This is my first foray into the mist of CIPD online discussions and I have to admit to being a bit disappointed with the quality of some discussion for debate.
Not to say that the items listed are not relevant but I think it would be better to have an 'advice section' for those individuals who have simple questions about practice to be answered?
Then the space for discussions can be recogised and valued more as one where real debate will occur.
Hi Amanda
I am interested that you have twice mentioned 'discussions'. Must admit I've invariably seen the Communities as mostly information and opinion-seeking, rather than what I consider to be discussions as such.
Sometimes it is obvious that a debate is sought, and these can take the form of questions from the CIPD, such as the recent Next Generation HR thread here:-http://www.cipd.co.uk/community/subjects/subject/discussion.aspx?PostID=128062 or ones such as this.
And, as others have said above, a debate can ensue on quite arcane and subtle aspects. A personal favourite from a while back was this one:- http://www.cipd.co.uk/community/subjects/subject/discussion.aspx?PostID=117351
So if you are looking for high intellect and leading-edge debate, there may be better places. If so, please pop back and tell us about them.
But if you want to find out how to tackle a tricky - or apparently easy - workplace or study issue, then this is a pretty good place I'd say. In that regard it is also similar to some other 'special interest' forums that I know and contribute to, in my case on motoring topics. There are plenty of questions here that are the equivalent of: "Help - engine warning light on!" or "Terrible screeching noise from brakes", as well as more considered and reflective posts.
I am sure that you will soon find out how to sort the wheat from your own ideas of the chaff if you stick around for a while. And if you don't, then it looks as though you already have some alternatives lined up! Happy surfing...
Nick
Hmmm... Mark's 2nd contribution... not sure how to read that! But Anna is right. I sometimes contribute with a general 1 line answer, usually because I'm too busy. The problem is that 1 liners, if not justified, can just cause confusion.
Nick raises an excellent point and it would be useful to us all if you could report back on the sites you consider to stimulate debate, Amanda. Of course, it would be great if you could contribute to more discussions on this forum too. After all, it's the thoughts and comments of those who contribute that enrich the knowledge of this community.
Excellent posting, Amanda.
Mark... exactly... - apathy and the inability or "cannot be bothered" attitude is expressed in a non post!
On the CIPDmembers group in LinkedIn we are planning a monthly debate - statement - proposer - oposer and open debate format... - will let you know how it goes
Once again it appears we prove the maxim that statistics can be interpreted to say almost anything one wants them too! (....And perhaps also further defer to Amanda's suggestion that our debates, once initiated, tend to stray from the original topic, as I am about to)!
Does an "involvement" level of only c10% and an active response level of c0.01%of that 10% suggest apathy? Or does it suggest active disinterest? Or is it passive agreement?
....Because all three positions can be (and have been) argued on similar statistics in other contexts.
Personally I take the "Schroedinger's Cat" approach: If the cat's in the box you don't know if it's alive or dead, and if you open the box then your opening it may itself have created the result you observe, then is the cat alive or dead? (If you don't know about Schroedinger's Cat look it up on Wikipedia... there isn't space here!), but bear with me....
There can be a dozen (or many more) reasons why a member does not even read "Communities", these having nothing whatever to do with their qualities as an HR Professional, or indeed their opinions on the subjects under discussion.
Equally there can be many reasons why those who do read some of the contributions do not read them all (specific areas of interest and time being just two blatantly obvious ones) and yet more why someone reading a specific debate/comment/monologue... call them what you will... do not themselves comment; although I have to suggest that apathy or disagreement are less likely than agreement (since if we read something thoroughly we are not likely to be apathetic to it's subject and if we disagree with something we are more likely to challenge it if empowered to do so than remain silent).
So the great "silent majority" are just that: We have no idea why they are silent, nor are we thus justified in making assumptions about what their thoughts are unless (like Amanda) they have been prepared to comment and say (loosely): "I'd be more likely to contribute to this if the debates were better."
That is an opinion. We may disagree; we may recognise it's validity but (as I did) challenge that validity in context; equally we may long to see the end of frivolous comments, comparisons of the virtues of various guitars, memoirs of snowy days in Yorkshire, curt "one liners" or even ............................ (for our own imaginations to fill in!)
But look at the House of Commons TV sometimes: three or four members picking their fingernails (or noses if they think they're not being watched) while one other chunters on about the importance of amending paragraph 16(a)(1)(iv) of the "Washing Lines; Tensioning and Flexibility Regulations (1996)"; or some other high-profile issue. Do they all stop at the end and say "There are only five of us here, guys, so that bit of law we just passed is less valid than any other"? Or do they whip out calculators and work out what percentage of the population they collectively represent and fractionalise the significance of the legislation on that basis?
No: because the debate was worth having, and is equally valid, however many were present of contributed to it.
It is only when they are trying to convince the public that 95% of 6% of 13% of 3% of the population (and his/her dog) agree with and are excited by their/the other lot's election promises that they start "spinning" numbers from being "unknown, unknowable and irrelevant" to being "agreement"; "disagreement"; or "apathy".
For me: If there's one person out there who wants to exchange ideas, explore possibilities or seek support then I'm around to participate in that discussion and I don't care how many % of x% of 0 we are.
....Even if the debate is about the validity of counting beans. :-)
Surely "Communities" is here for those who want it, and if they want it to change then they are free to say so and expect it to change?
We who are already here are certainly free to challenge that, but not on any "territorial" basis or from "right of ownership".
....and if it changes in ways we do not appreciate, then maybe we will become the "silent majority" not expressing our opinions but with an equal right not to have them presumed by those who chose to express theirs.
Peter
Some interesting comments, Peter, and I have two observations:
Firstly, perhaps it's time for an online poll (we seem to get these with the e-newsletters?) which asks "Do you participate in the online communities?" and where the answer is other than yes there are various options: Can't be bothered, topics of no interest etc.
