Law Firm 4.0 Blog

Lawyers (and everyone else), ask yourself: Am I my resume?

With yet another high profile resume-fake (Scott Thompson, who was ousted as Yahoo! CEO after four months among accusations that he lied on his resume about having a computer science degree) I am compelled to write this blog post about telling the truth on your website and other biographies.

Whether you call it biography, bio, profile, CV, vita or work history, this document should never have an ounce of fiction on it.  No fudging on capabilities and experience, board and community service, education (years, your major, the institutions you attended) . . . simply, don’t say you did something if you didn’t do it.

I read an article in the Dallas Morning News yesterday about a new book by author James Donovan, “The Blood of Heroes,” with the subtitle, “The 13-day struggle for the Alamo and the sacrifice that forced a nation.”  Apparently, the Alamo stories that we were taught in K-12 history classes were not true.  Davy Crockett was not executed by Mexican hero/despot Santa Anna, and the storied Alamo battle didn’t last 15-minutes, but more like 45 minutes or longer.  You might wonder what this has to do with lawyer biographies?

Donovan's Dallas Morning News article started:

“Everyone knows that Davy Crockett was executed after the battle of the Alamo by Santa Anna.  Except he wasn’t.”

Donovan, a Dallas author, writes:

“Crockett’s death, and the duration of the Alamo battle, are two examples of how historical events often become encrusted with myth, legend and error, deliberate or not. Particularly before the invention of electronic recording devices around the turn of the 20th century, history was more pliable, especially for those with an agenda — or simply to make a good story even better.”

I love the phrase, “…history was more pliable, especially for those with an agenda – or simply to make a good story even better.”  We do this all the time in conversation, subconsciously believing that facts should never get in the way of a good story.

He concludes his article:

“History, like life, may be messy, awkward and embarrassing on occasion, but that’s because it’s about people, and none of us is perfect. Without respect for historical truth, we compromise our ability to grow and improve both as individuals and as a society.”

Too many lawyer resumes include every line of what the person has ever done, spoken or written.  Bios should follow the governing clothes-closet management rule:  Don’t put one new clothing article in your closet without eliminating something old.

Without such stewardship, the result of this year-after-year layering of data, whether online or on paper, is that your memory fades and you no longer remember if it was true.  If there was an error or omission 20 years ago, chances are you are still carrying it forward – simply because you aren’t looking at it that carefully, you can’t remember, and you assume it must be true because it used to be true. And it’s about you, so what’s the big deal?

My company, Content Pilot, is preparing to conduct our fifth research study, “2012 AmLaw 100 Websites: Ten Foundational Best Practices,” where we analyze the websites of America’s top 100 law firms based on gross revenue. The 4^th Foundational Best Practice is lawyer biographies.  I’ll write more about the foundational attributes of a “best practices” lawyer resume in another post, but the glaring problem we see is that too many senior partners don’t care about their bios.  This opens doors, however, for those partners who do care – by comparison, who stand out as relevant, current and subject matter experts in their fields.  After all, that’s the goal of your website (and other online sources, such as LinkedIn) biography – come across well enough that you are short-listed for a particular matter.  Then it’s your job to get chosen as “the one.”

When your bio is riddled with old information – or worse, lies (a strong word, I know) about what you’ve done – everything else that is accurate is questioned.  Don’t risk the reputation damage by being “too busy” to update your resume when your marketing team requests it.

The musical, “A Chorus Line” starts with an energetic number, “I Hope I Get It,” where the auditioning dancers start competing against each other for a job in the chorus.  In unison they sing,

“God, I hope I get it. I hope I get it.  How many boys, how many girls?  Look at all the people, at all the people” . . . Then one dancer sings, “I really need this job, please god I need this job, I’ve got to get this job!”

As it continues, it segues into a lone male dancer singing,

“Who am I anyway? Am I my resume? That is a picture of a person I don't know. What does he want from me? What should I try to be? So many faces all around, and here we go. I need this job, oh God, I need this show.” 

