It's that time of the year where most people would make new resolutions for the coming year. All time favorites include "I've to go on a diet program!", "I must start exercising daily" and "I got to quit smoking". These resolutions are very personal and beneficial to the person/s who made them. Yet, we all know that most of these resolutions would have been broken before the new year is barely a week old.
Why are new year resolutions so fragile? My view is that they are so general that they don't lend themselves to specific action, measurability and commitment. Making resolutions and yet not resolute enough to see them through may reflect the character of a person.
However, for those who are so intent to be successful in achieving something during the year, I have a solution for you. Instead of new year resolutions, you can set personal goals with clear milestones marked over the next 12 months.
Corporate goal setting usually follows the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achieveable, Realistic and Time-based) principle. In setting personal goals, I like to advocate the SMARTER way. As the achievement of personal goals pertains to personal successes, each personal goal statement has to have elements of Stretched, Measurable, Aggressive, Repetitive, Time-based, Emotional and Rewarding. For example, an individual who is 10 kg overweight and desires a balanced body weight, can set a personal goal like " To achieve a 12 kg reduction in body weight by end of June 2009". This means that the individual has only to take the necessary action steps to achieve a monthly 2 kg reduction over the next 6 months. Paul J. Meyer says "success is the progressive realization of worthwhile predetermined personal goals".
The good habits of being discipline and highly committed honed from the process of setting and achieving personal goals yearly invariably will positively contribute to the professional development of an individual at the workplace. Personal success is the cornerstone of professional success.
As a first step to personal and professional success, get rid of the old habit of making new year resolutions which you don't intent to follow through. So be smarter than others in the coming new year by setting personal goals the SMARTER way!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
25 Knowledge Nuggets from Blue Ocean Strategy Workshop
Yesterday, I had the good fortune to attend a 1-day workshop on introduction to the Blue Ocean Strategy (BOS) organized by the UCSI Blue Ocean Strategy Regional Centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It was well facilitated by Jason Hunter, Director of Training, UCSI Blue Ocean Strategy Regional Centre.
I've read the BOS book and also attended a half-day seminar conducted by the one of the authors, Prof. Chan Kim, way back in 2006. From the BOS workshop yesterday, I gained further insights and learnings about the BOS concept and process.
From my 1-day exploratory trip, I've uncovered the following 25 knowledge nuggets:
1. BOS is about strategic thinking and not about strategic planning.
2. BOS is about seeing/observing things around you and not about looking ahead.
3. BOS is about focusing on your non-customers and not about listening solely to the voice of existing customers.
4. BOS is about understanding the pain points of the non-customers and not about the pleasure points of existing customers.
5. BOS is about reducing pains and not about increasing pleasure for the customers.
6. BOS is about searching for alternatives and not about improving existing products/services.
7. BOS is about applying outside-in thinking and not about adopting the inside-out approach.
8. BOS is about having a paradigm of "We don't know" and not about a mindset of "We know".
9. BOS is about problem creation and not about problem solving.
10. BOS is about making sense of the uncommon sense and not about uncommon nonsense.
11. BOS is about reducing costs and raising value and not about cost reduction or value enhancement.
12. BOS is about supply-side thinking and not about demand-side thoughtings.
13. BOS is about focusing on users, purchasers and influencers and not about users only.
14. BOS is about simplicity and not about complexity.
15. BOS is about breaking away from the pack and not about staying with the herd.
16. BOS is about creating a new industry and not about new products/services.
17. BOS is about value innovation and not about value improvement.
18. BOS is about asking WHY and not about answering WHAT.
19. BOS is about value creation and not about value addition.
20. BOS is about prioritising utility over price and cost structures.
21. BOS is about having strong stomach and heart to eliminate and reducing familiarities and not about finetuning acts within the comfort zone.
22. BOS is about having ardent desires, strong commitment, enthusiasm, hard work, staying power and flawless execution.
23. BOS is about exploration and not about efficiency.
24. BOS is about aligning the 3 propositions of value, product and people and not about having one or two of the other.
25 BOS is about looking for opportunity all around us if only we search for it in the right way.
From the above, I believe that for an organization to successfully navigate BOS pathway, it should possess the core competencies of strategic thinking, value creation, emotional intelligence, learning orientation, respect for diversity, integrity, accountability and achievement orientation.
I've read the BOS book and also attended a half-day seminar conducted by the one of the authors, Prof. Chan Kim, way back in 2006. From the BOS workshop yesterday, I gained further insights and learnings about the BOS concept and process.
From my 1-day exploratory trip, I've uncovered the following 25 knowledge nuggets:
1. BOS is about strategic thinking and not about strategic planning.
2. BOS is about seeing/observing things around you and not about looking ahead.
3. BOS is about focusing on your non-customers and not about listening solely to the voice of existing customers.
4. BOS is about understanding the pain points of the non-customers and not about the pleasure points of existing customers.
