Monday, October 24, 2016
Nilai dan Kerja
Apakah nilai (value) yang anda beri melalui tugas anda? Jika
anda seorang juruteknik yg bertugas menyambung kabel, adakah anda tahu apakah
nilai yang anda beri melalui tugas anda itu kepada pelanggan anda?
Saya tertanya adakah kita paham tentang ...
1. Apa itu Value?
2. Bagaimana kenalpasti Value?
3. Bagaimana bina Value?
Kalau tiga soalan ini anda tidak tahu jawapannya, macam mana
nak 'creating value'?
Perkataan 'nilai' ini sangat penting dewasa ini bagi
memastikan anda tetap relevan dalam tugas anda. Ini adalah kerana terdapat
ramai orang yang telah menyediakan produk atau perkhidmatan yang anda sendiri
tawarkan. Ini semestinya mewujudkan saingan yang sangat sengit.
Di mata pelanggan pula, mereka mempunyai pilihan yang sangat
banyak. Namun di mata mereka, sesiapa yang mampu memberi nilai yang dimahukan
oleh mereka di dalam produk atau perkhidmatan yang mereka cari sudah pasti
mendapat perhatian mereka.
Semestinya, jika anda mahu terus relevan di mata pelanggan,
anda semestinya berusaha mengenalpasti nilai yang diperlukan oleh pelanggan
dalam tugas anda dan seterusnya berusaha membina nilai tersebut!
Sebagai contoh, jika saya seorang juruteknik penyambung
kabel, apakah nilai yg saya beri pada pelanggan saya dan yg pasti nilai itu
diperlukan oleh pelanggan saya? Bagi saya nilai yg diperlukan oleh pelanggan
saya ialah hasil kerja penyambungan kabel yang disiapkan tepat pada masanya,
pada kos yang paling optima dan keadaan safety yg terbaik. Semestinya saya berusaha
utk bina nilai2 ini dalam tugas saya sebagai juruteknik penyambung kabel
(produk/perkhidmatan).
Saya fikir, inilah yang dimaksudkan oleh DSCEO TNB bila
beliau bercakap tentang 'Value Creation'.
Akhir kata, satu renungan … “What's important is not the
work that you do but the value that you can offer through your work. Your value
is what makes you indispensable.”
Better.Brighter Together!
Happiness
An American man walked into a restaurant in London. As soon
as he entered, he noticed an African man sitting in the corner.
So he walked over to the counter, removed his wallet and
shouted, "Waiter! I am buying food for everyone in this restaurant, except
that black African guy over there!"
So the waiter collected the money from the man and began
serving free food to everyone in the restaurant, except the African.
However, instead of becoming upset, the African simply
looked up at the American and shouted, "Thank you!" That infuriated
the man. So once again, the American took out his wallet and shouted,
"Waiter! This time I am buying bottles of Fanta and additional food for
everyone in this restaurant, except for that African sitting in the corner over
there!" So the waiter collected the money from the man and began serving
free food and Fanta to everyone in the bar except the African.
When the waiter finished serving the food and drinks, once
again, instead of becoming angry, the African simply smiled at the American man
and shouted, "Thank you!"
That made the American man furious. So he leaned over on the
counter and said to the waiter, "What is wrong with that African man? I
have bought food and drinks for everyone in this restaurant except him, but
instead of becoming angry, he just sits there and smiles at me and shouts
'Thank you.' Is he mad?"
The waiter smiled at the American and said, "No, he is
not mad. He is the owner of this restaurant.
May your enemies work unknowingly in your favour.
Stay away from Anger. It hurts .. . Only You!
If you are right then there is no need to get angry,
And if you are wrong then you don't have any right to get
angry.
Patience with family is love,
Patience with others is respect.
Patience with self is confidence and Patience with GOD is
faith.
Never Think Hard about the PAST, It brings Tears.
Don't think more about the FUTURE, It brings Fear.
Live this Moment with a Smile, It brings Cheer.
Every test in our life makes us bitter or better.
Every problem comes to make us or break us.
The choice is ours whether we become victims or victorious.
Beautiful things are not always good but good things are
always beautiful.
Do you know why God created gaps between fingers?
So that someone who is special to you comes and fills those
gaps by holding your hand forever.
