Robert E. WaiteWEEKLY WAITE-O-GRAM (Rel. 51.0)
FACING UP TO FACEBOOK
One question I frequently get from senior executives is what to do about Facebook. On the one hand, they want to appear open to new technologies and social media. On the other hand, they don't necessarily want to share aspects of their personal life with employees and other stakeholders. The same goes for Twitter, YouTube and other social media channels. The desire to be "hip" (or at least appear to be in tune with younger audiences) often collides with the realization that a C-Suite executive is under constant scrutiny by the media, investors and other interested parties. My advice? Unless there is a compelling, revenue- or image-driving business case, stay away from Facebook and Twitter... and only use a professionally-oriented site like Linked In... to position yourself in the context of your career and business objectives.
NO PRINCE HARRY SHOTS... OR SHOTS OF ANY KIND
If you are an executive at a movie studio...or a clothing retailer like Marc Jacobs...or a restaurateur like Wolfgang Puck...friending half the world on Facebook...or tweeting your every random thought... might be an excellent strategy. But even then, the activity should be professionally managed...and vetted. Tweeting is especially perilous. The first thought that comes into your mind and out into the Tweet-O-Sphere may seem to you worthy of Plato or Confucius... but read to others more like Charlie Sheen. As for Facebook, if you really feel you must use it, make sure you have someone go through your site with a fine tooth comb. That hilarious shot of you from a long-ago costume party...or throwing back shooters and catching beads at a Mardi Gras parade...may not be the lasting image you want to leave people with. And make sure you use the security features to limit access to those you truly want to see the site.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING...
If you have a son or daughter applying to university...or for a job... you might want to give them a heads up regarding social media. University admissions offices...and company human resources departments...are increasingly turning to social media sites like Facebook and myspace to screen candidates. Kaplan Inc. reports that 38% of university admissions offices take a gander at applicants' sites. And, according to a 2009 CareerBuilder survey, 45% of companies report they visit social networking sites to view job candidates...and 35% say they reject candidates based on what they find. And what gets candidates in trouble? Provocative or inappropriate photos (53%); Drinking or drug use (44%); Bad-mouthing previous employer, colleagues or clients (35%); Poor communication skills (29%); and Discriminatory comments (26%).
AND RECRUITING!
Ironically, even as universities and employers are checking social networks to weed out applicants... they are also increasingly using those same networks to recruit. Even the CIA and the IRS now employ Facebook to attract a younger demographic as future employees. And most North American colleges and universities have done the same...often using recently admitted students to help them fashion messaging to maximize a school's appeal. So it is a two-edged sword... with the ability to cut (you) in both directions.
CRAZY--LIKE A FOX?
Like most people, I have been watching the unfolding situation in Libya... and the machinations of its leader of 41 years, Muammar Qaddafi...with a combination of fascination and horror. Qaddafi, to my mind, has always been the Mick Jagger of despots, combining a kind of strutting swagger vibe with a sartorial splendor that hovered somewhere between Elton John...and Diana Ross. What I think gets forgotten in the west is that when he came to power, in the late 1960's, Qaddafi was able to draw on a huge well of resentment from an Arab population that had been humiliated by Italian colonization...followed by varying degrees of British, American and Italian interference in domestic affairs during the Cold War. When he ousted King Idris I in a bloodless coup in 1969, Qaddafi promised to end foreign domination. In that very narrow sense, he was a success. And thus what seems to us to be the rantings of a lunatic in his recent public speeches -- the claims that the Italians or Americans will return; or that al-Qaeda is behind the revolt (and are busily seducing Libya's young people with psychedelic drugs) -- is actually building on decades of state-supported paranoia.
