The power of positive employee recognition

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on januari 30th, 2014 by admin

How to Provide Effective Employee Recognition

Prioritize employee recognition and you can ensure a positive, productive, innovative organizational climate. Provide employee recognition to say thank you and to encourage more of the actions and thinking that you believe will make your organization successful.

People who feel appreciated are more positive about themselves and their ability to contribute. People with positive self-esteem are potentially your best employees. These beliefs about employee recognition are common among employers even if not commonly carried out. Why then is employee recognition so closely guarded in many organizations?

Why Is Employee Recognition Scarce?
Time is an often-stated reason and admittedly, employee recognition does take time. Employers also start out with all of the best intentions when they seek to recognize employee performance. But, they often find their recognition efforts turn into employee complaining, jealousy, and dissatisfaction. With these experiences, many employers are hesitant to provide employee recognition.

In my experience, employee recognition is scarce because of a combination of several factors. People don’t know how to provide employee recognition effectively, so they have bad experiences when they do. They assume that one size fits all when they provide employee recognition. Finally, employers think too narrowly about what people will find rewarding and recognizing. These guidelines and ideas will help you effectively walk the slippery path of employee recognition and avoid potential problems when you recognize people in your work place.

Guidelines for Effective Employee Recognition
Decide what you want to achieve through your employee recognition efforts. Many organizations use a scatter approach to employee recognition. They put a lot of employee recognition out there and hope that some efforts will stick and create the results they want. Or, they recognize so infrequently that employee recognition becomes a downer for the many when the infrequent few are recognized.

Instead, create goals and action plans for employee recognition. You want to recognize the actions, behaviors, approaches, and accomplishments that youRecpg 1 want to foster and reinforce in your organization. Establish employee recognition opportunities that emphasize and reinforce these sought-after qualities and behaviors. If you need to increase attendance in your organization, hand out a three-part form, during your Monday morning staff meeting. The written note thanks employees who have perfect attendance that week. The employee keeps one part; save the second in the personnel file; place the third in a monthly drawing for gift certificates.

Fairness, clarity, and consistency are important in employee recognition. People need to see that each person who makes the same or a similar contribution has an equal likelihood of receiving recognition for her efforts. For regularly provided employee recognition, organizations need to establish criteria for what makes a person eligible for the employee recognition. Anyone who meets the criteria is then recognized.

For example, if people are recognized for exceeding a production or sales expectation, anyone who goes over the goal gets the glory. Recognizing only the highest performer will defeat or dissatisfy all of your other contributors, especially if the criteria for employee recognition are unclear or based on the supervisor’s opinion.

For day-to-day employee recognition, you’ll want to set guidelines so leaders acknowledge equivalent and similar contributions. Each employee who stays after work to contribute ideas in a departmental improvement brainstorming session gets to have lunch with the department head, for example. Each employee who contributes to a customer sale deserves employee recognition, even the employee who just answered the phone; his actions set the sale in motion.

This guideline is why an employee of the month-type program is most often unsuccessful for effective employee recognition. The criteria for results and the fairness of the criteria are not clear to people. So, people complain about “brown-nosing points” and the boss’s “pet employees.” These employee recognition programs cause discontent and dissention when the organization’s intentions were positive. It’s one of my common management mistakes in managing people.

As an additional example, it is important to recognize all people who contributed to a success equally. A CEO I know perpetually announced employee recognition for major projects at the company holiday celebration. Without fail, he missed the names of several people who contributed to the success of the project. With the opportunity for public employee recognition past, employees invariably felt slighted by the post-banquet thanks – no matter how sincere.

Employee recognition approaches and content must also be inconsistent. Contradictory? No, not really. You want to offer employee recognition that is consistently fair, but you also want to make sure your employee recognition efforts do not become expectations or entitlements. As expectations, your employee recognition efforts become entitlements. Bad news.

For example, a company owner provided lunch for all staff every Friday to encourage team building and positive work relationships. All interested employees voluntarily attended the lunches. He was shocked when a group of employees asked him for reimbursement to cover the cost of the lunch on days they did not attend. I wasn’t shocked; the lunches had become an expected portion of their compensation and benefits package. Sincere recognition had turned into entitlement.