Happiness keeps you sweet but being sweet brings happiness.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Sistem Budaya Juara
Situasi
Dunia bisnes kian kompetitif. Sesuatu unit bisnes itu perlu
mampu melahirkan nilai yang dikehendaki oleh pelanggannya melalui produk atau
perkhidmatan mereka pada kadar sumber tenaga, kos dan masa yang paling optima
agar kekal relevan dalam industri yang disertainya.
Komplikasi
Namun satu cabaran yang dihadapi oleh sesuatu unit bisnes
ialah kemampuan sesuatu pengurusan unit bisnes itu membina anggota kerja yang
sudi memberi yang terbaik dalam tugas mereka bagi mencapai hasrat di atas.
Impak
Kegagalan membina anggota kerja agar sudi memberi yang
terbaik dalam tugas bakal menyaksikan unit bisnes tersebut ketinggalan dalam
persaingan bisnes mereka dan seterusnya membuatkan mereka tidak lagi relevan
dalam industri yang disertainya.
Syor
Bagi menangani keadaan ini, diperkenalkan satu sistem
transformasi anggota kerja bernama Sistem Budaya Juara seperti dibawah;
Sistem Budaya Juara merupakan satu ‘pengembaraan’ anggota
kerja bagi mencapai matlamat unit bisnes dengan berpandukan ilmu dari beberapa
siri Program ‘Budaya Juara’, pengamalan ilmu tersebut dan ‘coaching’ terhadap
pengamalan ilmu tersebut yang dilaksanakan secara bersepadu. Ilmu 'Budaya
Juara' ini unik, praktikal dan sangat sesuai untuk mempengaruhi anggota kerja
agar mahu membantu unit bisnes mencapai matlamat yang ditetapkan.
Tindakan
Saya ingin mengajak tuan puan membuat pelaburan bagi
melaksanakan Sistem Budaya Juara untuk unit bisnes tuan puan.
Faedah
Diyakini faedah berikut mampu diraih dengan perlaksanaan
sistem ini dalam unit bisnes tuan puan;
1) Perubahan
mindset yang lebih positif terhadap tugas
2) Kemampuan
memberi nilai melalui produk/perkhidmatan kepada pelanggan secara terancang,
berterusan dan secara bekerjasama oleh anggota kerja unit bisnes.
3) Kemampuan
membangunkan kompetensi anggota kerja secara terancang dan berterusan.
Kesimpulan
Sistem Budaya Juara merupakan satu sistem transformasi
angota kerja yang melibatkan semua anggota kerja dalam sesuatu unit bisnes itu
bagi mencapai matlamat unit bisnes yang telah ditetapkan secara bersepadu.
Sistem ini mudah dan praktikal untuk diamalkan dalam suasana bisnes dan dunia
sekarang.
Pengalaman menunjukkan penglibatan semua angota kerja
terutamanya mereka di kalangan pemimpin unit bisnes amat kritikal bagi
merangsang kejayaan yang diimpikan. Moga tuan puan mendapat faedah dari
pelaburan dan pengamalan SBJ ini!
Sejahtera! Bahagia! Kaya!
Nota: Setiap intervensi ‘Budaya Juara’ ini juga boleh dilaksanakan secara individu namun disyorkan untuk melaksanakan SBJ secara keseluruhan bagi mendapat impak maksima dari SBJ ini.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Why Leadership Training Fails And What To Do About It - Part 5
A New Capability Development Strategy
Even in companies with strong leaders and healthy cultures,
discrete units require distinctive roles, responsibilities, and
relationships—and distinctive capabilities to function in them. Moreover, each
unit is probably at a different stage in its development.
So CEOs and their HR chiefs must be sensitive to local variables when defining an integrated change agenda—one that simultaneously addresses performance improvement and capability development. To do that, they should answer the following questions, first at the top and then in each major unit:
So CEOs and their HR chiefs must be sensitive to local variables when defining an integrated change agenda—one that simultaneously addresses performance improvement and capability development. To do that, they should answer the following questions, first at the top and then in each major unit:
Is the leadership team aligned around a clear, inspiring
strategy and set of values?
Has the team collected unvarnished employee feedback about
barriers to effectiveness and performance—including senior managers’ own
behavior?