So, ask the question:  Am I my resume?  Take a fresh and critical look at every claim you make – the three-prong test against which your assertion should be judged is:  1) Is it truthful? 2) Is it current? (If it’s not, buyers of legal services may not care about it.) And, 3) Is it relevant? (If it’s not, buyers of legal services won’t care about it.)

What law firms can learn from Dyson's (think vacuum cleaners) anti-branding slur.

British industrial designer, Sir James Dyson, is best known for his iconic bagless vacuum cleaner that he peddles on television. And among frequent travelers who wash their hands in airport restrooms, for the Dyson Airblade, which dries your hands as would the edge of a tornado.

But after a recent comment in which he said he didn't believe in branding - "We're only as good as our latest product. I don't believe in brand at all." - he is now famous for being the anti-branding guy.

Matt Straz, blogger of MediaPost's Online Spin, wrote yesterday, "Like a cat coughing up a hair ball, Dyson's comment caused a loud, involuntary response from the advertising world."

Let me give you some context: Dyson was speaking at Wired magazine's "Disruptive by Design" conference earlier this month. He responded to the question, "Does brand make the product or does product make the brand?" He said that "Brand was the only word that was banned at his company," then concluded with the statement above.

A Forbes.com article about his statement said, "A remarkable comment from someone who has stood in front of a camera for the last decade or more on behalf of creating his own eponymous brand of vacuum cleaners, and spending millions in the process."

The Forbes article suggests that Dyson may not understand what "brand" or "branding is, and it goes on to describe what it is. It talks about how successful brands create new rituals:

"Powerful brands have rituals. Much as Starbucks changed how we have coffee in the morning, and Ikea has changed how we interact with newly-purchased furniture, Dyson has changed the ritual of how we interact with our vacuum by handing us one that can be snapped together (or unsnapped) much like Lego blocks. The rollerball changes the way we move across the floor. The quick-open canister lets us dump right into the garbage can, rather than unleashing those nasty vacuum bags. And if you really want to get into it, there’s the ritual of innovation–and creating 5,127 prototypes, and more innovation."

I asked friend and colleague Norm Rubenstein, Partner and branding expert at the Zeughauser Group, about his take on Dyson's slur - and whether law firm leaders with an anti-branding bias might have new fodder to dispute its efficacy.  Norm says:

"There is profound irony in Dyson’s claim 'I don’t believe in brand at all.' Dyson’s company is reminiscent of Apple, a company whose followers buy products, often products they don’t need, because of their elegant marriage of form and content. In creating his high-end vacuum cleaner, Dyson has made it the ultimate status symbol: what greater triumph of brand recognition than to invest in a luxury good that lives in a closet with one’s cleaning supplies as opposed to on a desk or adorning one’s person? And once people got on the Dyson bandwagon, reinforced through traditional advertising that always has extolled the product’s innovative technology and consumer benefits, they suddenly found a need for Dyson’s chic fans, and one suspects, will require his future products in the same way as they are introduced."

Online Spin also points to Nike, who has significantly reduced its investment in traditional branding pillars, such as advertising.

"Having relied for years on mass branding messages like 'Just do it,' the company has now dramatically scaled back its investment in traditional branding. Nike has also reduced its emphasis on big brand athletes like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, and Lance Armstrong. Instead, the company has focused on creating software and gadgets like its new Fuel wristband that measures athletic output. Instead of marketing products, Nike is using products to market itself."

To that, Norm says,

"The truth is that brand development and brand maintenance, decidedly different stages in a product’s life cycle, are opportunities to employ different tools and tactics for reinforcing brand awareness and loyalty. Products and services require significant marketing focused on developing and raising visibility in their infancy: in their adolescence, assuming they come to enjoy unaided top-of-mind recognition as both Dyson and Nike have done, they can rely on satisfied customers to help sustain their brand equity."

Social media has changed the branding landscape in ways we couldn't have imagined even four years ago. It supports both mass customization and engagement at the most powerful of all levels - person to person. And the dollar investment is a fraction of the cost of traditional broadcast and print advertising.