Inconsistency is encouraged in the type of employee recognition offered also. If employees are invited to lunch with the boss every time they work over-time, the lunch is an expectation. It is no longer a reward. Additionally, if a person does not receive the expected reward, it becomes a dissatisfier and negatively impacts the person’s attitude about work.

Be as specific as you can in telling the individual exactly why he is receiving the recognition. The work purpose of feedback is to reinforce what you’d like to see the employee do more of; the purpose of employee recognition is the same. In fact, employee recognition is one of the most powerful forms of feedback that you can provide. While “you did a nice job today” is a positive comment, it lacks the power of, “the report had a significant impact on the committee’s decision. You did an excellent job of highlighting the key points and information we needed to weigh before deciding. Because of your work, we’ll be able to cut 6% of the budget with no layoffs.”

Offer employee recognition as close to the event you are recognizing as possible. When a person performs positively, provide recognition and a thank you immediately. Since it’s likely the employee is already feeling good about her performance; your timely recognition of the employee will enhance the positive feelings. This, in turn, positively affects the employee’s confidence in her ability to do well in your organization.

Specific Ideas for Employee Recognition
Remember that employee recognition is situational. Each individual has a preference for what he finds rewarding and how that recognition is most effective for him. One person may enjoy public recognition at a staff meeting; another prefers a private note in her personnel file. The best way to determine what an employee finds rewarding is to ask.

Use the myriad opportunities for employee recognition that are available to you. In organizations, people place too much emphasis on money as the only form of employee recognition. While salary, bonuses, and benefits are critical within your employee recognition and reward system – after all, most of us do work for money – think more broadly about your opportunities to provide employee recognition.

Source:, January 2014
By: Susan M. Heathfield

Uppskattning viktigare än lön

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on januari 28th, 2014 by admin

Lön 1
En bra chef som visar uppskattning och erkänsla prioriteras högre bland anställda än lön och karriärmöjligheter, visar en ny undersökning.

Chefer som ger beröm och visar sina anställda tacksamhet för det jobb de gör uppskattas mest. Den typen av chef lockar både till sig kompetent personal och gör att de anställda vill stanna på sitt jobb, visar bemanningsföretaget Poolias kompetensindikator.

Cheferna som intervjuats trodde att utvecklande arbetsuppgifter var viktigare för trivseln på jobbet än en bra chef. Men de anställda värderade chefens erkänsla och uppskattning högst.
– Varje chef borde ha som målsättning att varje dag visa erkänsla och uppskattning till sina anställda. Ett sådant beteende är en investering för att behålla anställda länge, det är dessutom gratis. Det borde vara en självklarhet för alla ledare, säger Poolias distriktschef Tobias Björk i ett pressmeddelande.

På frågan om vad som är viktigast för att de anställda ska trivas och stanna länge på en arbetsplats svarade flest: en bra chef som ger erkänsla och uppskattning. På andra plats kom utvecklande arbetsuppgifter, på tredje plats trevliga kolleger och på fjärde plats hög lön.

När det gäller vilka kriterier som är viktigast när man tar ett nytt jobb värderades utvecklande arbetsuppgifter högst, lön och förmåner kom på andra plats och en bra chef sågs som tredje viktigast.

Undersökningen bygger på intervjuer med 500 personalchefer och 1 000 arbetstagare.

Källa:, 27 januari 2014
Av: Caroline Englund

Burgernomics (The Big Mac index)

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on januari 27th, 2014 by admin

The Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a lighthearted guide to whether currencies are at their “correct” level. It is based on the theoryBig Mac of purchasing-power parity (PPP), the notion that in the long run exchange rates should move towards the rate that would equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a burger) in any two countries. For example, the average price of a Big Mac in America in January 2014 was $4.62; in China it was only $2.74 at market exchange rates. So the “raw” Big Mac index says that the yuan was undervalued by 41% at that time.

Burgernomics was never intended as a precise gauge of currency misalignment, merely a tool to make exchange-rate theory more digestible. Yet the Big Mac index has become a global standard, included in several economic textbooks and the subject of at least 20 academic studies. For those who take their fast food more seriously, we have also calculated a gourmet version of the index.

