Kundservice i Sverige!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Customer care / Kundvård on June 29th, 2012 by admin

Va f-n! Ska skicka ett fax och linjen är helt död! Ringer Telia. De lovar att skicka en tekniker tre dagar senare. “Han kommer före kl. 12.00”. Det betyder att jag blir upplåst en hel förmiddag, men vad kan man annars göra?

Väntade igår till 12.30 utan att den utlovade teknikern dyker upp. Ringer Telia igen och får beskedet att “då måste han ha missat tiden”. Man lovar nu att han skall komma efter 18.00. Väntar igen. Denna gång till niotiden då matchen EM-semifinalmatchen mellan Tyskland – Italien ska börja. Ingen tekniker och inte heller något samtal!

Ringer Telia igen i morse. “Oj oj oj, det var inte bra”. Det kan jag hålla med om! Man lovar att teknikern skall komma inom en timme. Döm av min förvåning, för bara en dryg timme senare är teknikern plats.

Efter ett besök på någon central nära mitt kontor återkommer han och meddelar att det nu är fixat. “Vad var felet” undrar jag. “Trasig ledning” Jo det kan jag förstå, det var väl därför linjem var död, men vad mer exakt var trasigt. “Jo du, det kan vara mycket som går sönder i en ledning”. OK, jag förstår. Eller troligen inte.

Så frågar han plötsligt om hemtelefonen fungerar. Jag berättar att det är ett tag sedan vi använde den. Det är ju mest mobiltelefoner numera. Varför undrar han detta tro? “Jo, den ledningen är också trasig”. Men om den är trasig, varför frågar han då? ” Ville bara kolla” svarar han.

“Men du fixade väl den då när du var på plats och såg att den var trasig, eller hur”? Nej, det kunde han inte göra. Jag förstår inte. Ledningarna sitter tydligen precis bredvid varandra i den central han besökt och bägge är trasiga. Den ena går till mitt hemkontor och den andra hem. Om bägge är trasiga, varför då inte laga bägge samtidigt när han ju ser att de är trasiga både två? “Det går inte,, svarar han.

Jag förstår nu ännu mindre än tidigare! Men han förklarar snabbt att han måste ha en felanmälan. “OK, då får du den av mig nu på en gång” svarar jag. Men icke! Så lätt är det inte! Jag måste ringa in till Telia, knappa mig fram till rätt val., sitta i en telefonkö och vänta, göra en felanmälan, få ett felanmälansnummer, ringa ett annat nummer, ange felanmälansnummret och boka en tid med en tekniker (han som just nu står vid den trasiga ledningen) och boka en tid som teknikern sedan (om jag har tur) kommer att passa.

Är det effektivitet a la Telia 2012? Är detta kundservice i Sverige 2012?

Developing global leaders

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on June 29th, 2012 by admin

Companies must cultivate leaders for global markets. Dispelling five common myths about globalization is a good place to start.

As firms reach across borders, global-leadership capacity is surfacing more and more often as a binding constraint. According to one survey of senior executives, 76 percent believe their organizations need to develop global-leadership capabilities, but only 7 percent think they are currently doing so very effectively.1 And some 30 percent of US companies admit that they have failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities because of insufficient internationally competent personnel.2

Most of the prevailing ideas in business and academia about global leadership reflect efforts by leadership experts to adapt the insights of their field to the global arena. I come at this topic from the opposite perspective, having focused for nearly two decades on studying globalization and thinking through its implications for business and public policy.

At the core of my work lies the reality that, while globalization is indeed a powerful force, the extent of international integration varies widely across countries and companies and generally remains more limited than is commonly supposed. To be sure, rapid growth in emerging markets, combined with a long-term outlook of lower growth in most developed economies, is pushing companies to globalize faster. But metrics on the globalization of markets indicate that only 10 to 25 percent of trade, capital, information, and people flows actually cross national borders. And international flows are generally dampened significantly by geographic distance as well as cross-country differences. US trade with Chile, for example, is only 6 percent of its likely extent if Chile were as close to the United States as Canada is. Furthermore, if two countries don’t share a common language, that alone slashes the trade volume between them by 30 percent.

An appreciation of how distances and differences influence international ties helps explain some of the organizational and other stresses that established multinationals are encountering as they accelerate their expansion to emerging markets (for more, see “Parsing the growth advantage of emerging-market companies,” on mckinseyquarterly.com). Emerging Asia is farther away—and more different, along multiple dimensions—than more familiar markets in Europe and North America. Japanese multinationals face a distinctive set of cultural, political, and economic issues that complicate their efforts to expand abroad.

Exaggerated notions of what globalization means—what I call “globaloney”—are also apparent in prevailing ideas about global leadership. Some training centers aim to develop “transcultural” leaders who can manage effectively anywhere in the world as soon as they step off the plane. Yet scholars of cross-cultural management suggest that objectives like this are unrealistic.

While global leadership is still a nascent field, common conceptions of it already incorporate myths or half-truths that rest on misconceptions about globalization. Correcting these myths should help the efforts of companies to increase their global-leadership capacity.

Myth #1, My company, at least, is global.
When I present data on the limited extent of international interactions to executives in large multinational corporations, a typical reaction is that even if markets are not that integrated, their firm certainly is. Such claims, however, seldom hold up to scrutiny. Less than 2 percent of firms on Fortune’s Global 500 list of the world’s largest companies, for example, derive more than 20 percent of their revenues from three distinct regions.3 Most firms also remain quite domestically rooted in other aspects of their business, such as where they do their production or R&D or where their shareholders live. BMW, for instance, derived 51 percent of its sales revenue from outside of Europe in 2011, but still maintained roughly 64 percent of its production and 73 percent of its workforce in Germany.4

An accurate read on the extent of globalization in one’s firm and industry is certainly a crucial requirement for global leadership. Also invaluable is an appreciation of the extent to which the people within your company are far from completely globalized. Consider just a few pertinent facts. Trust, which some have called the currency of leadership, declines sharply with distance. Research conducted in Western Europe suggests that people trust citizens of their own country twice as much as they trust people from neighboring countries and that they place even less trust in people farther away. Turning to information flows—also central to leadership—people get as much as 95 percent of their news from domestic sources,5 which devote most of their coverage to domestic stories. Similarly, 98 percent of telephone-calling minutes and 85 percent of Facebook friends are domestic.

