Five reasons why technology needs to become more human

Needless to say that technology is raising people’s expectations across the board and this is the ideal time to understand the potential, risks, and opportunities in Humanizing Technology.

Humans are born with emotional intelligence while it’s easier for AI to suggest what to do when you are feeling low. When John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky founded Artificial Intelligence in 1956, they were amazed to witness how a machine could perform incredibly difficult puzzles quicker than humans.

However, it turns out that teaching Artificial Intelligence to win a chess match is actually quite easy. What would present challenges would be teaching a machine what emotions are and how to replicate them.

We are surrounded by technology and it has become so normal that we don’t even think that we are using tech. We attend weddings, conferences, birthday parties virtually, cooking using tech, planning our day with the help of tech and all of this becomes a part of us. In a way, we have ‘humanized technology’. And the fact is it has immense potential and we need to learn the opportunities and challenges.

As tech becomes more intelligent, it also needs to become more human friendly. Needless to say that technology is raising people’s expectations across the board and this is the ideal time to understand the potential, risks, and opportunities in Humanizing Technology.

Five reasons why technology needs to become more human:

The distant element that decides whether a technology will be adopted is not technical at all. The most essential aspect is how well technology can support our human cognitive capabilities and enhance how we do things naturally. It needs to be easy-to-understand, convenient, well-engineered and optimized around people and their habits.

Convenience: Consumers are affected by information overload. They want personalized, quick, and easy access to the information or results that are relevant to their specific situation.

Emotive: Technology is cold and flat, humans are not. They like to be vivid and varied. A Performance Management System can incorporate visuals or graphic representations of current status, as opposed to a box that asks you for percentage completion. Engagement can mean more than surveys and focus-group discussions. You can sense the pulse of an employee every day if you use simple means of gauging their state of mind through mood polls, emoticon-selection techniques, behavior during work.

Simplification: Technology is supposed to reduce the complexity of our daily lives, which is partly caused by technology itself. Advancing technology will continue to help it become more human-oriented to help us to simplify, assess, and filter.

Experience & Integration: Technology makes it possible to access personal, relevant content and take action when and where we need to. Companies should foster such a culture that supports employees to maintain their work-life balance and monitor their health and well-being with the help of technology.

Inclusion: The speed at which technology is advancing bears the risk of excluding less tech-savvy people from its benefits. For example, people who don’t know how to operate a search engine, smartphones, or apps, will have difficulties to access information that may be relevant for them. But, tech companies like Google, Cisco, Facebook, and others are trying to customize the technology for the new entrants and making it easily accessible.

Going forward, we need to continue the moderate pace of humanizing the technology; it will require more up-gradation to continue the collaboration between humans and technology, especially in the field of work.

Source: People Matters 22 July, 2020

You’ve Been Called Out for a Microaggression. What Do You Do?

It was a throwaway comment, and you were unaware that it was demeaning. But now that a colleague has brought the slight to your attention, you realize what you said was offensive. As a person who wants to be a good ally to your colleagues of color and members of underrepresented groups, how do you apologize after you’ve committed a microaggression? How and when should you try to make amends? And what’s the best way to ensure that you do better in the future?

What the Experts Say

Microaggressions are the everyday indignities and insults that members of marginalized groups endure in their routine interactions with people in all walks of life. In the workplace, these “subtle acts of exclusion” come in many forms, says Tiffany Jana, founder and CEO of TMI Consulting and the co-author of Overcoming Bias: Building Authentic Relationships Across Differences. They include backhanded compliments (a white manager telling an African American employee that, “She’s very articulate”; a group of co-workers jokingly ribbing a Latino executive that, “He’s a diversity hire”) and stereotypical assumptions (a male colleague asking his female peer to take notes and order lunch for the team).

These remarks and behaviors “happen casually and often without any harm intended,” says Jana, but they offer a clear demonstration “that the initiator harbors unconscious bias.” Meanwhile, the person on the receiving end who belongs to a group that’s discriminated against — be it because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or religion — is often left to suffer in silence.

This is starting to change, however. Amidst a national conversation on race and equality, “we are increasingly holding people accountable,” says Jana. The change has critical implications for managers who “care about creating an inclusive team and workplace,” says Lily Zheng, a diversity consultant and the co-author of Gender Ambiguity in the Workplace: Transgender and Gender-Diverse Discrimination.

If you’ve been called out for committing a microaggression you need to respond with compassion, concern, and humility. “You want people to feel respected, so you need to walk the talk,” Zheng says. “It’s important to get this right.” Here are some tips.

Take a breath.

Being called out for a microaggression does not feel good. You may experience a range of emotions — “stress, embarrassment, defensiveness, and your heart rate may even go up,” says Zheng. This is normal. But do not let these sensations rule how you react. Instead, “take a breath.” Calm yourself. Understand that while you may have made a mistake, it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. In these circumstances, people often fall prey to the fundamental attribution error — a “tendency to believe that things happen because of who we are as people rather than the situation,” says Zheng. In other words, you can still be “a good person with positive intentions, who slipped up.”

And there’s an upside to being called out for a microaggression: It’s an indication of trust. The person who labeled your comment believes that you can be better, says Jana. “If they don’t think you’re capable of, or interested in, evolving they would not have wasted their breath.”

Don’t make it about you.

While being called out for a microaggression may be awkward and uncomfortable, you don’t want to get defensive. “You must not make it about you,” says Jana. “When a human being tells you that they have been harmed by your words or actions, you need to focus on the injured party.” It can be helpful to remember that “every callout has an entire history’s worth of unsaid context behind it,” says Zheng. “When someone says, ‘What you said hurt me,’ they’re saying, ‘You have hurt me in the way that people have hurt me, and people like me, in the past.’” In other words, your remark was not “just one interpersonal interaction.” Rather it carried centuries’ worth of discrimination, cruelty, and oppression. “And the weight of historical oppression is very heavy,” says Zheng.

Listen.

Your first priority is to make sure the other person feels heard, says Jana. As difficult as it may be to receive the criticism, “they are taking a risk by putting themselves on the line.” Listen to what they say with an open heart and an open mind. Be grateful. “It is a deeply sacred gift for someone to reflect back to you how you’re showing up in the world and to help you become more evolved,” explains Jana. Express appreciation, and then “follow the other person’s lead,” says Zheng. Sometimes the individual calling you out may “want to explain to you all the ways that what you said was harmful and give you a history lesson to go along with it,” she says. Other times, all they may reveal is, “‘Don’t say that word.’”

Sincerely apologize.

Next, says Jana, you need to “replace your instinctive defensiveness with curiosity and empathy” and offer a genuine apology. According to Zheng, your apology must include three elements: “You must address the harmful comment, acknowledge the impact it had, and commit to doing better.”

Start by saying something like, “Thank you for sharing that with me. It’s hard to hear. And I appreciate you trust me enough to share this feedback.” Then say, “I am sorry that what I said and did was offensive.”

