243,09 zł Dodaj do koszyka
104,88 zł Dodaj do koszyka
64,23 zł Dodaj do koszyka
145,53 zł Dodaj do koszyka
243,09 zł Dodaj do koszyka
259,35 zł Dodaj do koszyka
Od | Tytuł | Komentarz |
---|---|---|
2012-10-23 Lizer. | GRPZgGJzlfFlYeXhmhk | Q1 – 10: When I managed pleope this was a requirement – and many times it would be with pleope outside our organization but who were either ‘customers’ or ‘suppliers’ to our organization or who were related or who had tremendous experience in areas the employee needed. I was mentored throughout my career at Bell Labs & AT&T so I had great role models. Since I’m no longer in a corporation I do this on my own with clients, entrepreneurs and students – I think it’s actually more rewarding for me than for them ☺ Q2 – 3: If by hero-leader you mean someone like a knight on a white horse riding in to save the day, then rarely – only in dire circumstances where there aren’t other options. I prefer Enabler-Leaders – leaders who help their pleope overcome the obstacles (or get rid of them if possible) and give their pleope the resources to do their job excellently; Q3 – 5: It depends – I think in today’s world, unless you’re talking about some specific manufacturing production application (e.g., working the machines on a line), many goals need to be oblique, not explicit (to quote Julien Birkinshaw in Reinventing Management) but there are cases where explicit goals make sense. It’s not an either/or, it’s an AND – in the increasingly turbulent and volatile world, I think a combination is best – Julien really puts it well in his book Q4 – 4: Not really – I think following best practices is a trap on several fronts. First of all, too many companies take others’ best practices and adopt them instead of adapting them to their own culture and situation. This is dangerous because the reason it was a best practice in company A is because it was developed for that company at that point in time, perhaps even in that geography, for that culture – too many variables that may or may apply. Secondly, adapting best practices (vs. adopting), can be a lazy way (path of least resistance?) to ‘solving’ a problem or process that is really a bandaid vs. a solution. It’s like just taking a pill that has worked for others to work for you vs. really understanding the root causes and addressing them, holistically. It’s like popping a bunch of Ibuprofen so you can play tennis instead of identifying and (hopefully) fixing an injured ACL. Q5 – 1: No – whatever I would do to improve my bottom line would have to be totally, completely, entirely aligned with 1) my core values as a person and company of integrity & virtue; 2) my vision & mission as it pertains to the customer needs I try to address and the impact I want to have on my customers, at many levels; and 3) the long-term, not short-term, sustainability of the business. If it can’t align with that, it won’t happen. Q6 – 1: No – More control would turn boring meetings into unbearable meetings! Less control would make more productive meetings – there does need to be some ‘control’ – e.g., where, when, etc., and an agenda as a guideline with the things that really have to be addressed addressed (because of timelines, dependencies etc.) but I would call this structure, not control. When a meeting has a controlling setting, you’ll get much less transparency, clear and innovative thinking and just more yes-men. Q7 – 8: but I mean this personally because I had wonderful trustworthy, wise, mature pleope to share with and I quickly learned to be very selective in whom I trusted and only to vent to someone who could guide me as well. I wouldn’t recommend doing this lightly – so for others, it may well need to be a #1 or #2 – it all depends on the culture of the workplace and the person to whom you entrust yourself! Q8 – 5: Some do, but temporarily, not in the long-term. Long-term organizations move ahead by anticipating customer needs, even those that cannot be articulated (e.g., iPad, car) and meeting/exceeding them – most competitive gains are very temporary and short-term – now one could say yes to this by changing the intent with the outcome. If the intent is to beat the competition, then it is temporary and fleeting; if beating the competition is a result – like Apple, Southwest, Morton’s Steak House, than it is sustainable because it is a result of vs. the reason for, thereby implying an underlying cultural predisposition to customers vs. self (e.g., me vs. the competition) Q9 – 8: Yes, but not in the usual fashion. For instance, I used performance reviews to show trends and patterns – e.g., if I started to see several of the same issues in a group of pleope in the same organization or with the same leadership, then perhaps it wasn’t a ‘person’ issue but a leadership/management issue. So, on the 1 hand, I used it as a way to see what areas the person needed/wanted development and growth because of their passion for that area, where a person was mis-matched to their job (e.g., the key measures were things they hated to do or just didn’t view the world that way). On the other hand, I used it as a way to assess the health of the organization’s culture – similarities, differences in aggregate reviews by function, management, project, etc. Q10 –5: Yes & No depending on the skills required – there are some skills that need very clear instructions and guidelines, such as manufacturing, healthcare etc. And if you are talking about basic skills – like the ability to read, write, add, subtract, etc., then yes, we need those basic skills. However, I think many skills are soft skills – which are harder to assess, measure and develop…which means pleope have to be more comfortable with ‘margins of error’ in measuring skills. The hard skills are much easier to train & assess; softer ones are more challenging which is why I think they’ve been neglected over the years. |
Tylko zarejestrowani użytkownicy mogą dodawać komentarze. Proszę sie zalogować.