The persistent rootedness of both firms and employees has the surprising implication that global leaders should not seek to sever or hide their own roots to become global citizens. Rather, they should embrace “rooted cosmopolitanism” by nurturing their own roots and branching out beyond them to connect with counterparts elsewhere who, like themselves, are deeply rooted in distinct places and cultures. Indeed, studies of expatriate performance confirm that expats who identify strongly with both their home and host cultures perform better than those who identify only with one or with neither.6

This rooted-cosmopolitan approach also accords better with research showing that people can become “biculturals,” with a truly deep understanding of two cultures,7 but probably can’t entirely internalize three, which implies that four is out of the question. Facing such limitations, attempts to become global by breaking free from one’s roots seem more likely to lead to symmetric detachment—a lack of meaningful ties to any place—than to symmetric attachment everywhere.

Myth #2, Global leadership is developed through experience.
Leadership scholars have argued that experience contributes some 80 percent to learning about global leadership.8 My own investigations of senior executives’ perceptions of globalization, however, indicate that experience, while required, is not sufficient for the development of an accurate global mind-set.

To illustrate, in a survey I asked readers of Harvard Business Review to estimate a set of basic values about the internationalization of product, capital, information, and people flows. The respondents overestimated these values, on average, by a factor of three. And, more interesting from the standpoint of leadership development, the magnitude of the readers’ errors increased with their years of experience and the seniority of their titles. The CEOs in the sample overestimated the values by a factor of four!

Why might experience correlate with less rather than more accurate perceptions about globalization? One possibility is projection bias. Senior executives and CEOs tend to lead far more global lives than most of the world’s population, often touching several continents in any given month. Ninety percent of the people on this planet will never venture beyond the borders of the countries where they were born.

If experience alone is insufficient to develop accurate perspectives about globalization, what do executives need to learn off the job? A starting point is an accurate read on the magnitude and patterns of international interactions within their industries and companies. Rooted maps, described in my 2011 McKinsey Quarterly article,9 can help executives to visualize and interpret these patterns.

Global leaders also need to understand the factors that shape international interactions in their businesses, by undertaking a structured examination of cross-country differences and their effects. That is what a survey of academic thought leaders recently concluded should be the focus of the globalization of business school curricula.10

Conceptual learning of this sort is a complement to—one might even say a precondition of, though certainly not a substitute for —experiential learning. When executives can fit their personal experiences into an accurate global perspective defined by conceptual frameworks11 and hard data, they can gain more from their typically limited time abroad and avoid costly mistakes.

Myth #3, Development is all about building standard global-leadership competencies.
Many lists of global-leadership competencies have been developed in business and in academia, but these provide only a starting point for thinking through the right competency model to apply within a particular company. Customization and focus are essential. In part, that’s because even though literally hundreds of competencies have been proposed, a lot of these lists have important gaps or fail to go far enough toward incorporating unique requirements for global leadership. That isn’t surprising, since the lists often grow out of research on domestic leadership.

One large review of the literature summarizes it in three core competencies (self-awareness, engagement in personal transformation, and inquisitiveness), seven mental characteristics (optimism, self-regulation, social-judgment skills, empathy, motivation to work in an international environment, cognitive skills, and acceptance of complexity and its contradictions), and three behavioral competencies (social skills, networking skills, and knowledge).12 To my mind, most of these would also be useful for domestic leadership. Only the motivational point seems distinctively international, although one or two more (such as acceptance of complexity and its contradictions) clearly seem more important in the international domain than domestically.

Typical competency lists also tend to focus on cultural differences, missing other components critical to global leadership. Economic differences (such as the challenges of fast versus slow-growth markets) and administrative and political differences (including the extent of state intervention) are among the other factors that can cause leaders to stumble in unfamiliar contexts.

Perhaps most important, standard lists of global-leadership competencies reinforce a one-size-fits-all view of global leadership that is inconsistent with the reality of globalization and the mix of work global leaders do. A company may find it useful to recruit for and develop a small set of key competencies across all of its global leaders. Yet the diversity of roles that fall under the broad category of global leadership argues for substantial customization around that common base. At the corporate level, this implies developing a portfolio of competencies rather than an interchangeable set of global leaders who have all met a single set of requirements.

Operationally, an ideal training program would therefore include a geographic dimension and prepare people for dealing with particular origin–destination pairs. For example, a Japanese executive going to work in the United States would probably benefit from preparing for the higher level of individualism there. One preparing for China would in all likelihood benefit more from understanding that “uncertainty avoidance” is less pronounced there, so executives must be ready for faster-paced change and greater levels of experimentation.

Customizing training-and-development efforts at the level of individual country pairs is likely to run up quickly against resource constraints. However, the fact that 50 to 60 percent of trade, foreign direct investment, telephone calls, and migration are intraregional suggests that, in many cases, customizing at the regional level is sufficient. Firms will need a mix of regional and global leaders. Regional leadership is presumably less difficult and costly to develop than global leadership.

