#hrkit

The opportunity to showcase our product to SaaS leaders from around the world with the Startup Program Virtual exhibition options is invaluable in these times

There’s a much-touted refrain that employees leave managers, not companies. While that sentiment certainly holds truth, today’s reality is that job-hopping, even career-hopping, has become the norm for a younger generation of workers — even for those with good managers. Recent research from staffing agency Robert Half found that some 64% of workers believe job-hopping to be an acceptable, even beneficial, practice — especially millennial workers. Millennials resign nearly two times as often as non-millennials with comparable tenure (34.5% compared to 19.4%), according to new data from people analytics company Visier. And when they do, most will give the customary two weeks’ notice, an arbitrary and mostly American phenomenon that increasingly seems antiquated. This job-hopping mindset, combined with the inefficient standard of giving two weeks’ notice, can be an incredibly contentious and expensive problem for companies. How an employee leaves a company can also develop into an ongoing obstacle in an employee’s career, thanks to the increased use of backchannel reference checks. While the job-hopping trend may be a difficult cycle to stop, there is a more useful, relevant, and less frustrating approach employers can implement that can not only decrease turnover, but also lead to mutually beneficial solutions for both parties. Leaders need to make discussions about career transitions and job opportunities less taboo in the first place. For example, when Justin Copie, CEO and owner of Innovative Solutions, took over the company, he mandated that all employees interview elsewhere to see if the grass was greener. He only wanted people who really wanted to be there to stay, so he offered them an out. Once someone determined they actually wanted to stay, they were asked to help create their own job description to make sure that every aspect of their job personally resonated with them. In a similar vein, CEO Josh Sample of Drive Social Media encourages his employees to discuss issues with him openly and to let him know if they want to do something else. For employees who are upfront and honest, he’s willing to help them find a new job and provides a recommendation letter while they wrap up their work at Drive. Three years ago, our company, Acceleration Partners (AP), created our own version of an open transition program that we called Mindful Transition. What we and many other company leaders have found is that having an open transition program actually improves engagement, retention, and the culture overall. What’s also important to understand is that transition discussions don’t have to end in an employee departure. For example, we recently had three people transition into new roles — moves that were made possible because of ongoing feedback and open conversations. This wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t felt safe talking to their managers and starting a discussion about their growing interest in doing something else. Because they were a good fit for the open positions and we were made aware of what they wanted to do, we were able to consider them for those roles when they became available. This win-win situation is a perfect example of how an open transition program can help you retain high-value employees who might otherwise look elsewhere. Setting the foundation In our own experience, and in speaking with companies who have implemented similarly successful transition programs, there are four important components that need to be established in order for this type of program to work: A culture that encourages open and honest discussions between employer and employee without any fear of retribution, reprisal, or of being escorted out the door if they are forthcoming about being unhappy in their job. Training mangers on how to have “happy, present, and engaged” conversations with employees, and learning to spot and diagnose early signs of unhappiness or disengagement (more on this below). Having a clear framework for managers to understand which issues are fixable (and how to fix them), as well as which issues are not. This process and mindset are very different from the standard Performance Improve Plan (PiP) that most companies use today, which are often counterproductive. When the decision is made by the employer or employee to move on, there is a transition period that allows the employee to begin the search for their new job while remaining employed. During this time, the employee agrees not to give two weeks’ notice, and employers don’t ask them to leave right away (except in extraordinary cases). Is an open transition program right for your company? If you are a professional services firm with many client-facing employees, or if you have many highly skilled workers who are difficult to replace without heavily impacting your bottom line, then open transitions make the most sense for your company. Losing a client-facing employee often poses a big risk to client retention — and clients really hate account manager turnover. Having that employee engaged for a few months while you find their replacement can be really helpful in making a smooth transition. However, if you operate in an industry or company where talent is