Create a work environment that encourages employee engagement

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on November 6th, 2014 by admin

Does your workplace encourage employee engagement? Probably not. But, it should. It’s a powerful factor in business success. Engaged employees are more productive, customer-focused, and profit-generating and employers are more likely to retain them. According to the Gallup organization, employee engagement is a necessary strategy for companies that want to succeed in the marketplace.

Employee engagement is not a Human Resources initiative that managers are reminded to do once a year. It’s a key strategic initiative that drives employee performance, accomplishment, and continuous improvement all year long. It’s the outcome from how your organization interacts with people to drive business results.

EE 1Just as I do not believe that organizations can create employee empowerment, employee motivation, or employee satisfaction, engagement is up to your adult employees who make decisions and choices about how involved they want to be at work. What is the employer’s responsibility, however, is to create an environment that is conducive to employees making the choices that are good for your business. And, engaged employees are good for your business.

Engaged Employees Are Good for Business
The Gallup organization’s research indicates that, “The average working population ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees is near 2:1. Actively disengaged employees erode an organization’s bottom line, while breaking the spirits of colleagues in the process. Within the U.S. workforce, Gallup estimates this cost to the bottom line to be more than $300 billion in lost productivity alone.” (To see all of the data, click on their report entitled: Employee Engagement: What’s Your Engagement Ratio?)

Gallup’s research also says that organizations need to pay attention to four specific priorities to engage employees.

What Produces an Environment Conducive to Engagement?
Employees are more likely to become truly engaged and involved in their work if your workplace provides these factors.
• Employee engagement must be a business strategy that focuses on finding engaged employees and then, keeping the employee engaged throughout the whole employment relationship.
• Employee engagement must focus on business results. Employees are most engaged when they are accountable and can see and measure the outcomes of their performance.
• Employee engagement occurs when the goals of the business are aligned with the employee’s goals and how the employee spends his or her time. The glue that holds the strategic goals of the employee and the business together is frequent, effective communication that reaches and informs the employee at the level and practice of his or her job. Engaged employees have the information that they need to understand exactly and precisely how what they do at work every day affects the company’s business goals and priorities.
(These goals and measurements relate to the Human Resources department, but every department should have its own set of metrics.)
• Employee engagement lives when organizations are committed to management and leadership development in performance development plans that are performance-driven and provide clear succession plans.

Gallup indicates that when their clients have actively pursued employee engagement through these four factors, it has soared to a ratio of 9:1 with concurrent improvements in business success.

Why Are Organizations So Bad at Employee Engagement?
If employee engagement is so critically important to an organization’s success, why do organizations pursue it so ineffectively? The answer to the question is that incorporating a business strategy such as employee engagement is hard work – work that many employers cannot see affecting their bottom line immediately.

A succession of such strategies have garnered the attention of managers and organizations over the past twenty years. Employee involvement, employee empowerment, continuous improvement, management by objectives – I am sure that you can think of many more – have all had the same fatal flaw in implementation. Most organizations implemented them as a program that was ancillary to the actual business. By thinking about employee engagement, as a planned business strategy with expected and measured business results, perhaps it can escape the onus of just another HR program.

With this in mind, employee engagement takes effective managers who are committed to:
• measuring employee performance and holding employees accountable,
•providing the communication necessary to align each employee’s actions with the organization’s overall business goals,
•pursuing the employee development necessary to ensure success, and
•making a commitment (time, tools, attention, reinforcement, training, and so forth) to keeping employees engaged over the long haul because they fundamentally believe and understand that no other strategy will produce as much success – for both the business and the employees.

Additional Critical Factors to Ensure Employee Engagement

These factors also influence the willingness of employees to stay engaged and contributing.
•An effective recognition and reward system: in a recognition system that promotes employee engagement, recognition is available, frequent, and recognizes actions that are truly worthy of recognition. Effective recognition always involves verbal or written acknowledgement from the employee’s manager in addition to any physical reward supplied.EE 2
• Frequent feedback: the downside of the standard employee performance appraisal is that it is a one-time deal. Effective performance feedback takes place every day, minimally, weekly for employees who need less interaction with their manager. Effective feedback focuses on what the employee is doing well and what needs improvement. It is clear and specific and reinforces the actions that the manager wants to see the employee regularly perform.
• Shared values and guiding principles: engaged employees thrive in an environment that reinforces their most deeply held values and beliefs. Employees are most successful in an organization in which their personal values are in sync with the organization’s stated values and guiding principles.
•Demonstrated respect, trust, and emotional intelligence on the part of the employee’s direct supervisor: managers who relate effectively with employees, who demonstrate that they are personally interested in and care about their employees, and who elicit employee input and opinions, are golden.
• Positive relationships with coworkers: engaged employees need to work, not just with nice people, but with coworkers who are equivalently engaged. Coworkers who demonstrate integrity, team work, a passion for quality and serving customers, and who are passionate about what they do at work, make ideal coworkers in a workplace that fosters employee engagement.