Your apology must be sincere. “Don’t say, ‘I am sorry if you felt offended.’ The insertion of the ‘if’ makes it seem like you’re humoring them,” says Zheng. Finally, say, “I care a lot about creating an inclusive workplace, and I want to improve.” Depending on your relationship with this colleague, you might also ask for a suggestion on how to be better in future situations. Zheng suggests saying something like, “If you can, and if you’re willing, can you share a recommendation for how I could have said it differently?”

And don’t overdo it.

Upon being called out for an offensive remark, some people have a tendency to over-apologize, says Zheng. “They go on and on, saying things like: ‘I am so sorry. I feel so terrible. I am not a racist. What must you think of me?’” But these histrionics do not help, and in fact, they contribute to the insult. “You are flexing your power by [asking] this employee to take care of you,” she says. It’s not your colleague’s job to assuage your guilt, and make you feel better about the situation. This shouldn’t become “a pity party,” adds Jana.

How to respond when you’re called out publicly

All of the above steps become much harder if the conversation is happening in front of others. According to Zheng, most callouts for microaggressions tend to be private interactions because of the sensitive subject matters. That said, if your colleague draws attention to your behavior in a public setting, it’s likely because “they don’t feel psychologically safe with you” or “they’re at the end of their rope,” Zheng says.

In situations like these, tread carefully. “First, pause. Then say, ‘Thank you for sharing that feedback. I am not going to use that word in the future,’” Zheng advises. Keep your response short and non-defensive. Later, “message the person privately and go through the same steps of acknowledging the hurtful comment, recognizing the impact it had, and committing to doing better,” she says. You don’t want to do this part of process “publicly because it is performative.”

Seek to understand on your own time.

In the event that you don’t quite grasp how what you said or did was prejudiced and hurtful, do not force your colleague into a drawn-out conversation or try to persuade them of your benign intent, says Jana. Instead, “Google it or ask other people” to help you understand. Importantly, adds Zheng, “that research needs to happen on your own time.” Remember, this person didn’t “commit to becoming your teacher,” and so you need to “treat this as your own learning opportunity,” she says.

Consider following up

“If you went on a hike with someone and they tripped and hurt themselves, you would follow up with them later to express your genuine concern for their wellbeing,”— particularly if their fall was due to your negligence, says Jana. The same should hold true for times “when you have been the cause of someone’s emotional pain.”

After a bit of time has passed, Jana recommends reaching out to let your colleague to let them “know that you care” and that you’re “grateful that they were vulnerable with you.” Essentially you’re saying: “Your intervention worked. I could have gone through the world blind to that and I understand a bit more now. Thank you for helping me grow.”

But Zheng recommends proceeding with caution. When your research sparks burning revelation about your biases and you have an urge to make further amends, she says you need to “interrogate your own feelings.” Ask yourself: What am I looking for? A pat on the back? Validation? She says that the best way course of action is not to rehash the incident but rather to “take steps to make your colleague feel more respected.”

Keep working on it

Finally, recognize that becoming a better, open-minded, anti-racist, anti-sexist person is hard work. “You’re doing the best you can; you’re human and fallible; and you’re going to mess up from time to time,” says Jana. “Rarely does one conversation erase a lifetime of programming.”

The important thing is to “commit to opening your eyes and be willing to course correct at every opportunity” and to have “grace for yourself and grace for others,” says Jana. Let your team know that this is a priority for you, adds Zheng. Say, “In the future I am going to work on this, and if you can, please keep holding me accountable.”

Principles to Remember

Do

Make the other person feel heard and follow their lead in the conversation.

Offer a genuine apology that acknowledges the impact and harm your comment caused.

Keep striving to be better. It requires grace, humility, and commitment.

Don’t

Fall prey to the fundamental attribution error. You can still be a good, well-intentioned person who said something offensive.

Make the conversation about you. Instead, express gratitude for your colleague’s trust and belief that you’re capable of evolving.

Overdo your apology by laying on your privileged guilt. Your apology should be sincere.

Advice in Practice

Case Study #1: Be grateful for your colleague’s courage and listen to what they say.

Steve Waters, a social entrepreneur, says he has long strived to create an equitable, inclusive, and fair workplace. “Diversity and social justice are really important to me,” he says. “And I consider myself to be very aware of how that comes across in my language.”

Recently, however, he was called out by a female employee — we’ll call her Sarah — for committing a microaggression. “I often use the greeting, ‘Hey guys,’ which I view as an easygoing way to greet a group of people,” he says. “It didn’t even occur to me that this was hurtful, and I was quite surprised when my colleague brought it up.”

He admits that at first, he was confused. But he listened carefully to what his colleague was telling him. “Sarah explained that she came from the tech startup world, where sexism is rampant, and since ‘guys’ literally means men, it is often used as a subtle, or not-so-subtle, way of minimizing the women in the room.”

Sarah explained that by addressing the group, which was predominantly men, as “guys,” he was excluding her. Steve felt terrible. “This wasn’t a conscious or purposeful effort to minimize her. Sarah is definitely an equally valued member of the team,” he says.

But he knew that this incident wasn’t about him. Rather, it was about making sure Sarah felt heard and understood.

Steve immediately thanked Sarah for bringing the comment to his attention. “I also let her know that I understood the impact of what I had said and because of that, I would no longer use that term. I apologized for using language that made her feel minimized,” he says.

The end result was positive. Sarah thanked Steve for listening and for being open to change. And Steve learned a key lesson. “Just because something isn’t offensive to you based on your life experience, it doesn’t mean it isn’t or can’t be hurtful to someone else,” he says. “If a colleague has the courage to tell you they feel minimized, take the time to really listen to what their experience is.”

Case Study #2: Commit to doing better — and then follow through on that promise

Jesse Silkoff, founder of MyRoofingPal, which helps customers find local contractors, says that being called out for a mistake that “you didn’t even realize you were making” feels awful.

“However, as a leader, you have to make sure you set the standard of how to make it right,” he says. “In the case of using a microaggression, taking responsibility for the mistake is critical.”

Earlier in his career, Jesse, who is white, managed an Indian American colleague who had a name that Jesse had a hard time saying. “After saying it wrong a few times in our initial conversations, I noted that was a very difficult name for me to pronounce correctly,” he says. “I meant it as a light-hearted, offhand remark.”

But Jesse soon realized that his employee took it differently. She grew stiff and lowered her head. She then explained to Jesse that comments like that were hurtful because it made her feel like an outsider.

Jesse felt badly. That was not his intention, but he could see his colleague’s point. “This was very eye-opening to me,” he says. “I realized that I was in the wrong for making such an insensitive comment and not trying harder to work on the pronunciation on my own.”

Jesse knew his apology shouldn’t be about how terrible he felt. He needed to choose his words carefully and express appropriate humility. “No one wants to hear a half-hearted apology when they’ve been slighted,” he says. “I told her that I was wrong, and that I regret what I did. I then promised her that I would do better.”

