Global Compact gathers Corporate Citizens
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Thursday 31 May 2007 |
 The United Nations Global Compact has launched a new initiative called the “COP Review Project” seeking to create one of the largest fully catalogued repositories of reports in the corporate citizenship field. The Global Compact requires participating companies to produce, annually, a Communication on Progress (COP) in order to promote transparency and accountability, share corporate practices, and protect the integrity of the initiative. With now more than 2,000 COPs from around 100 countries, the Global Compact has created one of the largest repositories of corporate citizenship reports, and further strong growth is expected. [source]
Following on that, we have: the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) initiative, convened by the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative and the UN Global Compact, announces this week on its first anniversary that it has achieved over 180 leading institutional signatories from all round the globe, representing in excess of US$ 8 trillion in assets under management. [source]
And, in advance of the Global Compact Leaders Summit (5-6 July in Geneva), the Global Compact launches a Global Business Leadership Platform on Climate Change and invites all business participants to join by becoming signatories of the attached statement, “Caring for Climate: The Business Leadership Platform”.Labels: Strategy, Sustainability, Vision |
posted by Dr Ron @ 22:26
 |
|
|
|
Catch Me At My Best!
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Wednesday 30 May 2007 |
It has long been known that what you pay attention to is what develops. You want the worst out of people? Catch them when they're "doing something wrong". You want the best? Yes, it's true, catch them at their best! Don't believe it? That's easy, try it for yourself. But you can't be a pioneer, the ground has already been taken by Appreciative Inquiry (AI). 
Following the AI approach, Leaderskill Group has developed an Internet feedback process that is specifically aimed at getting people the appreciation that can help them build an image of themselves at their best. When the feedback is debriefed with the recipient, it turns out to have a very powerful effect, builds morale and hence a lot of other good qualities such as confidence, self-awareness and capability.
If your organisation would like to try the AtMyBest Feedback without cost, email Leaderskill Group.
[more]Labels: Appreciative Inquiry, Culture, Leadership, Learning, Morale |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 21:47
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Leadership
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Tuesday 29 May 2007 |
The old chestnut about whether leaders are born or made is taken up in this article from Ezine:
"Where once we looked to military and political leaders for inspiration and insight, now it is increasingly business leaders who hold our attention and provide role models."Ask someone to name a leader whom they have admired and they are just as likely to name Richard Branson as Tony Blair, Anita Roddick as Margaret Thatcher. This focus is reflected in the growing number of books and articles about business and the main players. "...Machiavelli advocated a combination of cunning and intimidation as a way to more effective leadership. His philosophy, if not his practices, became unfashionable some time ago. "...Much recent work in this area has concentrated on trying to understand why some leaders are more effective than others by looking at their environment and the context in which their acts have been carried out. Situational theory views leadership as specific to the situation, for example, rather than to the personality of the leader. It is based on the idea that different situations require a different style of leader. "...The basis of Situational Leadership is to provide a means of effective leadership by adopting different leadership styles in different situations with different people. Situational Leadership is a model, not a theory. The difference is that a theory attempts to explain why things happen, whereas a model is a pattern of existing events which can be learnt and therefore repeated."Requirements of a Leader: "An effective leader needs to be: - A good diagnostician, who can sense and appreciate differences in people and situations.
- Adaptable, in the ability to adapt the leadership style to circumstances.
"A leader must realise there is no one best way to influence people. Situational Leadership focuses on the behaviours of 'telling' (how much you give orders) and 'supporting' how much you listen and help others.
Jonathan Farrington concludes his article by saying:
"To those who would suggest that great leaders are born not made, I would say this: We can examine all of the great leaders in history and identify some common characteristics but we cannot say they were “Born Leaders”. They all developed into their leadership roles over a period of time, learning the skills along the way. I do believe that leaders can be developed – I have to believe that because currently we have far too few of them in the world"
Source: Ezine articlesLabels: Collaboration, Leadership, SL/2 |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 21:26
|
|
|
|
What's an ENP?
