The following is information gained from HRMarketer:
According to research by Right management, "Organizations that promote employee health and well-being are 3½ times more likely to encourage creativity and innovation." Right Management is the talent and career management expert within Manpower, the global leader in employment services.
The study reports that "fewer than half of the more than 28,000 employees who participated in our worldwide study reported that their organizations actively promote health and wellness,” said Deborah Schroeder-Saulnier, Senior Vice President for Global Solutions at Right Management. “Yet we now have persuasive evidence linking health and well-being to greater employee engagement, organizational productivity, talent retention and — of utmost importance in today’s post-recession economy — creativity and innovation.”
Seventy-two percent of respondents who rated their organization highly for actively promoting health and well-being also rated it highly for encouraging creativity and innovation. Among those who did not rate their organization’s healthy and well-being efforts highly, only 20% took a favorable view of their organization’s encouragement of creativity and innovation.
Schroeder-Saulnier cites the top drivers for promoting health and well-being at work:
–"I work in a safe and healthy environment.”
–"My organization allows me to maintain a reasonable balance between my family and work life.”
–"You can balance work and personal interests at my organization and still progress.”
–"I have an appropriate workload.” –”The amount of pressure I experience in my role is reasonable.”
“In swiftly changing markets, creativity and innovation provide organizations with the agility to meet new needs and make the most of new opportunities,” advised Schroeder-Saulnier. “The true potential of wellness initiatives can only be realized when wellness is embedded within the organization’s core business strategy. Leaders and human resource professionals would do well to implement wellness initiatives that focus more precisely on yielding results that drive individual behaviors essential to improving the effectiveness of the entire organization.”
Right Management surveyed 28,810 employees across 10 industries in 15 countries. Participants were asked to self-report on attitudes, performance and conditions directly related to the effectiveness of their organization. This press release was distributed through PR Web by Human Resources Marketer (HR Marketer: www.HRmarketer.com) on behalf of Right Management.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tribute to Doreen Craton
Who was Doreen Craton? Most likely you have never heard of her, but a million baby boomers who are not ready to retire at age 65 should take a moment to note her passing.
Back on Jan 18, 1983 Doreen was a school teacher in Manitoba who received a birthday card for her 65th birthday along with a forced retirement notice. Mrs Craton was not ready to retire, she has more that she wanted to do and more importantly had the energy to do it.
The argument back in 1983 was she had to move out of the way to let in new, young blood with new ideas or else the school system would go stale. A finincial arguement was that these young people had familie to support and deserve the opportunity to have the jobs - it was there turn. In contradiction to this thinking, the Human Rights Act of Manitoba passed a few years earlier protected Manitobans against discrimination based on age. The battle was on.
The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with Doreen and the Winnipeg School board appealed, but eventually backed down avoiding Mrs Craton becoming a household name as a trailblazer for the rights of senior workers everywhere.
Doreen kept on teaching for another five years until at the age of 70 she was injured when she was knocked down by a track athelete training in the school hall. Mrs Craton fractured her pelvis and never returned to the classroom.
Doreen Maud Craton passed away June 19th. She was 91.
Back on Jan 18, 1983 Doreen was a school teacher in Manitoba who received a birthday card for her 65th birthday along with a forced retirement notice. Mrs Craton was not ready to retire, she has more that she wanted to do and more importantly had the energy to do it.
The argument back in 1983 was she had to move out of the way to let in new, young blood with new ideas or else the school system would go stale. A finincial arguement was that these young people had familie to support and deserve the opportunity to have the jobs - it was there turn. In contradiction to this thinking, the Human Rights Act of Manitoba passed a few years earlier protected Manitobans against discrimination based on age. The battle was on.
The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with Doreen and the Winnipeg School board appealed, but eventually backed down avoiding Mrs Craton becoming a household name as a trailblazer for the rights of senior workers everywhere.
Doreen kept on teaching for another five years until at the age of 70 she was injured when she was knocked down by a track athelete training in the school hall. Mrs Craton fractured her pelvis and never returned to the classroom.