At a more granular level, competencies can also be customized to the requirements of specific executives’ roles. The dimensions to consider include depth in particular markets versus breadth across markets, the frequency and duration of physical presence abroad, and a focus on internal versus external interactions.13

Myth #4, Localization is the key.
Some firms, rather than trying to fulfill the requirements of one-size-fits-all lists of global-leadership competencies, have embraced the opposite extreme of localization. Significant localization has taken place in the management teams of foreign subsidiaries. According to one study, the proportion of expatriates in senior-management roles in multinationals in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and in the Middle East declined from 56 percent to 12 percent from the late 1990s to the late 2000s.14

Within this broad trend, some firms still rely too much on expatriates and need to localize more, but localization can be—and, in some instances, clearly has been—taken too far. Giving up on expatriation implies giving up on building the diverse bench of global leaders that CEOs say they require. Persistent distance effects, particularly those associated with information flows, do confirm the general wisdom: global leaders need experience working for extended periods in foreign locations because living abroad creates permanent knowledge and ties that bind. Extreme localization leaves no room for the development of leaders of this sort.

Executives report that “it takes at least three months to become immersed in a geographical location and appreciate how the culture, politics, and history of a region affect business there.”15 This judgment accords with the finding that living abroad expands your mental horizons and increases your creativity. However, merely traveling abroad doesn’t produce these benefits.16

Long stays abroad are costly: traditional expatriation typically costs three times an employee’s salary at home. Nonetheless, firms that really wish to prioritize global-leadership development will need to allocate the required resources. Better metrics to track the returns on such investments may help. One survey indicates that just 14 percent of companies have any mechanisms in place to track returns on international assignments. Most of these companies use metrics tracking only business generated from an assignment.17

Better career management could help capture and measure returns on investments in developing global leaders. Evidence indicates that in European and US multinationals, expatriates still take longer, on average, to ascend the corporate ladder than managers who continue to work within their home countries. That indicates a deficiency in this area, as well as an incentive problem.18

Rather than pure localization, firms should embrace the practice of rotation, which provides the foreign work experience—not just travel—essential to the development of global leaders. And don’t make the mistake of viewing expatriation as being solely about sending people from headquarters to emerging markets. The same requirement for immersion outside of one’s home market also applies to the cultivation of global leaders recruited in emerging markets. For these executives, time spent in more established markets can, on the return home, reinforce both local- and global-leadership capacity.19

Myth #5, We can attract the best talent.
Nationals from key growth markets are underrepresented in the leadership ranks of many Western companies, so hiring future global leaders from these areas is critical. Yet recruiting top talent there is becoming increasingly difficult, as described in “How multinationals can attract the talent they need.” I recall from my own youth in India how foreign multinationals used to be unequivocally the preferred employers, prized for their superior professionalism, brands, technologies, scale, and so on. Now I see that Indian companies have raised their game, putting pressure on multinationals in local talent markets.

The implications for global-leadership development are threefold. First, shifting to the rooted-cosmopolitan ideal described here is critical to attracting and developing executives from emerging markets. This approach makes it clear that ambitious young Indians, for example, proud of their country, don’t have to refashion themselves as Westerners to succeed in Western multinationals.

Second, escalating competition for talent in growth markets implies that it is even more urgent for multinationals to diversify their leadership teams quickly. One of the main advantages of local firms is the fact that young recruits often can see, in the faces of the current leadership, that if they excel they have a clear shot at rising to the top. In many multinationals, such promises will require a leap of faith until diversity is significantly expanded. And the local competitors’ ongoing international expansion gradually diminishes another advantage of foreign multinationals: the ability to offer a wide range of global opportunities.

Third, incorporating more local talent will require a greater emphasis on developing people. Tight talent markets and overstretched education systems imply, frankly, that firms hire some people who are not up to the standards they would prefer to uphold. Among the great strengths of India’s IT firms is their ability to convert such not quite fully prepared talent into effective performers on a large scale.

It is indeed in today’s large emerging markets that the war for talent, identified by McKinsey back in 1997, has become most acute.

Addressing the global-leadership gap must be an urgent priority for companies expanding their geographic reach. Predictable biases rooted in widespread misperceptions about globalization are hampering their efforts to develop capable global leaders.

Source: McKinsey Quaterly, June 2012
Author: Pankaj Ghemawat, an alumnus of McKinsey’s London office, is a professor of strategic management and the Anselmo Rubiralta Chair of Global Strategy at the IESE Business School, in Barcelona
Link

The end of solution sales?

Posted in Aktuellt, Försäljning / Sales on June 27th, 2012 by admin

Customers are becoming more competent as a buyer. Both in terms of product knowledge and purchasing skills.
As it has become increasingly difficult to get paid for “only” product, it has become increasingly important to sell a solution. This particular development has been one of the most important competitive factors for many of my clients (whether acted on pure product or service sales). Many of my clients sales organizations have moved towards a more “consultative” sales approach. Given this development, I would recommend this interesting article.
// Johan
———————————————————————————————————————–
The hardest thing about B2B selling today is that customers don’t need you the way they used to. In recent decades sales reps have become adept at discovering customers’ needs and selling them “solutions”—generally, complex combinations of products and services. This worked because customers didn’t know how to solve their own problems, even though they often had a good understanding of what their problems were. But now, owing to increasingly sophisticated procurement teams and purchasing consultants armed with troves of data, companies can readily define solutions for themselves.

In fact, a recent Corporate Executive Board study of more than 1,400 B2B customers found that those customers completed, on average, nearly 60% of a typical purchasing decision—researching solutions, ranking options, setting requirements, benchmarking pricing, and so on—before even having a conversation with a supplier. In this world the celebrated “solution sales rep” can be more of an annoyance than an asset. Customers in an array of industries, from IT to insurance to business process outsourcing, are often way ahead of the salespeople who are “helping” them.

