Sobre personas y organizaciones

Autor: Andrés Ortega

9 Dimensions for measuring the Culture of Innovation

medicionInnovation is more than a management buzzword and cool trend. Understood as the ability of a company (or a professional) to do things differently (either in a disruptive or continued manner) and thereby obtain better results is definitely one of the keys for an organizationto achieve its business objectives, differentiating clearly from the competition in the context of the 21st century organization.

Fashions and trends aside, the key is not to innovate, but do it before others…

Nevertheless, even though it is undeniably crucial to drive innovation, few companies have embraced the development of a culture of innovation as a source of value creation for the business.

Indeed, although they are aware of the importance of fostering a culture of innovation for the business, many companies are deeply unaware of what level of innovation their culture offers.

If we accept the relevance of developing a culture of innovation in business terms, then it is not unreasonable to think that the first thing we should do in HR is to start measuring it.

If we do not know the true degree of innovation our culture has, then it’s difficult for us to develop it from within HR.

Beyond the benefits that reflect corporate presentations and manifestos of values, it will be difficult for us to rigorously promote a culture of innovation if we don’t start to measure it objectively.

Coming this far begs the next question. What parameters must be analyzed to determine the degree of innovation of an organizational culture? 

9 essential dimensions

Although there are very valid models already developed for this, in my opinion there are at least nine mandatory dimensions we should use to build questions that (assuming objectivity and honesty in the responses…) enable us to identify the true degree of innovation of our organizational culture.

1. Openness to knowledge 

The way a company opens up to knowledge is a crucial element for building a culture of innovation model.

Opening up processes to access knowledge and the extent to which professionals are allowed to distribute and connect it among themselves are insightful indicators on the innovative capacity of the organization. There is a directly correlation between the capacity to open up to knowledge and the degree of innovation in the culture.

2. Orientation to self-learning

The ability to foster a culture of innovation necessarily involves turning the conventional training and learning model upside down. In a hyper-dynamic organizational context, self-responsibility in terms of learning is a determining factor for building a culture of innovation. Organizations that facilitate self learning models are setting down the grounds for a culture of innovation.

3. Degree of connectivity

To assess the extent to which connectivity is promoted or limited provides key information for a factor that is clearly critical for determining to what extent a culture is innovative or not. How liberal are both the internal and external socialization processes? Are there business objectives related to building relationships? Or how easy is it to connect to other areas, projects or stakeholders? Such basic questions will shed light for this dimension.

4. Communication (Degree of freedom)

In fact this has nothing to do with the typical and over-popularized barometer predictable in any model measuring “climate”. Communication and the conversation ethos are inherent in a culture of innovation. This dimension should be developed to measure the degree of fluidity of communication, the frequency of conversations, the platforms on which this occurs, and the degree of freedom with which they develop and happen. Opening up conversations is a key mechanism to accelerate the processes of a culture of innovation themselves.

5. Level of intra-entrepreneurship

 There is a close relationship between intra-entrepreneurship and orientation towards innovation in an organization. For that reason, this dimension is absolutely mandatory in any model for measuring innovative culture. The degree of intra-entrepreneurship reflects the ability of an organization to open up and deliver proactivity among their talent beyond the set structures, hierarchies and limits.

termómetro-calor6. The watchdog paradigm

What is the degree of supervisory control over tasks and responsibilities? To what extent are there processes that cannibalize or, on the contrary, facilitate decision-making? To what extent does monitoring come close to facilitating or penalizing error? These are uncomfortable but necessary questions to reveal the extent to which the company is holding on to the watchdog paradigm and the autocratic management style. The capacity for innovation of an organization increases the further it is from the watchdog paradigm and the closer it is to a model of collaboration and cooperation.

7. Level of development of social technology

Based on the factors described so far, it is obvious that a culture will not be innovative only through high penetration of social technology (and usability logically). But it is also true that high levels of innovation can hardly be achieved in terms of culture, if social technology and the processes built around this do not permeate every corner of the organization.

Social technology does not guarantee a culture of innovation, but in the age of connectivity, it is hard to imagine a culture of innovation that does not capitalize on digitalizing their processes and knowledge flow.

8. Rigidity-flexibility of the organizational structure

Just as it came about with the dimension of social technology, organizational structure and its flexibility or rigidity do not guarantee the development of a culture of innovation. But in light of the above factors and relationships between them, it is logical to think that a flatter and less pyramidal organizational structure with looser and less canned descriptions of job-responsibilities should make it easier to strengthen many of the above factors and dimensions.