in high supply, and the impact of turnover on your business might be low, you might not need or want to fully embrace all aspects of this approach. For example, if you have a call center with 100 people who perform exactly the same role, and their roles are fairly plug-and-play, then a full open transition program just might not make as much sense. I don’t want to imply that culture and people are not important in this example, however, there is objectively much less of a risk to business continuity. As mentioned earlier, your company’s culture will also play a deciding role. If employees don’t feel like they can trust management, and if open communication and respectful outcomes aren’t a priority, a program like this will be unlikely to work within your company and may do more harm than good. Launching the program If you feel that your organization is ready to move away from the practice of giving two weeks’ notice, while simultaneously creating a culture that retains good employees, here are a few things to implement so that your employees will feel comfortable and confident with this type of program: 1. Establish your transition program during onboarding It’s important to begin discussing how you expect people to depart from your company early in the employees’ hiring process, even as early as in recruiting, or during their new employee onboarding period. The reason to have these discussions at the outset is that an important part of being a transparent company is making new employees aware that you have a safe and productive exit strategy in place. You want them to know that in the event that the job doesn’t work out, or if they come across a great opportunity at another company at some point, it won’t end in disaster for their career. This seemingly paradoxical approach actually makes your company a less risky bet for the employee. 2. Have “happy, present, and engaged” conversations regularly The data clearly shows that if an employee is not happy or engaged, it’s likely to be reflected in their performance. Whether it’s during their weekly or bi-weekly one-on-one’s, their quarterly check-ins, or during a general conversation, a great way to initiate these discussions is to ask employees three questions: Are you happy? Are you present? Are you engaged? The answers to these three questions can offer a window into whether an employee is bringing their whole self to work. It can also serve as an early warning detection system for potential problems and unhappiness. By not waiting until someone is unhappy, you can take a lot of emotion off the table. This also makes it easier for the employee to hear what you’re saying because strong feelings and broken trust aren’t getting in the way of facts. While it’s ideal to have these “happy, present, engaged” conversations frequently, for many companies, just having them at all would make a significant impact. The recommendation is that managers be encouraged to have them more formally — at least quarterly. Regardless of the frequency, these conversations should take place immediately after an issue first bubbles to the surface to prevent it from festering. Another tactic that can support early detection of engagement issues is to ask team members what you as a company or as a manager should start, stop, and continue doing. This question can help identify trends that impact employees’ happiness across the board. As an example, this start-stop exercise revealed that our global client onboarding process was a source of stress for several employees, so we introduced changes to improve it. 3. Train managers and leaders on how to give and receive feedback The ability to give and receive feedback is not only a vital skill in and of itself, it’s also closely tied to millennials’ job satisfaction. A 2016 Clutch HR survey found that 72% of millennials whose managers provided accurate and consistent feedback said that they were happy and fulfilled in their job. Conversely, when their managers didn’t provide accurate and consistent feedback, only 38% reported being happy and engaged. To both hold your managers accountable and ensure that they know what it means to encourage and welcome difficult conversations, it’s important to hold regular training sessions on how to give and receive feedback. Regular feedback conversations lay the foundation for an employee to feel safe about telling their manager when they are no longer happy or engaged, or that they’re looking to make a job change. While it’s not always easy to hear, at the very least, it gives a manager a heads-up that someone might have a foot out the door. 4. Don’t let problems fester When you encourage both employers and employees to engage in open conversation and to take those conversations much deeper, a fundamental timeline shift occurs in the typical path of disengagement. For example, let’s imagine that the decision has been made to part ways with an employee due to persistent performance issues. The reality is that the first signs of those performance issues were likely appearing many months, even years, earlier. That would have been the appropriate time to start the “happy, present, engaged” conversations. This chart shows how a performance issue can either be addressed and resolved in a short period of time or develop into disengagement. At that point, the situation will be past the point of no return.  

