Top Ten Lessons Steve Jobs Taught Us

View more presentations from Abhishek Shah

Las huellas del CALLAR

Raixa Rivero

Si deseamos examinar la comunicación dentro de una Organización no es suficiente con prestar atención a lo que las personas dicen, ni incluso a la manera como se escuchan mutuamente; es indispensable e importante dirigir la mirada a lo que callan.

El fenómeno del callar, consiste básicamente en no expresar verbalmente lo que estamos pensando, o dicho de otro modo, el callar implica reconocer que algo que está presente en nuestras conversaciones privadas no se expresa en nuestras conversaciones públicas.

Las razones más frecuentes que llevan al ser humano a callar son emocionales, pudiendo distinguir 4 emociones:

• El temor a las represalias: callo porque estimo que al decir lo que pienso me traerá consecuencias peligrosas, es decir, al hablar me expongo a riesgos que prefiero evitar, ya que podría resultar perjudicado.
• El Pudor: esta emoción busca proteger al otro más que protegerme a mí mismo; al callar no se pone en evidencia las incompetencias o los motivos estrechos del otro. Muchas veces en las Organizaciones surge una red de complicidad entre sus miembros a partir de la cual se cuidan mutuamente ante las brechas de desempeño en los procesos de trabajo y/o de negocio.
• La Resignación: a partir de la cual juzgo que no generará ninguna diferencia el compartir lo que pienso: ¿Para qué lo voy a decir?
• El Resentimiento: a raíz de eventos ocurridos en el pasado que la persona juzga injustos, inmerecidos y además le causaron daño.

Chris Argyris sostiene que el callar es un fenómeno habitual en las organizaciones y representa un gap entre lo que la gente piensa y lo que dice. Esta brecha impacta profunda y negativamente no sólo en la comunicación, sino también en la capacidad de acción efectiva de la Organización como un todo y en el desempeño sus miembros. El callar tiene un efecto demoledor, ya que afecta tanto la efectividad como el nivel de bienestar de los involucrados: quien calla se frustra en su intento de expresar lo que piensa y siente, mientras que quien no recibe el mensaje pierde una oportunidad de aprender, corregir, coordinar, explicar y replantear.

Al callar, las interacciones entre los miembros de la Organización se caracterizan por relacionar apariencias, sombras distorsionadas de quienes efectivamente son. Lo que piensan y lo que no revelan las personas es lo que guía su actuar, lo cual dificulta el poder comprender muchas de sus acciones cuyo sentido está marcado por una cierta ambigüedad y, en las explicaciones que darán las personas acerca de lo que hacen, ocultarán el carácter de su comportamiento.

Los seres humanos comúnmente tenemos dificultades para manejarnos en la ambigüedad, la incertidumbre y la aparente incongruencia. Al enfrentarnos a este tipo de situaciones tendemos normalmente a suplir lo que no entendemos con nuestras propias explicaciones, llenando con ellas el vacío de lo que no comprendemos.

En estas circunstancias normalmente, no podemos colocarnos en el lugar del otro y optamos por juzgarlo de acuerdo a nuestras inquietudes, estándares y temores, le adscribimos intenciones estrechas en las que solemos proyectarnos nosotros mismos más que acceder a las motivaciones efectivas del otro. Al suplir con nuestras explicaciones lo que el otro no nos dice, acrecentamos la distorsión en nuestras relaciones y en la forma como coordinamos acciones.

“En el contenido de nuestras conversaciones públicas pareciera no haber rastros de las agitadas corrientes que se han apoderado de nuestras conversaciones privadas. Y cuando estas últimas emergen en algunas conversaciones públicas, lo hacen por la vía del chisme, de la creación camarillas que se oponen mutuamente. Las conversaciones se compartimentalizan y se crean barreras en la comunicación. Surge la desconfianza, la resignación frente a lo que podemos hacer juntos, el resentimiento mutuo, el conflicto, la tensión y el estrés. El aire que se respira se hace pesado. El horizonte de posibilidades de la Organización se hace más estrecho. Se contamina el clima de la Organización”. (El fenómeno del Callar y las Rutinas Defensivas en las Organizaciones, Rafael Echeverría p. 9)

El Gerente Líder debe prestar especial atención al fenómeno del callar en su equipo, ya que la distorsión de las relaciones podrá generar importantes bloqueos en la coordinación de los procesos de trabajo a lo interno del propio equipo o con otras unidades organizacionales, obstaculizando los resultados globales del negocio.

El Gerente Líder debe desarrollar competencias que le permitan descubrir qué limita a los colaboradores a revelar aspectos importantes de lo que piensan, optando por callar y afectando negativamente tanto las relaciones, como los resultados a lo interno de la Organización.