5. BOS is about reducing pains and not about increasing pleasure for the customers.
6. BOS is about searching for alternatives and not about improving existing products/services.
7. BOS is about applying outside-in thinking and not about adopting the inside-out approach.
8. BOS is about having a paradigm of "We don't know" and not about a mindset of "We know".
9. BOS is about problem creation and not about problem solving.
10. BOS is about making sense of the uncommon sense and not about uncommon nonsense.
11. BOS is about reducing costs and raising value and not about cost reduction or value enhancement.
12. BOS is about supply-side thinking and not about demand-side thoughtings.
13. BOS is about focusing on users, purchasers and influencers and not about users only.
14. BOS is about simplicity and not about complexity.
15. BOS is about breaking away from the pack and not about staying with the herd.
16. BOS is about creating a new industry and not about new products/services.
17. BOS is about value innovation and not about value improvement.
18. BOS is about asking WHY and not about answering WHAT.
19. BOS is about value creation and not about value addition.
20. BOS is about prioritising utility over price and cost structures.
21. BOS is about having strong stomach and heart to eliminate and reducing familiarities and not about finetuning acts within the comfort zone.
22. BOS is about having ardent desires, strong commitment, enthusiasm, hard work, staying power and flawless execution.
23. BOS is about exploration and not about efficiency.
24. BOS is about aligning the 3 propositions of value, product and people and not about having one or two of the other.
25 BOS is about looking for opportunity all around us if only we search for it in the right way.
From the above, I believe that for an organization to successfully navigate BOS pathway, it should possess the core competencies of strategic thinking, value creation, emotional intelligence, learning orientation, respect for diversity, integrity, accountability and achievement orientation.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Are Management Ideas & Practices Gender-biased?
In a business meeting recently with a former colleague who is now the CEO of a small company with a very high percentage of female employees, I was surprised by an unusual request from her for a more "female-friendly" management development program. She admitted that so far, her lady managers found it difficult to follow and thus relate to management practices learned from various management training programs. Elaborating further, she thinks that the main causal factor could be that most these management ideas and solutions are gender biased as they were mostly written from a male perspective!
It had never cross my mind of such a possibility as I've always thought that management concepts and principles are gender-neutral. Frankly, in my many years of experience in management development involving both male and female participants, this is the first time that I come across such an unconventional perception. I guess there's always a first time for anything.
Upon reflection, I think the lady CEO could possibly be wrong with respect to management ideas and practices being male-centric. However, she may be right in a way those management practices were presented for learning purpose when one or more of the following five situations happened:
1. Unsuitable case examples used for discussion.
2. Inappropriate simulation exercises were selected for role playing.
3. Ineffective facilitation to enable the participants to contextualize learning at workplace.
4. Languages and symbols used failed to connect to the female psyche and therefore resulted in ineffective communication.
5. Inability of the trainer/facilitator to contextualize training content to suit the needs of the participants .
I believe that it is the failure of training design and delivery that resulted in the inability of the participants to apply what they have learned back at their workplace irrespective of gender and profession.
Just thinking out aloud - would a female trainer/facilitator done any better in the given situation/s above?
It had never cross my mind of such a possibility as I've always thought that management concepts and principles are gender-neutral. Frankly, in my many years of experience in management development involving both male and female participants, this is the first time that I come across such an unconventional perception. I guess there's always a first time for anything.
Upon reflection, I think the lady CEO could possibly be wrong with respect to management ideas and practices being male-centric. However, she may be right in a way those management practices were presented for learning purpose when one or more of the following five situations happened:
1. Unsuitable case examples used for discussion.
2. Inappropriate simulation exercises were selected for role playing.
3. Ineffective facilitation to enable the participants to contextualize learning at workplace.
4. Languages and symbols used failed to connect to the female psyche and therefore resulted in ineffective communication.
5. Inability of the trainer/facilitator to contextualize training content to suit the needs of the participants .
I believe that it is the failure of training design and delivery that resulted in the inability of the participants to apply what they have learned back at their workplace irrespective of gender and profession.
Just thinking out aloud - would a female trainer/facilitator done any better in the given situation/s above?
Monday, December 8, 2008
A Case for Values-based Core Competencies
In these tough economic times, a company has to stay very competitive in order to survive and hopefully, rising above all challenges in order to ride the next wave of the economic up-cycle. Apart from taking the short-term measures of trimming the fats and reviewing existing business strategies, such a company has to also take actions with a longer-term perspective for future business growth.
One possible measure is to ensure that all remaining employees abide by its stated guiding principles in the course of doing business. These employees also have to strongly demonstrate behavioral actions consistent to stated corporate values at all times. Such desired situation can only come about only if and when a company implements a competency-based management with a bias towards values-based core competencies. Examples of values-based core competencies include among others, competency such as achievement orientation, integrity, ethics and social responsibility, respect for people, valuing diversity, and learning orientation.
A values-based core competency framework provides a competitive edge to the company in the form of a strong values-driven corporate culture. Corporate history has shown that corporations with values-based core competencies outperformed and even outlasted those with strategy-based core competencies. It is obvious that the prerequisite for the determination of a set values-based core competencies is the explicit declaration and subsequent practice of the stated corporate values.