Podim is creating real value by bringing together and connecting renowned international investors, established corporations, and startups & scaleups from the Alps-Adriatic and Western Balkans regions. To provide maximum quality of learning and networking, we made a strategic decision not to accept more than 1,000 participants. Therefore, Podim is just the right size event to offer you easy access to personally meet top-notch speakers and get valuable time with investors, business executives, and other participants. Podim is the gateway to and from the region for efficient networking, making deals, and sharing experiences.

Video chat is helping us stay employed and connected. But what makes it so tiring - and how can we reduce ‘Zoom fatigue’?

Your screen freezes. There’s a weird echo. A dozen heads stare at you. There are the work huddles, the one-on-one meetings and then, once you’re done for the day, the hangouts with friends and family. Since the Covid-19 pandemic hit, we’re on video calls more than ever before – and many are finding it exhausting. But what, exactly, is tiring us out? BBC Worklife spoke to Gianpiero Petriglieri, an associate professor at Insead, who explores sustainable learning and development in the workplace, and Marissa Shuffler, an associate professor at Clemson University, who studies workplace wellbeing and teamwork effectiveness, to hear their views.

Is video chat harder? What’s different compared to face-to-face communication?

Being on a video call requires more focus than a face-to-face chat, says Petriglieri. Video chats mean we need to work harder to process non-verbal cues like facial expressions, the tone and pitch of the voice, and body language; paying more attention to these consumes a lot of energy. “Our minds are together when our bodies feel we're not. That dissonance, which causes people to have conflicting feelings, is exhausting. You cannot relax into the conversation naturally,” he says.

Delays on phone or conferencing systems of 1.2 seconds made people perceive the responder as less friendly or focused

Silence is another challenge, he adds. “Silence creates a natural rhythm in a real-life conversation. However, when it happens in a video call, you became anxious about the technology.” It also makes people uncomfortable. One 2014 study by German academics showed that delays on phone or conferencing systems shaped our views of people negatively: even delays of 1.2 seconds made people perceive the responder as less friendly or focused. An added factor, says Shuffler, is that if we are physically on camera, we are very aware of being watched. “When you're on a video conference, you know everybody's looking at you; you are on stage, so there comes the social pressure and feeling like you need to perform. Being performative is nerve-wracking and more stressful.” It’s also very hard for people not to look at their own face if they can see it on screen, or not to be conscious of how they behave in front of the camera. How are the current circumstances contributing? Yet if video chats come with extra stressors, our Zoom fatigue can’t be attributed solely to that. Our current circumstances – whether lockdown, quarantine, working from home or otherwise – are also feeding in.

A 2014 study found that delays on phone or conferencing systems shaped our views of people negatively (Credit: Getty Images) Petriglieri believes that fact we feel forced into these calls may be a contributory factor. “The video call is our reminder of the people we have lost temporarily. It is the distress that every time you see someone online, such as your colleagues, that reminds you we should really be in the workplace together,” he says. “What I'm finding is, we’re all exhausted; It doesn't matter whether they are introverts or extroverts. We are experiencing the same disruption of the familiar context during the pandemic.” Then there’s the fact that aspects of our lives that used to be separate – work, friends, family – are all now happening in the same space. The self-complexity theory posits that individuals have multiple aspects – context-dependent social roles, relationships, activities and goals – and we find the variety healthy, says Petriglieri. When these aspects are reduced, we become more vulnerable to negative feelings.

Imagine if you go to a bar, and in the same bar you talk with your professors, meet your parents or date someone, isn’t it weird? That’s what we’re doing now – Gianpiero Petriglieri