Jesse learned how to say his colleague’s name correctly. And they went on to have a productive working relationship. “Sadly, I’m sure we all make mistakes like this all the time and are never called out on them,” he says. “I’m glad this employee took the time to explain why this was hurtful because it was a great opportunity to grow as a leader and human.”

Source: HBR 24 July, 2020

5 Tips for Managing an Underperformer — Remotely

While a majority of employers believe that that their employees will return to their workplaces after Covid-19’s impact diminishes, working from home isn’t going to disappear. The reality is that a huge number of people were already working from home (almost 10 million workers in the U.S. in 2019); that number is only likely to rise post-pandemic. As the manager of a remote team, you can’t afford to ignore underperformance from remote workers, whether they’re temporarily at home, working in local branch offices, or half a world away.

Although you might assume that managing an underperformer in a remote environment would be more challenging (who wants to have a series of difficult conversations over Zoom?), there’s actually an upside. You may actually be more effective in handling the situation because you have to plan and structure your interactions, rather than catching up in the hallway or waiting for them to stop by when you’re in the office. Here are five things you can do to help remote underperformers improve their game.

Revisit your expectations. Take the opportunity to reconsider what you want most from the employee, and why you feel you’re not getting it. Start by reviewing your recent directives, and whether your communications about what’s expected have been clear and consistent from the beginning. This is something you do with underperformers in any context, but when you don’t see the employee in person, it’s even more important to ask yourself whether your statements have been ambiguous. Part of this process is separating out whether your dissatisfaction is with their work products, or with the way they deliver.

If their style or approach is the problem, check to see if you’re expecting them to work the way you do. If that’s the case, let go of those expectations and dispassionately assess their real strengths and capacities for contributing to the team’s work. When one of the senior executives I work with came to terms with the fact that he didn’t care for one of his subordinates, it turned out that the remote relationship worked better because he could pay more attention to her output and the praise he heard about her from other leaders, and less to his own biased reactions.

If you suspect the underperformer’s difficulties come from insufficient experience, specific skill deficits, or a lack of business or organizational acumen, consider whether they need training, or to partner with a more experienced colleague. This may be more challenging in a remote environment, but it’s too risky to wait until you’re back in the office to provide the support they need.

Learn more about them. Even if they’ve been on your team for a while, it’s important to ask about their goals and what they care about, as these things change as circumstances evolve. Plus, you don’t have the benefit of casual, in-person contact to pick up details about family, hobbies, or past work successes. Then, modify your management approach to match their needs. For example, you might learn that they miss working side-by-side with colleagues and would perform better if they were assigned to projects that involved more regular interaction.

If you’re not familiar with their remote set-up and schedule, ask. Some team members may prefer strict deadlines to structure their often-interrupted workdays; others may benefit from more flexible deadlines than usual to help them deal with the additional pressures of working from home. Take their home obligations like schooling time or elder care into account, according them the same respect you would regular work meetings.

Level with them and be specific. You may not be in the same room, but providing feedback is still a requirement. Many people who aren’t doing well have a vague feeling that something is wrong, but don’t really know which of their behaviors aren’t working. For example, telling a team leader that they need to “be a better listener” doesn’t help them understand specifically what they need to do differently. It’s much more helpful to explain that when they turn away during video conferences or change the subject while team members are speaking, the team loses trust and confidence in them. The feedback gives them the opportunity to actively practice modifying those behaviors.

Help them learn how to improve their own performance. As much as possible, use questions to encourage them to self-diagnose  and to project into their own future: “How will this experience set you up to do better in the future?” I often ask coaching clients “Why do you think I’m asking you this?” to encourage them to reach their own conclusions, rather than telling them what I have observed, which doesn’t trigger the same kind of “aha” that self-discovery does. This will help you avoid micromanaging, which is a significant temptation when you’re trying to be extremely clear about expectations.

Stay in close enough contact. Keep in mind that a remote underperformer can’t just drop in to check on things or “take your temperature.” It’s on you as their manager to stay in regular touch and to keep them in the loop. Don’t assume that no news is good news. After you’ve given an employee candid feedback and they don’t hear from you, they can start to worry that you’re ignoring them because you’ve written them off, and their performance can deteriorate further. Schedule regular meetings to talk about their progress. When a VP learned that one of her reports thought she was “ghosting” him, we came up with a consistent schedule of one full update and two quick touch-bases each week for a few months until the relationship was on a stronger footing.

If you’ve asked them to keep you up to date on their progress, make clear how you want them to do that. If they tend to use email, but you’re awash in email and respond better to texts or Slack messages, tell told them that. And don’t rely only on video meetings, where the lack of true eye contact can make it seem like you’re getting nonverbal clues when you’re not. If you’re concerned that you’re not getting a good read on your team member’s state of mind, plan to have at least some of your interactions by phone and listen carefully. The tone of their voice may give you more clues about what needs intervention.

It’s not easy to work with a remote employee who isn’t performing well, particularly when you can’t sit down together and have a conversation. But using specific, road-tested techniques to help them improve will strengthen not only their performance, but their relationship with you as well.

Source: HBR 22 July, 2020

Why Your Mentorship Program Isn’t Working

After five decades of mentoring relationship research, the evidence is irrefutable: people who have strong mentors accrue a host of professional benefits, including more rapid advancement, higher salaries, greater organizational commitment, stronger identity, and higher satisfaction with both job and career. They also see personal benefits, such as better physical health and self-esteem, ease of work-life integration, and strong–er relational skills. At its best, mentoring can transform lives and careers while bolstering retention and maximizing employee potential.

It is little wonder that prospective employees now prioritize the availability of mentoring in choosing an employer. More than 70% of Fortune 500 companies offer mentoring programs of some sort. However, there is little evidence these programs are having broad impact. A recent study of 3,000 professionals across industries reveals that only about half have ever had any mentoring in their careers and, among those who have, only 25% were formally assigned mentors. Most mentoring relationships continue to evolve organically. Perhaps more disheartening, data on the outcomes of formal programs is at best mixed: while some employees assigned mentors report tangible relationship outcomes, a significant number report little benefit, let alone much meaningful engagement.

If there is a single, consistent Achilles heel in organizational mentoring structures, it is marginal mentoring. Marginal or mediocre mentoring may be a consequence of assigning mentors who are too busy, disinterested, dysfunctional, or simply lack competence in the role. Prospective mentors often are randomly selected or told to participate. Leaders fail to give resources to, evaluate, or reward mentoring. With no meaningful incentives attached, it is justifiably seen as an onerous add-on duty, a thankless distraction from real work leading to pay and advancement.

What’s more, too often program leaders erroneously assume that any successful manager can mentor effectively, with minimal (if any) training, and that the art of mentoring is innate or easy to acquire. Since so many never had mentors themselves, they lack mental maps for how it is done well. Evidence indicates that poor mentoring can be worse for employees than no mentoring at all. Ill-prepared and marginally competent mentors not only give mentoring a bad name in an organization. They also sabotage retention, commitment, and employee development — the very objectives that drive mentoring initiatives in the first place.