Has the team redesigned its organization, management
systems, and practices to address the problems revealed by that diagnosis?
Is HR offering consulting and coaching to help employees
learn on the job so that they can practice the new attitudes and behaviors
required of them?
Do corporate training programs properly support the change
agenda, and will each unit’s leadership and culture provide fertile ground for
it?
If your answer to any of those questions is no, your company
is probably (with the best of intentions) over investing in training and education
and failing to put talent development in its proper strategic change context.
Why Leadership Training Fails And What To Do About It - Part 4
Developing the Organization Unit by Unit
Part of creating a favorable context for learning is making
sure that every area of the business provides fertile ground. Soil conditions
will inevitably vary within an organization, because each region, function, and
operating group has its own needs and challenges. In our studies of corporate
transformations and our work with clients, unit leaders have told us that their
companies’ education programs were not wrong in substance but failed to align
with their local priorities and stage of business and organizational
development. In other words, their groups were not ready for the training they
got.
So companies should invest in capability development unit by
unit. The corporate-level unit links everyone at the top—the CEO, her senior
team, and key business unit, regional, and functional leaders and their key
people. Individual units must consider their needs and capabilities in the
context of their own strategy and goals.
Each unit’s leadership team should periodically go through
the six steps we’ve described to discover the silent killers that undermine
real change, and each team should have a hand in setting its own change agenda
(within the context of corporate strategy and values). Those who follow this
approach will avoid the low return on investment that results from top-down
programs. Common capability-development needs that emerge from unit-by-unit
change can, of course, be addressed through a companywide program.
Cardo, a Swedish industrial company composed of two major
independent divisions, provides a powerful example of why a unit-by-unit change
strategy is important. To support its corporate transformation into an
integrated global group, Cardo’s CEO and his leadership team commissioned an
education program to teach the top 80 managers how to lead change.
The program,
which integrated individual education and organizational development, featured
four modules of classroom training. Between modules, participating managers
were charged with implementing changeand improving performance in their
respective departments. They received consultation and coaching from program
faculty members and peers and were invited to speak to the CEO during each
module about organizational barriers to effectiveness and performance.
Evaluation of the
program revealed significant behavioral changes in one of the divisions.
Alignment between strategy and execution improved, as did teamwork across
functions and borders, and management became more participative. The CEO
estimated a tenfold return on the cost of the program by looking at the
financial effect of the learning-intensive projects that managers led in their
own departments and, when appropriate, in collaboration with peers in other
parts of the division.
However, the other division did not experience comparable
improvements. Its leaders, in contrast to those of the first group, failed to
see the program’s value—perhaps because they were not under the same pressure
to change. Their short-term performance was good, after all. The CEO and his
senior team had not assessed each division’s receptiveness to the new vision
and readiness to carry it out, nor had they made clear the type of
organizational transformation they expected. As a result, the two divisions
responded quite differently to the same program.
Contrast Cardo’s experience with how ASDA, a grocery chain
in the UK, approached its transformation in the 1990s. (One of us wrote a case
study about the chain; it’s an example worth revisiting here.) Archie Norman,
the CEO at the time, led a turnaround of the company and its 200 stores by
avoiding the fallacy of programmatic change—that is, the common impulse to roll
out sweeping, companywide initiatives without gauging local readiness. ASDA
began by creating a few model stores that demonstrated the leadership and
organizational capabilities needed to build a more employee- and
customer-centric culture.
The company then devised a “driving test” to assess
the remaining stores’ capacity to implement what came to be known as the ASDA
Way of Working. A store would receive corporate funds to invest in needed
physical changes only if it passed the driving test. Stores that did not pass
received consulting support from a corporate transformation team and then
retook the test. If a store failed the test again, its manager was replaced.
At the time, ASDA’s transformation was widely hailed as the
most successful in the UK. In about a decade the company improved its market
capitalization tenfold, thanks largely to its disciplined, unit-by-unit
approach to change and development.
Why Leadership Training Fails And What To Do About It - Part 3
Overcoming Barriers to Change
In our work helping managers have honest conversations about
the effectiveness of their organizations, we hear about six common barriers.