Norm agrees,

"The emergence of social media makes it possible for a company like Nike to shift the extent to which it has to rely on traditional branding tools. In its previous marketing, which always has been advertising-intensive, Nike has made its 'swoosh' synonymous with the achievements of admired athletes. By creating ongoing demand for its products and aligning them with a promise of quality and performance, Nike now enjoys the benefit of extensive brand equity. As the marketplace shifts and consumers now have become their own product reviewers/marketers, the company theoretically can take advantage of marketing that shifts its focus away from admired role models (who often disappoint in real life) and place it on the traditional—might one say, the average, buyer—the buyer whose endorsement in the Zagat world in which everyone’s opinion counts—can begin to redefine its approach to the marketplace."

So, what does this mean for law firms? It's challenging for law firms, even the largest of the AmLaw 100 firms, to defend their brand positions as unique among all their competitors. Is it possible? Yes, absolutely, but it requires research, rigor and patience, plus a significant and consistent investment of time and money. Law firms can take advantage of all the media that Dyson, Nike and Starbucks use - but they often don't have the stomach for it or the budget to sustain it. It also requires leadership and vision constancy - meaning, firms whose Chair and Managing Partner positions are up for grabs every two or three years will have a harder time than those firms who invest in the same leaders year after year.

Norm concluded our interview by saying,

"... For a law firm to follow the lead of a Nike and begin to shift its marketing focus, say by taking greater advantage of new media as a critical component of its marketing mix, it needs to assess the brand equity it already enjoys, and if it is not an acknowledged market leader in the spaces for which its seeks to be known (defined not by the firm, but by the market), it will need to maintain or to develop a robust strategy that well may continue to require extensive use of traditional marketing tools (e.g., thought leadership and credentialing)."

I'd say that Dyson is all about branding, even if he doesn't call it that.

 

Where are the Dewey partners now - and how is your firm doing recruiting them?

Late yesterday Greg Lambert published a post on the 3 Geeks and a Law Blog called "Visualizing the Dewey & LeBoeuf Implosion." He includes several charts that track where the Dewey lawyers have landed. While the reports of departures have gone on for months, it's handy to see it all in one place - firms can compare their success in recruiting these partners against top competitors.

IBM publishes a free chart tool called "Many Eyes." You can interact with it right on the 3 Geeks blog. Completely worth taking a few minutes to dash over to Greg's post and view it.

 

Do the leaders of your law firm use social media? Employees trust leaders who do.

By now, most law firms have inked social media policies, yet leaders' fears are still cresting at the thought of firm employees' fingers running amok and damaging the firms' reputations in some way. It seems this trepidation is a one-way street, however, as BRANDfog's 2012 Social Media and Leadership Survey found.

BRANDfog surveyed hundreds of employees in companies ranging in size from start-ups to Fortune 500 behemoths asking about company executives and their use of social media to communicate with them and the rest of the world. 81% said that CEOs who use social media are "better equipped" than their peers to lead companies in this contemporary business environment. This included "communicating values and shaping corporate reputation."

82% said they were more likely or much more likely to trust a CEO and other top executives who use social media. And 78% said that they'd prefer to work for a company whose leaders regularly use social media.

Most respondents agreed that social media significantly aids leaders' engagement with key stakeholders:

1. 89.3% said executives can better communicate with customers
2. 84.7% believed that it improves communication with employees
3. 66.3% said executives should use it to communicate with investors
4. 71% said executive engagement in social media enhances your brand.

But you can't fix a company environment that's broken, they said. Only 45% believed that you can improve bad company morale via C-suite social media use.

Erik Sass of the MediaPost Blog The Social Graf notes: "All this makes interesting reading when juxtaposed with actual rates of social media engagement among CEOs and top execs. According to figures cited by BRANDfog, while 61% of Fortune 500 brands use Twitter to engage with customers, just 2.5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are actively using Twitter."

What can law firm leaders take from this? Employees want more communication from you - not just staff, but your lawyers, too. There is a readily available platform you can use to post your musings, and to show how you understand today's world of business communication. I know you have a lot to say -- roll up your sleeves and plan your communication strategy for the next 12 months. Choose the social media forum that makes the most sense for you - LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook or a blog - and commit to it.

Your firm's clients will be listening, too. And they will finally have a chance to know why you have been chosen to lead your firm.