This adjusted index addresses the criticism that you would expect average burger prices to be cheaper in poor countries than in rich ones because labour costs are lower. PPP signals where exchange rates should be heading in the long run, as a country like China gets richer, but it says little about today’s equilibrium rate. The relationship between prices and GDP per person may be a better guide to the current fair value of a currency. The adjusted index uses the “line of best fit” between Big Mac prices and GDP per person for 48 countries (plus the euro area). The difference between the price predicted by the red line for each country, given its income per person, and its actual price gives a supersized measure of currency under- and over-valuation.

Source: The Economist, 27 January 2014

Lätt att tappa fokus

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on januari 26th, 2014 by admin

En genomsnittlig person blir avbruten i sitt jobb 60 gånger per dag. Och 40 procent av de till­fällena kommer vi inte tillbaka till arbetsuppgiften vi lämnade.

Dessutom har vi fullt fokus på våra uppgifter så lite som sex timmar i veckan.
Fokus 1
Detta enligt Joe McCormack, besatt av effektiv jobbkommunikation och författare till boken “Brief” (kortfattad). Till Fast Company ger han snabba råd: Var inte övertydlig! Undvik longörer i samtal! Använd grundfrågorna vad, vem, var hur, när och varför för att hålla fokus i meddelanden! Byt ut ord med bilder när du kan! Och våga ta en paus i samtalet så att den andra genast förstår vad du menade!

Källa:, 25 januari 2014

Premiär idag!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on januari 25th, 2014 by admin

Det osannolika projektet med Zlatan
Volvo är en vinnare. Dagens Industri en annan. Och Zlatan Ibrahimovic förstås. Han får ju en slant för besväret. För reklamfilmen, all uppmärksamhet och inte minst hans nya nationalsång.

Källa: Idrottens Affärer, 24 januari 2014

Facebook dör som en epidemi

Posted in Aktuellt, Digitalisering / Internet on januari 24th, 2014 by admin

Facebook kommer att tappa 80 procent av sina användare under åren 2015-2017.
“På samma sätt som epidemier som sprids och sedan plötsligt upphör”, enligt amerikanska forskare.
Det är en fakultet inom Princetonuniversitetet som applicerat modeller av sjukdomsepidemier för att försöka förstå hur användningen av sociala medier utvecklas. Och upphör.

Enligt forskarna sprids idéer och uppfattningar som sjukdomar, infektionslikt snabbt och brett. Sedan, plötsligt, dör de ut, precis som epidemier.
Enligt Business & Money som berättar om forskningen, innebär forskarnas slutsatser att Facebook är ett övergående fenomen.
”Facebook kommer att uppleva en snabb minskning. Cirka 80 procent av användarna försvinner, enligt forskarna, under perioden 2015-2017”, skriver Business & Money.

Källa:, 22 januari 2014

Då biter kaffet som bäst!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on januari 22nd, 2014 by admin

Att dricka en kopp kaffe till frukosten för att bli pigg är helt onödigt. Det anser den amerikanska doktoranden Steven Miller. För bättre effekt ska första koppen intas först efter 9.30.

Steven Miller som är dokorand inom ämnet hälsa har tittat på kroppens kortisolnivåer som i hög grad påverkas av dagsljuset. För de allra flesta är kortisolnivån som högst mellan åtta och nio på morgonen och då är hjärnan som mest alert. Steven Miller anser att det är onödigt att dricka kaffe just då eftersom kortisolnivån ändå är hög.
Den som ändå gör det blir inte piggare men däremot mer koffeinberoende. Om det här rapporterar tidningen Kollega.

Bäst effekt ger koffeinet mellan 9.30 och 11.30 då hjärnan är som trögast. Andra tider då kortisolnivån är hög och du inte behöver dricka kaffe är runt lunchtid och mellan 17.30 och 18.30.

Enligt tidningen Kollega tipsar Steven Miller också den som vill vara pigg på jobbet om att ha mörka solglasögon på vägen till jobbet. Det gör att man kan fördröja kortisoltoppen. På så vis slipper man slösa bort dygnet piggaste tid i en bilkö eller en tunnelbanevagn.