If you’re looking to create a mentoring program in your organization or improve upon one that already exists, you need a different approach. At a minimum, mentor competence requires functional mentoring skills, or the salient behaviors and strategies of good mentoring. Think of these as teachable micro-skills. For instance, great mentors consistently and skillfully offer generous listening, affirmation, challenge, feedback and insider information, networking, visibility, intentional role-modeling, professional socialization, advocacy, and increasing mutuality and collegiality. There is strong evidence that these skills can be instilled and refined through mentor development training.

You also will need to carefully select mentors on the basis of foundational virtues and abilities. Excellent mentors demonstrate virtues, such as personal integrity, good judgement around boundaries and confidentiality, and an inclination toward caring and acting with their mentee’s best interest at heart. Fundamental relational abilities include other-oriented empathy and self-awareness. It is no surprise that highly rated mentors show high levels of emotional intelligence. Mentees report that, to build trust and successfully launch relationships with them, mentors need empathy, genuineness, and approachability . And let’s be clear: a mentor training workshop will not instill these virtues and abilities. You must recruit people who demonstrate them already in daily practice.

How can you select the best-suited employees to serve as mentors and then give them the preparation and support they’ll require to achieve genuine expertise in the role? Consider the Master Mentor approach, created and first piloted at the School of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University in 2012.

School of Medicine leaders noticed high attrition of junior faculty, particularly women, who often reported feeling invisible and unsupported. Mentoring of junior faculty at the time was infrequent and haphazard in a highly competitive publish-or-perish culture. To address this, Hopkins decided to try something radical: flip the script on mentoring such that selection as a mentor became a competitive process accompanied by perks and recognition.

The Master Mentor approach was designed to create cohorts of experienced and well-trained mentors who are not only effective at enhancing the personal well-being and career trajectories of mentees but also willing to become resources and coaches to less experienced mentors. Successful Master Mentors accelerate the advancement of high-talent hires while elevating the quality of mentoring throughout their organization. Here are the salient components of the model they developed:

The university solicits mentor candidate nominations from directors or managers, specifying that candidates must have a consistent track record of strong informal mentoring. Which mid-level to senior employees do new hires naturally gravitate to for advice and counsel? Who do junior employees consider to be the most generous, caring, and “safe” mentors-of-the-moment? Which of these have the highest EQ, the best communication skills, and a track-record for sponsoring rising stars to success? (Not sure who these folks are? Ask your junior employees.)

A committee selects some of the best candidates from each division or department. For six months this cohort meets routinely for high-level mentor skill-building workshops and case discussions interspersed with lunches featuring consultation with subject matter experts, visits from senior leaders reinforcing the organization’s commitment to a mentoring culture, and discussions about leveraging mentoring to accelerate diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Following this training, Master Mentor certificates are issued — and noted in each graduate’s personnel file — and these mentors now deliberately take on a greater share of the mentoring load in their workplaces.

Each year a new cohort of mentors is selected and trained, gradually permeating the organization with outstanding mentors.

This pilot program yielded some important lessons. First, resources are needed to administer these programs and support Master Mentors to dedicate time in their already busy schedules for this work, making it a high-priority activity. Second, creating and celebrating a culture of excellence in mentoring throughout the organization requires participation by all levels of leadership. Awards, public recognition, and other perks build and reinforce a clear message of institutional priority. Yearly events and graduation ceremonies celebrating new Master Mentors bolster a sense of community and encourage networking and peer consultation among Master Mentors.

This approach is just one way in which you can improve your organization’s mentoring options. Whether you have formal programs, an informal mentoring culture, or some combination of these, it’s time to banish marginal mentoring by changing the narrative about the priority of developmental relationships and carefully selecting, training, and elevating accomplished mentors.

Source: HBR 17 July, 2020

Microsoft and Citrix Partner To Accelerate Cloud Adoption Of Digital Workspaces Amid Pandemic

Citrix Systems, an American multinational software company and Microsoft have come together with a multi-year agreement to accelerate cloud adoption for digital workspaces, the companies said on Wednesday.

“To drive business continuity and growth, organizations will need to embrace more flexible work models that accommodate these new priorities,” read a press statement.

The announcement came in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when most of the employees are working remotely and are relying heavily on cloud storage.

David Henshall, president and chief executive officer (CEO), Citrix, said, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forced businesses around the world to change the way that employees work, while still meeting the speed and security requirements that today’s uncertain business environment demands. Looking forward, hybrid-work models will become the standard for many customers, requiring a flexible infrastructure to support, secure and empower their teams.”

“As organizations everywhere adapt to new ways of work, they will need to reimagine how and where work gets done,” said Satya Nadella, CEO, Microsoft.

“Together with Citrix, we will apply the power of Azure to this challenge, helping our customers seamlessly and securely connect their employees to their applications, so they can be more agile and productive wherever they are,” he further added.

Citrix and Microsoft will provide joint tools and services to simplify and speed the transition of on-premises Citrix customers to Microsoft Azure. The companies will also devise a connected roadmap to enable a consistent and optimal flexible work experience that will include joint offerings comprised of Citrix Workspace, Citrix SD-WAN, Microsoft Azure and Microsoft 365 sold through their direct sales forces via the Azure Marketplace.

Citrix will also invest in building a Microsoft-centric Citrix Workspace, providing deep integrations to optimize performance, functionality, and micro-apps for Windows Virtual Desktop and Microsoft 365, including Microsoft Teams.

Source: Entrepreneur India 15 July, 2020

Stop Asking Job Candidates for Their Salary History

In response to nationwide protests, CEOs have committed to fighting discrimination and intolerance and have renewed pledges to increase diversity and fairness within their organizations. But how can they demonstrate that these are more than just empty promises? New research (by Bessen, Denk, and co-author Chen Meng) shows that CEOs can take one simple, immediate action to substantially reduce pay disparities for Black and women employees: Stop asking job applicants about prior pay.

We know that this policy has a major effect on pay disparities because 14 states have banned this practice during the last three years. We have analyzed differences between areas with salary history bans (SHB) and neighboring counties in states without bans. We find that these new laws generated substantial pay increases for Black (+13%) and female (+8%) candidates who took new jobs.

Why do disadvantaged groups see higher pay offers when employers don’t use salary history information? Simply put, that information gives employers a bargaining advantage. Knowing that a job applicant is currently underpaid, employers can offer a bit more than their current pay level, confident that the applicant will accept. But the applicant may still be paid less than they are worth. In this way, pay inequalities are perpetuated. But when access to salary histories is limited, Black and female job applicants see a more level playing field.