But the news is not all bad. Although traditional reps are at a distinct disadvantage in this environment, a select group of high performers are flourishing. These superior reps have abandoned much of the conventional wisdom taught in sales organizations. They:
– evaluate prospects according to criteria different from those used by other reps, targeting agile organizations in a state of flux rather than ones with a clear understanding of their needs
– seek out a very different set of stakeholders, preferring skeptical change agents over friendly informants
– coach those change agents on how to buy, instead of quizzing them about their company’s purchasing process

These sales professionals don’t just sell more effectively—they sell differently. This means that boosting the performance of average salespeople isn’t a matter of improving how they currently sell; it involves altogether changing how they sell. To accomplish this, organizations need to fundamentally rethink the training and support provided to their reps.

Coming Up Short
Under the conventional solution-selling method that has prevailed since the 1980s, salespeople are trained to align a solution with an acknowledged customer need and demonstrate why it is better than the competition’s. This translates into a very practical approach: A rep begins by identifying customers who recognize a problem that the supplier can solve, and gives priority to those who are ready to act. Then, by asking questions, she surfaces a “hook” that enables her to attach her company’s solution to that problem. Part and parcel of this approach is her ability to find and nurture somebody within the customer organization—an advocate, or coach—who can help her navigate the company and drive the deal to completion.

But customers have radically departed from the old ways of buying, and sales leaders are increasingly finding that their staffs are relegated to price-driven bake-offs. One CSO at a high-tech organization told us, “Our customers are coming to the table armed to the teeth with a deep understanding of their problem and a well-scoped RFP for a solution. It’s turning many of our sales conversations into fulfillment conversations.” Reps must learn to engage customers much earlier, well before customers fully understand their own needs. In many ways, this is a strategy as old as sales itself: To win a deal, you’ve got to get ahead of the RFP. But our research shows that although that’s more important than ever, it’s no longer sufficient.

To find out what high-performing sales professionals (defined as those in the top 20% in terms of quota attainment) do differently from other reps, Corporate Executive Board conducted three studies. In the first, we surveyed more than 6,000 reps from 83 companies, spanning every major industry, about how they prioritize opportunities, target and engage stakeholders, and execute the sales process. In the second, we examined complex purchasing scenarios in nearly 600 companies in a variety of industries to understand the various structures and influences of formal and informal buying teams. In the third, we studied more than 700 individual customer stakeholders involved in complex B2B purchases to determine the impact specific kinds of stakeholders can have on organizational buying decisions.

Our key finding: The top-performing reps have abandoned the traditional playbook and devised a novel, even radical, sales approach built on the three strategies outlined above. Let’s take a close look at each.

Clic here for A New Selling Guide for Reps

Source: Harvard Business Review, June 2012
Authors: Brent Adamson, Matthew Dixon, and Nicholas Toman
Link

Nine beliefs of remarkably successful people

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on June 27th, 2012 by admin

The most successful people in business approach their work differently than most. See how they think–and why it works.
I’m fortunate enough to know a number of remarkably successful people. Regardless of industry or profession, they all share the same perspectives and beliefs.

And they act on those beliefs:

1. Time doesn’t fill me. I fill time
Deadlines and time frames establish parameters, but typically not in a good way. The average person who is given two weeks to complete a task will instinctively adjust his effort so it actually takes two weeks.
Forget deadlines, at least as a way to manage your activity. Tasks should only take as long as they need to take. Do everything as quickly and effectively as you can. Then use your “free” time to get other things done just as quickly and effectively.
Average people allow time to impose its will on them; remarkable people impose their will on their time.

2. The people around me are the people I chose
Some of your employees drive you nuts. Some of your customers are obnoxious. Some of your friends are selfish, all-about-me jerks.
You chose them. If the people around you make you unhappy it’s not their fault. It’s your fault. They’re in your professional or personal life because you drew them to you–and you let them remain.
Think about the type of people you want to work with. Think about the types of customers you would enjoy serving. Think about the friends you want to have.
Then change what you do so you can start attracting those people. Hardworking people want to work with hardworking people. Kind people like to associate with kind people. Remarkable employees want to work for remarkable bosses.
Successful people are naturally drawn to successful people.

3. I have never paid my dues
Dues aren’t paid, past tense. Dues get paid, each and every day. The only real measure of your value is the tangible contribution you make on a daily basis.

No matter what you’ve done or accomplished in the past, you’re never too good to roll up your sleeves, get dirty, and do the grunt work. No job is ever too menial, no task ever too unskilled or boring.
Remarkably successful people never feel entitled–except to the fruits of their labor.

4. Experience is irrelevant. Accomplishments are everything
You have “10 years in the Web design business.” Whoopee. I don’t care how long you’ve been doing what you do. Years of service indicate nothing; you could be the worst 10-year programmer in the world.
I care about what you’ve done: how many sites you’ve created, how many back-end systems you’ve installed, how many customer-specific applications you’ve developed (and what kind)… all that matters is what you’ve done.
Successful people don’t need to describe themselves using hyperbolic adjectives like passionate, innovative, driven, etc. They can just describe, hopefully in a humble way, what they’ve done.

5. Failure is something I accomplish; it doesn’t just happen to me
Ask people why they have been successful. Their answers will be filled with personal pronouns: I, me, and the sometimes too occasional we. Ask them why they failed. Most will revert to childhood and instinctively distance themselves, like the kid who says, “My toy got broken…” instead of, “I broke my toy.”
They’ll say the economy tanked. They’ll say the market wasn’t ready. They’ll say their suppliers couldn’t keep up.
They’ll say it was someone or something else.
And by distancing themselves, they don’t learn from their failures.
Occasionally something completely outside your control will cause you to fail. Most of the time, though, it’s you. And that’s okay. Every successful person has failed. Numerous times. Most of them have failed a lot more often than you. That’s why they’re successful now.
Embrace every failure: Own it, learn from it, and take full responsibility for making sure that next time, things will turn out differently.