Consequently, measuring the degree of rigidity or flexibility that the organizational structure has is crucial to determine the suitability of the architecture for fostering a culture of innovation.

9. Transformational Leadership

As to be expected, to assess the degree of innovation in the corporate culture inevitably requires another specific dimension that measures the degree of transgression and disruption of the dominant leadership style in the organization. The way in which leaders and line managers lead, their emotions, their capacity to create collaborative environments and conversation spaces, their capacity to drive change from and through change, and even bring more change—these are items that are absolutely critical for evaluating the level of transformation of the leadership style simply because in the 21st century world of business, leadership is about stimulating cultures of innovation.

HR professionals should understand that promoting and developing a culture of innovation is a key factor to creating value in the organization.

Perhaps it is time to understand that besides the required indicators for organizational engagement, it is becoming indispensable to measure the degree of innovation in the organizational culture, as survival in the market is increasingly subject to the development of models for cultures of innovation.  Without innovative behaviours, the risk of business obsolescence is higher.

Measuring the culture of innovation is something too serious to be trivialized, as it has often occurred with assessing organization engagement.

HR again has an opportunity, but also the responsibility to take leadership of a process that undoubtedly will be one of the keys to generating value in the 21st century company: measuring the culture of innovation and nurturing it.


This post was originally written for Meta4 Glocal Thinking Blog

10 Powerful Questions for Leading People

Kid_superhero_muscleAs each day passes more and more companies uphold the belief that people are the real key to achieving results. A belief which corroborates the decisive role that leadership plays in the achievement of business success.

If we get down to the truth of the matter, people have always been the focus of leadership…but that leadership has been one impervious to new approaches, a leadership designed to protect the modus operandi and the established status quo, where the centralisation of information has reigned, sustained by strict procedures that ultimately constrict decision making… and still…results were obtained ‘from people’

But now, getting results from people is not enough. The changes that we have experienced in the business world in the last few years clearly demonstrate that we are living in times of growing complexity, with a high component of uncertainty which demands management skills capable of dealing with many more variables than ever before.  In short, now is the moment to consider a leadership model where results are not obtained ‘from’ people but ‘through’ people – the use of the different preposition is significant.

As we face market conditions that demand more and better involvement, collaboration, agility, creativity, self-leadership, flexibility and adaptability, it is imperative that we reflect on what exactly a leader can do to improve business results not from, but through people.

And so, perhaps the time has come for us to abandon our predilection for offering ‘correct’ answers, and to instead, strengthen our capacity to formulate appropriate questions within the context of conducting conversations of real value.

Asking vs Answering…  Listen vs Monopolising the conversation.  A major challenge for the large majority of directors, managers and professionals in general… who have it in their power to adjust their leadership style by developing the art of conversation and, of course, the art of asking questions…

1.- What can I do for you?

To lead is to put oneself at the service of another. Apart from some exceptions, this has  never been an habitual practice for many leaders, but right now, one of the key principles for leading, is to ask what our team requires of us and how we can help them, as opposed to only imagining what our team requires of us,

2.- What objectives do you want to achieve?

In contrast to the traditional model in which the leader decides what should be achieved, asking what objectives and challenges the other wishes to set him/herself is a valuable practice if we want to encourage total involvement. Real commitment is born when we ourselves decide what we want to achieve, rather than being forced to achieve something that has been decided by another.

3.- Why are you doing that?

In other words, invite the other to reflect on the purpose of the work they are about to do… Obtaining results through people requires that these people are aware of the rationale behind what they are about to do, that they search for the sense and logic of their actions, tasks and responsibilities

4.- What resources do you have and what do you need to achieve your objective?

Asking about where we are now and what is lacking  allows us to identify those resources that are readily available to us and those that we require to be able to achieve our objectives. How many times have we been unable to complete something simply because we have been unaware of what is needed for its completion?

5.- How would you do it differently? incognita

In short, allowing our colleagues to outline and reflect on alternative ways of completing a task demonstrates an intelligent approach; telling them how they should do it, to some extent merely satisfies our ego.

6.- What can you gain and what can you lose?

Asking about the benefits and costs associated with any decision or action allows us to see the related risks of doing or not doing it… Identifying pros and cons is an essential exercise if we wish to develop our muscles of autonomy and the ability to make decisons. Self leadership develops as we become accostomed to thinking in terms of costs and benefits.

7.- Who do you know in your network that can help us?

