By russypussy, on June 3rd, 2011 There is a difference between ‘being direct’ and ‘being unpleasant’ and this is often confused in management practice.
Being direct is about stating efficiently and without emotional content what is required.
Being unpleasant is where negative emotional content is attached to the message (irrespective of the message)
Often, managers are accused of being overly ‘direct’ by people where they are simply being unpleasant. They go on courses and become more waffly, thanking the person for their time – smiling – listening and then being unpleasant…!
Being direct is a useful management skill – when briefing, reviewing giving feedback or delegating, cut to the chase and state simply and without emotional overtones what is needed or your views.
Learn to give messages in a clear and neutral tone – avoid giving instructions or feedback when you are annoyed and ensure you strip the message of emotional ‘pollution’.
You can then get the ‘job in hand’ achieved more efficiently and avoid any ambiguous overtones.
If your boss wants you to be less direct – are they actually being unpleasant and not direct themselves…?
By Author, on March 12th, 2011 It seems a lifetime since competencies became the ‘vogue’ and began to be developed as the critical determinant of performance.
The key thinkers at the dawn of competency development crafted competence as being about Knowledge and Skills etc, but aimed to create something that was difficult to imitate, replicate and gave organisations’ competitive advantage – in other words, something strategic and precious.
How far have we travelled since that point….? Competence has become the sacred preserve of the HR function and linked to their core processes rather than really being the business of the most strategic operational leader or manager.
Is that a problem…? Well not in itself, there is no doubt there are a range of truly innovative Talent Management programmes which aim to join competence with strategic intent – however, they are actually few and far between. Most HR functions cannot measure the value the Talent Management delivers, never mind the strategic impact of competence itself…?
So, what is the future of competence – will it become increasingly tactical? Can it be resurrected as something vibrant and imbued with strategic significance?
Or do we need something new and shiny, and abandon the ideals and paradigm of competence to the needs of HR…?
Your thoughts and comments are welcome…….
By Author, on February 22nd, 2011 Purpose
When you take part in an organisation’s strategic decision making, you need as much data as possible. A PESTLE Analysis provides this.
A PESTLE Analysis gives you a full understanding of the conditions in which your organisation is working. It uncovers the risks of expanding or withdrawing from a particular market. And it gives you the facts and figures to help you decide on the best direction your organisation should take.
How to Use PESTLE Analysis
PESTLE stands for the following:
- Political
- Economic
- Sociological
- Technological
- Legal
- Environmental
One of the best ways to start a PESTLE Analysis is to brainstorm about your organisation using the above as your guide. Any such brainstorming session should ideally involve a number of people. You can then feed different views into the process. This makes a PESTLE Analysis more relevant and effective.
- Political. Consider the politics of your business environment. Discuss changes to relevant taxes and tariffs. Assess proposed political changes that may affect your organisation.
- Economic. Talk about how the economy is currently performing. Study issues that have an impact on your organisation such as currency rates; inflation; unemployment; interest rates; and the willingness of banks to extend credit.
- Sociological. Social changes may influence the markets in which you sell your products and services. Look at issues such as health and safety; climate change; people’s attitude to jobs; the growth or decline in population; changes to life expectancy; and consumers’ expectations.
- Technological. Technology is still advancing rapidly. Consider how technology is relevant to your organisation. Is it opening new markets? Is it giving you opportunities to outsource your work?
- Legal. Review current and pending legislation. Ask how changes in UK, EU and international law may affect taxes, trade and employment.
- Environmental. Discuss how the world’s ecology is prompting social and economic changes. Are these changes providing you with threats or opportunities?
At the end of the brainstorming session, ask the participants to support the topics you’ve discussed with data. Then complete a PESTLE template.
The template should follow the six categories outlined above. Write down summaries and facts. Once you’ve done this, highlight priorities and options.
By Compere, on December 14th, 2010 It’s interesting how fashions change. Only a decade or so ago, the fads and fashions in management were all around teams. Self m anaged teams were in vogue and the buzzword was all about team working and team building.
A whole industry flourished in the training world around outward bound training, team events, treasure hunts and conferencing to name but a few ‘teamy’ activities.
So what happened…? Why are managers and leaders so relentlessly and single-mindedly focused on individual development, arguably at the expense of teams…??
I believe the fault lies in the definition of a team. The idea that a team is ‘a collection of individuals in pursuit of a common goal’ creates a low performance expectation and is the root of why teams seem to fail to deliver returns – never mind the current plethora of fads around individual assessment and development…!
I have always preferred some of the John Adair concepts (call me old fashioned..!) around synergy – the idea that the definition of a team is when the outputs are greater than the total of the inputs – in other words, the team creates increased value in some way to the individual efforts and outputs of a group of individuals.
This creates an opportunity as well as an problem for managers and leaders – at one level, they must think pragmatically whether they run a team, or just a group. Also, they need to figure out how they can create synergy – in addition, given they are part of the team themselves, they also have to consider how they add value to the team themselves (rather than the team adding value to them).
I wonder how many managers see team working as much more than the building of a sociable working climate with a bit of shared good practice thrown in, concentrating far more on the down sides of personality clashes, jealousy, rivalry and bitching which can characterise an ineffective team (or even a group).