Desde esta perspectiva el gran desafío del Gerente Líder es identificar, disolver y evitar que surjan de nuevo los inconversables en su Equipo.

Innovation Myth Busters

Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind

by Batia M. Wiesenfeld, Naomi B. Rothman, Sara L. Wheeler-Smith, and Adam D. Galinsky

In management, fairness is a virtue. Numerous academic studies have shown that the most effective leaders are generally those who give employees a voice, treat them with dignity and consistency, and base decisions on accurate and complete information.

But there’s a hidden cost to this behavior. We’ve found that although fair managers earn respect, they’re seen as less powerful than other managers—less in control of resources, less able to reward and punish—and that may hurt their odds of attaining certain key, contentious leadership roles

Managers whose style is based on fairness can still gain power under the following circumstances:

• When they cultivate a reputation for ethics and morality

• When the organizational culture is highly cooperative

• When they are going for positions that are relatively uncontentious and that draw on their mentoring and collaborative skills

Our research, which included lab studies and responses from hundreds of corporate decision makers and employees, began with the age-old question “Should leaders be loved or feared?” We went a step further, asking, “Can you have respect andpower?” We found that it’s hard to gain both.

Consider Hank McKinnell and Karen Katen, two rising stars at Pfizer during the 1990s. McKinnell, who’d served as CFO and run the company’s overseas businesses, was known for his assertive negotiating style and no-nonsense, occasionally abrasive manner. Katen’s performance had also won her numerous promotions, and she headed Pfizer’s primary operating unit. She treated subordinates and colleagues with respect and was respected in turn.

In 2001, when it came time for a new CEO, the two were among the top candidates. McKinnell was chosen. One analyst told Bloomberg, “[Hank] is the right guy for the job...he’s got a toughness about him.”

We heard this attitude expressed in a range of industries. Decisions about high-level promotions most often center on perceptions of power, not of fairness.

The same bias was exhibited by students in a laboratory setting. Each witnessed a “manager” telling an employee about a compensation decision. Manager A communicated the decision rudely, Manager B with respect. The students were then assigned to work in a group led by the manager they’d observed; afterward they rated their leader’s power. Rude Manager A consistently scored higher than respectful Manager B—even though there was no difference in how they’d treated the participants themselves. Simply having witnessed the rude and respectful behavior was enough to create the bias.

We’ve long wondered why managers don’t always behave fairly, because doing so would clearly benefit their organizations: Studies show that the success of change initiatives depends largely on fair implementation. Our research suggests an answer. Managers see respect and power as two mutually exclusive avenues to influence, and many choose the latter.

Although this appears to be the more rational choice, it’s not always the correct one—and it poses big risks for organizations. At Pfizer, a cohort of promising executives associated with Katen resigned after McKinnell took over. He himself was pushed into retirement by the board in 2006 because of the company’s disappointing performance. Shareholder outrage over his rich retirement package followed.

Companies can benefit from placing more value on fairness when assessing managerial performance. Our early follow-up research suggests that managers whose style is based on respect can gain power. Their path upward may be difficult, but it’s one worth taking, for their company’s sake as well as their own.

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes by Sarah Green

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #1: We fall into a combat mentality. When difficult conversations turn toxic, it's often because we've made a key mistake: we've fallen into a combat mentality. This allows the conversation to become a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser. But the reality is, when we let conversations take on this tenor – especially at the office – everyone looks bad, and everyone loses. The real enemy is not your conversational counterpart, but the combat mentality itself. And you can defeat it, with strategy and skill

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #2: We try to oversimplify the problem. If the subject of your argument were straightforward, chances are you wouldn't be arguing about it. Because it's daunting to try and tackle several issues at once, we may try to roll these problems up into a less-complex Über-Problem. But the existence of such a beast is often an illusion. To avoid oversimplifying, remind yourself that if the issue weren't complicated, it probably wouldn't be so hard to talk about.

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #3: We don't bring enough respect to the conversation. The key to avoiding oversimplification is respecting the problem you're trying to resolve. To avoid the combat mentality, you need to go further – you need to respect the person you're talking to, and you need to respect yourself. Making sure that you respond in a way you can later be proud of will prevent you from being thrown off course if your counterpart is being openly hostile.

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #4: We lash out – or shut down. Fear, anger, embarrassment, defensiveness – any number of unpleasant feelings can course through us during a conversation we'd rather not have. Some of us react by confronting our counterpart more aggressively; others, by rushing to smooth things over. We might even see-saw between both counterproductive poles. Instead, move to the middle: state what you really want. The tough emotions won't evaporate. but with practice, you will learn to focus on the outcome you want in spite of them.

