admin

The saying that leadership is about followers, is undeservingly detracting from the human capacity and dignity of people who happen not to be in leadership positions.

A follower is someone who does what other people say to do! Therefore, such a saying implies for those it calls “followers”, less value, or a possible incapacity on their part to contribute constructively, or that these people have accepted to surrender and confine their free self and thought to the command of a higher-up.

Even if we consider followership as simply a name given to the people in a company that are apart from the leader, with no intention for it to mean to exclude either a two-way communication or people from contributing, why use such a derogative name? Couldn’t we find a better one? Call them, say in politics, constituents, in business, colleagues or contributors, to also keep current with the modern philosophies of leadership which long ago moved away from the old school of Taylorism that advocated command and mechanistic-like behavior.

Leadership is about influence, not followers. A leader is an inspiring force that appeals to the human emotions of people and therefore to address them as “My dear followers” is incongruous with a noble character that a leader should have, and exhibit.

Influence means the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen. A leader does not operate by orders, does not coerce, nor does he use the authority of his position to force decisions on his people. Instead, a leader communicates, listens and includes, points the way to the goals and inspires action towards them.

A leader is an accomplished person with experiences, knowledge, skills, who seeks the best appropriate vision, and who, in search of that [...]

Σταματείστε να θεωρείτε τη γραφειοκρατία ως προστασία. Είναι ασθένεια που σιγά και σταθερά σκοτώνει τον οργανισμό σας με τα ασήμαντα που τα κάνει σημαντικά, αλλά και με τη φυλάκιση σε τύπους και κανάλια του ανθρώπινου πνεύματος και των δεξιοτήτων του προσωπικού σας.

Μακρές διαδικασίες με πολλαπλά επίπεδα ελέγχου όπου τα προδιαγραμμένα μετρούν περισσότερο από την ουσία είναι μερικά από τα χαρακτηριστικά της γραφειοκρατίας. Όπως άλλωστε και το όνομά της υποδηλοί, η γαφειοκρατία δίνει περισσότερη βαρύτητα στο προσωπικό του οργανισμού που είναι πίσω από τα γραφεία παρά στον κόσμο που βρίσκεται μπροστά στα γραφεία, τους πελάτες.

Βεβαίως η γραφειοκρατία έχει κάποιο σκοπό: να διασφαλίσει τον οργανισμό από κακώς πραττόμενα από τον κόσμο του ως αποτέλεσμα είτε κάποιας ανεπάρκειάς του είτε γιατί το προσωπικό μπορεί να ακολουθεί κρυμμένες ατζέντες και όχι αυτή του οργανισμού. Στοχεύει, σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις, να δώσει τη δυνατότητα στον οργανισμό να εντοπίζει ευθύνες μέσω ενός μηχανισμού που όμως δεν είναι χωρίς κόστος σε ανθρώπινους και άλλους πόρους.

Πολλοί οργανισμοί, θέλοντας διακαώς να αποφύγουν οποιεσδήποτε συνέπειες από λάθη, προσκολλώνται χωρίς επιστροφή στη γραφειοκρατία, κοφεύοντας στις φωνές των πελατών και του προσωπικού τους ότι η γραφειοκρατία τους σκοτώνει. Δεν βλέπουν ή δεν θέλουν να κατανοήσουν ότι από μόνα τους τα ίδια τα χαρακτηριστικά της γραφειοκρατίας κάνουν τον οργανισμό και το προσωπικό τους λιγότερο πελατοκεντρικό, λιγότερο αποδοτικό, λιγότερο επινοητικό.

Όταν γεμίσεις το χώρο εργασίας με διαδικασίες και κανόντες, σκοτώνεις σε μεγάλο βαθμό την πρωτοβουλία του προσωπικού σου, και δυσχεραίνεις τη φυσική ροή, το «ρέζονανς», στην ανθρώπινη σκέψη και δράση. Πρόσθετα δυσχεραίνεις τους πελάτες σου αναγκάζοντας τους σε μακρές, χρονοβόρες δοσοληψίες και διαδικασίες επιδεικνύοντας έλλειψη σεβασμού του χρόνου και των δικών τους πόρων. Ούτε και όταν επικαλείσαι το σκοπό της εξάλειψης της απάτης αποτελεί αποδεκτό υποστηρικτικό η «ιεροποίηση» της γραφειοκρατίας.

