Comments on: What message does THIS send to employees? http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/2006/07/05/what-message-does-this-send-to-employees/ At the intersection of yesterday & tomorrow Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:48:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: JohnHE http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/2006/07/05/what-message-does-this-send-to-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-562 JohnHE Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:09:12 +0000 http://blogs2.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/3633.aspx#comment-562 Hi, Just saying hello to this forum. John -=-=-=-=-=-=- <a href="http://newfreshlinks.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">new links</a> Hi,

Just saying hello to this forum.

John

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
new links

]]>
By: Canuckflack http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/2006/07/05/what-message-does-this-send-to-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-477 Canuckflack Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:44:47 +0000 http://blogs2.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/3633.aspx#comment-477 Voice. It's a concept we normally associate with identity, opinion, the differentiation of personalities. Charlton Heston is the voice of authority. Dr. Ruth represents compassion. Will Rogers was your wise old uncle. Morton Downey Jr. was your crazy Voice. It’s a concept we normally associate with identity, opinion, the differentiation of personalities. Charlton Heston is the voice of authority. Dr. Ruth represents compassion. Will Rogers was your wise old uncle. Morton Downey Jr. was your crazy

]]>
By: Brendan Hodgson http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/2006/07/05/what-message-does-this-send-to-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-476 Brendan Hodgson Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:33:55 +0000 http://blogs2.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/3633.aspx#comment-476 Owen, thanks for the "insider" input, and your post is interesting in its prescience. Without the full facts, I'm still not sure they really thought this one through. Owen, thanks for the "insider" input, and your post is interesting in its prescience. Without the full facts, I’m still not sure they really thought this one through.

]]>
By: Owen Lystrup http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/2006/07/05/what-message-does-this-send-to-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-475 Owen Lystrup Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:11:13 +0000 http://blogs2.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/3633.aspx#comment-475 Funny you should bring this up. I wrote a post on it a few weeks ago when the news was announced. <br> <br>I got in contact with Jeff Weir, the person who wrote the release and asked him  what the motivations were behind giving everyone iPods. <br> <br>From his response, it didn't seem as if they were anything but gifts. <br> <br>However, I think it's crappy regardless to give a gift and whisper (no matter how clearly or unclearly it is done) that you have the right to take the gift back whenever. <br> <br>As an employee, I wouldn't feel to rewarded. Funny you should bring this up. I wrote a post on it a few weeks ago when the news was announced.

I got in contact with Jeff Weir, the person who wrote the release and asked him  what the motivations were behind giving everyone iPods.

From his response, it didn’t seem as if they were anything but gifts.

However, I think it’s crappy regardless to give a gift and whisper (no matter how clearly or unclearly it is done) that you have the right to take the gift back whenever.

As an employee, I wouldn’t feel to rewarded.

]]>
By: Brendan Hodgson http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/2006/07/05/what-message-does-this-send-to-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-474 Brendan Hodgson Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:29:39 +0000 http://blogs2.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/3633.aspx#comment-474 Intentional ambiguity for legal purposes is not my idea of meaningful communications, particularly to employees. For an organization to say that it has the legal right to reclaim these iPod's based on vague wording (which we can only assume was also reflected in its internal comms or it would not have had these issues - but that's still up in the air)may be valid. However, in the court of public opinion, legal justification may not fly from a perception stanpoint, and cause equal amounts of damage to reputation. Intentional ambiguity for legal purposes is not my idea of meaningful communications, particularly to employees. For an organization to say that it has the legal right to reclaim these iPod’s based on vague wording (which we can only assume was also reflected in its internal comms or it would not have had these issues – but that’s still up in the air)may be valid. However, in the court of public opinion, legal justification may not fly from a perception stanpoint, and cause equal amounts of damage to reputation.

]]>
By: Boyd Neil http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/2006/07/05/what-message-does-this-send-to-employees/comment-page-1/#comment-473 Boyd Neil Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:58:55 +0000 http://blogs2.hillandknowlton.com/brendanhodgson/3633.aspx#comment-473 Parsing the news release excerpt closely, I would have to say the company has a case. The purpose of the iPod is clearly stated:  "create more value for our customers." Giving it away to a family member as a gift is not creating customer value. But could it have been clearer? Probably. Parsing the news release excerpt closely, I would have to say the company has a case. The purpose of the iPod is clearly stated:  "create more value for our customers." Giving it away to a family member as a gift is not creating customer value. But could it have been clearer? Probably.

]]>