Burst Media released some findings from a survey this week, indicating that 85.3% of respondents will shop online this holiday season. This is in line with research from Nielsen who recently found that a good chunk of holiday spending would take place online.

Additional findings from Bust Media include:

read more

Sure, Apple Computer needs all the help it can get in the tough tablet-computing market, but was it really such a good idea to bring back a former employee, one who'd been a key developer of the failed Newton PDA, as its VP of product marketing?

My answer is a qualified yes. The way the company reintegrates this prodigal executive will have a lot to do with how good an idea it turns out to be, of course. But by bringing him back at all, Apple gets the following: a talented individual who understands its unquestionably unique culture, who was wildly successful in a different setting (at Nike), and who perhaps brings new perspectives and skills to the table as a result.

It's still fairly rare for companies to rehire former employees, but this practice will likely become more frequent as organizations try to rebound post recession. Organizations will have to be much more creative in finding candidates for strategically important positions — and former employees clearly represent a vast pool. These "outside-insiders" can walk a fine line: balancing a deep understanding of the company's culture with the right amount of perspective and independence to push the changes necessary for organizational growth.

There are always questions to deal with: Why did he leave in the first place? Won't he leave again? And what message are we sending to the rest of the organization if we hire him back? Some firms even have an unwritten policy to never hire former employees; people will then think twice before walking out, the wisdom goes. Obviously, such a policy — publicly stated or not — can backfire: It's never healthy to stay in a company just because you might be stigmatized as a traitor if you leave. Similarly, talent managers should avoid the Machiavellian temptation to bring someone back just to prove a point — sending some sort of message about the inevitable failure that those who leave will face until they return to the organization's "special" setting and culture.

Potential emotional and organizational pitfalls are everywhere in this hiring scenario. So how can you successfully bring back former employees?

(1) Check for fit. No candidate is good or bad in absolute terms; like anyone else, a rehired employee will succeed or fail depending on whether she's right for a particular role. If her skills properly match the challenges at hand, and if her temperament fits the culture, the chances of her succeeding are much, much greater.

However, hiring managers will want to avoid two traps: assuming too much and investing too much. Research shows that "known" candidates — returning executives as well as executives promoted from within — often aren't assessed as rigorously as "unknown" ones. Hiring managers mistakenly assume they have enough institutional knowledge about the person; in reality, that information is from a different time and context, when the organization was facing different challenges. Additionally, in the case of returning colleagues, hiring managers sometimes oversell — investing too much of their efforts to attract a former colleague, the comfortable option rather than the best option for the business challenge at hand.

Before bringing a former colleague back into the fold, hiring managers need to clearly define the position to be filled — the managerial tasks, challenges, and priorities, and the skills required. They need to conduct a disciplined assessment of the former employee — a series of well-structured interviews and proper reference checks. What were the conditions of his departure? An employee who left graciously will be gladly welcomed back; one who left less graciously will have a harder time, and should, in general, be avoided.

Yes, it will be a bit uncomfortable to go through an impersonal and formal due-diligence process with someone with whom you've already worked. Yes, it will look almost impolite to suggest that the company "distrusts" someone who is humble enough to agree to come back. But a thorough, reliable assessment is of paramount importance. The consequences of failure for a returning employee can be extremely frustrating, for all involved: senior executives may incur the wrath of loyal insiders, some of whom had been passed over for promotion and all of whom may end up questioning management's judgment. And no employee enjoys the long, disappointing, emotionally wrought march out of the building — never mind when it's a repeat performance.

(2) Support the integration. Once you are convinced that the former employee is fully qualified for the job, and better than the best potential internal and external alternatives, you should still prepare the ground for a soft landing — as you would for any new hire.

1. Clearly communicate to the rest of the company, and particularly to those who would see themselves as potential candidates for the position, the reasons for the search and ultimately for hiring back the former employee.
2. Properly brief the returning employee about the current company situation (the organization's structure, goals, and critical processes) and deliver to the individual a very explicit mandate (for immediate priorities and objectives, and for long-term aspirations). Particularly when it comes to senior-level positions, it's important that the returning executive be given the time and resources to build (and rebuild) relationships.
3. Follow up, at least quarterly, with the returning employee. Monitor the level of organizational support she's getting, how relationships are (or aren't) developing, and so forth. Without these regularly scheduled check-ins, the returning employee may be reluctant to ask for help.

Returning employees can be a valuable source of breakthrough ideas and performance excellence — but only if you follow a disciplined process for bringing them back into the fold. With the proper due diligence, the proverbial older children in your company will quickly embrace their prodigal siblings, and everyone will live happily ever after. Without it, well, have you ever heard the story of Cain and Abel?

This is not what you need. Yet again, the IT folks and consultants are at odds and you are stuck in the middle.

You are the business leader in charge of redefining the way your company performs its back office functions. You have been with the company for many years and worked in a number of roles — both field and corporate — with some level of acclaim, you might add. You have always worked hard, but are finding that working in field operations is a breeze compared to getting this transformation project launched. The last 365 days have been spent in a series of non-stop meetings, debating, disagreeing, and trying to decide what needs to be done and how to do it.

The IT department as a whole doesn't get much respect, but the VP assigned to you has gained a good deal of credibility during his short tenure by pulling off a project that few believed could be done. He's also a great guy...but becoming less so as the decision date on how to approach the transformation effort draws near.

The consultants are recommending a logical, 3-year approach consisting of a beginning (requirements), middle (development), and end (transition and change management.) The timeline is long, but expected, given the scope of the effort.

Unfortunately, the IT VP says he can't support the "big bang, waterfall" approach to the project and wants to break it up into a series of smaller, iterative steps - where scope is narrowed, concepts are tested and refined, and rolled out when ready. The overall timeline and costs will be the same, but the approach seems much more complicated since integration, testing and training occur throughout the project and, once parts of the new processes go live, the team has to be split to cover support as well as development work.

During "team" meetings, the consultants take digs at IT's track record of delivery. In response, IT asks unanswerable questions (e.g., "How will you ensure that the requirements that are defined in year 1 still make sense in year 3?") and refuses to go along with what is being recommended by the consultants.

You have to decide how to break through this logjam. The consultants were hired because they have the deep expertise that you, your company, and IT don't have. At this point, you are tempted to leave your IT people in the dust. The only thing holding you back from moving forward is a feeling, deep inside, that the IT VP may be right. He is earnest and articulate about the risks associated with "big bang" transformations and has forwarded some interesting information about the risks of IT-enabled projects and how to ensure success.

If you agree with IT, it will cause a big kerfuffle with the consultants and result in another series of endless meetings to decide how to break up the big program into a series of small ones. If you agree with the consultants, your relationship with IT will be severely damaged. You don't think they have the nerve to escalate the issue, but they might. Best guess is that IT will reluctantly agree to go along and you'll spend the next three years waiting for them to say, "We told you so."

What do you think? Why is this leader in this pickle and what you would do in her place?