Doreen Maud Craton passed away June 19th. She was 91.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Measuring What Matters
In the December 2008 edition of Talent Management, Jac Fitz-enz continues his line of thinking about transforming the analytics used in HR. He quotes Jeanne Harris co-author of Competing on Analytics:
“The key for CIOs is to think long term and enterprise-wide about how they are going to capture, cleanse, manipulate, analyse and present data across the enterprise, to ensure there’s a common version of the truth. Then business managers can focus on the insights they’ve gained from the data, rather than arguing over whose data and analysis is correct.”
Dr. Jac goes on “Reread that statement and substitute CHRO for CIO. What if HR started thinking like that about the wealth of data that passes through its processes to hire, pay, develop and support the enterprise’s human capital? Wouldn’t that go a long way toward winning HR a seat at the proverbial table? Isn’t it about time that HR graduated from the kindergarten metrics of numbers of people hired, trained and retained to something more useful to the C-level?”
We are fans of Dr. Jac… and we are also fans of helping organizations measure what matters. Measures like quality, captured and applied at each step of the employee lifecycle from attraction to termination. And hard data like core learning and behavioural attributes that allow us to determine which are most predictive of retention, productivity, engagement and success.
It is possible for HR to reliably inventory individual attributes and capabilities to evaluate organizational capacity, and then manage the relationship between human capital and the achievement of strategic objectives in a way that few have done until now. We just have to stop wasting our time with kindergarten metrics and start measuring what matters.
“The key for CIOs is to think long term and enterprise-wide about how they are going to capture, cleanse, manipulate, analyse and present data across the enterprise, to ensure there’s a common version of the truth. Then business managers can focus on the insights they’ve gained from the data, rather than arguing over whose data and analysis is correct.”
Dr. Jac goes on “Reread that statement and substitute CHRO for CIO. What if HR started thinking like that about the wealth of data that passes through its processes to hire, pay, develop and support the enterprise’s human capital? Wouldn’t that go a long way toward winning HR a seat at the proverbial table? Isn’t it about time that HR graduated from the kindergarten metrics of numbers of people hired, trained and retained to something more useful to the C-level?”
We are fans of Dr. Jac… and we are also fans of helping organizations measure what matters. Measures like quality, captured and applied at each step of the employee lifecycle from attraction to termination. And hard data like core learning and behavioural attributes that allow us to determine which are most predictive of retention, productivity, engagement and success.
It is possible for HR to reliably inventory individual attributes and capabilities to evaluate organizational capacity, and then manage the relationship between human capital and the achievement of strategic objectives in a way that few have done until now. We just have to stop wasting our time with kindergarten metrics and start measuring what matters.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
America's Best Companies and How They Do it
A commentary from Jim Sabasku
Organizations that are flourishing in this economy must have it easy, right? You know which ones they are. Their products and/or services are always in demand. If economic downturns have touched them, it is not apparent to the outside world. In fact, they are the envy of the rest of the world and have many people asking, "Can we start selling what they are selling?"
The most important question is not what are they selling, but how are they succeeding.
We have answers for you right here, taken from Profiles research. What we have learned from studying hundreds of America's best companies and conducting interviews with their top leaders is that productive people play a large part in making these organizations go. These companies make the job look easy because their management of people is part of a well-executed plan.
Our survey included more than 1,600 publicly traded U.S. companies and helped reveal the practices that enable them to out-produce their colleagues down the street or across the country.
Here are five common traits of America's best organizations:
1. Their cultures are driven by performance, and this performance is the result of an understanding shared by the company’s top leaders. Leaders not only understand the current culture, but they know what the company will look and feel like, and how it will operate, next year and in 10 years. They work as a team and have the skills, tools and experience to bring in only the people who will best fit their culture. They have the courage to reject even highly qualified workers who are not a good match to the culture.
2. Top managers are highly effective. The managers of top U.S. companies are not only personally successful, but they also ensure that the individuals for whom they take responsibility are successful too. The effectiveness of these managers flows from natural talent, and it requires them to communicate, lead others, adapt quickly to change, skillfully build personal relationships, manage tasks with efficiency, take action that gets results, and develop others as well as themselves.
Top companies know what it takes to select, train and retain top managers.
3. High-performance companies accomplish more work with fewer people because they know exactly what everyone does at work. This requires that managers have a clear view of their mission and that they never get off track on other tasks. Highly effective companies scrutinize each request for new positions. They expect more from every employee, asking them to arrive at work on time or early. Quitting time is dictated by the completion of the work, not by the hands of the clock. If someone is doing work that is ancillary to the most important tasks, effective leaders look at ways to streamline it.
