@ginidietrich I hadn't really given much thought to the deliberate "all or nothing" choice you present--what a smart way to circumnavigate the "invisible employee" problem.
I've worked virtually for a decade now, and while nothing beats the flexibility, there are tradeoffs that people must understand before they take or argue for what seems to be a compelling choice. I've worked with people; I've worked solo--and there's no question that being around colleagues helps your thinking grow, and being exposed daily to managers/mentors will help your career grow. If you are early/young in your career, I think you really need to weigh that balance appropriately. There are subtle, unseen forces that can absolutely hold you back in your career simply because you aren't around.
You need the right temperament, and discipline, of course-but I would love to see a study on salary and promotion comparing employees at the same stage in their careers who work virtually, and who work from an office (if anyone knows of a good study in this area, post it!)
I think in many ways, you have to work harder when you work remotely to be sure that your non-remote colleagues see you as integral and vital to the organization. I have a very fortunate and somewhat rare situation with Edison, and I appreciate that situation very much. But I don't think the choice to work virtually is as clear-cut as proponents of "the new work" would have you believe.
That said, I'd hate to go to an office every day :)
@ginidietrich @webby2001 Yeah, I realized after I wrote that that you didn't have access to the voices in my head.
@ginidietrich @webby2001 And by "you," I meant all the commenters here--to be clear.
@markfidelman I'm not a guesser. Again, this study has chosen 100 clear *outliers* (the brands with the most followers) and drawn more far reaching conclusions that are unsupported by the data.
I'll just say this: I appreciate all of the comments you have about how Nestivity is, or is not, defining engagement. However, I think focusing on that issue misses the real problem with this study. I have NO doubt that, of the 100 brands the Nestivity study looked at, the 25 brands they named engage the most. You can quibble about the definition of engagement, but I bet no matter how you slice the numbers, the 25 brands they named are undoubtedly better than the other 75.
The issue is *the sample.* Could you extrapolate how the average investor behaves in the market from the activities of the 100 richest investors? Nope. What this study looked at were the outliers, plain and simple. The study just did not do *the work* to really make this applicable to the vast majority of brands. So it's probably best, I'm afraid, to consign this particular study to obscurity.
@JayBaer @Howie Goldfarb @margieclayman Yeah, it's the headline. Essentially, they chose outliers to represent the average. But, in my business, that's a fatal flaw. But, as I've often said, data produced for the purposes of content creation is inherently incurious.
Looking forward to meeting you!
How sweet of you to put a post of mine on this list, Margie! You are a good soul. Looking forward to catching up on a bunch here that I missed!
@AnneReuss That's just sweat, from when my creaky laptop breaks down.
@magriebler Miss Manners is in the john right now, can I take a message?
@kateupdates Thank you--our marriage is fun and crazy and smart and interesting. :)
@yvettepistorio Very kind--I hope I do a good job!
@belllindsay @RebeccaTodd I am a very big fan of my wife. She makes me smarter.
@TonyBennett And nice to meet you! Very kind.
@lauraclick So kind, Laura--really enjoyed meeting you at both Soclal Slam events--that's a conference that's on my permanent calendar.
@jasonkonopinski Just posted a new one today! Took October off for the elections :)
@jasonkonopinski @tamadear @belllindsay And yet your love must remain unrequited, my friend. I'm taken.
@belllindsay @jasonkonopinski @TonyBennett @ginidietrich You've got moxie, Lindsay. I like the cut of your jib.
All y'all need to raise your standards.