There appears to be a growing trend towards including a salary range in help wanted advertisements, even among employers not subject to an SHB, which suggests that many employers have voluntarily decided to stop asking about salary histories. This is a welcome trend, and more employers should follow it for the sake of reducing pay disparities. An employer voluntarily deciding to stop asking about salary history represents a deliberate, specific action that can help reduce pay inequity and, for first movers, serve as a brand boost to make the company a more attractive employer to women and minorities, showing that the employer is actually taking concrete steps to combat institutional discrimination.

There have been arguments both for and against the use of salary history information. Companies and HR professionals have argued, for example, that knowing an applicant’s salary history was imperative to save time for both the applicant and the company during the interviewing process. If the company could not afford the salary the applicant was likely to seek — typically 10-20% more than the current salary — then there would be no sense in making an offer that was not in that range. However, employers can — and increasingly do, as our data show — simply include a salary range with a job posting, and allow the applicant to self-select whether that range is acceptable to them when deciding to apply.

Employers can also gauge the applicant’s pay expectations without asking for their salary history. Even with a salary history ban, an employer can ask what an applicant hopes to earn. And nothing prevents highly paid job applicants from volunteering their current salary to set employer expectations.

Some HR professionals have also argued that the salary history was necessary to determine the applicant’s career trajectory. A track record of steadily increasing salary in previous positions would demonstrate that the applicant was worthy of increasing responsibility and pay. Of course, that information could also be determined qualitatively from the applicant’s resume and from interview questions, or quantitatively through market research of what other companies pay for that same position, or from what the company has paid previous employees in that or similar positions.

Another concern is that salary histories might reveal the quality of the applicant generally, aside from their career trajectory. The worry is that without this information, employers will select lower quality candidates on average, leading to poorer job matches and greater turnover. Our data show that this does not seem to be a significant concern. Turnover rates have not increased in states with salary history bans in general nor have they increased for workers who were relatively underpaid in their previous jobs. In short, our analysis, based on the states that banned employers from using salary histories, shows that employers can hire just as effectively without using this information. At the same time, employers who avoided asking for salary histories were able to significantly reduce unfair pay differences.

Not asking about salary histories is related to a growing trend towards greater salary transparency. Our data show sharp increases in the use of salary ranges in job postings after state-wide enactment of SHB legislation, and not just by employers subject to the ban. Applicants, too, can learn about an employer’s salary range from websites like Glassdoor, which allows current and former employees to post information about their salary and work environment. The greater transparency offers applicants a level playing field, thus reducing discrimination and other inequities both in the hiring process and over time on the job.

Greater transparency benefits both employers and applicants, and also satisfies the needs of HR professionals and CEOs. Arguments on both sides of salary history bans saw the need for transparency and starting the employer-employee relationship on the right foot and in the proper spirit. Although employers are more likely to name a salary range in a job posting because of a salary history ban, they would have not have posted the job if they did not know what they could afford to pay for it. The SHB simply encourages the employer to make explicit what it likely already had in mind when posting the job. Clearly, employers can go beyond the requirements of these laws and voluntarily provide greater information to applicants and employees. That transparency creates a culture that sets the right tone as open and welcoming for employees, helps attract a greater diversity of candidates, and reduces the pay gap for women and persons of color.

Source: 14 July, 2020

5 Tips for Communicating with Employees During a Crisis

Every leader knows that communication during a crisis is critical. When leaders communicate with urgency, transparency, and empathy, it helps people adjust to the constantly changing conditions crises bring. A tone of urgency encourages people to make quick decisions to mitigate harm. Transparency builds trust in leaders and conveys respect for employees by implicitly recognizing them as capable of coping with what is being shared. And showing empathy and conveying a compelling message of hope can foster resilience in facing the challenges that lie ahead.

Yet beyond these basic recommendations, there is scant empirical research on what to communicate to employees amid a crisis. As a result, most executives probably cannot answer the following question: Now that we are several months into the crisis, how are your employees feeling about your organization’s response to the pandemic?

To help leaders fine-tune their communications practices, we created a 12-question assessment designed to measure employee satisfaction with the organization’s overall interactions with them during the Covid-19 crisis and reveal the factors that drive a positive reaction. We sent the assessment to employees in 10 for-profit, not-for-profit, and government organizations and received a total of 830 responses between March 24 and April 22.

There were five key takeaways for leaders, which we describe below in descending order of their importance in influencing employees’ satisfaction with how their employers are dealing with them during the pandemic.

1. Communicate frequently.

Most leaders need to communicate to staff far more often than they think is necessary. Frequent communication reduces fear and uncertainty and ensures that employees have heard the message. While leaders may experience fatigue from repeating core messages, they need to realize team members need to hear these messages multiple times. Different people may need to hear messages in different ways and through different channels.

At a time when so many people are experiencing bad news and negative consequences largely not of their own doing, leaders need to remember to find the bright spots and highlight them. They similarly can offset bad news by reminding people of times when they faced challenges in the past and the organization came out on top (e.g., during the dot.com bust in the early 2000s or the 2008 financial crisis).

How organizational leaders communicate can make or break employee commitment to their organizations. Despite the many challenges the pandemic has brought, one respondent reported, “[Our leader’s] calls with us and reassurances that the company has our back are inspiring. I even used it as a humble brag on social media to make sure people know we are still hiring and that this is the sort of company you want to work for when the going gets tough.”

2. Provide safe channels for giving feedback.

Consider the comment of a disappointed employee we received: “Most information at my company never stays safe. Information always gets out. I don’t know if that is an HR leak or people just don’t know how to stop gossiping, but private information is never safe.” Employees must be able to express their concerns to leaders without fear of retribution.

Organizational leaders must communicate the channels available to offer feedback and should emphasize how much they care about hearing from employees at all levels. For example, organizations might offer the following means for employees to communicate: reaching out to HR, talking to a senior leader, bringing issues to a regular one-on-on meeting with a manager, and having an anonymous suggestion channel.

Having a variety of options is important because individual employees may view the safety of a given channel differently based on such factors as their relationship with their managers, whether they view HR as supportive, and their views of the responsiveness of anonymous formal channels. Having choices about how to give feedback thus helps ensure that people will do so, which, in turn, increases their satisfaction with their company’s actions.

Finally, leaders must periodically report what they are hearing from this feedback. Sharing careful summaries of the questions, concerns, and follow-up actions will increase trust in the leadership at this critical time — trust that is likely to continue after the crisis subsides.

3. Help employees work at home effectively.

Employees who feel they have what they need to remain productive and successful while working remotely are more likely to be satisfied with their organization’s overall response to the pandemic.

If the organization wants to maintain productivity, it may be worth investing in work-from-home equipment. For many, having equipment that’s common in the office (e.g., headsets, second monitors, comfortable chairs and desks) can make a big difference, affecting their productivity. As one employee put it, “Since we were not able to bring all the equipment we usually use to do our jobs on a daily basis, it has been a challenge making the changes needed to continue to perform at the same level we did while on location.”