Loads of Buzz: What happens if an employer asks for your Facebook password?

Since I first read the story last week of the employer requiring an applicant to share his Facebook password during an interview (a condition for employment), business, government, politicians and loads of lawyers have commented on its appropriateness and legality. The article, in the March 20, 2012 edition of The Social Graf by Erik Sass, reports on a survey where one in five tech companies rejected an applicant because of something they found in their social media profile.

Most everyone interviewed or writing about this is firmly against employers asking for passwords. The Department of Justice described the employer's request as "overly coercive." Yet some employers are still asking employees to log in to Facebook during an interview (believing it is less egregious than asking for the password outright).

Employers agree that Facebook and other social media sites are the best background checks of all. They hire social listening experts, who are the digital gumshoes of our time. We know that lawyers scrape social media content and use what they find in courtrooms to discredit witnesses, defendants and plaintiffs. The Florida Bar Association scours it to determine whether bar applicants are suitable for membership. So, plenty of employers and others are using it today to evaluate job candidates, current employees and others, and essentially making decisions based on what they unearth - thumbs up or thumbs down on this person's credibility and suitability.

Too many law firms have written about this recent story, but have tread too lightly for my liking on whether they think it's a defensible idea. I asked Mark Shank and Greg McAllister at Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail & Shank for their opinion -- here is what they said:

HEADLINE: Employers, be cool—but don’t chill.

The days of employers ignoring social media are in the distant past. In fact, responsible employers provide reasonable social media policies (although many seem paralyzed by this process). Unfortunately, too many employers’ regulations are overbroad, invasive, and—here’s the magic phrase—chill employees’ rights.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives rights to employees and tells employers not to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce” those rights. So internal alarms rang when reading a few statements from the “Employers Asking for Employees’ Passwords. article.

Statement No. 1. interviewers asked interviewees “...for their Facebook profile passwords as part of the job interview process.”

First, there are proposed state laws to prohibit employers requiring access to applicants’ social media accounts. Also, job applicants receive protections from discrimination under the NLRA. Thus, employers requesting profile passwords could later be charged with discrimination.

To make things worse, employers could incur liability for their request. For example, employers could face liability for discrimination, negligent analysis of the profile, failure to train interviewees, or improper surveillance. And a well-recognized company issued a warning: Facebook’s Chief Privacy Officer warned companies that Facebook could “take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges."

Statement No. 2. “...employers force employees to become online ‘friends’ with the human resources manager...”

Regulating “friending” on social media is not a bad idea, if done for the right purpose. For example, prohibiting employees from pressuring other employees to be Facebook “friends” may be allowed if the intent is to discourage harassment.

But forcing employees to “friend” their employer’s human resources (HR) is a potential NLRA violation. The NLRA protects employees’ rights to discuss union activity and other activities. It seems reasonable that requiring employees to add HR as a “friend” would illegally restrict, or at least interfere with, the employee’s rights to discuss protected activities.

Statement No. 3. “...contractual agreements not to post negative comments about the employer are now commonplace.”

That statement is (1) true and (2) a concern for employers with a policy that fails to narrowly define “negative.” Simply prohibiting “negative” language—especially if the policy fails to limit the scope of “negative” language—is likely unlawful under the NLRA.

But employers’ hands are not tied. For example, it’s not unlawful to prohibit employees from slandering the employer, if the prohibition includes language that clearly limits illegal activity.

Note No. 1. A note for Law Firm 4.0 readers assisting volunteer organizations: volunteer organizations utilizing social media are frequently and wisely incorporating policies to promote themselves, protect their brand, and limit liability.

Note No. 2. Employees, remember that using your work computer and work accounts often provide many fewer protections than the protections discussed above.

Mark Shank can be reached at mshank@ghjhlaw.com and Greg McAllister can be reached at gmcallister@ghjhlaw.com.

SMU Law School Law Practice Management Class 2012 - What's on their minds?

Last week I taught Southern Methodist University's Law Practice Management class - for the third year in a row. In 2011, the students were mostly 2Ls, but this year, there was an equal mix of 4Es (evening students who have fulltime jobs during the day), second and third years. They are in this class not to learn about the practice of law, but to study the business of law. (Read last year's blog post about this class.)