“Most of our social roles happen in different places, but now the context has collapsed,” says Petriglieri. “Imagine if you go to a bar, and in the same bar you talk with your professors, meet your parents or date someone, isn’t it weird? That's what we're doing now… We are confined in our own space, in the context of a very anxiety-provoking crisis, and our only space for interaction is a computer window.” Shuffler says a lack of downtime after we’ve fulfilled work and family commitments may be another factor in our tiredness, while some of us may be putting higher expectations on ourselves due to worries over the economy, furloughs and job losses. “There's also that heightened sense of ‘I need to be performing at my top level in a situation’… Some of us are kind of over-performing to secure our jobs.” But when I’m Zooming my friends, for example, shouldn’t that relax me? Lots of us are doing big group chats for the first time, whether it’s cooking and eating a virtual Easter dinner, attending a university catch-up or holding a birthday party for a friend. If the call is meant to be fun, why might it feel tiring? Part of it, says Shuffler, is whether you’re joining in because you want to or because you feel you ought to – like a virtual happy hour with colleagues from work. If you see it as an obligation, that means more time that you’re ‘on’ as opposed to getting a break. A proper chat with friends will feel more social and there will be less ‘Zoom fatigue’ from conversations where you’ve had a chance to be yourself.

It doesn't matter whether you call it a virtual happy hour, it's a meeting, because mostly we are used to using these tools for work – Gianpiero Petriglieri

Facebook has a shiny new bridge to sell you. The preposterously self-described "privacy-focused social platform" announced the latest addition to its family last week in the form of the video chatting tool Messenger Rooms. However, despite the company's assurances that it built Rooms with "privacy and security in mind," there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Facebook's latest foray into your life. On the surface, Messenger Rooms, which according to Facebook will be available globally in "the coming weeks," appears much like its competitor Zoom. The service allows anyone with a Facebook account to create a so-called room that others can join. It will support up to 50 simultaneous participants, and offers the popular tile view. It also comes with a lot of red flags. For starters, it's worth considering the big picture. Facebook, according to FTC charges, has a long history of "deceiving users" regarding its handling of their data. According to Ashley Boyd, the Mozilla Foundation's vice president of advocacy, Facebook's past actions should inform our understanding of the company and its products today — even the new ones like Messenger Rooms. "With Facebook, we are always concerned about how much data they collect on users and how they handle that data," she told Mashable over email. "We know Facebook has been careless with users' data in the past." Careless, of course, might fairly be considered an understatement. Data breach after data breach, privacy scandal after privacy scandal after privacy scandal, Facebook has repeatedly demonstrated its inability or unwillingness to fully secure the data of its billions of users. Every product it pushes going forward, every promise about protecting your data it makes, must be considered in this light.

Encryption

So, let's consider Messenger Rooms. For starters, the video chat service is not end-to-end encrypted. Facebook admits as much, implying that it's simply too difficult to protect calls in such a manner at this time. "While there are significant challenges to providing end-to-end encryption for video calling with large groups of people," explains a Messenger Rooms privacy page, "we're actively working toward this for Messenger and Rooms." It's worth noting that Apple's FaceTime, which allows users to "invite up to 32 participants," is end-to-end encrypted.

Facebook claims it does employ some form of encryption for Messenger Rooms — just not the same high standard employed by competing products like FaceTime and Signal. "Rooms is built on Messenger, so it uses the same technology to encrypt a video and audio conversation between people as it travels from their devices to our servers that we have placed in only a handful of countries that have strong rule of law," reads the Messenger Rooms privacy page. Because the calls are not end-to-end encrypted, as calls pass through Facebook's servers the company has the technical ability to access their content — or hand that content over to law enforcement. In January of this year, Wired reported that — despite promises made by Mark Zuckerberg in March of 2019 — Facebook was in fact still "years away" from a Messenger that is end-to-end encrypted by default. So, you know, perhaps don't expect Messenger Rooms to have that level of security any time soon.

Facebook is watching, just not in the way you think

Facebook is a data-consuming behemoth. Its mission, other than making money, is to gather as much information as possible on its users in order to ply them with ever more micro-targeted ads. And while Facebook promises that it will not watch or listen to your conversations in Messenger Rooms, that doesn't mean it isn't tracking them. Facebook has long been known to collect metadata — information like who you speak with, when, and how frequently — even if (in some cases) it doesn't technically look at the content of those messages. "As with other parts of Facebook, we collect data from Rooms regardless of whether you joined through one of our apps or without logging into an account," explains Facebook. Why does metadata matter? Well, if someone knows you visited the Facebook page of an anti-sexual violence organization like RAINN, and then shortly after the page of a local Planned Parenthood clinic, for example, that person can make an informed guess about intimate specifics of your life.