Secondly, much of my life has been spent working for big accounting firms. When they conduct audits they merely sample a small percentage of activities and then extrapolate (at a given "confidence level") that 100% of transactions are sound. Given that statistical theory assumes a default bell shaped distribution unless otherwise proven, we would not be wrong in assuming the vociferous ones among us represent a fair cross section of the whole!
Anna
Hi Anna
I think the first is a very good idea and I know of the technique referred to in your second both from my late father (an Accountant, but otherwise a nice enough guy) and my time at YouGov.
I'm not sure it would be quite fair to make the assumptions of nominal distribution for "Communities" on membership as a whole as "awareness" could itself create an anomaly (i.e. some members may know of it/its function others do not) but it possibly would to "readers" and that readership statistic could be extrapolated with more information.
What were also very interesting (and "real" data!) were the stat's relating to "Communities" which we heard at last year's conference suggesting that both readership and contribution are far higher than "norms" for similar sites.
Peter
PS, Amanda: Does getting a principle of Quantum Physics, Mathmatical Distribution theory and Schroedinger into the act raise the quality of debate?
....or am I being frivilous again? :-) :-)
Ruth,
If you're tying to make a point that people who don't express an opinion are successfully making another altogether more confusing point/attitude - then I think all logical argument goes out the window.
But you didn't make that point, you simply made a jibe - touche.
Thanks for picking it up Anna and Peter.
8/10 cat owners prefer whiskas - the other two could have died for all we know - how is their 'no response' in any way meaningful?
Only the activists and extremists contribute - only they are passionate enough to change things.
If we save one HR life, then it's worth doing :)
It's not just about numbers. Much about community is subtle and often difficult to express in written form. However, many people do get huge value from this forum, and share this with us...
“Thanks everyone for the brilliant suggestions, and to the couple of people who have sent private messages. I’m in a good position to proceed now” - Jennifer Rowlands, 23 Feb ’10
“Thank you all again for your very useful advice and comments; I always find this a useful forum for the brain picking of sometimes unusual circumstances!” - Ann Swan, 17 Feb ’10
“Thanks for all your contributions; they've been really useful and certainly given me what I need to go back and challenge the current way of doing things... as it's really not working” - Paula Brown, 9 Feb ’10
“I love these forums! I’m currently studying an MBA in HR and for me I learn something new every day. It’s one of the websites I make a point of visiting every day!” - Helen Vass, 1 Feb ’10
“I am returning to work after a long child-centred career break and have used some of my spare time in the last few months to read and inwardly digest these discussions. Reading your words of wisdom has not only given me the confidence that yes, my instincts are still intact, but that I am now much more up to speed on current issues. I want to say how much I appreciate the time and effort that is put into answering these questions. I feel I have got to know some of you quite well! Thank you to the CIPD too for providing the wherewithal.” - Rebecca Laird, 30 Jan ’10
“Thank you again to everyone for your contributions; I’m amazed at the level of response that my little post sparked off. It was the first one I have ever posted and I wasn’t sure what sort of response there would be.” - Judy Howarth, 28 Jan ’10
“This is the first time I have read a Communities page, and have found it quite illuminating! It is heartening to know that people who have to make/enforce such decisions do give them serious thought, even if the issue seems clear-cut at the outset.” - Rachel Clark, 27 Jan ’10
“Many thanks to all contributors. It is so refreshing to get different perspectives on individual issues.” - Christopher Blyth, 30 Nov ‘09
“That is just brilliant advice. This is why I love the Communities - you always get great views based on all levels of experience in the workplace.” - Rachael Titley, 16 Oct ‘09
“I am very impressed and pleased with the level of support shown by CIPD members. Any career shift can be daunting, especially at this time, but such assistance is extremely helpful." - Ben Saunders, 3 Sept ’09
“Thank you both for your feedback... It has been really useful particularly as I’m the only HR person within the organisation and have no one to bounce my thoughts off.” - Helen Matthews, 27 Aug ’09
That does it for me.
And those are just the public ones from the last six months, or so.
Steve
Not so Mark: You just climbed out of the trap and then fell back in there! 8/10 cat owners (say) their cats prefer Whiskas (how do they know, did they ask them or ask them to fill out a questionnaire?) and you correctly therefore note that we have no data on the other two... but not having that data means we cannot judge whether the cats (allegedly) didn't like; didn't taste ....or died.
By the same criteria we cannot know whether either all the activists and extremists are contributing, nor whether all those who do contribute are activists/extremists; or indeed, if they are, whether they want change: One can be actively and extremely opposed to change: Look at the RC Church on homosexuality, women priests or contraception for instance!.
Does the lack of comment from the RC faithful mean there are no homosexuals, women or families overburdened with children within the Church who would like there to be change? Of course there it doesn't! It means that they simply do not feel empowered to comment given the church's implacable opposition!
The argument that all comment is dissent and/or that all comment (and/or dissent) comes from activists or extremists has historically also had some terrifying implications, for this is the argument which justifies and underpins oppression, be it the religious oppression of the inquisition; or the political repression of the Stalinist Soviet Union.
I am sure this is a road none of us would wish to tread and thus "only activists comment" (etc.) an assumption none of us would make about our colleagues!
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a key truth of any statistic and of any debate. "No comment" does not mean "No" any more than it means "Yes",
...And thus colleagues' disinclination to accept "....................." as being a valid attitude or opinion rather than "I am unbiased" or some other possible interpretation is, surely, not a jibe but respect of your right to be assumed to give no information from what you have given; which is: No comment.
"No comment" as a position or opinion cannot be built upon (except by the press) and thus is indeed literally "not constructive" {:-)
Peter