6. Volunteers always win
Whenever you raise your hand you wind up being asked to do more.
That’s great. Doing more is an opportunity: to learn, to impress, to gain skills, to build new relationships–to do something more than you would otherwise been able to do.

Success is based on action. The more you volunteer, the more you get to act. Successful people step forward to create opportunities.
Remarkably successful people sprint forward.

7. As long as I’m paid well, it’s all good
Specialization is good. Focus is good. Finding a niche is good. Generating revenue is great.
Anything a customer will pay you a reasonable price to do–as long as it isn’t unethical, immoral, or illegal–is something you should do. Your customers want you to deliver outside your normal territory? If they’ll pay you for it, fine. They want you to add services you don’t normally include? If they’ll pay you for it, fine. The customer wants you to perform some relatively manual labor and you’re a high-tech shop? Shut up, roll ’em up, do the work, and get paid.
Only do what you want to do and you might build an okay business. Be willing to do what customers want you to do and you can build a successful business.
Be willing to do even more and you can build a remarkable business. And speaking of customers…

8. People who pay me always have the right to tell me what to do
Get over your cocky, pretentious, I-must-be-free-to-express-my-individuality self. Be that way on your own time.
The people who pay you, whether customers or employers, earn the right to dictate what you do and how you do it–sometimes down to the last detail.
Instead of complaining, work to align what you like to do with what the people who pay you want you to do.
Then you turn issues like control and micro-management into non-issues.

9. The extra mile is a vast, unpopulated wasteland
Everyone says they go the extra mile. Almost no one actually does. Most people who go there think, “Wait… no one else is here… why am I doing this?” and leave, never to return.
That’s why the extra mile is such a lonely place.
That’s also why the extra mile is a place filled with opportunities.

Be early. Stay late. Make the extra phone call. Send the extra email. Do the extra research. Help a customer unload or unpack a shipment. Don’t wait to be asked; offer. Don’t just tell employees what to do–show them what to do and work beside them.

Every time you do something, think of one extra thing you can do–especially if other people aren’t doing that one thing. Sure, it’s hard. But that’s what will make you different. And over time, that’s what will make you incredibly successful.

Source: inc.com, Jeff Haden, June 2012
Link

Företaget som inte haft en chef på 16 år

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on June 25th, 2012 by admin

Trött på chefen? Spelbolaget Valve i Seattle har klarat sig utan chef sedan starten för 16 år sedan.

Företaget tillverkar datorspel som bland annat utvecklat Portal-spelen för Playstation, X-box och datorer. Sedan företaget startades på USA:s nordvästra kust för 16 år sedan har företaget inte haft någon chef, skriver Wall Street Journal.

Här bestämmer företagets 300 anställda vilka projekt det är värt att jobba med och rekryterar den personal som behövs. Vem som helst kan vara med och bestämma över vem som ska anställas. Ofta sker det gruppvis av dem som är involverade i projektet som kräver mer personal. På samma sätt beslutar arbetslaget om det är någon som inte funkar i gruppen och därför måste sluta. Ofta faller det sig naturligt att någon i gruppen tar över ledarskapet för just det projekt det handlar om.

”Om ingen vill leda är det ofta ett tecken på att projektet inte är värt att fullfölja”, säger Greg Coomer som jobbat på Valve i 16 år.

De anställda förfogar själva över sin arbetstid och varje person har ett skrivbord på hjul som lätt kan flyttas runt för att jobba i nya grupper efter behov.

På Valve, finns ingen befordran – bara nya projekt. När det kommer till lönesättning får medarbetarna ranka varandras arbetsinsats. Den som tillför mest värde till företaget förtjänar högre lön och man får inte rösta på sig själv, enligt WSJ.com.

Försvarare av likartade icke-hierarkiska system anser att anställda blir mer motiverade och flexibla även om det kan ta längre tid att fatta beslut och anställa, skriver WSJ.com. För att det chefslösa systemet ska fungera krävs det att personerna som rekryteras är motiverade och högpresterande. Systemets kritiker påpekar att det gör det svårare att ha koll på och bli av med personer som underpresterar när det inte finns någon ansvarig chef.

Källa: DN.se, 25 juni 2012
Läs artikeln på DN.se här

Nu kan du göra ändringar i dina Facebookinlägg

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Digitalisering / Internet on June 25th, 2012 by admin

Från och med i torsdags behöver du inte längre radera ett felstavat inlägg och skriva nytt. Läs mer om hur du gör här

Kan du koppla av i sommar?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on June 24th, 2012 by admin

Öva på att stänga av
Tyska arbetsmarknadsministern vill stifta lag kring jobbmejlande efter arbetstid, samtidigt är flexibiliteten att kunna jobba när och var man vill en förutsättning för mångas karriär. Knepet kan vara att reglera tillgängligheten hårdare för sig själv – börja öva i sommar.

1: Lag på bortkoppling ställs mot ständig uppkoppling
I förra veckan meddelade tyska arbetsmarknadsministern Ursula von der Leyen att hon vill förbjuda tvång eller förväntan på att anställda svarar på jobbmejl efter arbetstid. Man måste kunna stänga av huvudet och hämta kraft, tycker ministern och före detta läkaren. 84 procent av tyskarna uppger i en undersökning från försäkringskassan BKK att de är nåbara för chefer och kunder på fritiden.

Att ämnet är högaktuellt även här bevisas av det stora läsarintresset. I andra ändan finns tankar som hos Lucy Kellaway, kolumnist i Financial Times, som i en krönika från förra sommaren konstaterar att hon aldrig längre tar semester. Hon tar ”worlidays”, dagar på lantstället då det mellan artikelskrivande och mejlande finns tid för hundpromenader och grillning på stranden. Hon ser många fördelar med att sprida ut ledigheten och aldrig helt koppla bort och spår att framtiden ser ut så för de flesta tjänstemän.