Källa:, 22 januari 2014
Av: Caroline Englund

Building the healthy corporation

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on januari 22nd, 2014 by admin

Just as people may seem reasonably well today but may not have the physical condition for the rigors of a long and active life, so too companies that are profitable in the short term may not have what it takes to perform well year after year.

Growing numbers of organizations—including banks on both sides of the Atlantic, a global natural-resources group, and a leading UK retailer—are adding an important new “stone” to the 21st-century business lexicon. “Performance and health” is a metaphor that derives its power from a simple comparison with the human body. Just as people may seem reasonably well today but may not have the physical condition for the rigors of a long and active life, so too companies that are profitable in the short term may not have what it takes to perform well year after year.

Managing companies for success across a range of time frames—a requisite for achieving both performance and health—is one of the toughest challenges in business. Recently, it has been especially hard: turbulent economic conditions, for example, have concentrated the collective minds of many executives on pure survival. The fact that 10 of the largest 15 bankruptcies in history have occurred since 2001 is a strong deterrent to business building, playing up its inherent risks.

health 1Businesses complain that financial markets increasingly focus on quarterly results and give little credit to strategies for creating longer-term value, particularly if they depress today’s profits. Empirical evidence largely contradicts such claims (see sidebar, “The stock market values health as well as performance”). But some noisy analysts undoubtedly do focus on short-term performance and thus unwittingly drive wedges between managements, boards, and investors.

Management teams must urgently take the lead in showing their boards and the capital markets that they are nurturing the long-term health of their companies. They must act not only to improve corporate performance in the near term but also to lay the foundations today for consistent and resilient growth in years to come.

Companies out of balance
Tools intended to encourage a more balanced approach and to promote “systems thinking” have been available to managers for some time. But our experience suggests that these tools are either being applied too mechanically (and therefore ineffectively) or being squeezed out by the focus on survival and by perceived pressure from investors. And that’s to say nothing of the increased near-term demands created by new regulations on financial reporting, particularly in the United States.

Good short-term results are important, of course; only by delivering them will management build confidence in its ability to realize longer-term strategies. But companies must also act today to ensure that they can convert their growth prospects, capabilities, relationships, and assets into future cash flows.

One major European financial-services company recently discovered how easy it is for performance and health to get out of balance. After the company had achieved an impressive turnaround in its short-term financial performance in the three years to 2004, it found to its dismay that this success had been accompanied by falling customer service levels, a huge increase in staff turnover, and a fall in its share price. Management complained that the financial markets didn’t understand what the company had achieved. But in reality they understood, all too well, that its short-term success had been purchased at the expense of its underlying health.

Such shortsighted behavior is widespread. In one recent survey, a majority of the managers polled said that they would forgo an investment offering a decent return on capital if it meant missing their quarterly earnings expectations. Indeed, more than 80 percent of the executives responding said they would cut expenditures on R&D and marketing to ensure that they met their quarterly earnings targets—even if they believed that the cuts were destroying long-term value.

This survey shows that even if more organizations are now talking the language of health, many address the issues only at a superficial level. For instance, “scorecards”—a favorite approach of many companies to balancing near- and long-term considerations—too often consist of disconnected metrics that confuse the organization and lack any real impact. One public-sector agency we know—an extreme case, to be sure—came up with 96 key performance indicators at the end of a two-year initiative; the list was effectively dead on arrival when it was rolled out for implementation. The chief executive of an international bank was recently shocked to find that members of his senior-management team were responding only to revenue targets and deliberately ignoring broader metrics of performance and health.

What underlies the breakdown of many long-term initiatives is the tendency of managers to defend the performance of their own silos instead of debating and helping to shape action across the whole organization. In silo-structured companies, managers typically argue about the virtues of one metric as opposed to another (especially if transfer prices are involved), deflect debate to other parts of the organization, and set up barriers to change. This kind of behavior isn’t deliberately malevolent; it is driven by deeply held beliefs about a manager’s roles and boundaries and reinforced by the idea that the body corporate is the sum of many discrete units, each with independent characteristics, that should be monitored with a battery of metrics. Unfortunately, this mind-set undermines any systemic understanding of how to manage activities coherently, across the whole organization, to underpin healthy growth.