Similarly, many employees may need help adjusting meeting time expectations based on specific family and child care situations. And given the challenges associated with Zoom fatigue, managers may want to use telephone calls rather than video meetings when connecting for one-on-one or small group discussions with people who know each other already.

4. Address concerns about job security.

Understandably, people are worried about their jobs. Keeping this in mind, leaders should reassure team members that their employment is secure when this is indeed the case. When it is not, employees appreciate knowing all they can as soon as possible so they can plan accordingly. AirBnB’s May 5 announcement that it would have make deep layoffs is a good example of how to deliver such tough news in a timely and frank manner.

5. Provide a plan for the future.

This one is undoubtedly related to employees’ worries about their own jobs. Given the extraordinary crisis we’re now enduring, it’s hardly surprising that many people are anxious about their own organization’s future and look to leaders for cues. Therefore, when communicating, emphasize what is going well for the organization. Further, share as much as you can about your strategy and planning for the future. And be sure to recognize employees who have gone the extra mile to drive business results or help colleagues; it can have a positive ripple effect.

Given how quickly and drastically the pandemic has changed people’s personal and work lives and all the uncertainty that lies ahead, people are looking to their leaders more than ever for guidance and support. As a leader what you say and how you convey it will play a significant part in determining how your organizations perform during these difficult times and after.

Source: HBR 10 July,2020

It’s Time to Reset Decision-Making in Your Organization

Clear decision-making in a crisis depends on sound methodology and gathering information from a variety of sources. Advice from Boris Groysberg and Sarah Abbott.

While we may be living in unprecedented times, past events provide insights and practices as pandemic recovery plans are developed. Consider these five elements of organizational decision-making: information gathering; strategy; combining long-term thinking with short-term actions; clear communication internally and externally; and a review of policies and processes to ensure the organization’s preparedness for future crises.

Information gathering

The flow of high-quality information is more important than ever. A United States military framework for thinking about the external environment that has gained traction in the business world is VUCA: Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity.

While these words seem similar in many respects, a key point of VUCA is that each of these terms describes a different situation that requires a specific response. Nathan Bennett, a professor with the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University, and G. James Lemoine, an assistant professor in the Organization and Human Resources Department of the School of Management at the University at Buffalo, have written extensively on VUCA, and argue, “If VUCA is seen as general, unavoidable, and unsolvable, leaders will take no action and fail to solve an actual problem.” Thus, diagnosis of the situation is a prerequisite to crafting a response.

They argue that volatility should be met with agility; uncertainty with information; complexity with restructuring (with internal operations reconfigured to address external complexities); and ambiguity with experimentation. Uncertainty in this sense refers not to scientific questions about the coronavirus, but to what effect the virus will have on the future. What new realities will it generate? What will recovery look like? How long will it take? What will a post-COVID world entail?

"SEEK OUT NEW DATA SOURCES AND GATHER NEW PERSPECTIVES."

Bennett and Lemoine recommend reaching out “to partners, customers, researchers, trade groups, and perhaps even competitors” in times of uncertainty, in order to understand the impact of this phenomenon. Seek out new data sources and gather new perspectives.

Here’s how one CEO we’ve talked with builds in multiple perspectives to his decision-making. At his industrial products company, he has established bi-weekly meetings with his senior team focused on two questions: What do we know now that we didn’t know before? How can we use that information to make decisions? Each team member is responsible for research within their area: talking to big customers, participating in supplier forums and webinars, scouring competitor websites. At the meeting, team members share their findings and discuss the available data, what assumptions can be drawn from it, and insights to be leveraged. These discussions are then translated into action points.

Organizations should ensure internal decision-making processes incorporate conflicting points of view, if necessary designating a devil’s advocate or what the military calls a “red teamer.” Colonel Eric G. Kail, who writes about VUCA and its application in the business world, says red teamers “don’t simply shoot holes in a plan … [they require] leaders to move beyond ‘that won’t happen’ to ‘what if this occurs.” Red team membership should be rotated, he says, and leaders must be careful to protect them from backlash from other organizational members.

In response to the broader perspective offered by his team’s devil’s advocate, one CEO shared that he took proposed across-the-board price cuts and implemented them in a much more nuanced way, with price decreases segmented by customer and channel.

Another hallmark of stressful situations is that they can lead to paralysis and inaction, what Nathan Furr calls “unproductive uncertainty.” He recommends three strategies for decision-making in such circumstances:

Managers need to step back and consider all options, both near term and long term. This is because gathering information in this environment can cause us to become “so focused on the immediate situation that we overlook the broader possibilities.”

Rather than focus on binary outcomes, which rarely play out, managers should consider the full spectrum of possible outcomes and assign probabilities to each.

Keep in mind that “possibilities always exist.” Even in the worst situations, there are opportunities and choices to be made.

Thinking about strategy

A clear sense of organizational direction is central to knowing what information is significant and avoiding information overload.

David J. Collis, the Thomas Henry Carroll Ford Foundation Adjunct Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and Michael G. Rukstad, the late senior research fellow at HBS described a firm’s organizational direction as being a hierarchy that flows from the most enduring element, the corporate mission, through values, vision, strategy, and, ultimately, the implementation and monitoring of that strategy via tools such as balanced scorecards and key performance indicators (KPIs). The strategy includes an organization’s objective, scope, and competitive advantage. In times of turmoil, CEOs should revisit their strategy and ask key questions: What is the organization’s ultimate objective? In which directions (products, customers, geographies, vertical integration) will it go? In which directions will it not go? Finally, what does the organization do better or differently than others—in other words, what is our competitive advantage?

"ANOTHER HALLMARK OF STRESSFUL SITUATIONS IS THAT THEY CAN LEAD TO PARALYSIS AND INACTION."

“In times of economic distress, clarity of strategy becomes even more important,” wrote Michael Porter in 2008. In an economic downturn, figuring out what part of the industry that you want to serve becomes incredibly important.”

It’s also important to not take actions in the short term that seem expedient but could ultimately undermine what’s different or unique about the company, he says.

Porter provides the example of a company focused on high-end features and service that is tempted during a recession to cut back in response to a customer’s price concerns. This is the wrong move, he says. By cutting back on what has made it successful, that company risks becoming just like its competitors.

He also contends that downturns can provide a little flexibility because the pressure to deliver short-term financial results is lessened. When all companies are reporting poor results, acting to make your company look a little better is not particularly value-added.

We see this in action with the CEO of a B2B company who has responded to current pressure from customers by agreeing to cut prices in the short term in exchange for contract extensions; thereby being sensitive to their customers’ short-term needs while simultaneously improving the firm’s long-term competitive positioning.

Strategy execution and implementation

Strategic planning, converting strategic objectives into activities, is central to most organizations. Still, it is not possible to anticipate every event that might impact those plans. Executives need to be agile in order to adapt plans in response to unforeseen problems or opportunities. In doing so, they need to balance flexibility and speedy reaction times with long-term strategic focus. It is difficult to get this balance right! When surveyed on execution challenges, 29 percent of managers said that their company reacted too slowly, while 24 percent responded that their company reacted with sufficient speed, but in doing so lost sight of their strategy.