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Monday 28 May 2007 |
You might well ask! ENPs are the invention of Vanessa Hall, based on her research with major Australian organisations, and she uses them to measure the state of trust in an organisation and its various departments. E is for Expectations - in her newsletter, Vanessa writes:
"For example, when I turn up for my first day in a new job, I have a set of expectations about what that job is going to be like, what the company is going to be like to work for, what the team dynamics might be, and so on. "These expectations come from a range of different places, including what was outlined in the job ad, what I was told in the interview, what the company website said and my own previous experiences. "We also all have a set of needs, which actually drive us into the relationship or interaction in the first place. "In the example above, I would have a need for basic things like a salary, but also for things like recognition and reward, a sense of belonging, a sense of security - we use Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs when we talk about the type of needs we all have. "The third component of a trusted relationship is the promises that are made to us by the other party. These could be implicit, such as promises embedded in a brand, and explicit promises, such as those written into contracts. "In our example above, the company has made promises to me about remuneration, the actual position and what support I will get, the other benefits available to me, and the company has made promises via its website about its values, what it stands for, what its customers say about it, and so on. "Our decision to trust people, companies, products and services is based on these three core things: - Expectations
- Needs
- Promises
"We call them ENPs™. "The interaction of these three things is critical to our ability to trust." Does that ring a bell for you? Vanessa goes on to point that: "In a study by Watson Wyatt in 2002, it was found that companies with HIGH TRUST levels generated total returns to shareholders at almost THREE TIMES that of companies with LOW LEVELS of trust." 
But this is just the beginning and Vanessa goes on to provide more of the research and a Trust Survey case study, also a link to a breakfast workshop in Sydney Australia on 26 June.
Source: the Entente Consulting newsletter
Labels: Communication, Morale, Trust |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 12:17
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 16
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Sunday 27 May 2007 |
This the last of our Pitfalls and again it's a general one. Our classic belief is that if someone 'does something wrong' then you get after them with a 'stick' (usually some form of blame or punishment). It's rather ineffective, tends to damage the relationship and is unlikely to get you the response you want.
On being told this, the person who typically manages from the aggressive/authoritarian side usually gets angry and says "So what do you want me to do - nothing?" Strange how short we are on options! Passivity is not an option we suggest. Nor is carrot the only alternative to stick. Some organisations have given away all their carrots (such as pay rises...) and still ended up with the problem!
The way to get change is through dialogue leading to involvement and creative thinking. So, in simple terms, if you think of aggressive-passive as being on a continuum, then assertive, dialogue, involvement, partnership and appreciation are not in the middle. This is, in fact, a triangle and assertive lies at the third corner. That's the place you want to be. Note that aggressive and passive are still options - when all else fails. Pitfall No. 16 (I think it's the last one!):
Following up with stick and carrot - not the way to get the outcome you really want.
[more]
Labels: 360 feedback, Appreciative Inquiry, Leadership, team facilitation |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 17:33
|
|
|
|
Green Murdoch
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Saturday 26 May 2007 |
In case you missed this one, Murdoch is turning his empire green. Not so long ago he had no time for global warming, now he's warm to the idea. It's great news because he's one of those people who has a lot of control over what we know and how we think. Personally, I'm glad, all is forgiven.
The article is a good read:
[more]Labels: Communication, Leadership, Sustainability, Vision |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 13:15
|
|
|
|
Feedback from your own crowd
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Friday 25 May 2007 |
People regularly put down committees. The problem is not the committee but the way it runs. If you know how to run a team (or any meeting) so as to keep it high energy, everyone involved, getting heard, enthusiastic, contributing ideas and productive, then read no further - except to be sure and check that the group shares your opinion! And you'd better do that with anonymous feedback, they may not tell you to your face. If you really can operate this way then you have a high performing team and you will overcome the problems raised in the previous posting - in other words:
- you can work far beyond the 'routine', taking up any kind of issue
- you will have people freely contributing their time and energy to the shared goals
- you will still have a final say in decisions - if you're the manager.
In addition, you will come up with very creative ideas.
So 'crowd work' can overcome its limitations - at least for small groups. Leaderskill's facilitation techniques prove this daily. But also for very large groups. Look at the work done by Appreciative Inquiry (AI) where thousands have worked together to transform their organisations - ranging from the BBC to the US Navy, not to mention the ANZ Bank in Australia.
No, we don't yet accept any limitations to Open Source. The sky's the limit - if you know how to do it.Labels: 360 feedback, Appreciative Inquiry, Collaboration, team facilitation |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 22:48
|
|
|
|
Feedback from a crowd
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Thursday 24 May 2007 |
This is an age of 'open source' to the point where it appears as the magic that can make things happen through democracy. First: let's consider how a fine ideal is not necessarily in practice where it seems to be. Second: where it is.