Companies consistently struggle with (1) unclear direction on strategy and
values, which often leads to conflicting priorities; (2) senior executives who
don’t work as a team and haven’t committed to a new direction or acknowledged
necessary changes in their own behavior; (3) a top-down or laissez-faire style
by the leader, which prevents honest conversation about problems; (4) a lack of
coordination across businesses, functions, or regions due to poor
organizational design; (5) inadequate leadership time and attention given to
talent issues; and (6) employees’ fear of telling the senior team about
obstacles to the organization’s effectiveness.
Because of that fear, we call these barriers “silent
killers.” They almost always appear together, and they block the systemic
changes needed to make training and education programs effective. We saw
firsthand how they initially thwarted leadership development at a UK medical
technology company. The CEO, unsatisfied with his management bench, sought
advice on building it out. Though his partners in HR recommended investments in
training, he instead took a step back and asked us to help his senior team
enable managers in the organization to speak truth to power about barriers to
their development.
A task force empowered to conduct confidential interviews
reported that lack of training was not the issue. Rather, the senior team had
not articulated a clear strategy and corporate values, so managers did not
understand what practices and behaviors were expected of them. Nor did the top
team spend much time discussing talent and planning developmental assignments
for high potentials. In fact, because senior management had not created an
integrated corporation, leaders were hoarding the best talent and transferring
the worst to enable their own business units to succeed.
Clearly, the company had to tackle these systemic issues before it could implement a productive learning program for managers. Indeed, improving cross-unit integration would itself be a capability-development experience for the senior team and key managers that would lead to a better understanding of skills gaps that training and education might address.
Clearly, the company had to tackle these systemic issues before it could implement a productive learning program for managers. Indeed, improving cross-unit integration would itself be a capability-development experience for the senior team and key managers that would lead to a better understanding of skills gaps that training and education might address.
This is the approach to talent development that we advocate,
in six basic steps:
1. The senior team clearly defines values and an inspiring
strategic direction.
2. After gathering candid, anonymous observations and insights
from managers and employees, the team diagnoses barriers to strategy execution
and learning. It then redesigns the organization’s roles, responsibilities, and
relationships to overcome those barriers and motivate change.
3. Day-to-day coaching and process consultation help people
become more effective in that new design.
4. The organization adds training where needed.
5. Success in changing behavior is gauged using new metrics for
individual and organizational performance.
6. Systems for selecting, evaluating, developing, and promoting
talent are adjusted to reflect and sustain the changes in organizational
behavior.
Note that problems are diagnosed from the ground up. Those
confidential employee interviews are critical for exposing the silent killers,
including deficiencies in capabilities and talent management, because leaders
often lack the objectivity to spot glitches in systems they have created. By
addressing management practices and leadership behavior that shape the system
before training individual employees, leaders create a favorable context for
applying learning. The systemic changes encourage—even require—the desired behaviors.
In practice, these steps tend to overlap and are
periodically recycled for continual improvement. We list them in sequence to
emphasize the importance of placing individual development after organizational
redesign. You also want leaders, their senior teams, and lower-level managers
to develop on the job, as they learn individually and collectively to enact
their redefined roles, responsibilities, and relationships.
A consultant in HR
can take advantage of real-time successes and failures to help managers reflect
on the consequences of their actions and see alternatives. This “in vivo”
approach also allows people to learn how to learn so that they can adapt to
ever-changing circumstances—something that classroom training won’t equip them
to do. Just as important, learning and performance improvements occur
simultaneously, enabling the business to recoup its investment immediately and
more effectively.
To illustrate, let’s return to the example at the beginning
of this article. After SMA’s micro-electronic products division found that its
initial training hadn’t changed ineffective patterns of behavior, it followed
the six steps, with much better results. The new general manager asked
organizational development specialists to interview key managers and
professionals in every function and activity in MEPD’s value chain.
Their
diagnosis revealed why and how interfunctional conflict, political behavior,
and embedded managerial practices were undermining new-product development and
employee commitment. The process exposed some barriers to effectiveness:
unclear strategy and priorities, a senior team that was trying to manage
new-product development initiatives from the top but lacked the necessary
information, and a siloed organization that hindered coordination.