Darrell K. Rigby, Sarah Elk, and Steve Berez write about the importance of building an “agile enterprise.” Their message—CEOs and other executives need to adopt a “humble agile mindset” to effectively lead an agile enterprise—can be aptly applied to the type of leadership required in the current environment. The authors highlight the importance of a rapid feedback loop, such as a brief daily check-in to give and receive feedback. These sessions can be used to eliminate barriers and ensure continued progress.

Shifting leadership style from commanding to coaching is another agile leadership tool. Leaders use two-way communication methods and positive language, focusing not on what can’t be done but on how we can get it done. Rigby, Elk, and Berez also advise abandoning old school meeting formats in favor of “collaborative problem-solving sessions.” These are action-oriented, beginning with a list of issues that need to be resolved, focused on constructive conflict, and ending with a decision. “Swarming sessions,” which bring together participants from multiple groups and functions impacted by a single issue, can be used as needed to facilitate rapid decisions.

Many companies measure strategy execution with KPIs assessed annually or maybe quarterly. In times of crisis, consider assessing more frequently. This is even more important in a virtual work world where employees don’t have the benefit of ongoing conversations that happen when people are physically together, a distance that can easily result in misalignment. A dispersed working environment can only succeed if everyone is clear on their role. What are the objectives? What work should be prioritized? How is work being divided among employees? It is important to avoid duplicative efforts.

Implementing 30- or 60-day KPIs drives action and keeps people accountable and aligned. Communication around the establishment of short-term measurements should stress that these are not an effort to micromanage, but an acknowledgement of the awkward and tricky working situation. Assessing short-term goals keeps everyone on the same page and pushing forward together. As employees start to shift gradually back into the office (with hybrid at-home/in-office work schedules likely in many places), short-term goals will provide transparency, visibility, and some stability.

Communicate

Your recovery strategy will need to include a detailed communication plan focused on all internal and external constituents. Internal communication is as important, if not more important, than external communication. In Crisis Communication: Lessons from 9/11, Paul Argenti writes, “What I discovered is that, in a time of extreme crisis, internal communications take precedence. Before any other constructive action can take place—whether it's serving customers or reassuring investors—the morale of employees must be rebuilt."

Many of the CEOs we heard from highlighted their concerns about getting communication right, particularly communication with their employees. How often? What platform? What tone?

In Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading, co-authors Marty Linsky and Ronald Heifetz discuss the importance of “achieving a balcony perspective” in structuring a communication plan. They advise stepping back from a situation—getting on the balcony—to get “a clearer view of reality and some perspective on the bigger picture by distancing yourself from the fray.” Then, you “must return to the dance floor...The process must be iterative, not static. The challenge is to move back and forth between the dance floor and the balcony, making interventions, observing their impact in real time, and then returning to the action.”

This exercise allows leaders to assess their people’s mindsets and tailor their communications accordingly. Stepping onto the balcony is even more challenging in a virtual world. But CEOs can test out different messages before disseminating them widely, seeking feedback and using it to fine-tune their communications.

Some leaders have opted to keep their normal employee communication sessions in place, conducting those sessions virtually. One CEO explained that he was continuing to host regular town hall meetings, weekly listening sessions, and skip-level employee lunches, all on Zoom. In these forums he asks employees about their concerns and where they would like more information. These interactive sessions allow for feedback that would not be available with one-way communication tools.

After-action review

Take the time to review how your organization responded to the current situation and ask, “What can we do better next time?” This is not about placing blame after the fact. The US military uses after-action reviews (AARs) to gather and record lessons to apply in the future. The Army’s Opposing Force (OPFOR) is a brigade whose function is to prepare troops for combat, in part by engaging them in simulated combat. Despite the fact that they provide the trainee forces with detailed advance information on their methods, OPFOR almost always win.

Part of OPFOR’s secret to success is its use of after-action reviews. They begin reviews while the event is still ongoing, with multiple AAR meetings often hosted by the unit’s commander. Each meeting starts with the recitation of the rules: “Participate. No thin skins. Leave your stripes [i.e., indications of rank and status] at the door. Take notes. Focus on our issues, not the issues of those above us…Absolute candor is critical.” Meetings address four questions: “What were our intended results? What were our actual results? What caused our results? And what will we sustain or improve?”

Admittedly, the corporate world has seen less success with AARs, despite the popularity of the practice, according to Marilyn Darling, Charles Parry, and Joseph Moore in Learning in the Thick of It. In their study of more than a dozen non-military organizations, they found numerous problems with their after action review procedures, including those that were conducted so long after the event that recollections were hazy and that failed to effectively apply the lessons learned. They recommend organizations use AARs selectively given the significant amount of resources required to do them well. AARs should also focus on areas that are mission critical for the greatest payoff.

They offer four fundamentals of the AAR process: the learnings must be primarily for the benefit of the team involved in the AAR; the process must start at the same time as the activity being reviewed; lessons must be linked explicitly to future actions, and everyone involved must be held accountable.

The midst of a pandemic may not seem like the best time for an after action review, but Darling, Parry, and Moore write that during periods of intense activity, brief daily AAR meetings can help teams coordinate and improve the next day’s activities. AARs can be done on discrete projects like a pandemic-focused marketing campaign in order to improve response quality and long-term effectiveness.

"MANAGERS THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION SHOULD UNDERSTAND THEIR EXPOSURE."

Following the 2007-09 recession, Harvard University conducted its own AAR and, in 2019, captured those learnings in a “recession playbook (pdf)” with the goal of ensuring financial resilience, defined as “stewarding resources to support and maintain excellence in teaching, research, and scholarship in perpetuity” during the next recession.

The framework has four steps:

Managers throughout the organization should understand their exposure. What might the next economic crisis look like? How might it impact revenues under the current operating model? How might that exposure change as the organization’s operating model evolves over time?

Groups should develop a clear set of principles that can serve as a guiding force when the time comes to make tradeoffs and balance priorities. Take a strategic approach to modeling downside projections by categorizing activities and businesses into “areas to invest, areas to maintain, and areas that can be reduced or eliminated.”

Identify areas where revenues can be increased and costs cut in advance of a downturn. Strengthen the organization’s financial position proactively.

Prepare for change. At some point, leaders will need to make a determination as to when and how this plan is put into action.

Conclusion: Inaction is not an option

While the current uncertainty can be daunting for leaders of all types, it is critical not to fall back on inaction as the default position. A good starting point: Ensure you are considering all available, relevant information but are not overwhelmed by information overload.

Being clear about your organization’s strategy will provide focus to information-gathering and a roadmap for decision-making. Even then, many decisions will have to be made with imperfect data. Flexibility is important. Revisit your conclusions and pivot as needed. Utilizing short-term KPIs (30-day, or so) is one way of monitoring decisions and assessing performance.