An emerging awareness of health
The good news is that a clear health consciousness is developing after the startling corporate-health failures of recent years, and convincing prescriptions for change are emerging. In responses to a McKinsey survey, conducted in early 2005, of more than 1,000 board directors, most of them made it clear that they want to devote less time to discussing the latest financial results and much more to setting strategy, assessing risks, developing new leaders, and monitoring other issues that underpin a company’s long-term health. Fully 70 percent of the directors want additional information about markets: a more detailed analysis of customers, competitors, and suppliers, for example. Upward of half want additional information about organizational issues, such as skills and capabilities. Two in five are eager for the facts about relations with outside stakeholders, such as regulators, the media, and the wider community.

Above all, boards want to help their companies seize prospects for long-term growth and avoid exposure to risks from organizational blind spots or from any unwillingness to acknowledge external change. Thinking deeply about performance and health helps executives to address both aspirations.

What makes companies healthy?
Companies that attend to five different aspects of performance and health can build the resilience and the organizational capacity not only to deliver but also to sustain both.

First, a company’s strategy should be reflected in a portfolio of initiatives that consciously embraces different time horizons. A typical large company does, of course, include business units with distinct strategies, but few of them could really help it adapt to events or capitalize on new opportunities. Some initiatives in the kind of portfolio that we recommend should bolster a company’s short-term performance. Others should create options for the future—new products or services, new markets, and new processes or value chains. A key management challenge is to design and implement initiatives that balance the company’s performance and underlying health on a risk-adjusted basis.

Such a portfolio of initiatives helps companies overcome certain traditional shortcomings of strategy, such as its episodic nature and a tendency to ignore the resources and capabilities needed for execution and to plan the future instead of for the future. By developing and managing a portfolio of initiatives—rather than a single approach to strategy—companies can lower the risk that unpredictable events will place them on the wrong foot.

A robust set of organizational metrics allows executives to monitor a company’s performance and health. What’s needed is a manageable number of metrics that strike a balance among different areas of the business and are linked directly to whatever drives its value. A vast assortment of metrics is self-defeating.

Companies should identify the health and performance metrics most important to them: product development, customer satisfaction, government relations, orhealth 2 the retention of talent, for example. (The answer will of course depend on a company’s industry and strategy.) Most organizations track standard financial metrics. But we would also expect some metrics to cover operations (the quality and consistency of key value-creating processes), organizational issues (the company’s depth of talent and ability to motivate and retain employees), the state of the company’s product markets and its position within them (including the quality of customer relationships), and the nature of relationships with external parties, such as suppliers, regulators, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Systematically identifying and tracking health metrics that reflect the strategy of a business—and the forces driving its value—is difficult. A useful framework is to think of value creation in the short, medium, and long term.

Short-term health metrics show how a company achieved its recent results and thus indicate its likely performance over the next one to three years. A consumer products company, for example, must know whether it increased its profits by raising prices or by launching a new marketing campaign that increased its market share. An auto manufacturer must know whether it met its profit targets only by encouraging dealers to increase their inventories. A retailer might want to examine its revenue growth per store and in new stores or its revenue per square foot compared with that of competitors.

Another set of metrics should highlight a company’s prospects for maintaining and improving its rate of growth and returns on capital over the next one to five years. (The time frame ought to be longer for industries, such as pharmaceuticals, that have long product cycles and must obviously focus on the number of profitable new products in the pipeline.) Other medium-term metrics should be monitored as well—for example, metrics comparing a company’s product launches with those of competitors (perhaps the amount of time needed to reach peak sales). For an online retailer, customer satisfaction and brand strength might be the most important drivers of medium-term health.

For the longer term, companies should develop metrics assessing their ability to sustain earnings from their current activities and to identify and exploit new areas where they could grow. They must monitor any threats—new technologies, new customer preferences, new ways of serving customers—to their current businesses. And to ensure that they have enough growth opportunities to create value when those businesses inevitably mature, they must monitor the number of new initiatives under way (as well as estimate the size of the relevant product markets) and develop metrics that track the initiatives’ progress.