As reluctant as leaders of these top organizations are to create new positions, they are eager to invest in technology and training if it means more efficient use of people and less job creation. Running lean and mean turns them into flexible work athletes who can easily handle special projects, seasonal high demands, unplanned worker absences, and other surprises. They are cross trained to do more than one job. When new people come on board, selection and training processes ensure they are productive from the start.
4. They achieve goals at the employee level, which translates to results at the organizational level. With objectives and goals clearly defined, and performance measures aligned to match, employees focus on what matters most. The employee selection process is designed to bring in employees who best fit the job, match the team, and are compatible with their managers. If lack of skill leads to reduced performance, the organization provides training to close the gap.
Companies whose employees are reaching their goals are more likely to be those that have invested in ergonomic furniture and other necessities that enhance employee comfort. They know that reducing injuries and increasing workplace comfort enhances worker satisfaction and productivity.
5. Top companies stress innovation. This doesn't mean they clamor for blockbuster ideas; they are more likely to encourage increased efficiency by fine-tuning products or processes. Small and continued growth is more realistic and less expensive than the occasional "big idea" that turns heads for a short time.
But just as important, these companies encourage the exchange of ideas among employees, managers and top leaders with an open communication style that empowers everyone. And they act quickly on good ideas by putting them into action because they know that inaction is counterproductive.
If you want to know more about top-performing organizations, including which companies are included in our survey, visit www.americasmostproductive.com. You can download the full report and review other important information about what keeps an organization on top. Perhaps some of the ideas you find there will set you on your own path to a clear vision of what is possible.
Organizations that are flourishing in this economy must have it easy, right? You know which ones they are. Their products and/or services are always in demand. If economic downturns have touched them, it is not apparent to the outside world. In fact, they are the envy of the rest of the world and have many people asking, "Can we start selling what they are selling?"
The most important question is not what are they selling, but how are they succeeding.
We have answers for you right here, taken from Profiles research. What we have learned from studying hundreds of America's best companies and conducting interviews with their top leaders is that productive people play a large part in making these organizations go. These companies make the job look easy because their management of people is part of a well-executed plan.
Our survey included more than 1,600 publicly traded U.S. companies and helped reveal the practices that enable them to out-produce their colleagues down the street or across the country.
Here are five common traits of America's best organizations:
1. Their cultures are driven by performance, and this performance is the result of an understanding shared by the company’s top leaders. Leaders not only understand the current culture, but they know what the company will look and feel like, and how it will operate, next year and in 10 years. They work as a team and have the skills, tools and experience to bring in only the people who will best fit their culture. They have the courage to reject even highly qualified workers who are not a good match to the culture.
2. Top managers are highly effective. The managers of top U.S. companies are not only personally successful, but they also ensure that the individuals for whom they take responsibility are successful too. The effectiveness of these managers flows from natural talent, and it requires them to communicate, lead others, adapt quickly to change, skillfully build personal relationships, manage tasks with efficiency, take action that gets results, and develop others as well as themselves.
Top companies know what it takes to select, train and retain top managers.
3. High-performance companies accomplish more work with fewer people because they know exactly what everyone does at work. This requires that managers have a clear view of their mission and that they never get off track on other tasks. Highly effective companies scrutinize each request for new positions. They expect more from every employee, asking them to arrive at work on time or early. Quitting time is dictated by the completion of the work, not by the hands of the clock. If someone is doing work that is ancillary to the most important tasks, effective leaders look at ways to streamline it.
As reluctant as leaders of these top organizations are to create new positions, they are eager to invest in technology and training if it means more efficient use of people and less job creation. Running lean and mean turns them into flexible work athletes who can easily handle special projects, seasonal high demands, unplanned worker absences, and other surprises. They are cross trained to do more than one job. When new people come on board, selection and training processes ensure they are productive from the start.
4. They achieve goals at the employee level, which translates to results at the organizational level. With objectives and goals clearly defined, and performance measures aligned to match, employees focus on what matters most. The employee selection process is designed to bring in employees who best fit the job, match the team, and are compatible with their managers. If lack of skill leads to reduced performance, the organization provides training to close the gap.