An excellent article by Nicholas G. Carr points out the difference between a program built like a cathedral by experts, and a program built by a bazaar. He refers to complex computer software, like Linux but the idea is readily extendible to any form of production or enterprise - such as Wikipedia. But now the limitations:
1. "peer production works best with routine or narrowly defined tasks that can be pursued simultaneously by a big crowd of people. It is not well suited to a job that requires a lot of coordination among the participants".
2. "because it requires so many 'eyeballs', [people doing the work] open source works best when the labor is donated or partially subsidized".
3. "the open source model — when it works effectively — is not as egalitarian or democratic as it is often made out to be. Linux has been successful not just because so many people have been involved, but because the crowd’s work has been filtered through a central authority [Linus Torvalds, the founder of Linux] who holds supreme power as a synthesizer and decision maker."
He continues:
"But if peer production is a good way to mine the raw material for innovation, it doesn’t seem well suited to shaping that material into a final product. That’s a task that is still best done in the closed quarters of a cathedral, where a relatively small and formally organized group of talented professionals can collaborate closely in perfecting the fit and finish of a product."
"... The open source model is also unlikely to produce the original ideas that inspire and guide the greatest innovation efforts. That remains the realm of the individual."
The article concludes by stating that you can't be creative by committee.
Source: Nicholas G Carr critiquing The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond.
For the other side of this, read our next comment!Labels: Collaboration, Leadership, Learning, Strategy |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 17:47
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 15
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Wednesday 23 May 2007 |
This is not just a 360 feedback problem, it's almost a part of human nature. We tend to focus on problems and think "if it's going well, I don't have to pay any attention". In other words, we act too much from De Bono's Black Hat (critical) position, forgetting the other five hats. What would benefit us all is more Yellow Hat (positive) thinking.
Unfortunately, when you focus on problems, you get more of them. We all know that when you brainstorm the problems your mole hills grow into mountains and they simply never get cleared. At best we prioritise them and deal with the worst ones.
There is another way, it is to start with what's going well, where the buzz is, what really works... This is the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) approach. In doing that, we boost morale, problems begin to solve themselves (it's true!), people feel appreciated, recognised, 'empowered' and ready to be involved. This is the approach taken by Martin Seligman with Positive Psychology. Pitfall No. 15:
Not appreciating the effort people, make but focusing instead on the problems - may fix some problems but won't bring out all of the potential.
[more]
Labels: 360 feedback, Appreciative Inquiry, Culture, Morale |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 08:39
|
|
|
|
The little bits that add up
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Tuesday 22 May 2007 |
Extraordinary how wasting tiny amounts of energy adds up when we all do it! Nokia is doing its bit by merely putting a message on a mobile to tell you when you have fully recharged the battery! Not much? They estimate it will save enough energy to power 85,000 homes annually! Incredible? Well, in 2005 the number of mobile phone subscriptions was running over 2 billion - and we haven't lost any since then!
Source: The Australian IT
Nokia does take Corporate Responsibility serously - check out their CR page.Labels: Sustainability, Vision |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 16:32
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 14
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Monday 21 May 2007 |
360 feedback profiles really ought to be useable! Just having a statistic of some sort is not enough. Even if it's accurate - can you make use of it? The test that a profile has to pass is What do I do now? If you can't work that out easily and clearly, then the profile has failed - not the user. As the user, you have to be clear about what the behaviour is (say, "meeting with clients regularly"), how most people think about how you do it, whether they mostly agree, or if there is a split response - most importantly, an indication of what they want you to do. i.e. stats that you can easily put to use. Pitfall No. 14:
Producing a profile that can't easily be put to practical use - can nullify the value of the survey.
[more]
Labels: 360 feedback, Communication |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 16:10
|
|
|
|
Global warming causes global warming?
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Sunday 20 May 2007 |
 As the oceans warm, they cease to absorb so much CO2 - they reach a limit. That means CO2 has to stay in the atmosphere. In other words, we have been protected by the oceans absorbing a lot of the CO2 we throw at them. The Southern Ocean (around Antarctica) has now been found to be effectively saturated. With that storage coming to an end, atmospheric CO2 is going up faster, and so will global warming. That's known as positive feedback.
Quoting an article in Science, the The Independent, UK writes:
"This is the first unequivocal detection of a carbon sink weakening because of recent climate change," said the lead author of the study, Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia. "This is serious. Whenever the world has greatly warmed in the past, the weakening of CO2 sinks has contributed to it." Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, said: "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons [millions of tonnes] of carbon emitted by humans. The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean is weakening is a cause for concern." 