NO EASY ANSWERS
As always, there are those who are not happy with the response of the West to the crisis, especially in the United States. President Obama is criticized for not doing "more", especially by some of those lining up to challenge him in 2012. The problem with some of these folks is that they'd rather grab a quick sound-bite on the evening news... than provide a thoughtful analysis of the issue at hand. Any American (or British or Italian) intervention would run the risk of playing into the hands of the Qaddafi cabal...and any US or NATO ground presence would almost assuredly change the tone and direction of the revolt, not only in Libya, but throughout the region. On the other hand, the last thing anyone wants to see is another Rwanda or Bosnia, with the world standing by while civilian populations are slaughtered. Nobody said being the leader of world's last remaining superpower would be easy... but even "No-Drama Obama" must be feeling at this point that he's been invited to a five-alarm fire... with a too-short hose.
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY BORING
While Americans are already gearing up for the 2012 Presidential Election... we here in Canada may well have an election of our own quite soon. We don't know exactly when, because the government has to "fall" before an election can be called. Governments here stumble all the time, but they only occasionally fall. It takes a "confidence vote" -- which is really a "no-confidence vote." In theory (in a minority government situation), one or more opposition parties decide to trigger an election because they think they might win. In the current situation, it looks like the incumbent Conservative Party is going to trigger an election... because the polls say they might finally win... a majority.
HOW TO TELL A CANADIAN ELECTION...
It looks like the Conservatives will engineer a no-confidence vote by submitting a budget that at none of the other parties can support. If so, we will likely go to the polls in early May (or when the ice ships out of the lakes, whichever comes first.) For the uninitiated, here are the main differences between a US and a Canadian election:
1. No Primaries -- No Iowa caucuses; no New Hampshire or Wisconsin primaries; no Super Tuesday. We did try a caucus in Manitoba once, but two-thirds of the participants fell asleep and the rest froze to death.
2. No "Best Political Team in America" -- That's right, we somehow get through an election without three-dozen self-styled experts and political has-beens pontificating. And not one of our anchors is named "Wolf" or "Candy".
3. No Endless Campaign -- A Canadian election typically lasts for 36 days (it can go somewhat longer, but cannot be any shorter). Most Canadians think 36 days are quite enough.
4. No Exciting Candidates -- In reaction to "Trudeau-mania", an affliction that swept the country in the 1960'sa, '70's and early '80's, federal legislation was enacted that forbids anyone with an ounce (later changed to a gram) of charisma being nominated by any major Canadian political party. All parties have consistently complied with the dictate.
5. No Massive Spending -- In Canada elections are federally (taxpayer) financed, using a formula tied to votes obtained in previous elections.
6. No Decisive Results -- In the States the House can "turn Blue"; the White House can be "captured" by Democrats; Statehouses "fall" to one party or another. In Canada, at least over the past three elections, one party eeks out a minority victory, establishes a timid and tentative agenda...and toddles along, trying not to "fall". That's the likely outcome this time -- and, gosh darn, that's the way we like it!
AND FINALLY...
Did anyone tell Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he's calling an election... right in the middle of the Stanley Cup playoffs?
(The views and opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author, who is responsible for any errors, omissions or misstatements. For those contemplating revising their Facebook pages, I offer the following advice: 1) Remove all pictures of you and Ruby the Heartbreaker. And Stavros the Studmuffin. 2) Take down any personal photographs depicting communicable diseases...or ballroom dancing. 3) Delete any sections referencing your political, religious or extra-terrestrial beliefs. 4) Never use a picture that you can't actually recall being taken.)
Reader Comments (4)
Hi Bob!
I just discovered your blog and my God it looks familiar to me. Obviously, you don't need my services anymore. On the other hand, I've started my own blog and your predecessor as my boss is a regular "invited" contributor. It's in French... of course!
Great reading you once again.
Jean-Maurice
It is great to still receive the weekly Waite-o-gram, I thoroughly enjoy reading your updates and commentary!
Bob, your tongue-in-cheek humour caught my attention, and so I read on...and on...and on. What enjoyable reading and what a wondrous way of starting a weekend morning! Conrad Winn
Hi Bob
I finally realized where I can make comments (guess it speaks to my technical 'tweeting' abilities).
I really enjoy reading your Waite-O-Grams. They are food for thought and BTW I am now reading 'Following Muhammad - Rethinking Islam In The Contemporary World'.
Thanks Hanifa