MEPD created cross-functional new-product development teams
headed by leaders from marketing—a major departure from the structure that had
blocked teamwork in the past. Roles and responsibilities were changed
accordingly. For instance, senior management held the teams accountable through
quarterly reviews at which they had to describe their progress in developing
products and also report on their own effectiveness and any problems in
collaboration among functional departments. This ongoing assessment helped
sustain behavioral change.
Learning and development for both senior leaders and team
members came in the form of hands-on coaching and process consultation. An
internal organizational development consultant provided guidance as senior
leaders conducted the reviews. When a few team leaders complained that senior
management was getting too involved in the details, the consultant facilitated
a conversation about how that behavior could undermine others’ commitment to
the new organization. Team members immediately embraced their new roles, which
gave them a feeling of ownership and investment.
Though early meetings were not
very effective, because people weren’t accustomed to collaborating so closely
with colleagues from other functions, consultants from HR attended most
meetings in the first year and helped the teams gel.
Within a few months, after analyzing shared information,
three teams recommended that their projects be canceled because they realized
the products could not succeed. This increased the senior team’s confidence in
the new organizational arrangements and reinforced the new pattern of
management.
Project team members said that they had learned a lot about how to
work together and had come to appreciate the complexity of business problems
and decision making in different functions. That motivated them to enroll in
classroom training, where they learned how analytics could sharpen their
approach to product planning and product management. Coming after their
immersion in the revised way of working, the knowledge felt relevant and
useful.
At the end of two years a rigorous evaluation showed a
remarkable change in leadership and teamwork. Performance had improved as well.
MEPD had developed nine new products in those two years, compared with five
over the previous four years. Revenue and profits had increased significantly.
The same organization that had not responded to a massive investment in
individual training transformed itself by redesigning its roles,
responsibilities, and relationships; learning how to live into them with the
help of coaches and advisers; and then using targeted classroom training to
pick up new methods and tools.
Why Leadership Training Fails And What To Do About It - Part 2
A Closer Look at What Goes Wrong
Education with the objective of individual growth is worthy
in its own right, of course, and people are eager to acquire knowledge and
skills that will help them advance in their careers. However, the primary
reason senior executives and HR invest in management training is to make their
leaders and organizations more effective, and results on that front have been
disappointing. Three-quarters of the nearly 1,500 senior managers at 50
organizations interviewed in 2011 by CEB were dissatisfied with their
companies’ learning and development function. Only one in four reported that it
was critical to achieving business outcomes. Decades’ worth of studies show why
it isn’t working, but, sadly, that understanding has not made its way into most
companies.
Researchers noted problems with training programs as early
as the 1950s, during the seminal Ohio State leadership studies. They found that
one program had succeeded in changing frontline supervisors’ attitudes about
how they should manage, but a follow-up study revealed that most supervisors
had then regressed to their pre-training views. The only exceptions were those
whose bosses practiced and believed in the new leadership style the program was
designed to teach.
Then, in the 1980s, one of us helped conduct a study showing
that training programs did not facilitate organizational change: Companies that
tried to launch major transformations by training hundreds or thousands of
employees across many units to behave differently lagged the only company (in a
sample of six) that didn’t kick-start its transformation this way. The problem
was that even well-trained and motivated employees could not apply their new
knowledge and skills when they returned to their units, which were entrenched
in established ways of doing things. In short, the individuals had less power
to change the system surrounding them than that system had to shape them.
The idea that organizational systems—which define roles,
responsibilities, and relationships—have a strong impact on individuals’
mindsets and behavior is supported by a number of studies. For instance,
research by Seymour Lieberman, of the Institute for Social Research at the
University of Michigan, found that unionized frontline workers promoted to
supervisory roles adopted pro-management attitudes, and managers forced by a
recession to return to frontline jobs reverted to pro-union and antimanagement
attitudes.
Further reinforcing the idea, Harvard Business School professor
Boris Groysberg found that “star” analysts on Wall Street, as rated by an
independent agency, did not perform as well or maintain their star status after
moving to another firm. In fact, most of them never regained that status during
the five-year study. Those who did had taken their teams—the systems that had
helped them succeed—with them when they changed companies.
Those findings dovetail with research—by Amy Edmondson, of
HBS, and Anita Woolley, of Carnegie Mellon—showing that organizations need
“fertile soil” in place before the “seeds” of training interventions can grow.