[Photo BBC News]Labels: Sustainability |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 17:15
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 13
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Saturday 19 May 2007 |
Again, this is a funny one. Wrapping feedback from different levels (staff, peers, the manager's manager...) defies understanding. The perspective is different from each level! That's why you do 360 feedback! Why would you mix it up? To save a few questionnaires or an extra graph? Enough said. Pitfall No. 13 (and it really is done sometimes!):
Not separating levels of feedback - defeats the whole purpose of getting feedback from a different level(s)!
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Peer Feedback |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 22:04
|
|
|
|
Do you care where your money goes?
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Friday 18 May 2007 |
Socially responsible investing (SRI) is about ensuring your money doesn't prop up dictatorships or flog tobacco or do anything else you disapprove of (I do hope!). It's a growing movement:
"Social investment managers often use social and environmental analysis in conjunction with traditional quantitative securities analysis to make their investment decisions." So says Investopedia. Times they are a-changin'.
What's missing in their method of screening investments is a way of having companies prove what they do by aligning all their activities to social and environmental good - in other words, a Mega Plan.Labels: Sustainability, Vision |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 08:18
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 12
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Thursday 17 May 2007 |
There is a qualitative difference between judging someone and giving feedback. Compare: "You're a poor listener" with "You don't listen enough". They're not the same. Sometimes good listeners don't listen enough - they may not have time. Given the choice, which question would you prefer people to answer: "Tell me how good I am at X on a scale of 1 to 5" or "Tell me how much more or less X you want me to do"? While the former is a judgement about you, the latter is more truly feedback that you can use for change. Judgements can be confronting, hence the upset often found in badly managed 360 degree feedback. True feedback is much less threatening. Pitfall No. 12:
Judging the manager (or using a scale that judges) instead of responding to the issue - can sometimes miss the real point, confuse the issue or threaten the manager.
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Questionnaire |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 23:10
|
|
|
|
Emotional Intelligence at work
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Wednesday 16 May 2007 |
The word is that "employees should make use of emotional intelligence, or EQ, during 'moments of truth' — those few interactions when the customer feels strongly about the outcome. At banks, for example, they involve activities such as receiving financial advice and negotiating mortgages as opposed to more mundane matters, like buying traveler’s checks".
Well, I'm glad to hear it (from The McKinsey Quarterly Chart Focus Newsletter), and to hear that it works out in the eternal measurable - the dollar. Personally I like chatting with the teller, too!Labels: Communication, Emotional Intelligence |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 22:54
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 11
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Tuesday 15 May 2007 |
Here's one: "Uses specialist skills to analyse, apply and organise group engagement frameworks for fully identifying and synthesising client requirements and internal response". Rate me on this 1 to 5, please. Could this question be a little unfair? Assume you know what the 'specialist skills' and 'engagement frameworks' are. Are not analysis, application and organisation different activities, likewise identifying and synthesising? And if you can say that I do all this for clients, you also have to know about the 'internal response' before you can answer. Is this example exaggerated? Not really, I've seen worse - some that didn't make sense at all!
Faced with a few of these, it's hardly surprising that respondents leave blanks or just give 'down the middle' responses. And of course, what sense can the manager make of this kind of feedback: "They rated me '2' - What do I do now?"
How about this: rate me on "Thinks about how he can improve". How do you know what I think about? Not exactly an observable behaviour. Would you prefer "Finds ways in which s/he can improve financial skills"? More useful information?
The "What do I do now" is the most critical result of a 360 profile. If it doesn't tell me something about that, what is the point? Pitfall No. 11:
Using complex questions, complicated competencies, ambiguous questions - respondents find it hard to answer or get irritated, recipients don't know what to do as a result.
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Communication, Questionnaire |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 15:34
|
|
|
|
Desal the answer?
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Monday 14 May 2007 |
With Australia continuing in drought, Sydney's big environmental news issue is a desalination plant, hugely costly in energy and adding to the environmental damage of Botany Bay. This is driven by politicians who seize on any popular misconception to grab votes.
According to The Leader (local newspaper) more than 30 community groups from southern and south-western Sydney have written to every state MP, appealing for further work on the desalination plant at Kurnell to be deferred.
By the way, desal is a winner in Saudi Arabia (where they actually need it) - powered by oil.Labels: Health, Sustainability, Vision |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 23:10
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 10
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Sunday 13 May 2007 |
One of the key values of 360 feedback is its ability to put issues that are of real concern to the team or peers on the table - "That which cannot be said and must be said." The 'cannot be said' is so powerful in many organisations that unless there is a real sense of invitation, it will not be said. Hence the questionnaire should encourage a broad range of issues to be considered.