Companies whose employees are reaching their goals are more likely to be those that have invested in ergonomic furniture and other necessities that enhance employee comfort. They know that reducing injuries and increasing workplace comfort enhances worker satisfaction and productivity.
5. Top companies stress innovation. This doesn't mean they clamor for blockbuster ideas; they are more likely to encourage increased efficiency by fine-tuning products or processes. Small and continued growth is more realistic and less expensive than the occasional "big idea" that turns heads for a short time.
But just as important, these companies encourage the exchange of ideas among employees, managers and top leaders with an open communication style that empowers everyone. And they act quickly on good ideas by putting them into action because they know that inaction is counterproductive.
If you want to know more about top-performing organizations, including which companies are included in our survey, visit www.americasmostproductive.com. You can download the full report and review other important information about what keeps an organization on top. Perhaps some of the ideas you find there will set you on your own path to a clear vision of what is possible.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Companies Puzzled About What To Do With Talent
From The RecruitmentBlogs.com
Sixty-two per cent of companies in Singapore have programs to identify their top staff, however more needs to be done with them, according to Mark Busine, managing director of DDI Southeast Asia.
Although many companies claim to have talent identification programs in place, he said, the standards of this process may vary among organisations, with some processes less robust than others.Busine said while Singapore organisations are currently good at pinpointing high-perform ing employees through performance reviews and other similar metrics, many are unable to identify employees with high potential. “Where [the organisations] tend to find it a little bit more difficult is around identifying things such as potential,” he says. “And often what they would do is default to performance as a measure of potential.”However, only 52 per cent out of the 62 per cent say they have a program to accelerate the development of high potentials.“They might be identifying their pool of key talent, but they are not necessarily looking at what they should do once they have them in place,” said Busine.Another possible cause is a lack of understanding about how organisations can work with the identified talent to ensure a maximum amount of return on the company’s investment.
Sixty-two per cent of companies in Singapore have programs to identify their top staff, however more needs to be done with them, according to Mark Busine, managing director of DDI Southeast Asia.
Although many companies claim to have talent identification programs in place, he said, the standards of this process may vary among organisations, with some processes less robust than others.Busine said while Singapore organisations are currently good at pinpointing high-perform ing employees through performance reviews and other similar metrics, many are unable to identify employees with high potential. “Where [the organisations] tend to find it a little bit more difficult is around identifying things such as potential,” he says. “And often what they would do is default to performance as a measure of potential.”However, only 52 per cent out of the 62 per cent say they have a program to accelerate the development of high potentials.“They might be identifying their pool of key talent, but they are not necessarily looking at what they should do once they have them in place,” said Busine.Another possible cause is a lack of understanding about how organisations can work with the identified talent to ensure a maximum amount of return on the company’s investment.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Article from CFO magazine
David McCann posted this interesting article at www.CFO.com I would love to hear your comment on what he is reporting on.......
A professor says most human resources professionals are ill-equipped to carry out value-added workforce planning and transformation.
Addressing a crowd of about 300 financial executives this morning, a professor of human resources soundly denounced the corporate HR profession for being mostly unable to provide analytics that are useful in making workforce decisions that build economic value.
Most companies today spend too little effort on attracting and retaining top strategic talent and too much on satisfying the rest of the employee base, asserted Rutgers University's Richard Beatty, who spoke at a general session during the CFO Rising conference in Orlando. In fact, he claimed that typical human resources activities have no relevance to an organization's success. "HR people try to perpetuate the idea that job satisfaction is critical," Beatty said. "But there is no evidence that engaging employees impacts financial returns."
Beatty based this conclusion on employee surveys done at IBM and other companies that found little relationship between job satisfaction and performance ratings. Not only is employee engagement very expensive, but "how do you know you're not satisfying a lot of people you really wish weren't there?"
To buttress his argument, Beatty presented data from a Gallup survey on the performance of about 4,500 customer service employees at an unnamed major financial firm. The survey results, which were based on customer feedback, showed that the employees who scored in the top quartile had a positive effect on 61 percent of the people they talked to. The next two quartiles registered 40 percent and 27 percent positive responses, respectively, but there were enough neutral responses that the employees' net performance was positive. The lowest quartile, however, scored a net 2 percent negative impact.