2: Hellre flexibel och uppkopplad än borträknad
Undersökningar visar gång på gång att medan många stressas av ständig uppkoppling är det också många som upplever möjligheten som avstressande. Flexibiliteten i att kunna koppla upp sig på vägen hem och på kvällar och semestrar blir en förutsättning för att kunna göra karriär, särskilt för småbarnsföräldrar.

I en undersökning från Ledarna om vilka problem chefer upp till 44 år upplevde hamnade ”att jobba på kvällarna efter att barnen somnat” näst längst ner bland alternativen. I en tidigare undersökning från samma organisation uppgav 57 procent av cheferna att de blev mer stressade av att inte ha tillgång till internet och mejl i alla lägen. ”De flesta tycker att uppkoppling är stöd för balans i livet, men det är väl it-stress om något”, kommenterade ledarskapsexperten Anki Udd då.

Frågan är hur man löser ekvationen. Kanske handlar det bara om att vi lära oss sätta regler för oss själva för uppkopplingen?

3: Flytta ögonen från skärmen
Allt fler ställer sig frågan vad den ständiga internetuppkopplingen, främst sociala medier, gör med våra relationer. Nätskeptikerna blir fler och amerikanska journalisten Susan Maushart fick förra året en enorm uppmärksamhet för sin bok Nedkopplad om familjens halvårsexperiment i att leva utan datorer, smartphones och tv-apparater. De började föra riktiga samtal, spela brädspel och saxofon.

Tre av tio i en undersökning från Unionen upplever att krav på tillgänglighet under semestern stjäl tid som de hellre velat spendera med familj och vänner. Ett råd är att kolla mejl på bestämda tider. Och när det gäller surfingsug varnade stressexperten Giorgio Grossi i Svd i fjol för signaler som att du lovat dig själv att inte koppla upp dig under semestern och ändå sitter du där, en medvetenhet att du egentligen flyr från något annat och reaktioner från omgivningen på ditt internetbeteende som ger dig skuldkänslor.

Så se upp med det och se varandra i ögonen på stranden.

Källa: SvD.se, 24 juni 2012
Skrivet av Sara Lomberg
Länk
Läs mer på detta tema på gr8meetings här

How to attract the talent you need for success

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Leadership / Ledarskap on June 21st, 2012 by admin

I am right now conducting a study (in a partnership with Bangkok Post) in Thailand on the importance of e.g. Employe Branding for the future success of your business. The result will be presented on a seminair in August 23 in Bangkok (for an invitation – please let me know). Part of the study is also to highlight the alignment between HR-managers and their colleges in the Management team.

Talking about employe branding – please read this interesting article:

How multinationals can attract the talent they need

Competition for talent in emerging markets is heating up. Global companies should groom local highfliers—and actively encourage more managers to leave home.

Global organizations appear to be well armed in the war for talent. They can tap sources of suitably qualified people around the world and attract them with stimulating jobs in different countries, the promise of powerful positions early on, and a share of the rewards earned by deploying world-class people to build global businesses. However, these traditional sources of strength are coming under pressure from intensifying competition for talent in emerging markets.

• Talent in emerging economies is scarce, expensive, and hard to retain. In China, for example, barely two million local managers have the managerial and English-language skills multinationals need.1 One leading bank reports paying top people in Brazil, China, and India almost double what it pays their peers in the United Kingdom. And a recent McKinsey survey in China found that senior managers in global organizations switch companies at a rate of 30 to 40 percent a year—five times the global average.

• Fast-moving, ambitious local companies are competing more strongly: in 2006, the top-ten ideal employers in China included only two locals—China Mobile and Bank of China (BOC)—among the well-known global names. By 2010, seven of the top ten were Chinese companies. As one executive told us, “local competitors’ brands are now stronger, and they can offer more senior roles.”

• Executives from developed markets, by no means eagerly seizing plum jobs abroad, appear disinclined to move: a recent Manpower report suggests that in Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the proportion of staff ready to relocate for a job has declined substantially,2 perhaps partly because people prefer to stay close to home in uncertain times.

How can global organizations best renew and redeploy their strengths to address these challenges? Our experience suggests they should start by getting their business and talent strategies better aligned as they rebalance toward emerging markets. This is a perennial challenge, made more acute by extending farther afield. But the core principles for estimating the skills a company will need in each location to achieve its business goals, and for planning ahead to meet those needs, are similar enough across geographies not to be our focus here. Rather, we focus on two additional questions. How can global organizations attract, retain, and excite the kinds of people required to execute a winning business strategy in emerging markets? And what can these companies do to persuade more executives trained in home markets to develop businesses in emerging ones, thereby broadening the senior-leadership team’s experience base?

Becoming more attractive to locals
A big historic advantage global companies have over local competitors is the ability to offer recruits opportunities to work elsewhere in the world. A small number of executives, in fact, have moved from leading positions in emerging markets to a global-leadership role, including Ajay Banga, president and CEO of MasterCard Worldwide; Indra Nooyi, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo; and Harish Manwani, COO of Unilever.

But big global companies need a lot more role models like these if they are to persuade highly talented local people to join and stay. A recent McKinsey survey of senior multinational executives from India found that few companies were providing opportunities overseas in line with the aspirations and capabilities of ambitious managers.3 We’ve also heard this concern voiced in many interviews. A senior executive at a global company in Asia told us, “In our top-100-executive meetings, we spend more than half of our time speaking about Asia. But if I look around the room I hardly see anybody with an Asian background.” Another put the problem more bluntly: “Leaders tend to promote and hire in their own image.”