This course was created and is taught by Mark Shank, partner in the litigation boutique, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Like last year, I kicked off my presentation, "Marketing on the Internet", by asking two questions:

1. When you think of starting your careers in a year or two, what is the biggest opportunity that you see the Internet can bring you?
2. What is your greatest fear when you think about the Internet and your career?

We discussed the students' answers before I continued with the Ten Foundational Best Practices of law firm websites, and the increasingly far-reaching world of serious social media. I've written about both on this blog.

Because these students are covering the "real world" aspects of running a law practice, they will be much better prepared than their classmates who don't understand the complexities of law firm profitability, client relationship management, service delivery, business development - and yes, the opportunities and risks associated with marketing on the Internet.

Here is how the students answered the first question (I am using their names with their permission - and you can find them all on LinkedIn if you want to get better acquainted with them):

1. Steven Strobl (a 4E entrepreneur): The biggest opportunity that the Internet can bring . . . is the ability to easily, cheaply communicate at a global level. The Internet is the ultimate symbol of services globalization. More people are connected every year, making it one of the easiest ways to increase your clientele on a global scale.
2. Brett Talley: The Internet is an easy way to connect with clients and provide info about your law firm. The problem is that a lot of firms use web pages in much the same way, and they often all look the same to prospective clients. So, the way the Internet is being utilized currently provides an opportunity to do something different - to stand out.
3. Laura Fenstad (2L): Biggest opportunity that I see are websites that rank law firms and give people a chance to blog about their experiences.
4. Emily Benbrook: Online client reviews of the work attorneys have previously provided for them. Yelp, Google Reviews, etc.
5. J. Brooks Durham (2L): You can learn about your new employer and learn how to advance in that practice area by learning about the career path of the partners and senior associates. Often there is information available online that you cannot get from them face-to-face.
6. Chase Crosby: Access to a wider consumer base, which (while it presents a greater set of challenges) also offers a greater chance of success. And actually making a substantial difference in society.
7. Scott I. Hooker: It gives me the opportunity to target the niche I wish to develop. In my case, estate, business and tax planning. Over the long-term, if I can carve out such a niche, it gives me a chance to target that niche as a prominent practitioner in it.
8. Thuy Nguyen: Exposure to an audience outside your immediate network.
9. Justin Wilson (2L): I'd like to use the Internet as a means for educating legal clients to the process my trial animation business will use to revolutionize the way animations are used as demonstrative evidence - through cinematic techniques like motion-capture.
10. Sarah Russell (2L): Advertising/publishing, quick access to information. many forums for communication.
11. Cade Jobe (3L): Social media - from jobs to contacts to customer service. I don't trust a company that doesn't have a website and it's getting that way with social media.
12. Clarence Wilson (3L): Marketing and branding to a global market.
13. Chase Potter: The plethora of information it provides me.
14. Greg McAllister (an alumnus of this class from two years ago, and now an associate at Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail & Shank): Social media - passive marketing, but opportunities to be active, plus SEO opportunities. Build your brand on your law firm's website.

Unlike some lawyers who have been practicing for a few years (although it's not entirely a function of age or generation), these guys get the enormous potential of the digital assets available.

Here are some of their fears:

