travel reductions, cuts in charity events and advertising, tools consolidations to avoid unnecessary redundancies, and of course salary cuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)