The makeup of most multinational boards provides further evidence: in the United States, less than 10 percent of directors of the largest 200 companies are non-US nationals, up from 6 percent in 2005 but still low considering the global interests of such companies. Western ones can start working on these numbers by refining their approach to developing top talent in emerging markets. Many also need to rethink their brands to win in a fast-changing talent marketplace.

Prepare your highfliers for top roles
There’s no silver bullet for developing or retaining emerging-market talent. Examples such as the ones below present different paths, but each company will need to find its own.

Global-development experiences at Bertelsmann. The German media giant tries to develop—and retain—top managers through specialized training programs. In India, for example, its high-potential employees can apply for an INSEAD Global Executive MBA; over the three years this benefit has been available, motivation and retention rates among alumni of the program have sharply increased for less than it would have cost to give them salary hikes. In addition, Bertelsmann’s CEO program brings local-market employees to the corporate center, where they gain exposure to the range of functional and geographical issues they can expect to encounter as leaders. Having spent a couple of years at the center, recruits then compete for senior roles in local or regional markets. They return with a solid understanding of the organization and its strategy, as well as an extended network based on trust gained from working intensively with leaders across the company.

Breaking cultural barriers at Goldman Sachs. The global bank is one of many firms that have designed special programs to tackle cultural and linguistic barriers impeding local executives from taking jobs at the global level. In 2009, for example, Goldman Sachs launched a program in Japan to help local employees interact more comfortably and effectively with their counterparts around the world, with a focus on improving cross-cultural communication skills. The firm has extended this “culture dojo,” named after Japan’s martial-arts training halls, to China and South Korea and plans to launch programs in Bangalore and Singapore.4

Local-leadership development at Diageo. Nick Blazquez, the drinks company Diageo’s president for Africa, questions whether leadership training today must include experience in a developed economy. “I used to think that to optimize the impact, a general manager should work in a developed market for a period of time, because that’s where you see well-developed competencies. But I’m just not seeing that now. If I think about marketing competencies, for example, some of Diageo’s most innovative marketing solutions are in Africa.” In fact, he notes, “we in Africa have developed some of Diageo’s leading digital-marketing programs. So I don’t think that there’s a need anymore for somebody to have worked in a developed market for them to be a really good manager. That said, I do feel that a good leader of a global organization would be better equipped having experienced both developed and developing markets.” For global companies in a similar position, acknowledging that local highfliers can drive global innovation without first serving a long apprenticeship in a developed economy could unlock massive reserves of creative energy.

Enhance your brand as an employer
While there’s no substitute for development programs that will help emerging-market recruits rise, global organizations need to strengthen other aspects of their employer brands to succeed in the talent marketplace in these countries. Historically, globally recognized companies have enjoyed significant advantages: they knew they were more attractive to potential local employees than any local competitor. “We still have the attitude that someone is lucky to be hired by us,” one executive told us. But today, many local fast-growing and ambitious companies have more pulling power. And multinationals based in emerging markets are conscious of the work they must do to sustain their levels of recruitment. As Santrupt Misra, Aditya Birla’s HR director, says: “We are growing as a company more rapidly than people grow, so we need to develop more peer leaders. Simultaneously, we need to [maintain] a very strong employer brand so that if we do not manage to develop enough people, we can hire.”

Established global companies should consider the same strategy. In any market, the basic ingredients of a strong employer brand will be competitive compensation; attractive working conditions; managers who develop, engage, and support their staff; and good communication. One challenge for global companies is to manage the tension between being globally consistent and, at the same time, responsive to very diverse local needs. Some degree of local tailoring is often necessary—for example, to accommodate the preference for near- over long-term rewards in Russia. However, any tailoring must sit within a broadly applied set of employment principles. Tata sets out to “make it a point to understand employees’ wants, not just in India, but wherever Tata operates,” according to its group vice president of HR. It has a tailored employee value proposition for each of its major markets; for example, it stresses its managers’ quality to employees in India, development opportunities in China, and interesting jobs in the United States.

In some markets, particularly in Asia, global organizations are extending awareness of their brands as employers by building a relationship between themselves and their employees’ families. For example, Motorola and Nestlé have tried to strengthen these links in China through their family visits and family day initiatives. Aditya Birla webcasts its annual employee award ceremony to all employees and their families around their world. And in all markets, companies are likely to find that many young, aspiring managers view being part of a broader cause and contributing to their countries’ overall economic development as increasingly important. Articulating a company’s contribution to that development is likewise an increasingly important component of any employer brand.

Encouraging homebodies to venture abroad
Even if a global company can find, keep, and develop all the local leaders it wants, it still may need more executives from its home market to work at length in diverse emerging ones so they learn how these markets function and forge networks to support the company’s future growth. To that end, some leading firms are replacing fixed short-term expatriate jobs with open-ended international roles. This not only deepens the expertise of the executives who hold them but also eliminates a problem cited by a European car executive we interviewed in South America: expat leaders become lame ducks toward the end of their overseas terms, progressively ignored by local managers.5

Developed-country operations have much to gain from executives versed in emerging-market management. “Leaders’ mind-sets are very different,” says Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide consumer group chairman Jesse Wu. “When you’re running an emerging market, you always operate under an austerity model. When you’ve been operating in emerging markets and come to the United States, you become aware of the little things, like how much people use color printers for internal documents. All these little things add up. Everybody’s happy with emerging-market growth,” but he adds that it “necessitates a lot of changes worldwide, not only in emerging markets.”

Global organizations’ growing need for managers willing to work for long stretches overseas is coinciding with a decrease in their willingness to go. “US talent over time seems to have become less mobile than executives from Europe, Asia, or Latin America,” says Wu. “We need this to change.”