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #5: We react to thwarting ploys. Lying, threatening, stonewalling, crying, sarcasm, shouting, silence, accusing, taking offense: tough talks can present an arsenal of thwarting ploys. (Just because you're trying to move beyond the combat mentality doesn't mean your counterpart is.) But you also have an array of potential responses, ranging from passive to aggressive. Again, the most effective is to move to the middle: disarm the ploy by addressing it. For instance, if your counterpart has stopped responding to you, you can simply say, "I don't know how to interpret your silence."

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #6: We get "hooked." Everyone has a weak spot. And when someone finds ours – whether inadvertently, with a stray arrow, or because he is hoping to hurt us – it becomes even harder to stay out of the combat mentality. Maybe yours is tied to your job – you feel like your department doesn't get the respect it deserves. Or maybe it's more personal. But whatever it is, take the time to learn what hooks you. Just knowing where you're vulnerable will help you stay in control when someone pokes you there.

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #7: We rehearse. If we're sure a conversation is going to be tough, it's instinctive to rehearse what we'll say. But a difficult conversation is not a performance, with an actor and an audience. Once you've started the discussion, your counterpart could react in any number of ways – and having a "script" in mind will hamper your ability to listen effectively and react accordingly. Instead, prepare by asking yourself: 1. What is the problem? 2. What would my counterpart say the problem is? 3. What's my preferred outcome? 4. What's my preferred working relationship with my counterpart? You can also ask the other person to do the same in advance of your meeting

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #8: We make assumptions about our counterpart's intentions. Optimists tend to assume that every disagreement is just a misunderstanding between two well-intentioned people; pessimists may feel that differences of opinion are actually ill-intentioned attacks. In the fog of a hard talk, we tend to forget that we don't have access to anyone's intentions but our own. Remember that you and your counterpart are both dealing with this ambiguity. If you get stuck, a handy phrase to remember is, "I'm realizing as we talk that I don't fully understand how you see this problem." Admitting what you don't know can be a powerful way to get a conversation back on track

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

Mistake #9: We lose sight of the goal. The key in any tough talk is to always keep sight of the goal. Help prevent this by going into conversations with a clear, realistic preferred outcome; the knowledge of how you want your working relationship with your counterpart to be; and having done some careful thinking about any obstacles that could interfere with either. (Remember, "winning" is not a realistic outcome, since your counterpart is unlikely to accept an outcome of "losing.") If you've done the exercise described in Slide 7, this should be easier. And you'll be less likely to get thrown off course by either thwarting ploys or your own emotions

Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes

When we're caught off-guard, we're more likely to fall back into old, ineffective habits like the combat mentality. If you're not the one initiating the tough conversation, or if a problem erupts out of nowhere, stick to these basics: keep your content clear, keep your tone neutral, and keep your phrasing temperate. When disagreements flare, you'll be more likely to navigate to a productive outcome – and emerge with your reputation intact.

Zooming: How Effective Leaders Adjust Their Focus - Video - Harvard Business Review

Zooming: How Effective Leaders Adjust Their Focus - Video - Harvard Business Review

The Unwritten Rules of Business

By Jeff Hadden
Business has unwritten rules, too — and violators often are often punished just as swiftly. Here are eight:

1. Never dress above your position. I know — dressing for success is important, acting like you’re already in the job is the best way to get the job, etc. It’s also the surest way to draw the not-so-friendly fire of colleagues or subordinates. Dress slightly “better” if you want — but just slightly. Otherwise you’ll be perceived as a shameless climber. The only time this doesn’t apply is if you run your own business, but even then you should dress in a way that enhances your image while ensuring customers feel comfortable.
2. Never show up a peer in a meeting. A colleague proposes an idea. It stinks. Not your job to say so, though. If you’re a supervisor and another supervisor makes a terrible suggestion that doesn’t affect your area or your employees, sit tight. Let someone else, preferably someone above you, shoot it down. Then jump in if you can to modify the idea so it is more workable, giving credit to the other supervisor for raising an important issue, of course. Bad ideas come and go, but professional relationships should be forever.
3. Never sit by the CEO when he comes to visit. You walk into a conference room. The CEO, fresh off the plane, is there. Say hi, introduce yourself, and then sit at least two seats away. There are better ways to get face time. Plopping yourself down by the big guy (or gal) will do nothing for your career and everything to draw sideways glances and post-meeting sniping.
4. Never use your position as an enabler. Here’s a classic example. In many companies, how late you arrive for a meeting depends on where you stand on the food chain — the higher you are the later you arrive and the less likely others are to complain, at least openly. Never use your position to enable discourteous, rude, or insensitive behavior. Everyone notices — and everyone resents it.
5. Never fail to two-way mentor. You have a mentor. Great! Mentors can provide motivation, be a source of ideas, provide counsel and guidance. So pass it on. Mentor someone below you. Otherwise everyone knows you take like a bandit but give like a miser. Think of it this way: You may aspire to someone’s position, but at the same time someone aspires to yours. A sub-set of this rule: If you want a great mentor, first be a great mentor.
6. Never “borrow” someone’s idea. Business owner, CEO, supervisor, entry-level employee… doesn’t matter. Always give credit where credit is due. Steal an idea and the victim neverforgets. And don’t fall back on the old, “Well, they work for me, and we’re a team… so I was just raising the idea on behalf of the team.” No one goes for that excuse but you.
7. Never leave out the negatives. We all like sharing good news. Good news is interesting; bad news is critical. I like to know a shipment went out on time, but I need to know a shipment will be late so I can contact the customer and put other plans in place. (And speaking of customers, always share potential negatives as soon as possible — the fewer surprises the better.) Positives are easy to deal with; negatives can make or break a business if the right people are not aware.
8. Never talk when you don’t have something to say. We’ve all known the guy who must speak in every meeting, even if he has nothing to add. (Okay, we’ve all known a lot of those guys.) You may think you need to contribute just to show you’re involved; the rest of us know you’re just talking to show you’re important. And we think a lot less of you as a result. Think of words as something scarce; use them sparingly and only when they will make the most impact.

