My part of this post will be a brief, because I want to be sure you use the link I’m going to give you.

Have you ever noticed that when a subject, word or name comes up you suddenly start running into it from all sides.

Last week’s Entrepreneur post look at the challenge of naming a company or product and used CB Insights as a kind of case study.

Today I read an article from Knowledge @ Wharton (it’s worth subscribing) called How (Not) to Name a Company in the Digital Era.

“Name selection is more important now than ever before,” says Alexandra Watkins, founder of brand consulting agency Eat My Words. “Your name has to work harder than it did 20 years ago.”

Driving the charge are shifts in technology and consumer habits. The ubiquitous presence of internet domain names and web addresses, or URLs, social media and the prevalent use of smartphones and tablets with their smaller screens call for new rules on how a company, product or service should select its name, marketing experts say.

I thought it was very good and sent it to several serial entrepreneurs who have been through the naming fire multiple times.

They also thought it was excellent and said to share it.

So I am.

Now click the link.

Image credit:  Wharton

This isn’t the first time we’ve delved into the “attractiveness bias”.

Whether you’re looking for a mate, a job, or funding, you will succeed faster if you are “attractive.”

Note this applies to males; attractive females get hit on.

However, the bias can be overcome.

The previous research was from Harvard, while this is from Wharton.

Harvard’s was text, while Wharton’s is a video.

Doesn’t change the findings.

YouTube credit: Knowledge @ Wharton

You’ve all met them (or maybe you are one of them); the person who tracks the room when talking with you instantly dropping the conversation if there’s nothing in it for them.

That attitude instantly classifies them as takers, where as those who bend over backwards to provide assistance are givers.

And in most people’s minds, the takers win and the givers lose

Simple and obvious, but neither as simple nor obvious as you might think according to new research by Wharton management professor Adam Grant.

Oftentimes givers put themselves at risk in the short run. But in the long run, they end up building the kind of social capital that’s really important for success in a very connected world.

I’m not going to summarize the interview, because it’s worth reading and watching—if for no other reason  than to learn about a third category called ‘matchers’, as well as how to be a smart giver.

I will suggest that you take time to take the test to learn which you really are, giver, taker or matcher, along with how others see you. (It’s free, but requires registration.)

Video credit: Knowledge@Wharton

Today we look at some interesting commentary on the state of the talent force (I positively detest the term ‘human capital’); some new and some seriously old.

Companies frequently hire from the outside based on the idea that new blood is good for the organization, but is it?

According to Wharton management professor Matthew Bidwell, “external hires” get significantly lower performance evaluations for their first two years on the job than do internal workers who are promoted into similar jobs. They also have higher exit rates, and they are paid “substantially more.” About 18% to 20% more.

Have you wondered if the job market will ever turn for more than the young tech-enabled? Maybe not quickly enough, but time does move on and demographics will not be denied.

A Human Capital Zeitgeist, is emerging as companies big and small are getting smacked with the realization that talent management is SO critical to competing in a volatile marketplace, they might actually have to throw a bit more respect at the “human” in the human capital equation.

This demographic time bomb isn’t new; it was recognized more than a decade ago, but managers’ ability to recognize, attract and retain talent has escalated dramatically, with the economic crash more like an attack of hiccups, than an actual change.

McKinsey declared the start of “the war for talent” in 1997. It has turned out to be a more or less permanent conflict. Revisiting their earlier work in 2001, the management consultants stated: “The war for talent will persist for at least the next two decades. The forces that are causing it are deep and powerful. The war for talent is a business reality.”

Do you believe that happy employees perform better? Not everyone agrees, although I freely admit I’m on the pro side of that argument.

Productivity measures across national economies have captivated the attention of policy makers and executives alike. Ultimately, though, the source of productivity is the individual knowledge workers who get things done every day. And the evidence is clear: People perform better when they’re happier. OR Happy employees tend to enjoy the status quo so much that they might resist changes to it. This is hardly a recipe for success in today’s world, where agility and embracing change are essentials for success.

Of course, no discussion of productivity can take place without including Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne Effect. Impressive experiments, since they are as relevant today as they were nearly a century ago.

What he found however was that work satisfaction depended to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the work group. … He concluded that people’s work performance is dependent on both social issues and job content.

Finally, no commentary on people and the workplace would be complete without something on the Millennials; the demographic the media and pundits keep insisting are completely different from preceding generations—but are they really?

“For the past 12 years, I have studied the so-called generation gap through empirical research, and have found that stereotypes of millennials in the workplace are inconsistent at best and destructive at worst.” ­­–Jennifer J. Deal, senior research scientist, Center for Creative Leadership

Flickr image credit: pedroelcarvalho

Here it is, Saturday again, and two very different views of culture are on the menu.

Let’s look first at a topic that’s the subject of a media frenzy: Steve Jobs and Apple.

Looking at the media, old and new, a large number seem to be leaning towards some level of mass hysteria along the lines of there is no Apple without Steve Jobs.

Now, I grant that Jobs is unique, especially his gift of seeing of seeing around corners and over the horizon, but at the same time his people have been steeped deep in a culture that believes doing that is possible and that belief is at least half the battle.

For a thoughtful analysis take a look at this Knowledge @ Wharton analysis with some fascinating insights from Wharton management professor Michael Useem, among others, on the part that culture does/will play at Apple.

And speaking of radical innovation, the kind in which Apple specializes, I again refer you to Radical Innovation Across Nations: The Pre-eminence of Corporate Culture by Gerard J. Tellis, Jaideep C. Prabhu, and Rajesh K. Chandy. Here’s a good review from Sloan MIT and, as is often the case, the most interesting part are the comments.

I hope you’ll take time to think about your own company’s culture after reading these.

Innovation, not cost cutting and layoffs, is your true lifeblood.

For a little extra on culture and innovation, check out the video interview with Judy Estrin at Leadership Turn.

Image credit: flickr