As connected professionals we provide value to our network via the knowledge that we contribute to that network. Leading is not about encouraging one to aspire to impossible missions, it is about exploring our network and the possibilities therein contained for the attainment of results.

8.- In which areas do you complement others and how do they complement you?

Asking about how we impact our environment helps us to develop our self knowledge… asking about how others complement others sets downs the foundations of a model based on collaboration… a crucial element for achieving results through people in complex, uncertain and volatile settings.

9.- What do you need to do to get there?

Knowing what we want to achieve, for what reason, which resources we currently have at our disposal, and the support that we need, allows us to get at the information that is necessary to devise a plan of action… let’s not forget, leading is above all, about having conversations which strengthen the propensity to act.

10.- How do you feel?

People are emotions and emotions are the fuel that gets us moving. To lead therefore is to manage emotions and to allow those emotions to transform themselves into action, given that the only possible means of attaining results is through people… and logically through their emotions.


Purpose, benefits, support, costs, emotions, self-leadership, alternatives, innovation, resources… and of course action are only some of the ingredients that allow us to attain and improve results through people (and not from them) in a context that urgently requires that each and everyone in the organisation discovers and deploys to the máximum  their capabilities and potential for action.

On the other hand, we should not forget that in many instances leading also involves giving answers and offering advice, as people do at times need guidance and orientation in order to improve their performance.

Our current environment is asking us to readdress the prevailing leadership model; it is an environment that necessitates the development of professionals with honed decision making and evaluation skills, who can operate with greater autonomy and flexibility, who are oriented towards collaboration and who successfully manage their commitments… behavioural characteristics that appear and flourish, obviously when we lead by building conversations that are of value and naturally, when we work on and practice the art of asking powerful, appropriate questions…

Photo Credit: Google

The Human Resources Crossroad

The need to redefine the HR role becomes more pressing with the passing of time. We live in a change of era, rather than in an era of change: we hear this more and more every day. And this isn’t a dramatic prediction but a well founded and objective statement. This change of era will impact directly on the survival of the HR discipline.

This post is not about the reasons that justify why HR must start working thoroughly on its reinvention or redefinition. To appreciate the real need for such a change, I suggest you read in detail the monograph written by Santiago Garcia published in the December edition of the magazine ‘Nuevas Tendencias’. This text, which in fact I have just read, has acted as a major influence for this post.

It would not only be unnecessary but almost impossible to explain better than Santiago the reasons why HR must start working as soon as possible (urgently I would even say) on its reinvention and redefinition as an organizational function. I therefore strongly encourage you to read the monograph “10 reasons why HR needs a change”.

This post takes for granted the rationale behind the above mentioned monograph. I do fully endorse it. As from here, the key point is not why? But what type of role HR professionals will play within the transformation process of their own function? And finally, how this role will be varying on the level of regression –evolution of the Organization?

Two premises to start changing HR

A new Human Resources DNA is needed which will create a new value proposition aligned with the new social, economical and technological environment. A new HR DNA able to develop new roles within new organizational structures that will function under  new time and space working dimensions inspired by a transformational leadership style. This is the organizational horizon which we are moving towards.

But this regeneration of the HR DNA will only be possible if the following two premises become true:

1. If the HR professional understands and embraces the fact that this new environment is not a utopia.

2. If, once this framework is assumed as something real and feasible, there exists the will to lead and drive the auto-transformation.

We are talking about two essential requirements to make the transformation a reality. If both premises are fulfilled, the transformation will happen. On the other hand, if these two premises go unfulfilled, the HR role will be marginalized and will actually end up excluding itself from the environment towards which we are currently heading at great speed.

Nevertheless, the role that the HR discipline will perform in this transformation process,- taking for granted the assumption of the two above mentioned premises- , might vary depending on the degree of evolution and implication of each organization.

Proactive & Evolutionary Organizations

The ideal scenario would be an organization that understands the music chords of the transformation understanding that the technological, economical and social changes they are facing will demand a review of their business models, a new way of establishing relationship with their stakeholders, and consequently a new HR driving style in order to prepare the organization for the new framework.

These organizations therefore are those that welcome and are proactively looking for a transformation in HR.

Within this scenario, the transformation challenge is, apparently easier. This is because the organizational tailwind will help to move in the same direction as the HR change. In these evolutionary organizations, HR will have to customize and adjust its value proposition, modifying their DNA within an organization where transformation is not questioned but expected

Enveloped in the organizational inertia, the transformation will take place at least in parallel to the business model evolution, the knowledge management and the, most likely, transformation leadership style. 