Many managers spout the team mantra but really have no more than a group of people only bound together by being a report to the same person or a shared input to a section of a P+L.
Perhaps it’s time for good leaders and managers to recapture the team ethos and really develop a modern idea of synergy – really begin to exploit the performance gains they can bring and begin the measure the outcomes – after all, if you wan to avoid cuts, why not seize the initiative and demonstrate some synergistic value?
By Author, on December 3rd, 2010 Plenty of people in Talent Management circles become extremely vexed when considering this subject. There is no doubt that many companies like to trumpet the message loudly in their literature and in person – yet many of them find it difficult to operate as if it were true.
And perhaps, it’s not? Plenty of people point to more valuable assets including Brand, Physical Assets, Cash etc as however, in most modern organisations, most opportunity and risk really resides in the ‘Human Capital’ of the business.
There is a school of thought which subscribes to the notion that the ‘right’ people are our greatest assets – the difficulty with this is that the concept of ‘rightness’ needs to be defined and that is not always politically correct or acceptable.
In effect, being ‘right’ is a combination of high productivity, high effectiveness, high potential and present and future relevancy for the organisation – this is a challenge both for employees and organisations themselves.
The issue for people is that it places a responsibility for them to maintain relevancy in terms of capability and effectiveness. It may free them to be much more employable and commercially ‘attractive’, but may also create the need for personal career planning and ‘effort’ and some people simply like to place their careers in the hands of their current organisation while they choose to simply live their day to day lives.
The issue for the organisation is that it assumes that it can think and plan forward for the types of people and effectiveness it will need. Some organisations who simply have a number/target which defines their mission and purpose will find this difficult. Larger and, possibly, more thoughtful organisations will need to be prepared to see their precious Engagement scores drop in the face of employees who become more purposeful and demanding of the organisation in helping them achieve their personal objectives. Another issue may well be the lack of sensible development required to help the organisation create the cultures and leadership/management styles required to create the level of dialogue needed to create the ‘right’ people.
The HR department may also be a block to the achievement of the goal of ‘rightness’ creation as they are often focussed more on their own purpose (arguably, risk prevention) and legitimacy (deciding whether they add value to the enterprise) to create a more ‘adult’ dialogue and introduce the concept of ‘rightness’.
Oddly, unions may well feel that their members would benefit from these approaches if they can get past the language used (‘rightness’ etc) which is too much the preserve of academics and consultants at the moment.
So – a dilemma presents itself….the rhetoric is achievable, but only with some real change. The change must start at the top of the organisation – possibly the most tricky place of all where the pressure to deliver short term results gets in the way of the conversations and focus necessary to think differently and deliver the rhetoric. Ironically, the Board or Exec Management team (those who trumpet the loudest) may be the least ‘right’ for the organisation.
Maybe the debate needs to move away from the Human Capital arena and into the world of accounting. Much of the recent HCM research is (being polite) woolly and worthy and usually misses the real issues. Adding people to the bottom line of the business would focus the minds and work we have carried out with a range of VC’s and Private Equity firms who can value talent would become more common place.
If you have a solution or an opinion, feel free to add it to the mix…!!
By Author, on December 1st, 2010 Sales are the lifeblood of business. This is why many managers say that salespeople are their most vital assets. 
Professional salespeople are therefore in demand. And underpinning their work is an established communications principle: AIDA.
AIDA stands for Attention, Interest, Desire and Action. These four words sum up the process of making a sale. First you must capture a prospect’s attention. Next, you must interest the prospect in what you wish to tell them. Then you must create a desire for the product or service. Finally, you must encourage the prospect to act and make a purchase.
- Attention. Capturing a prospect’s attention is critical. You only have one chance. It doesn’t matter whether you are selling something on TV, a hoarding, the Internet or in person, you have to make people stop and take note. And the best way to do this is to promise a benefit.
- Interest. To interest people in a product or service, you must show what’s in it for them. The way to achieve this is to outline a problem they’re familiar with, and then present the product or service as the solution.
- Desire. Once you’ve created an interest in a product or service, you have to make people want it. At this point, you have to be aware of the difference between what people need and what they want. Need is about rational decision-making; want is emotional. You have to encourage people to want something by appealing to their emotions.
- Action. The final part of the AIDA process is to present your sales prospects with a short and direct call to action. This tells them exactly what they must do to make a purchase.
Limitations
AIDA has been around for more than half a century. This is both its strength and its weakness. It is a proven sales tool that acts as a guide and checklist. But as sales techniques have grown in sophistication, theorists have proposed variations to the basic AIDA themes.
Among the most common of these variations is the addition of “C”. This stands for Conviction, and many theorists insert it between Desire and Action.
Conviction is about overcoming a prospect’s reluctance to buy your product or service. To do this, you can use methods such as testimonials, free trials and guarantees.
But even with such additions, AIDA remains at the heart of sales work. Everyone involved with sales must understand and use it.
Thoughts and Comments…?
By Compere, on November 21st, 2010 As a manager, you face challenges every day. They may relate to projects, performance or personal development.