1. Steven: Over-regulation or excessive government control. SOPA/PIPA are good recent examples. Further, depersonalization of legal services concerns me. Everyone interacts screen-to-screen more than face-to-face these days. This can reduce the drive to engage in more meaningful ways (more meaningful than "I need XYZ, please respond.")
2. Brett: Easier for clients to contact you via email, leads to them to expect more communication and quicker responses.
3. Laura: Losing a trial and having a reputation ruined.
4. Emily: Software or websites providing legal advice or services for clients - and thus stripping business from attorneys.
5. Brooks: New employer may lie on the website, so you think you are taking a job at one firm and end up at a completely different firm. And ending up on WSJ Blog bad writing examples.
6. Chase: Because of the easy access, how do you "brand" yourself in a manner that is both unique/specialized and valuable to a wide consumer base. The fear is in finding that optimal mix when it seems as though the Internet has grown the number of competitors.
7. Scott: Probably the biggest fear is the Internet's permanence, especially regarding disgruntled clients or other negatives. It's also the challenge of establishing a reputation at all online as one builds a practice.
8. Thuy: The possibility that you can't congtrol what someone else will post about you on the Internet and the irreparable damage it could cause to your reputation.
9. Justin: I fear potential clients won't find my site in a Google search (not being on the first page in a Google search).
10. Sarah: Things I don't want out there getting published (particularly quotes being taken out of context).
11. Cade: Making a mistake and it being published on the web.
12. Clarence: Damage control.
13. Chase: The plethora of information it provides clients or potential clients.
14. Greg: Missed opportunities. Failure to take advantage of it all.

As natural as it is for these students to "live" online, they have most of the same fears that practicing lawyers have. Last year, the big fear of these students was "privacy," and I cautioned them about posting things on Facebook (or anywhere) that could embarrass them or someone close to them later. Strangely, this year it didn't come up, although reputational risk was mentioned several times.

Advice to all law firms with established summer recruiting programs: Ensure that your summer clerks understand the opportunities and the perils of maintaining an active digitial presence. Feel free to download a copy of my SMU Law School presentation.

And Good Luck to the 2012 Law Practice Management class. See you on LinkedIn!

How would you transform the legal industry?

Ayelette Robinson, Director of Knowledge Technology at Littler Mendelson, did a guest post on the 3 Geeks and a Law Blog a couple days ago asking, "How would you transform the legal industry?"  It got me thinking and I thought I'd carry her idea to my blog and pose it to all of you before you start your weekend. 

Here is her original question and my comment on her post. 

How Would You Transform the Legal Industry?

What resource (technological or not) would you invent to transform the legal industry?

This question isn't about what you think will transform the industry, but rather what you would, if you were all-powerful, create to do so.

Share your thoughts. And don't just step outside the box, get so far away from it that you can barely see it with a telescope.

And here's what I think:

How would I transform the legal industry? At some of the toniest restaurants, the kitchens are entirely open and visible. Patrons see all the chefs scurrying about at a dizzying pace, can peer across some specially designed barrier and watch all sorts of food prep, from searing tuna to whipping foam to garnishing a plate.

We have talked around transparency the last few years - buyers of legal services clamor for it. I envision a law firm set up like this kitchen - an entirely open environment, where clients enter the law firm space, work side by side with their lawyers, share resources, experience and intelligence.  Technology projects, at their heart, would be about openness and collaboration.

Everything in today's law firm would require rethinking - not the least of which is the architecture and office design. No more private offices for individuals. This isn't about throwing privacy and confidentiality out the window - it's about balancing transparency and privacy to better serve our clients.

Please share your ideas!

"2012 CFO Outlook" - A survey by Merrill Lynch and Bank of America - What does this mean for law firms?

Now that the holidays are behind us, let's get down to some serious business - and some prognosticating about what law firms' business and financial lives might be like this year.  The bottom line is that the CFO respondents (600 of them from corporate America) are concerned and have low confidence in the economy - in spite of their prediction that corporate revenues and hiring will increase.

A post on the BofA website says: 

In its 14th year, the survey finds that despite lower economic confidence and an expanding range of concerns heading into 2012, U.S. CFOs are largely holding firm on employment and hiring projections, research and development spending, new borrowing, and other activities that drive both day-to-day operations and future growth.

So, the news for law firms who serve these corporations is largely good.  But, communication around fees and project management and scope will need to be clearer and more transparent than ever. 

The Summary Report includes the following key findings (the full report and a webcast won't be available until February 1, 2012):

1. More than half of the 600 executives expect revenues to grow in 2012.
2. 46% expect to hire new employees and 48% expect employment levels to remain the same.
3. More than 75% surveyed said their R&D levels are the same or higher than their pre-recession spending.
4. More CFOs say that more credit is available now and fewer expect the cost of capital to increase.