Reactive & Regressive Organizations

On the other hand, there are organizations which are located on the other extreme of this evolution – regression HR ordinate axis. There are organizations whose reaction towards the fast paced technological, social and economical change has been regressive.

They have not understood the music chords of the changes. Their reaction has focused on fixing mechanisms and processes to protect themselves from uncertainty and changes. The micro management and control mechanisms, the rigid reporting lines, the need for limiting responsibilities and tasks to keep the feeling of having everything under control, the increasing number of cost reduction policies intended to guarantee short time goal achievement… All these aspects are contributing to transform Human Resources into a function which far from evolving has entered a regressive path.

Just few years ago, the vast majority of organizations were dazzled by the economical growing environment and blinded by the healthy economy. At that time most companies were building up flexible and open environments in terms of knowledge management as well as (generally speaking) boosting the human capital development of the organization. Since then however, all these companies with their cool HR policies have suddenly been forced to brake. This unexpected maneuver has not only halted the speed of the business and the corresponding human capital development policies; more than that, it has made them ready to move in the wrong direction.

The Human Resources Crossroad

As a result of the economical recession, a wide number of organizations have focused on short term results achievement lead by a theoretically survival spirit. Cutting, reducing, freezing most of human resources programs and investments are now part of the normal day to day of those HR departments that just a few years ago were investing like crazy in talent retention. That theoretically correct survival spirit has now placed Human Resources in front of an enormous crossroads never seen before.

In one direction there is a non-explored path. This direction defines the route of the transformation. Nevertheless, the choice of this path within a regressive organization would imply the HR function is perceived as a misunderstood teenager, as a kind of rebel without cause.

This option reflects an HR role that in all senses will have to go against the status quo. Being realistic, the probabilities of HR reaching the finish line of the transformation are quite low, unless the whole organization decides to start navigating the business model transformation path, obliged, most likely by the social and technological storm.

The other direction is a path that we were (as a role) actually coming from, but that now we have been invited to take going off in the wrong way down a one-way street. In this case it is easier to predict the outcome of this choice.

We can easily estimate that, by driving in the wrong direction represented by the environmental changes, by applying regressive HR management practices, therefore, going against our own inclination to change, the result will be a crash.

This head on crash will cause severe damage: the loss of talent and key staff, a significant reduction in the level of employee engagement, and on top of everything, carried out with the emotional fatigue of the whole organization behind it. It is not unrealistic to expect a dramatic reduction in productivity and company competitiveness.

The crash resulting in driving HR the wrong way down a one way road of changes will be unavoidable. It will just be a matter of time; it will only depend on the ability to avoid obstacles, but we will always drive to the limit.

The HR role is going through a very stressful time. Those advanced organizations in terms of their own business model evolution will be where the HR transformation will occur at first and will be the mirror that other organizations should look at. These evolutionary organizations will have contributed to the birth of a new wave of HR professionals.

There are already some examples and business cases of organizations that have created their own business model and areas of reinvention in HR, but they are still are very few. It is a process that will take time and that will progressively impact on the HR role.

To summarize, the HR crossroads has three possible paths or alternatives:

1.- To lead its own transformation within the framework of a regressive organization.

2.- To lead the function to the limit, eventually creating a crash caused by driving HR against the economical, technological and social changes of the environment.

3.- To contribute to the HR discipline transformation acting as a main organizational change agent in those organizations that will welcome and demand a new HR role adjusted to the new environment.

We are indeed experiencing challenging times for HR. But, after evaluating the alternatives and my own reflection, I am struggling to decide if the HR discipline is actually in front of a real crossroads… or not.

Organizational Trojans

For a few weeks now, I’ve been fixated on a post written by someone who I admire immensely and who I was indeed fortunate enough to meet in person last year. In one of his latest posts from the blog ‘Óptima Infinito’ he spoke about the concept of Trojans 2.0.

Until I met José Miguel Bolivar, I hadn’t heard this term applied to the corporate world but I have to admit that I have quickly incorporated it now into my thinking.

However, when we think about Troy or more specifically, of its people, the Trojans, and make a parallel to the corporate world, we are inclined to jump to easy yet unexamined conclusions.

Perhaps due to the legendary story of the Horse of Troy who appeared for the first time in the writings of Homer’s Odyssey relating the return of Ulysses to the island of Ïtaca, or because of the current adaptation of the term in computing language in which a Trojan is considered to be a virus aimed at damaging one’s computer system, the fact is that the term Trojan has gradually taken on a negative connotation.