When the range is not broad enough, the survey may well be considered by those who report to the manager to be excluding the very issues that are important. Pitfall No. 10:
Using a questionnaire framework too narrow to get all the issues on the table - you are limiting the possibilities for response, you may be discouraging feedback on the most important issues.
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Communication, Culture, Questionnaire |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 22:16
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 9
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Friday 11 May 2007 |
Does this one really need explanation? After everthing we have said, it follows that there must be support for the manager who receives the feedback. S/he may be sitting there stewing, or may be setting out on a wrong track that won't help.
And the team? They should also get some follow-up. After all, they gave the feedback, they want to know what happened as a result - anything? Were they understood well? They deserve some response. Pitfall No. 9:
Not following up with support for the manager – and the team - risks for some managers, and the possibility of disillusion for the team.
[more]
Labels: 360 feedback, Morale, Teams, Trust |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 18:58
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 8
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Wednesday 9 May 2007 |
Amazing as it may sound to those who haven't seen it, some organisations send back the 360 profiles to the managers about the same way they might deliver a pay slip or a memo (remember them?) i.e. just drop it on their desks. There it is, read it, make sense of it and get on with the job (better).
Consider the level of fantasy reached by the recipients as they try to imagine why they were rated higher on this and lower on that! Couple this with trying to figure out what their staff wanted them to do as a result, and then add in the hurt some managers feel when 'criticised' in this way - and sometimes that's beyond a joke, managers can leave after that kind of treatment. And then some rather thick skinned managers who laugh and toss the profile in the 'round file' - they don't change, they see no opportunity for change, they may even congratulate themselves on the result!
As to the company, they saved money by doing it on the cheap! Pitfall No. 8:
Not giving the time and care needed to debrief the manager - big waste of time, money and opportunity, with potential for significant loss of morale and good staff.
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Communication, Morale, team facilitation |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 08:32
|
|
|
|
Get ready for 3D
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Tuesday 8 May 2007 |
 The online virtual world Second Life may be the first step towards a predominantly 3D internet, according to a video cast of Fortune magazine senior editor David Kirkpatrick.
Kirkpatrick says the growth of Second Life proves it is possible to insert content into an internet user's experience in a much richer way than merely using words and pictures. According to Kirkpatrick, it is important for businesses that currently do business online to become involved with Second Life in order to see where the internet is headed. To be successful he suggests companies embrace Second Life's creativity rather than merely replicating real world environments, such as glass and steel office buildings. Source: http://gscblog.typepad.com/management_blog/2007/05/is_second_life_.html
Labels: Communication, Culture, Leadership, Sustainability, Vision |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 23:36
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 7
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Monday 7 May 2007 |
The whole purpose of upward feedback (or 360) is to take the manager's manager (the 'boss') out of the loop and consider how team and manager relate and work together. In the best programs, a third party with no axe to grind gives the manager his/her profile and helps them find the benefit in it. If the manager the 'boss' takes on this role, a whole new viewpoint may impact the interpretation, which can be blame, criticism, taking over responsibility for solving problems, or even saving face for the 'boss'. Trust can be damaged.
There are exceptionally skilled 'bosses' who can handle this role but they are rare and even these are likely to take away the manager's responsibility for finding ways to improve.
Of course, the manager should discuss their action plans with the 'boss' at some point, and dialogue with them about their own feedback. Pitfall No. 7:
Letting the manager’s manager deliver the feedback - negates the purpose of upward feedback/360 and distorts the outcome. Makes it a disguised form of downward feedback.
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Communication, Culture, Trust |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 09:51
|
|
|
|
Kids and ADHD and more...
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Saturday 5 May 2007 |
ADHD in kids (see previous note on Ritalin) has been linked to a range of other disorders with serious repercussions in adulthood. Anyone wanting information should consider the MINDD (Metabolic, Immunologic, Neurologic, Digestive, Disorders) Foundation with discussion and conference in Sydney this month.
Labels: Communication, Health, Ritalin |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 16:31
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 6
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Friday 4 May 2007 |
Have you ever seen the face of a manager whose 360 profile has been pinned up on the notice board? Not pretty. The same if the profile has been passed around. The aim of any 360 feedback is to help, not hurt, managers. Confidentiality is critical. The profile should belong to the manager, not to anyone else. They should be helped to learn from it without being forced to disclose it. The consultant or facilitator who is privileged to view the profile must keep it to themself - even if it's a good one. Why? Because if you praise some managers' profiles, people can make assumptions about the ones you don't discuss.