Το [...]

Culture is not soft talk. It is a strategic tool. Beyond good climate and relationships, it should be made to promote the business and its goals.

Culture directs in some unobtrusive and continuous way the company’s people as to how they should think, behave, and act.

Because of that, it is of major importance to any company. It follows then that a company should not leave, by lack of proper action, its culture to develop randomly and multiply at the hands of the informal power groups in it. In building a culture, a company should find it more practical to think of it as having two distinct natures:

a)      The relationship nature – This helps to hold the company people together in the best possible harmony and it has as building elements universal principles like honesty, humanity, ethics, good manners etc.. When successful, it promotes trust, understanding, and cooperation and becomes the foundation stone on which to build the next level, the business nature of culture, that follows.

b)      The business nature – This promotes the company’s strategic intent and serves to direct the business emphasis on particular business issues like on efficiency or on customer relations or on innovation and new products. When successful, it directs and aligns people towards the company’s goals.

Each of the two parts by itself cannot give a whole meaning to business culture. To have (a) alone, it would be like operating a societal club which requires its members to respect some principles that hold the members together. Without implying that such bonding is of secondary importance, it alone doesn’t sufficiently serve the purpose for which business exists.

Equally important for the company, it is that its people share the same direction in the [...]

People’s behavior can be categorized according to the utility factor that represents them.

The utility factor is the extent to which their behavior is governed by what they give or take and varies between two extremes:

The external utility focus which is the value they seek to obtain from other people and
The internal utility focus which is the reverse and is the value they themselves are eager and willing to give to others

These two poles create between them a continuum of behaviors, the interexternal utility focus space where people seek to find for themselves an optimum combination between what they seek to take from others and what at the same time they are willing to give to others; the varying combination of the two puts people on different points on the continuum line closer to one pole or the other.

Some examples to make the points clearer:

a)      External utility focus people: They tend to approach, communicate, and associate only with people that have a meaning for them and that can serve and enhance their purpose, while they show a tendency to ignore the rest.

People in this group act very selfishly and may, in the end, find themselves being characterised as egoists.

b)      Internal utility focus people: They tend to make themselves available to be approached by other people that may need them and are open to offering freely their knowledge and advice to help others become better.

These people are altruistic idealists mostly endowed with great knowledge like gurus that have reached a climax in their field and who are kindly disposed to helping others.

c)      Interexternal utility focus people: This group covers the space in between the two poles. The people here are spread along the continuum line [...]

A couple of weeks ago, I was asked to offer advice to a company that was doing poorly in its revenues and profits.

We sat with the owner CEO to discuss the company’s state of affairs with me asking and him giving answers.

Q: What about the processes in the company, how satisfying are they? A: They are OK I think.

Do you have some evidence for that, do you have some data to prove your assessment? No, we don’t do any measurements, they will add to our costs.

How about your product line; are there any new products or product improvements that you delivered to your customers say over the last three years? No, our product line is unchanged, we know how to do it well and we stick to it or as you management people say “we stick to the knitting”.

And your staff, your people, how do you look after them? They are all grown-ups, they look after themselves and don’t need anything from me or from anybody else.

When was the last time they were in some training? I don’t have the luxury to take them out of their jobs for them to hear some fancy new ideas that don’t have any meaning for our works here.

I suppose you have some kind of a strategy to aim at something better for your company, don’ t you? Our strategy is simple “work hard every day” something I have taken from my father who established and first run this factory.

Do you have partners with whom you work with like suppliers or your bigger customers? No, these people always want to get the maximum out of you without any regard for you or your business; I never trust them [...]