When the researchers looked at a corporate training program aimed at improving
problem solving and communication between managers and subordinates, they
discovered that success varied across the company. Improvements were greater in
units that had already developed a “psychologically safe” climate in which
subordinates felt free to speak up.
From all these streams of research we’ve learned that
education and training gain the most traction within highly visible
organizational change and development efforts championed by senior leaders.
That’s because such efforts motivate people to learn and change; create the
conditions for them to apply what they’ve studied; foster immediate
improvements in individual and organizational effectiveness; and put in place
systems that help sustain the learning.
A poor return on investment isn’t the only bad outcome of
failed training initiatives. Employees below the top become cynical. Corporate
leaders may fool themselves into believing that they are implementing real
change through corporate education, but others in the organization know better,
as we saw in the MEPD example. Why don’t leaders get this? For two reasons.
First, they implicitly view the organization as an
aggregation of individuals. By that logic, people must be selected for and
developed with the “right” knowledge, skills, and attitudes in order to improve
the institution’s effectiveness and performance. So HR defines the requisite
individual competencies according to the company’s strategy and then sells top
management on training programs designed to develop those competencies,
believing that organizational change will follow.
This widely embraced development model doesn’t acknowledge
that organizations are systems of interacting elements: Roles,
responsibilities, and relationships are defined by organizational structure,
processes, leadership styles, people’s professional and cultural backgrounds,
and HR policies and practices. And it doesn’t recognize that all those elements
together drive organizational behavior and performance. If the system does not
change, it will not support and sustain individual behavior change—indeed, it
will set people up to fail.
Second, HR managers and others find it difficult or
impossible to confront senior leaders and their teams with an uncomfortable
truth: A failure to execute on strategy and change organizational behavior is
rooted not in individuals’ deficiencies but, rather, in the policies and
practices created by top management. Those are the things to fix before
training can succeed longer-term. It’s much easier for HR to point to
employees’ competencies as the problem and to training as the clear solution.
That’s a message senior leaders are receptive to hearing.
Why Leadership Training Fails And What To Do About It - Part 1
Corporations are victims of the great training robbery.
American companies spend enormous amounts of money on employee training and
education—$160 billion in the United States and close to $356 billion globally
in 2015 alone—but they are not getting a good return on their investment. For
the most part, the learning doesn’t lead to better organizational performance,
because people soon revert to their old ways of doing things.
Consider the micro-electronic products division (MEPD) at a
company we’ll call SMA, which one of us studied. SMA invested in a training
program to improve leadership and organizational effectiveness. MEPD was one of
the first business units to implement it, and virtually every salaried employee
in the division attended.
Participants described the program as very powerful. For a
whole week they engaged in numerous tasks that required teamwork, and they
received real-time feedback on both individual and group behavior. The program
ended with a plan for taking the learning back into the organization. Pre- and
post-training surveys suggested that participants’ attitudes had changed.
A couple of years later, when a new general manager came in
to lead the division, he requested an assessment of the costly program. As it
turned out, managers thought little had changed as a result of the training,
even though it had been inspiring at the time. They found it impossible to
apply what they had learned about teamwork and collaboration, because of a
number of managerial and organizational barriers: a lack of strategic clarity,
the previous GM’s top-down style, a politically charged environment, and
cross-functional conflict. “[The previous GM] had a significant impact on our
organization, with all of us reflecting him in our managerial style,” a member
of the division’s senior team explained during an interview. “We are all more
authoritarian than before.”
As a change strategy, training clearly had not worked. It
rarely does, as we have found in our research and teaching and in the advising
we’ve done at dozens of companies. One manufacturer, for instance, suffered
multiple fatalities at its operating plants despite a $20 million investment in
a state-of-the-art center for safety training. Participants in corporate
education programs often tell us that the context in which they work makes it
difficult for them to put what they’re taught into practice.
Still, senior executives and their HR teams continue to pour
money into training, year after year, in an effort to trigger organizational
change. But what they actually need is a new way of thinking about learning and
development. Context sets the stage for success or failure, so it’s important
to attend to organizational design and managerial processes first and then
support them with individual development tools such as coaching and classroom
or online education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)