So, why are the CFOs seeming gloomy?  Here is what the survey found:

Senior financial executives are more concerned about more factors that could affect the economy than in any previous point in the CFO Outlook survey’s history. Heading into a critical election year, it’s telling that 70% of CFOs cited concern about the effectiveness of U.S. government leaders and 63% cited the U.S. budget deficit. In addition, 60% listed healthcare costs, 58% listed unemployment levels and 55% listed consumer confidence as concerns. By contrast, last year’s top concern regarding the economy was healthcare reform, chosen by 54% of CFOs.

The 2012 survey captures views across five key categories:

1. Economies and Sectors
2. Performance and People
3. Financing
4. Mergers and Acquisitions
5. International Trade. 

The Executive Summary briefly summarizes the findings in each of these five areas.  Below is a chart of their greatest economic concerns:

The table below (also taken from the Executive Summary) compares how the CFOs felt in 2011 to the 2012 results:

 

Get inspired: How working together makes World AIDS Day a true celebration

Most of us know someone who knows someone who loved someone who died of AIDS.  Someone's father, brother, son or husband.  Today is World AIDS Day, and, after nearly three decades of death and sadness, I think today is a day worth celebrating.

World AIDS Day was first conceived by the World Health Organization in 1988 to increase awareness of the disease and support those and their families affected by it.  This year's theme, which will extend to 2015, is "Getting to Zero" (zero new HIV infections).

Given that many of us are weary of the enormous political divide we hear, read and see on talk news, talk radio and in print, read this uplifting op-ed in yesterday's New York Times by Bono about how well the world can work when we work together.  The best line in this article is, "America led.  I mean really led." 

And that really inspires me.

Have you heard about "Twitterology?" It's the latest hot new science.

Ben Zimmer is a self-described all-around word nut.  He is the former On Language columnist for The New York Times Magazine, the executive producer of VisualThesaurus.com (an entirely useful tool when you're looking to add color to your prose) and vocabulary.com.

In a recent New York Times Sunday Review column where he claims that "Twitterology" is the latest hot new science, he writes that "Twitter is many things to many people, but lately it has been a gold mine for scholars in fields like linguistics, sociology and psychology who are looking for real-time data to analyze."

He continues, "Twitter’s appeal to researchers is its immediacy — and its immensity. Instead of relying on questionnaires and other laborious and time-consuming methods of data collection, social scientists can simply take advantage of Twitter’s stream to eavesdrop on a virtually limitless array of language in action."

Zimmer discusses a University of Texas study that ensued immediately before and after the death of Libyan dictator Gadhafi.  Linguists and researchers were able to gather thousands of Arabic-language tweets in minutes - before and after the event - used Twitter's system of geocoding, and create a current picture of Libya's Twitter traffic, both good and bad.

In a study that might hit closer to home for everyone reading my blog, Zimmer writes, "Two sociologists at Cornell University, Scott A. Golder and Michael W. Macy, recently published a study in the journal Science that looked at how emotions may relate to the rhythms of daily life, across many English-speaking countries. They observed a gradual falloff in positive terms from the beginning of the workday, bottoming out in the late afternoon."

Has Twitter become our self-intervention therapy?  We're having a bad day and we don't want to have it alone, so we type about it in a few, short keystrokes to hundreds (maybe thousands) of our followers?  If you think that no one is noticing (except for those followers of yours - oh, and those who retweet your post about your bad day), think twice.  The Dean of Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science points to the following real-world application of harvesting tweets to study regional  language use across America, "The key finding was that seemingly meaningless slang and jargon can reveal important properties of an author's identity, a point of interest for both corporations and the intelligence community."

Corporations, major law firms and other large employers can hire these linguistic sleuths to uncover unwanted and unwelcome proclamations and traits about current and future employees. Litigators can harvest tweets in real-time to discredit witnesses, defendants and plaintiffs.

Zimmer concludes, "Regardless of how unserious Twitter may appear on the surface . . . linguists are discovering that Twitter can help uncover truths about our social interactions that are quite serious indeed."

Borrowing a classic quote from Sargeant Phil  Esterhaus of Hill Street Blues (advice that we should all  take many times a day), "Hey, let's be careful out there."