"You'd be better off had you paid these people not to come to work," Beatty said. "You'd be a lot better off if you paid them to work for your competitor." The financial firm paid about $30 million in salaries and benefits to the employees in the lowest quartile, whose performance cost the firm as much as $50 million worth of business.
However, Beatty pointed out that this kind of performance variability means there is an opportunity to build a more valuable work force. Usually in such a situation, HR professionals try to figure out what the top performers are doing right, then train the others accordingly. That is faulty thinking, insisted Beatty, who asserted that selection is a more powerful predictor of performance than training. In addition, training may not be the problem - some employees may know what to do, but choose not to do it, opined the professor.
"HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role," he said. "Low turnover isn't necessarily a good thing. Think about where you might want to disinvest."
Human resources is also behind what Beatty called the "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice." If you are the employer of choice, he asked rhetorically, who's going to be applying for your jobs? "Everybody and their dog's brother," he said. "You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out."
Beatty said that it is most important to think outside the HR department box when it comes to filling the strategic positions that create the bulk of a company's value. To that end, he suggested that companies might be better off appointing someone from outside the HR department to manage strategic talent. He pointed to Precision Castparts Corp., a $7 billion machine-parts manufacturer, as one company that has bypassed HR in several situations. For one, it reassigned an operations executive who ran a third of the company's 150 plants to take control of scouting for and retaining strategic talent.
Such tactics are warranted because while "the language of organizations is numbers, HR isn't very good at data analytics," Beatty said. "They don't think like business people. Many of them entered human resources because they wanted to help people, which I'm all for, but I'm also for building winning organizations."
It's the CFO's job to make sure that the work of analyzing and, as necessary, reconstituting the work force gets done by someone qualified to do the job, added Beatty, and there has never been more at stake than there is now.
"The labor market is in a position to provide you with better talent than you have ever had," said Beatty, co-author of the new book, The Differentiated Workforce. "If you don't emerge from this market with better talent in the roles that really make a difference, I don't think you're trying."
A professor says most human resources professionals are ill-equipped to carry out value-added workforce planning and transformation.
Addressing a crowd of about 300 financial executives this morning, a professor of human resources soundly denounced the corporate HR profession for being mostly unable to provide analytics that are useful in making workforce decisions that build economic value.
Most companies today spend too little effort on attracting and retaining top strategic talent and too much on satisfying the rest of the employee base, asserted Rutgers University's Richard Beatty, who spoke at a general session during the CFO Rising conference in Orlando. In fact, he claimed that typical human resources activities have no relevance to an organization's success. "HR people try to perpetuate the idea that job satisfaction is critical," Beatty said. "But there is no evidence that engaging employees impacts financial returns."
Beatty based this conclusion on employee surveys done at IBM and other companies that found little relationship between job satisfaction and performance ratings. Not only is employee engagement very expensive, but "how do you know you're not satisfying a lot of people you really wish weren't there?"
To buttress his argument, Beatty presented data from a Gallup survey on the performance of about 4,500 customer service employees at an unnamed major financial firm. The survey results, which were based on customer feedback, showed that the employees who scored in the top quartile had a positive effect on 61 percent of the people they talked to. The next two quartiles registered 40 percent and 27 percent positive responses, respectively, but there were enough neutral responses that the employees' net performance was positive. The lowest quartile, however, scored a net 2 percent negative impact.
"You'd be better off had you paid these people not to come to work," Beatty said. "You'd be a lot better off if you paid them to work for your competitor." The financial firm paid about $30 million in salaries and benefits to the employees in the lowest quartile, whose performance cost the firm as much as $50 million worth of business.
However, Beatty pointed out that this kind of performance variability means there is an opportunity to build a more valuable work force. Usually in such a situation, HR professionals try to figure out what the top performers are doing right, then train the others accordingly. That is faulty thinking, insisted Beatty, who asserted that selection is a more powerful predictor of performance than training. In addition, training may not be the problem - some employees may know what to do, but choose not to do it, opined the professor.
"HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role," he said. "Low turnover isn't necessarily a good thing. Think about where you might want to disinvest."
Human resources is also behind what Beatty called the "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice." If you are the employer of choice, he asked rhetorically, who's going to be applying for your jobs? "Everybody and their dog's brother," he said. "You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out."