Always true? Not quite. In mature, safe environments managers may show their profiles around and discuss them. Just don't assume this! Pitfall no. 6:
Not maintaining confidentiality of the profile. This can be demoralising to many managers - and morale is a major asset to your organisation!
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Communication, Culture, Trust |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 21:37
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 5
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Thursday 3 May 2007 |
If anyone ever gets to find out who said what, then your 360 program has limited further use. Once people know that their comments may not be anonymous, trust is broken and they censor their responses. The program no longer runs on accurate feedback but on 'safe' feedback. It is likely to miss the hard issues and have little real value.
In addition, if hurt managers are able to get through the anonymity barrier, they are likely to take revenge. Pitfall No. 5:
Not preserving absolutely the anonymity of respondents - the program won't get a useful result, it will break trust and may well set revenge into action.
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Communication, Culture, Trust |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 12:46
|
|
|
|
Pitfalls in 360 degree feedback: No. 4
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Wednesday 2 May 2007 |
There is a huge temptation to start a 360 program with a 'problem manager'. Someone says "If we can get the goods on this one, we can fix 'em or get rid of 'em quick!" It's a lousy way to deal with anyone and it ruins the possibility of ever having a well received 360 in your organisation. One of the common delusions of this approach is that the manager is said to have asked for it. In our experience, the 'problem manager' is under a lot of pressure to 'ask for it'. Good technically skilled people have frequently left after this treatment - all for lack of some management training. So this is Pitfall No. 4:
Starting your program with a 'problem manager'. You are off to a very bad start!
[more]Labels: 360 feedback, Communication, Culture, Trust |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 11:56
|
|
|
|
Common sources of learning
bookmark this at :: del.icio.us
:: Digg it
|
|
Tuesday 1 May 2007 |
Remember the old school desks? Good for learning? Not much. We learn in many ways...
... some common sources of learning include: • Outdoor Management/Leadership Development—a set of carefully sequenced and integrated physical activities conducted (primarily) in the outdoors and designed to facilitate participant behavior change.
• Simulations—management games are used to create experiential environments within which learning and behavioral changes can occur and in which managerial behavior can be observed. Simulations require trainees to analyze complex problems and make decisions.
• Individual or Group Reflection—a formalized opportunity for individuals and/or groups to reflect on events, activities and experiences.
• Just-in-Time Training (JIT)—JIT is designed to provide the learner with information at the time of “need.”
• Individual Development Plans—a personal development plan is a process through which the individual prepares a training and development plan, and for which the individual takes responsibility.
• Developmental Assignments/Job Assignments—these are on the job placements that have two attributes (1) challenge and (2) an opportunity to learn.
• Job Rotation—managers are assigned work in a variety of different functional subunits of the organization for periods of time varying from six months to three years.
• Developmental Relationships/Mentoring—occurs through an interpersonal relationship where a more experienced manager helps a less experienced protégé; the mentor is usually at a higher managerial level and is not the protégé’s immediate boss.
• Networking with Senior Executives—marked by exposure to, and relationship building with, senior executives in an organization.
• Action Learning—action learning, in brief, is learning from concrete experience and critical reflection on that experience – through group discussion, trial and error, discovery, and learning from and with each other.
• Classroom-Based Training—learning that is bound to the confines of a formal classroom. Often led by an instructor or facilitator.
• E-Learning—the use of computer network technology, primarily over an intranet or though the Internet, to deliver information and instruction to individuals.
• Executive Coaching—a relationship formed between a client who has managerial authority and responsibility in an organization and a consultant who uses a wide variety of behavioral techniques and methods to help the client achieve a mutually identified set of goals to improve his or her professional performance and personal satisfaction.
• 360s or Multi-Rater Instruments—managers receive information about their skills and behaviors from standardized questionnaires filled out by other people such as subordinates, peers, superiors and sometimes, outsiders such as clients. Again, each source of learning differs in its difficulty to administer, cost, return on investment and effectiveness. However, it is likely that a combination of approaches will work best. A more in-depth discussion of the various sources of learning can be found at the Center for Leader Development's Leadership Wiki.5. How will the leadership development program link to organizational systems? Source: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/28/031848.php
Labels: Collaboration, Communication, Learning |
| posted by Dr Ron @ 00:02
|
|
|
|
|
| Previous Posts |
|
|
|
|
| Archives |
|
|
|
|
| Links |
|
|
|
| Affiliates |
|
|
|
|