Reversing the trend will take time. In firms where long-term success depends on moving across businesses, functions, and regions, that expectation should be crystal clear to all managers. Schlumberger requires managers to rotate jobs every two to three years across business units and corporate functions: the company expects that executives will spend 70 percent of their total careers working outside their home countries. Similarly, a leading mining company expects its people to have experience in at least two different geographic regions, two different businesses or functions, and even two different economic environments (high and low growth, say) before they can move into senior-leadership roles. Of course, it’s crucial to help managers abroad maintain their connections and influence back home and to provide close senior-executive mentorship—as HSBC does for participants in its International Management program, who are sent to an initial location, far from home, and can expect to rotate again after 18 to 24 months.

Making sure that new executives can contribute strongly and avoid mistakes when they arrive in new markets also is important. In 2010, IBM began sending executives to emerging markets as consultants, with the goal of investing time helping long-standing customers and other stakeholders. This way, the executives not only developed business in new geographies but also got to know the new markets and developed their personal skills. Dow Corning and FedEx have realized similar benefits by providing free services in emerging markets.

We have presented some snapshots here of how companies are getting better at attracting talent and developing leaders in emerging markets and of what it takes to cross-fertilize talent between different geographies. As the world’s economic center of gravity continues to shift from developed to emerging markets, more companies will wrestle with these issues, and some definitive best practices may well appear. For now, though, the global talent market is in flux, just like the global economy.

Source: McKinsey Quaterly
Author: Martin Dewhurst
Link

How to get senior leaders to change

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on June 20th, 2012 by admin

Most senior executives understand and generally buy into the famous aphorism, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Prompted by HR professionals or consultants, they often commit themselves to “being the change” by personally role-modeling the desired behaviors. And then, in practice, nothing significant changes.

In the research for our book, Beyond Performance, we found that the reason for this is that most executives don’t see themselves as “part of the problem.” Therefore, deep down, they do not believe that it is they who need to change, even though in principle they agree that leaders must model the desired changes. Take, for example, a team that reports that, as a group and as an organization, they are low in trust, not customer-focused and bureaucratic. How many executives when asked privately will say “no” to the questions “Do you consider yourself to be trustworthy?” and “Are you customer-focused?” and “yes” to the question “Are you a bureaucrat?” None, of course.

The fact is that most well-intentioned and hard-working people believe they are doing the right thing, or they wouldn’t be doing it. However, most people also have an unwarranted optimism in relation to their own behavior. Consider that when around one million students were asked how good they were at getting along with others, 85% rated themselves above the median and 25% rated themselves in the top 1%. Of course this is mathematically impossible. This isn’t only true for students getting along with one another — far more than 50% of people rank themselves in the top half of driving ability, although it is a statistical impossibility. When couples are asked to estimate their contribution to household work, the combined total routinely exceeds 100%. (And most men rank themselves in the top half of male athletic ability, even though that’s statistically impossible.) In many behavior-related areas, human beings consistently think they are better than they are — a phenomenon referred to in psychology as a “self-serving bias.” Whereas conventional change management approaches surmise that top team role modeling is a matter of will (“wanting to change”) or skill (“knowing how to change”), the inconvenient truth is that the real bottleneck to role modeling is knowing what to change at a personal level.

Typically, insight into what to change can be created by concrete 360-degree feedback techniques, either via surveys, conversations or both. This 360-degree feedback should not be against generic HR leadership competency models, but should instead be against the specific behaviors related to the desired changes that will drive business performance. This style of feedback can be augmented by fact gathering such as third-party observation of senior executives going about their day-to-day work (e.g., “You say you are not bureaucratic, but every meeting you are in creates three additional meetings and no decisions are made.”) and calendar analyses (e.g., “You say you are customer-focused but have spent 5% of your time reviewing customer-related data and no time meeting with customers or customer-facing employees.”).

Consider Amgen CEO Kevin Sharer’s approach of asking each of his top 75, “What should I do differently?” and sharing his development needs and commitment publicly with them. Consider the top team of a national insurance company who routinely employed what they called the “circle of feedback” during their change program: Every participant receives feedback live in the room, directly from their colleagues on “What are your strengths?” in relation to “being the change” as well as “Where can you improve?” Consider the leadership coalition (top 25) of a multi-regional bank who, after each major event in their change program, conducted a short, targeted 360-degree feedback survey regarding how well their behaviors role-modeled the desired behaviors during the event, ensuring that feedback was timely, relevant and practical.

While seemingly inconvenient, these types of techniques help break through the “self-serving bias” that inhibits well-meaning leaders from making a profound difference.

Note that some readers may be thinking, “But surely there are a few people who are fully role-modeling the desired behaviors — what does this mean for them?” If the purpose of senior executive role-modeling is to exhibit the behaviors required to ensure the success and sustainability of the company (e.g., collaboration, agility in decision making, empowerment), then the answer is “keep up the good work!” If the answer, however, is expanded to include role-modeling the process of personal behavioral change itself, there is more to do. Recall another famous aphorism: “For things to change, first I must change.”

Source: Harvard Business Review, Scott Keller, June 2012
Link
More information about Scott Kellers book Beyond Performance here
More on: Change management, Leadership, Organizational culture

Svenska chefer är trötta!

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on June 19th, 2012 by admin

Svenska chefer är trötta på att vara chefer.

Drygt hälften av dem uppger att de gärna vill ta en paus från chefsstolen under att par år, enligt en undersökning som Ledarna gjort med 1.300 chefer. En förutsättning är dock att cheferna kan komma tillbaka och vara chef.

Av dem som chefar inom vård och omsorg skulle 66 procent tacka ja till en paus. För den som jobbar inom konsultsektorn är siffran 31 procent.

Källa: DI.se, 20 juni 2012
Länk