 Whether we are talking about Homer’s Odyssey, or Trojans in our computer, the fact of the matter is that the term evokes concepts of infiltration, damage, harm, destruction…

Dismantling the myth of the Trojan

The purpose of this post isn’t to promote the idea of the Organzational Trojan, it is simply to give an outline of who the Trojans are, what they represent and to look at how they can be constructively utilized in our respective organizations and business environment. Your opinion of the reflection in this post will actually depend on whether you accept that the profile of the Trojan has always existed or not.

Do Organizational Trojans exist?

The answer to this question is a resounding yes. But Trojans don’t wear an identity badge or anything that describes who they are… Trojans are characterized by a set of behaviours, by a particular life style, a certain modus operandi….behaviours that can be observed at first glance… or perhaps not

 The ADN of the Trojan

 1. They are action oriented people. They are characterized by doing, by completing things, by their amazing capacity to always be ready for action. Excuses simply don’t exist for them in their world. Obstacles, barriers and bureaucracy are things to overcome or smash, but this doesn’t affect their propensity to act.

 2. Their work is driven by their convictions. Trojans tend to place ideals above results and they will not hesitate to work without stopping to achieve the results that are in line with their beliefs and convictions. Their orientation towards results is excellent but always guided by an unwavering conviction of their ideals.

 3. They are strategists. The traditional corporate environment and its ‘hostility’ in the form of bureaucracy and rigid structure have trained Trojans in the art of war. Trojans are strategists not kamikazes. They understand that to attain the type of business model that they are visioning requires them to adapt, to infiltrate, to appear to be just another cog the system. Trojans will adopt the most appropriate strategy in any given moment or circumstance. They will become an intra-entrepreneur, an entrepreneur or will even act as the court jester, molding and adapting themselves to how the company currently works indeed if this is the most suitable strategy required to achieve draw them closer to their objective.

 4. They are masters of social networking. They are highly skilled at building relationships. Their ability to establish relationships is chameleon-like. Trojans are able to adapt to any type of person. They will amend their conversation to fit in with the circles within which they move, but they will always have their objective and beliefs in the forefront of their mind. Trojans move fluently at any organizational level, they are the epitome of the perfect social animal.

 5. They are guided by ethics. Their attitude isn’t aggressive, it’s direct. Trojans are characterized by values such as transparency, honesty and sincerity. Professional Trojans don’t live in a political world. They always speak and behave in accordance with the aforementioned values. They are polite and elegant but won’t hesitate in being ‘politically incorrect’ if necessary.

 6. Their message is consistent. Trojans always relate a story that underscores all their conversations. They know that each conversation leads them closer to their objective and so consequently each conversation is coherent and consistent with their overall message.  They won’t defraud the corporate paradigm they wish to construct by changing their message. If their message doesn’t fit in a particular situation, their strategy will be to momentarily leave it out… but they will never renounce it. Regardless of who they are speaking to, the essence of their main message will always be present.

 7. Rational inconformity. Trojans naturally question the status quo. They resist accepting convention. Their inconformity doesn’t represent an act of irrational rebellion but a way of showing their interest in developing the framework and systems within which they operate. Their actions are constantly encouraging an improvement to the established order.

 8. They recognise each other. Trojans have the ability to identify other Trojans. They realize how important it is to align themselves with their equals. Consequently, in any organization irrespective of its size, location, business model sector Trojans will always be on the look out to establish ties with their counterparts. They know that their profile is not common, they are the exception. The war between warriors begins with them connecting with each other with a view to collaboration and executing the most appropriate strategy.

 9. An attitude of constant recycling. They understand that the more qualified they are, the more chance they have of becoming inordinately successful and they achieve this via a process of ongoing learning. They look for all kind of alternatives and ways to grow and develop by their own. They have assumed that change is the unique permanent variable and that their adaptation to it requires learning new concepts, ideas, processes, constant learning in the end…

 And finally, the tenth characteristic by which we are able to recognize a true Trojan is via the self image they have of themselves. On very few occasions do Trojans publicly introduce themselves or identify themselves as such, they don’t feel the need to, but if they had to do so, they would, it wouldn’t bother them.

In reality, they aren’t bothered that others consider them as Trojans, it’s not something they boast about, nor do they feel stigmatized; they’re not concerned whether people identify them as Trojans or not. They simply speak and act in accordance with the other nine characteristics and behaviours described above.