Beatty said that it is most important to think outside the HR department box when it comes to filling the strategic positions that create the bulk of a company's value. To that end, he suggested that companies might be better off appointing someone from outside the HR department to manage strategic talent. He pointed to Precision Castparts Corp., a $7 billion machine-parts manufacturer, as one company that has bypassed HR in several situations. For one, it reassigned an operations executive who ran a third of the company's 150 plants to take control of scouting for and retaining strategic talent.
Such tactics are warranted because while "the language of organizations is numbers, HR isn't very good at data analytics," Beatty said. "They don't think like business people. Many of them entered human resources because they wanted to help people, which I'm all for, but I'm also for building winning organizations."
It's the CFO's job to make sure that the work of analyzing and, as necessary, reconstituting the work force gets done by someone qualified to do the job, added Beatty, and there has never been more at stake than there is now.
"The labor market is in a position to provide you with better talent than you have ever had," said Beatty, co-author of the new book, The Differentiated Workforce. "If you don't emerge from this market with better talent in the roles that really make a difference, I don't think you're trying."
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The 4 Factors of Success for SMEs
This blog highlights what’s right with small business and non-profits. So often, attention in the news and in business books is pointed at Fortune 500 and large publicly known companies. In Canada, Statistics Canada reports that 5.1 million employees (48 per cent of the total private labour force) work for small enterprises with fewer than 100 employees. 16 per cent work in medium-sized enterprises (100-499 employees). In total, SMEs employ just over 64% of all employees in the private sector. In the US, the numbers are roughly the same with small business representing 63 per cent of sales and they own 61 percent of the business assets.
It seems that success for small businesses and nonprofits is a function of organization, a system, planning/marketing and the leader's actions that have been developed and maintained. These winners make a conscious effort to ingrain a culture of success, which lasts for a lifetime. From 0ur observations, here are four factors that make SMEs successful;
Good People Who Fit. Top performing organizations have recognized the value of the four aspects of fit, fit with the manager, fit with the job, fit with the team and fit with the organization. They have used this information at all levels of their people development beginning in recruitment and following through with orientation, coaching/mentoring and succession planning.
A System. Success smaller-sized organizations have clean internal systems with little waste. Because of factor #1, they have a team that all follows the system. They have tools that everyone uses not allowing individuals to create their own versions. These systems are simple and uncomplicated. The leaders who succeed have an organization that depends on a system. Not an organization that is dependent on certain people to know how to run the system.
Planning/Marketing. These organizations have put together a strategic operating and marketing plan on paper. They us their systems (#2) to communicate with their people (#1) about the details of the plans and marketing using this as a tool to keep the dialogue open between the leader and the employees. The good ones recogonize they have to get the facts, create a database of knowledge and take time to create steps to future growth.
Leader’s Actions. Leaders are the glue that holds everything together. They are totally committed to the mission of the business and through their actions gain the commitment of the rest of the team. They hold people accountable for their actions, celebrate the success together while balancing their own personal responsibility to their employees.
It seems that success for small businesses and nonprofits is a function of organization, a system, planning/marketing and the leader's actions that have been developed and maintained. These winners make a conscious effort to ingrain a culture of success, which lasts for a lifetime. From 0ur observations, here are four factors that make SMEs successful;
Good People Who Fit. Top performing organizations have recognized the value of the four aspects of fit, fit with the manager, fit with the job, fit with the team and fit with the organization. They have used this information at all levels of their people development beginning in recruitment and following through with orientation, coaching/mentoring and succession planning.
A System. Success smaller-sized organizations have clean internal systems with little waste. Because of factor #1, they have a team that all follows the system. They have tools that everyone uses not allowing individuals to create their own versions. These systems are simple and uncomplicated. The leaders who succeed have an organization that depends on a system. Not an organization that is dependent on certain people to know how to run the system.
Planning/Marketing. These organizations have put together a strategic operating and marketing plan on paper. They us their systems (#2) to communicate with their people (#1) about the details of the plans and marketing using this as a tool to keep the dialogue open between the leader and the employees. The good ones recogonize they have to get the facts, create a database of knowledge and take time to create steps to future growth.
Leader’s Actions. Leaders are the glue that holds everything together. They are totally committed to the mission of the business and through their actions gain the commitment of the rest of the team. They hold people accountable for their actions, celebrate the success together while balancing their own personal responsibility to their employees.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