How to become a more competitive business by being more creative

View more videos from Nigel Collin

Strategic planning for Manager

Strategic Planning For Managers

View more presentations from Yodhia Antariksa

TARDA

Horacio Marchand

En las organizaciones hay una brecha enorme entre una causa y un efecto. Hay decisiones que se tomaron, digamos hace unos 5 años, y cuyas consecuencias apenas empiezan a asomarse, tanto positivas como negativas.

Una organización es un sistema complejo de interacciones donde el manipular una o dos variables, sobre todas las que tienen una consecuencia estratégica, tardan en impactar al entero.

Entonces ocurre algo fascinante: los directivos en una empresa disfrutan o padecen de las decisiones de sus antecesores; las disfrutan porque las decisiones fueron acertadas y tomaron algunos años en dar fruto (y tuvieron suerte en estar ahí en el momento correcto) o las padecen por el efecto contrario. Pongo tres ejemplos: 

1.- Le tronó la bomba a Sócrates. El Primer Ministro de Portugal, José Sócrates, renuncia a su cargo luego de que el Parlamento rechazó un plan de austeridad con el que buscaba evitar una intervención financiera internacional ante la actual crisis del país. La carga de Sócrates y su reto no fueron provocados por sus decisiones, sino por el acumulamiento de años de indisciplina financiera y erráticas políticas monetarias y fiscales.

2.- Grecia en el umbral. Según Takis Michas, su Secretario Internacional, la situación es tan grave, que el país está a punto de sucumbir en anarquía. Las obligadas medidas de austeridad para remediar los excesos y la indisciplina de años están reventando la calma social y alimentando a grupos políticos radicales.

3.- Le falló General Motors. Roger Smith, presidente de General Motors en los años ochenta, ante la caída de participación de mercado y el éxito de los autos japoneses, decidió implementar un ambicioso programa para reemplazar con robótica una buena parte de la fuerza laboral. Cuarenta y cinco mil millones de dólares después, General Motors siguió perdiendo participación de mercado porque el problema era uno de mercado, no de eficiencia operativa.

Lo anterior implica que el crédito (éxito, fracaso o problemas) se asigna a la gestión actual, a aquélla que por azares del destino le tocó estar en turno.

Ante la superficialidad típica de análisis que predomina en las organizaciones actuales, la presión por lo urgente, más que por lo importante y las explicaciones y excusas de siempre; la realidad es que nadie puede entender o explicar de manera sistémica la verdadera causa del éxito o del fracaso.

Entonces el éxito no puede replicarse y el fracaso no puede solucionarse. Ante la ausencia de diagnóstico, la empresa se desgasta en implementar una y otra medida buscando cambiar en el corto plazo la inercia de algo que se está dando como una consecuencia inevitable de lo que se estableció años atrás.

Así no puede darse una solución en función de que se busca arreglar un problema sistémico, que por naturaleza tarda en ser impactado, a base de insistir en solucionarlo con medidas tácticas y cortoplacistas.

En este proceso se confunden los diagnósticos con las soluciones, los sujetos con los objetos, el corto con el largo plazo. Se pierde la lucidez y se desperdician recursos organizacionales empeñados en solucionar algo que no ha sido bien diagnosticado. Y si se falla en el diagnóstico, se falla en todo.

Por eso es importante distinguir claramente que hay por lo menos dos tipos de análisis que requieren ángulos diferentes: las decisiones tácticas, que suelen ser de corto plazo y apelan al pensamiento concreto; y las decisiones estratégicas, que suelen ser de mediano y largo plazos y apelan al pensamiento abstracto.