Their beliefs are placed above their position and they really don’t care that others label them as revolutionaries, freaky or subversive; quite simply they are aware that it is of utmost importance that current paradigms are questioned if they are to be improved  and developed and if companies are to achieve the changes that they believe are necessary.

It’s quite likely that you already thought of several names of people who could be possible Trojans, wondering if they belong to this species or not. Perhaps you’re also wondering if others over the years have even considered you yourself to be a Trojan, having worked and become close friends with some of them. If you are thinking this, don’t worry, you can consider yourself to be fortunate. Trojans are not a species to be imitated, (or perhaps they are…) but they are definitely a species to learn from.

The new economic environment towards which the majority of companies are currently being led, an environment of transformation and reform on a scale never seen before, actually provides the best breeding ground for a Trojan to act.

Trojans are change agents par excellence, catalysts and stirrers of restlessness, the only professional capable of unlearning with the purpose of then relearning whilst transforming themselves and evolving at the same time. They are a much needed species, essential for the turbulent times that our organizations are experiencing. Put a Trojan in your life and let him infect your company, its processes, its structures… award her the benefit of the doubt.  To take any other approach is futile as you will only end up accepting them anyway, however, you will have lost the opportunity to learn from them.

Recruitment 2.0: more than a Social Network

Whilst the majority of organizations are still familiarizing themselves with the Recruitment 2.0 concept, it is worth understanding that the adjective “2.0″ shouldn’t be confused with the simple recruiting activity through social networks. Recruitment 2.0 goes much further than “viralizing” job vacancies on the Social Network. It requires the revision of certain key organizational aspects. Let’s analyze each one of them:

1. Each node of the organization could be a Recruiter 2.0

The organization as a whole or any of its nodes, could be considered a recruiter. This is probably one of the main challenges for the successful evolution of recruitment 2.0. The HR department must become the main defender of relational recruitment, but to do so it should part with this unilateral responsibility; promote the idea that each member of the organization can be a connector. The HR department should establish itself as the organizational Social Networker, a promoter and announcer of connections.

2. Recruitment 2.0 implies democratizing and sharing information and strategy

It is simply unrealistic to encourage establishing the necessary connections by all members of the organization if there is a lack of reliable information about the organizational reality, about what is needed and what for, about where we are going and why. The democratization of business information implies a review of the -still existing- traditional organizational structures as to how they share information about their business strategies, their action plans and the raison d’être of their existence. In practical terms, the democratization of information is about relaxing the classic power structures and how these handle information. It will be difficult to carry out effective recruitment 2.0, in which the whole organization knows how to “connect” with the required professional, if aspects such as, Where are we going? What do we want? Why are we here?… haven’t been communicated in an open and clear way.

3. Freedom to take decisions: connecting and recruiting is a shared decision

The efficiency of recruitment 2.0 requires changing the traditional decision making model with regard to selection. The HR department should educate, be the communication chain, so that any member of the company is aware of the recruitment criteria associated with the culture. The main mistake in the unsuitability for the organization is not due to the poor identification of the technical aspects for performing the job, but to the lack of alignment with the organizational principles and values. Cultural criteria should be shared and spread throughout the whole organization so that there is a single criterion, this way minimizing the traditional mistakes of integration. The end “decision maker” should be the micro-community which identifies and interacts with the professional who is to be recruited.

4. What turns recruitment into 2.0 isn’t technology but the culture of conversation: Recruiting in 2.0 is talking

The 2.0 environment and the associated technology maximize the ability to interact and establish contacts, butthe virtual network always ends up being tangible. It is a mistake to underestimate the absence of an active presence on social networks of any of the members of the company or community. The identification of the professional required could occur in a “traditional” (1.0) relational environment. The essential requirement for recruiting in 2.0 is that the culture of conversation/interaction pervades the organization as a whole.

5. Recruiting in 2.0 is a permanent vital sign, no an organizational process

Employees should continuously think in terms of relation, not recruitment. An organization that recruits in 2.0, is one that relates periodically and systematically with all of its stakeholders. Recruitment 2.0 implies having the ability to relate with all members of the organization permanently activated, without there being a need or a position to fill.

Recruiting in 2.0 version means therefore, evolving the organizational culture; it implies strengthening connections between all of the members of the network-organization-community; achieving maximum connectivity between all its nodes. The objective is for the organization to be a network capable of identify and relating with 100% of the professionals who have a profile required for the project.

If we take into account these considerations, we will understand the importance of self-proclaiming to be a Recruiter 2.0

You can also read this post visiting Zyncro Blog


Funciona con WordPress & Tema de Anders Norén