Ultimately, it is people who make companies deliver, so metrics should show how well a business retains key employees and the true depth of its management talent. Again, what’s important varies by industry. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, need scientific innovators but relatively few managers. Companies expanding overseas need people who can work in new countries and negotiate with governments.4

Constant fine-tuning is needed to come up with the right mix of metrics. For a typical business unit, top management and the board should monitor no more than three to five metrics, representing different areas of the business for each time frame. To make sure that the metrics are appropriate, the finance department or the performance-management group should regularly reexamine the way the company creates value.

Companies must avoid the erroneous thinking that too often juxtaposes “hard” metrics for performance with “soft” ones for health. They can and should attach hard numbers to health metrics, such as the motivation and capabilities of their employees. Similarly, they can and should track their current performance with softer metrics, such as the quality of their latest earnings or of their relationships with opinion formers.

The next step is for companies to change the nature of their dialogue with key stakeholders, particularly the capital markets and employees. For the capital markets, that means first identifying investors who will support a given strategy and then attracting them.5

Talking about corporate health to court hedge fund managers pursuing the next bid, for example, is pointless.
Management teams should also spend serious time with analysts who follow their companies, in order to explain their views on the industry and to show how strategies will create sustainable advantages. It may also be necessary to highlight metrics tracking performance and health. Vague talk about shareholder value, without a time frame or without addressing the specifics of a business, just isn’t meaningful.

Companies might also be wise to separate discussions of quarterly results from those focusing on strategy, as several major international businesses have recently done. And they should ensure that analysts spend time with operational managers, whose effectiveness is often the crucial factor in attempts to estimate a company’s ability to sustain its performance.

Reaching out to employees is just as important. The complaint that “we don’t know what’s going on” often indicates that a company’s leaders are communicating results rather than long-term intentions.

Corporate leaders should remember their obligation to manage both performance and health. Thinking about health typically requires a range of new skills and characteristics—not necessarily those that worked well in the past. One hallmark of great, enduring companies is a willingness to involve future generations of leaders in their own development.

In addition, good leaders understand both the power and the attendant risks of what former Unilever chairman and CEO Niall FitzGerald called their “extraordinary amplification system.” Those who casually or randomly articulate themes for action run a risk of making the organization schizophrenic. The combination of “initiative overload” and a reluctance on senior management’s part to produce a simple and coherent agenda can be particularly damaging. At one defense industry organization, we counted more than 1,000 seemingly disconnected initiatives, 234 of them in procurement alone.

Focusing the leadership on personal behavior is also crucial to maintaining a company’s health. We know of a public-sector body, a financial institution, and a natural-resources group that all refer to the leaders of business units as “princes” rather than “barons.” This terminology resonates with the three organizations because princes are concerned for the whole, while barons protect their own turf—if necessary at the expense of the other parts. Companies can likewise encourage a wider perspective on the business, and stronger linkages across boundaries, by giving senior managers a portfolio of roles. Alternatively, some companies have successfully developed peer groups of business unit leaders who share a collective responsibility for their businesses. Other companies are strengthening their core functions and reversing the trend toward corporate atomization into a number of semiautonomous business units.

To create this kind of leadership, companies must take a longer-term view of the way they manage talent and career tracks and of the incentives created by money, recognition, and promotion. One company’s approach is to implement a long-term incentive plan for top management—a plan that has weakened the direct link between remuneration and short-term earnings. By contrast, the current trend of making people change roles every two or three years isn’t necessarily good for long-term corporate health.

The growing demand for corporate probity and better governance has reinforced the CEO’s pivotal leadership role. Board meetings therefore represent a useful opportunity—and discipline—for testing the organization’s resilience to pressure and change over time. As we have seen from our survey, directors are eager to redirect their attention to this task. The need for resilience is greatest when investments take a long time to pay off, as they generally do for natural-resource and pharmaceutical companies and public-sector bodies. CEOs and boards lack rapid performance feedback in such cases and thus need to keep a close eye on a range of considerations: regulatory influence, marketing and supplier partnerships, and organizational skills.