All organizations have corporate values, either implicitly or explicitly stated. These values may include integrity, commitment, team spirit, quality concern, professionalism and accountability. However, more often than not, those espoused corporate values are merely "words-on-the-wall" organization propaganda. This failure of organization failing to live up to its values or what I call the “value practice gap” is mainly caused by the adoption and implementation of a set of corporate values formulated by a team of the senior managers during a facilitated weekend management retreat. I’ve known of a case where the CEO himself presented his preferred set of corporate values for adoption. Such top-down practice may work for formulating corporate strategies but definitely not for corporate values. Many organizational studies have revealed that it is the employees within the organization through their daily behavioral actions and work practices who determined the core values and thus, the corporate culture.
Therefore, it is my belief that the process of determining a values-based core competency framework has to be both participative and culture-specific. An important step is to get the top performing employees from all levels to be involved in identifying the core competencies and the appropriate desired behavioral indicators through a series of focus group discussions or behavioral event interviews.
One possible measure is to ensure that all remaining employees abide by its stated guiding principles in the course of doing business. These employees also have to strongly demonstrate behavioral actions consistent to stated corporate values at all times. Such desired situation can only come about only if and when a company implements a competency-based management with a bias towards values-based core competencies. Examples of values-based core competencies include among others, competency such as achievement orientation, integrity, ethics and social responsibility, respect for people, valuing diversity, and learning orientation.
A values-based core competency framework provides a competitive edge to the company in the form of a strong values-driven corporate culture. Corporate history has shown that corporations with values-based core competencies outperformed and even outlasted those with strategy-based core competencies. It is obvious that the prerequisite for the determination of a set values-based core competencies is the explicit declaration and subsequent practice of the stated corporate values.
All organizations have corporate values, either implicitly or explicitly stated. These values may include integrity, commitment, team spirit, quality concern, professionalism and accountability. However, more often than not, those espoused corporate values are merely "words-on-the-wall" organization propaganda. This failure of organization failing to live up to its values or what I call the “value practice gap” is mainly caused by the adoption and implementation of a set of corporate values formulated by a team of the senior managers during a facilitated weekend management retreat. I’ve known of a case where the CEO himself presented his preferred set of corporate values for adoption. Such top-down practice may work for formulating corporate strategies but definitely not for corporate values. Many organizational studies have revealed that it is the employees within the organization through their daily behavioral actions and work practices who determined the core values and thus, the corporate culture.
Therefore, it is my belief that the process of determining a values-based core competency framework has to be both participative and culture-specific. An important step is to get the top performing employees from all levels to be involved in identifying the core competencies and the appropriate desired behavioral indicators through a series of focus group discussions or behavioral event interviews.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Separating the Men from the Boys
By Ms Yap Leng Kuen, Plain Speaking, StarBiz, The Star Online, 03 Dec 2008
THERE is never a time when leadership does not have its challenges, and this is particularly so during periods of economic upheavals and great uncertainty. Chief executive officers have a heavy duty to ensure that their organisations are able to withstand a potentially long-drawn downturn.
Companies with limited funds will be more pressured to improve their efficiency. Companies that have deep reserves and stand to make great gains from potential mergers and acquisitions, will also want to step up their internal resilience so as to reap the maximum benefits from any such exercises. CEOs are not expected to make perfect decisions all the time but to demonstrate the qualities of stewardship in an increasingly tough environment. The worldwide credit crunch has put additional pressure on them to come up with sustainable measures for survival. Simply put, this crisis will sieve out the men from the boys.
It is a tough call but in the current environment, CEOs should show their leadership in being able to pick out and really reward those who can soldier on. The CEO should use this period of general inactivity to shape up his organisation so that it is prepared for the upturn. It should not only be in terms of cashflow and reserves when companies are planning for up or down cycles; the human capital aspect also needs to be closely scrutinised. In such a challenging environment, the popular option would be to hire and fire so that only the best would be retained.
However, companies that are far-sighted would look after their staff and prepare for better days ahead. It is during hard times that companies call for greater accountability. During good times, a lot of fat and wastage are accumulated; all these need to be shed now. Leaders who have been very strict even during good times stand to reap the fruits of their labour. Come bad times, they and those under them do not suffer so much as a lot of good business practices had been inbuilt into the system already.
Recent experience in developed countries has shown that a lackadaisical attitude combined with an idealistic approach towards free markets are sure recipes for disaster. It is hard to be strict and popular; good leaders will strive for results while enlisting support from all quarters.
The foundation is usually built during good times as leaders with good foresight will always plan ahead for the downcycle. For those who have missed the boat and find themselves largely confronted with a team of boys, it is not too late to shape up. There is no knowing how long this downturn can last; many believe it will get worse before it gets better.
Ultimately, it is always the team that matters, their spirit and dedication is the thing that will make it or break it. A good leader is always cognisant of that.
Senior business editor Yap Leng Kuen believes that CEOs should have the courage to institute change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