Setting SMART objectives helps you deal with these challenges. SMART puts issues into context and gives you a model for resolving them in a positive manner. In other words, SMART places you in control and lets you do your job as well as possible.
How to Use SMART Objectives
SMART stands for:
- Specific
- Measurable
- Achievable
- Relevant
- Time bound
To use SMART effectively, you apply each of the above words to a given objective.
- First establish if your objective is specific. Is it clear to both you and anyone else who is involved? Is it relevant to other objectives within your organisation? Does it have a start, middle and end?
- You must be able to measure the objective’s success. Such a measurement should be exact, with amounts, percentages and dates as appropriate. If the objective is to increase sales, for example, you need to specify what constitutes success. This may be in the form of an 8% increase in overall sales within six months. Only when you have measurable objectives, do you really know if you have achieved anything.
- Is your objective realistically attainable? If you don’t reach an objective, the effect can damage morale. On the other hand, don’t set an objective that is simple to reach. This can weaken long-term motivation. Instead, an objective should be hard to attain but achievable.
- An objective must be relevant to your strategic direction. It must fit in with other objectives. What you don’t want are objectives that waste your time and effort.
- Always set a deadline for an objective. Deadlines can stimulate motivation. They can make you work with a greater sense of interest and urgency.
The SMART framework applies as much to objectives at work as at home. You can use it to further your career and your life. What lies behind it, and what has made it so popular, is an easily remembered model for meeting goals and being a success.
By Author, on October 22nd, 2010 With the announcement of reductions in budgets by the government, there will be an inevitable rush to cut costs and reduce headcount. This is a predictable and ‘easy’ solution for most organisations but creates a number of problems. Often, the remaining managers and leaders will be expected to cope with the effects of the removal of friends and colleagues as well as to pick up their workloads. This can create unwarranted amounts of stress and turmoil. Ironically, this is an opportunity for most organisations to fundamentally look at systems, processes and procedures to figure out new methods and modes of operation, but the rush to cut costs simply results in the wholesale destruction of knowledge and goodwill within the company. This can often result in the most talented people (and those most desiring of a move) selecting themselves for redundancy.
Organisations need to consider a range of factors to help them maximise the returns from the remaining managers. They must involve those ‘left behind’ in fundamental changes in approach and process - as with insufficient resource, process always needs to improve or change. Leaders must spend time engaging with people and listen to their fears and concerns. This can be tricky as the traditional approach is either to wallow in personal grief or indulge in some form of ‘rah rah’, but it is vital to take time and be supportive to others.
Leaders and managers need to see the whole budget reduction issue as an opportunity to re-engineer both ‘what’ they do and ‘how’ they do it so they can begin to build change ‘competence’ by giving people choices and practical steps to re-engage with the ‘new’ organisation.
Whilst no-one is pretending that the future may be pretty difficult, it doesn’t have to be a tragedy. Some simple common sense can add value for both individuals and teams and, ultimately help the organisation re-group and build again.
By Author, on October 4th, 2010 As another series of the hit BBC series ‘The Apprentice’ airs again, the business community wrings its hands and examines its navel attempting to decide whether ‘it’s a good thing’ or ‘simply entertainment’. Well the truth it, that it’s both…!! The hopefuls gain valuable TV exposure but risk humiliation and obscurity but can gain new careers and opportunities. The tasks and challenges are fairly formulaic, but are rich picking for trainers looking for new ideas. The TV networks parade before us the usual blend of the hungry, histrionic and hysterical which is the bedrock of reality TV, however, valuable lessons can be learned watching the interplay, positioning and strategies at play both within the tasks as well as in the wider group. In the real world, you can find varieties of all the personalities and there may be tips and techniques you can pick up in thinking through how you would manage tasks as well as how to lead the individuals and teams. Anecdotal evidence now exists that companies are also including some of the tasks in recruitment and development assessment centers – so watch and get yourself ‘in the one’ if you are contemplating a promotion – it may prove invaluable..! All in all, just sit back and enjoy the ride and tell yourself it may just come in handy…!
By Author, on September 24th, 2010 A frequent complaint by managers and leaders at the moment – but is it true? It’s true that HR departments are often rigorous in the dealings with managers in terms of Employment Law issues, however, this is often due a range of ‘Management Crimes’ ranging from not following process, to punching people during a ‘car park’ conversation…!  However, it’s also true to say that HR often see their role as being to protect the organization from the risk of unfair publicity in the media as a result of Industrial Tribunals. It’s odd though, that as the average financial ruling against a company is often very low, HR don’t take a risk and consider the internal messages of non action or non confrontation with difficult members of staff around performance issues. It strikes us that, getting ‘management’ and HR ‘around the table’ to thrash out a proper policy and approach is a good first step. After all, as most organisations report they all have poor performers who need to be managed out of the organization, it would seem sensible for both factions to stand shoulder to shoulder in creating a culture where poor performers cannot hide behind the schism between managers and HR.
  (1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
 Loading ...
|
Get Our Newsletter Click on the Newsletter tag above to sign up
Information for Trainers Click on the 'Trainers Info' tab to see how you can develop revenues with Savvy Learning
|
Loading ...