Now, imagine seeing ads on your Facebook feed based on that metadata. When asked over email whether or not Facebook uses data collected during Messenger Rooms conversations for advertising, Facebook spokesperson Liz Sweeney responded simply by stating that "we don't watch or listen to Rooms calls, so audio and video from Rooms won’t be used to inform ads." In other words, she studiously avoided answering the question.

Ripe for abuse

When it comes to using Messenger Rooms, it's not just Facebook's prying eyes you'll need to watch out for. The service is practically teed up for its own version of zoombombing. For the blissfully unaware, zoombombing is when uninvited individuals crash a video chat and spam it with porn, racist, sexist, or violent content. As PCMag reported in late March, this form of harassment doesn't stop at simply disrupting the zoombombed meetings. Those engaging in that form of harassment have recorded video of their antics and later posted those videos online. When the zoombombed meetings being posted are that of elementary school classrooms, the entire thing takes on an exceptionally unpleasant pale. It is with this in mind that we look at the security of the Messenger Rooms themselves. Notably, Messenger Rooms does not offer the option to password protect your group video call. Let that sink in. Instead, Facebook gives the creator of the so-called room the ability to lock it. "Rooms can be locked or unlocked once a call begins," explains the Messenger Rooms privacy page. "If a room is locked, no one else can join, except a Group admin for rooms created through a Group." This is very different than a password-protected group call. In Facebook's rooms, the only way friends and family can join a call late or trickle in after it started is if the room creator leaves the room permanently unlocked or temporarily unlocks it at those friends' requests. Which, OK, that might not be a huge issue were it not for the fact that this directly contradicts CEO Mark Zuckerberg's main selling point for Messenger Rooms. "I don't really think there's anything today that you can display on an ad hoc basis that you're hanging out and have whoever wants to join you over video," he told the New York Times. In case that's not clear enough, Facebook reiterates a similar point in its blog post announcing Messenger Rooms.

"You can start and share rooms on Facebook through News Feed, Groups and Events, so it’s easy for people to drop by." In order for this serendipitous fantasy to occur, you have to leave your Messenger Rooms call unlocked. That means it's open to being roombombed. It's also worth noting that Messenger Rooms does not advertise itself as having the equivalent of Zoom's waiting room feature. That is to say, each new participant does not appear to need to be individually admitted by the person who initiated the Messenger Rooms room. Instead, it seems there are a host of privacy settings that are bound to confuse meeting hosts. "The person who creates the room controls the settings for who can join, how easy a room is to find and whether to enable or share a link," notes Facebook. "The default privacy settings were designed to be consistent with what you’d expect for where you create a room. For example, rooms you create through a Facebook Group are open by default to members of that Group." Got that? Notice that in the above sample image, provide by Facebook, the Messenger Rooms setting is set to "anyone with the link can join." Importantly, you do not need a Facebook account to join a Messenger Rooms call. While this is great for those who want to invite their privacy-conscious friends to Messenger Rooms calls, it also makes it a lot easier to anonymously roombomb said calls. While it's hard to say for sure until Messenger Rooms launches and we get a chance to actually try the thing out, it seems that all bad actors would need to do is drop a Messenger Rooms link in a Tor browser before harassing everyone on the call. A host can kick people out of the room, which automatically locks it, but then the host must unlock the room to let anyone else in. SEE ALSO: How to use Jitsi Meet, an open source Zoom alternative Facebook did at least think to make the Messenger Rooms links hard to guess with "a string of random characters and digits at the end, with numbers and letters in different cases." This may prevent the Messenger Rooms equivalent of war dialing, but it doesn't prevent people from intentionally spreading Messenger Rooms links or searching for open Messenger Rooms to crash on services like Google or Twitter.

Don't settle