Given the current economic and regulatory environment, a focus on short-term performance is understandable, but it is nonetheless unbalanced. Companies must again learn how to meet next year’s earnings expectations while at the same time implementing the platforms needed to deliver strong and sustainable earnings growth year after year. Achieving this dual focus involves thinking about strategy, communication, and leadership in new ways. And it calls for the creation of a carefully designed set of metrics—balanced across the business and linked to the creation of value over the short, medium, and long term—that can help management teams and boards monitor their ability to stay on course.

Source: McKinsey Quaterly, January 2014
About the authors: Richard Dobbs is a director in McKinsey’s London office, where Keith Leslie is a principal; Lenny Mendonca is a director in the San Francisco office

De vanligaste cv-klyschorna

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on januari 21st, 2014 by admin

Är du ansvarsfull, strategisk och kreativ? Då är du inte ensam. Det är nämligen de tre ord som används mest i profilerna på karriärnätverket Linkedin.

Linkedin är en webbtjänst där användarna kan hålla kontakten med vänner och kolleger. I sina profiler beskriver användarna sig själva och delar med sig av sitt cv. Tanken är att de med hjälp av sitt kontaktnät ska kunna hitta nytt arbete eller nya affärsmöjligheter.

cvNätverket har sedan några år tillbaka sammanställt en topplista över vilka ord som globalt används mest i användarnas profiler.
I år toppas listan av ansvarsfull, strategisk och kreativ. Vilka ord som används förändras år från år och för fem år sedan var det till exempel gedigen erfarenhet som användes mest. Förra året toppades listan av ordet kreativ.
– Att bygga ett professionellt varumärke är viktigt för att lyckas bli en eftertraktad arbetskraft. Om du kommunicerar som alla andra kommer du inte att sticka ut i mängden av alla som söker efter spännande arbetsmöjligheter. Konkreta exempel är bra för att understryka att du faktiskt är ansvarig eller strategisk, det är bättre än att bara formulera det i ord, säger Lars Ingerslev, Nordenchef på Linkedin i ett pressmeddelande.

Linkedin har i dag 259 miljoner användare över hela världen.

Här är listan på de ord som använts mest i nätverkets profiler under 2013:
1. Ansvarsfull
2. Strategisk
3. Kreativ
4. Effektiv
5. Tålmodig
6. Expert
7. Organiserad
8. Driven
9. Innovativ
10. Analytisk

Källa:, 11 december, 2013
Av: Caroline Englund

Bra sexliv gör dig till en mycket bättre chef

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on januari 20th, 2014 by admin

En bra ledare har troligen också ett rikt sexliv.

Det handlar om att känna sig själv och identifiera sina grundläggande behov, däribland de emotionella, och kunna tala om dem med sin partner. Inte minst i sängen.

– Sitt eget sexliv, och vad man vill få ut av det, hör till det allra mest intima och är oftast också det allra svåraste att kommunicera till sin partner,sex 3 säger Maria Appelqvist, filosofie doktor och universitetslektor på Malmö högskola.

Här bör hälsan alls inte tiga still. Tvärtom.
– Men klarar man det på ett känslomässigt naturligt sätt, äger man sannolikt också den styrka som krävs hos exempelvis en chef för att hantera jobbiga och knepiga situationer med personalen.

Sexuell energi skapar harmoni
Appelqvist undervisar i bland annat ledarskap, social förändring och organisatorisk utveckling. Hon är också instruktör hos organisationen “Orgasmisk meditation” (OM).
Efter att ha studerat både egna känslomässiga processer på området och hundratals OM-klienters, talar hon gärna om “sexuell energi”.

Maria Appelqvist:
– Både sund och skadlig. Sund sexuell energi skapar harmoni och stärker vår självkänsla i vardags- och arbetsliv. Skadlig sexuell energi kan yttra sig i exempelvis missbruk, självsvält, överdrivet shoppande eller ett frenetiskt tränande på ett gym.

Källa:, 20 januari 2014
Av: TT