This is a period of continuous learning. The lessons may be unchosen and unwanted, but they can be leveraged to guide future actions. It is important not to let them go to waste. Firms should ideally emerge from this crisis sturdier, wiser, and better prepared for future crises and events.

Source: Harvard Business School 09 Jul, 2020

What makes Blockchain top the list of most in-demand tech skills?

Blockchain is a technology that has taken the business world by storm. The worldwide spending on blockchain solutions is expected to grow from 1.5 billion in 2018 to an estimated 15.9 billion by 2023. It is clear, for a recruiter, hiring for blockchain will be the next big talent trend (or challenge).

Many consumers may have heard of blockchain technology, especially in relation to cryptocurrency. Recently, the word "blockchain" is rising in frequency in corporate boardrooms and has become impossible to ignore. In fact, it is being noted by multiple media and research companies that the investment in the technology is going to be multifold. Worldwide spending on blockchain solutions is expected to grow from 1.5 billion in 2018 to an estimated 15.9 billion by 2023. Companies in nearly every industry are speeding up their efforts to create value for their business.

In 2019, the worldwide spending on blockchain technology stood at $ 2.7 billion. It has already disrupted the finance sector and continues to grow in the right direction.

Another great statistic is the valuation of blockchain in the food and agriculture market which is valued at $ 41.9 million.

According to the results of Deloitte’s 2020 Global Blockchain Survey conducted from Feb. 6 to March 3, 2020, 39 percent of 1,488 senior executives and practitioners in 14 countries said they have already incorporated blockchain into production at their companies —  a 16 percent increase on last year’s figures. The number rises to 41 percent when considering companies with over $100 million in revenue. 

Blockchain as an emerging skill for 2020 and beyond

According to a recent study by LinkedIn, it is found that Blockchain tops the list of most in-demand hard skills for 2020.

 The promise of blockchain which is essentially a shared digital ledger is huge. Advocates see it as a secure, decentralized, and cost- and time-efficient way to transparently track shipments and transactions of all kinds.

Skeptics, and there are many, raise concerns about the lack of standardized protocols, scalability, and excessive energy use (Bitcoin alone consumes as much energy as the nation of Switzerland).

Irrespective of that, the business world is optimistic about this technology. Blockchain has become a line of business for corporate biggies like IBM, Oracle, JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft,  Amazon, and American Express, to name just a few. Blockchain is now being used in industries ranging from shipping to healthcare, from farming and food safety to entertainment and gaming.

Salary trends in Blockchain

With a limited talent pool, blockchain techies are in huge demand. Blockchain developer salaries are taking off worldwide as the demand for blockchain engineers and developers continues to soar. Blockchain developers can pull in a salary that is comparable with Artificial Intelligence (AI) developers. According to the data curated by Simplilearn, an online learning company, from different sources like Glassdoor,  ZipRecruiters, The Blockchain Council, Business Insider, and Blockchain101, here is what a Blockchain developer can earn:

According to recent data by Blochchain101, here is a comparative analysis of the annual salary earned by a blockchain developer:

The Blockchain job market

Blockchain developer, artificial intelligence (AI) specialist, and Javascript developer will be the most sought-after roles by employers next year, according to the professional networking platform LinkedIn’s “Emerging Jobs 2020” report.

With the refocus on profitability and bringing products to market, there has been an increase in blockchain design, marketing, and sales roles. Compliance, legal, and regulatory-related roles have also seen an increase in demand, which reflects the changing regulatory environment for cryptocurrency companies.

The major employers continue to be cryptocurrency exchanges. Research by The Block found that 42 percent of blockchain industry employees work for cryptocurrency exchanges, with another 10 percent for mining hardware manufacturers. 

Most crypto job opportunities were found to be in San Francisco and New York. In Europe, the main hubs identified were London and Berlin, and in Asia, it’s Singapore and Hong Kong. In Latin America, it’s Buenos Aires.

Source: People matters 07 Jul, 2020

Can Entrepreneurship be Taught or is it Inherent?

If you feel you have the business knack, all you need to do is get a bit of polishing done with a few courses and degrees, and you are sure to make a big entrepreneur

There are some skills which have always been debated to be inherent in a person’s nature like leadership, communication skills, confidence etc. Entrepreneurship is also one such debatable issue. One school of thought believes entrepreneurship has to be taught and learned in management schools by pursuing professional management courses. On the contrary, the other school of thought believes it to be inherent or genetic or by birth. They are of the opinion that business skills and entrepreneurship have to be in the blood.

You Need to Have the Vision to be an Entrepreneur

By definition, entrepreneurship means setting up of a business unit and seeking profits while undertaking risks. Logically anyone who is willing to take risks after making some investment can be a businessman. Successful or not, is absolutely a different side of the story. It is all about having the vision to create value to a product or make a new product. Anuj Gupta, MD of NIFCO International says, “The idea of setting up a new unit which can supply raw material to the parent factory and decrease costs is always a remarkable move. This turns out to be a wise decision economically and can help in the nourishment of business acumen.”

Is MBA Futile?

You may now ask as to what is the utility of having MBA campuses sprawling across acres all over the world. Is it useless if we cannot learn entrepreneurship? The professional business management courses hone your business acumen, nurture your leadership skills, and teach you the relevance of time management and business etiquettes. The Director of Bicop International, Vaibhav Gupta states that his MBA degree helps him in making wiser decisions in his business. It helps him in dealing with the staff and managers as well as helps him establish a better reputation with clients.

Hone Your Leadership Skills

What needs to be learned and taken care is you need to be punctual, quick in decision making and far-sighted to be a good entrepreneur. The most important skill that needs to be learned and imparted in professional colleges is leadership skills. Being an entrepreneur requires dealing with and managing a wide range of employees. Getting work done from people is an art and the one who masters this art can derive maximum productivity in minimum time.

“Dealing with managers, foremen and ground-level employees, all at the same time, is a challenge in the beginning,” says Sakun Aggarwal, MD of Krishna Brickworks. He adds, “Gradually the essence of leadership sinks in and the art of getting the best work out of the team becomes possible!”

Online Courses

In case you want to acquire professional degrees to add to your knowledge bank but do not want to waste time and money in joining professional colleges, there are many online options available which give you theoretical as well practical hands-down knowledge as well.

Study the Market Dynamics

To be an entrepreneur you have to make sure that the business you are starting is at the right place and right time. If you initiate a woollen blankets unit in summer, you’ll have to wait much longer till the first order floats in the market.

Also, you need to be cautious of a few more factors like competition and competitors, marketing budget, financing at lower costs and hiring an excellent and efficient team. These factors contribute a lot to your success.​​​​​​​

The Moral:

It’s a matter of choice you have to exercise. If you feel you have the business knack, all you need to do is get a bit of polishing done with a few courses and degrees, and you are sure to make a big entrepreneur. You just need to be passionate about leading people and making it big.

Source: Entrepreneur India