Employee engagement is fostered by a work environment that exhibits these characteristics. Want to make progress? Start work in each of these areas. Your success is ensured.

Source:, 7 November 2014
By: Susan M. Heatfield

Jobb som försämrar ditt minne

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on November 4th, 2014 by admin

Personer som skiftarbetar eller jobbar nattetid i tio år eller mer riskerar att få sämre minne. Andra hjärnfunktioner kan också påverkas negativt, enligt en ny studie.
Över 3.000 anställda eller före detta anställda i ett stort antal branscher i södra Frankrike ingick i undersökningen. Hälften av dem hade antingen haft nattarbete eller jobbat i skift där arbetspassen växlat mellan morgnar, eftermiddagar och nätter.
Såväl kort- som långtidsminnet undersöktes vid olika tillfällen och forskarna fann ett samband mellan skiftarbete/nattjobb och kronisk försämring av kognitiva funktioner.

För dem som jobbat skift eller natt i tio år var försämringen i snitt lika stor som den som följer av att ha åldrats ytterligare 6,5 år.

Forskarna, som publicerar sina rön i tidskriften Occupational & Environmental Medicine, kan inte dra slutsatsen att det är arbetet i sig som leder till försämringen och efterlyser fler studier i ämnet.

Källa: TT Nyhetsbyrå och, 4 november 2014

Change leader, change thyself

Posted in Leadership / Ledarskap, Uncategorized on November 3rd, 2014 by admin

Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist, famously wrote, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

Tolstoy’s dictum is a useful starting point for any executive engaged in organizational change. After years of collaborating in efforts to advance the practice of leadership and cultural transformation, we’ve become convinced that organizational change is inseparable from individual change. Simply put, change efforts often falter because individuals overlook the need to make fundamental changes in themselves.

Building self-understanding and then translating it into an organizational context is easier said than done, and getting started is often the hardest part. We hope this article helps leaders who are ready to try and will intrigue those curious to learn more.

Organizations don’t change—people do
Many companies move quickly from setting their performance objectives to implementing a suite of change initiatives. Be it a new growth strategy or business-unit structure, the integration of a recent acquisition or the rollout of a new operational-improvement effort, such organizations focus on altering systems and structures and on creating new policies and processes.

change 3To achieve collective change over time, actions like these are necessary but seldom sufficient. A new strategy will fall short of its potential if it fails to address the underlying mind-sets and capabilities of the people who will execute it.

McKinsey research and client experience suggest that half of all efforts to transform organizational performance fail either because senior managers don’t act as role models for change or because people in the organization defend the status quo.

In other words, despite the stated change goals, people on the ground tend to behave as they did before. Equally, the same McKinsey research indicates that if companies can identify and address pervasive mind-sets at the outset, they are four times more likely to succeed in organizational-change efforts than are companies that overlook this stage.

Look both inward and outward

Companies that only look outward in the process of organizational change—marginalizing individual learning and adaptation—tend to make two common mistakes.

The first is to focus solely on business outcomes. That means these companies direct their attention to what Alexander Grashow, Ronald Heifetz, and Marty Linsky call the “technical” aspects of a new solution, while failing to appreciate what they call “the adaptive work” people must do to implement it.

The second common mistake, made even by companies that recognize the need for new learning, is to focus too much on developing skills. Training that only emphasizes new behavior rarely translates into profoundly different performance outside the classroom.

In our work together with organizations undertaking leadership and cultural transformations, we’ve found that the best way to achieve an organization’s aspirations is to combine efforts that look outward with those that look inward. Linking strategic and systemic intervention to genuine self-discovery and self-development by leaders is a far better path to embracing the vision of the organization and to realizing its business goals.

What is looking inward?
Looking inward is a way to examine your own modes of operating to learn what makes you tick. Individuals have their own inner lives, populated by their beliefs, priorities, aspirations, values, and fears. These interior elements vary from one person to the next, directing people to take different actions.

Interestingly, many people aren’t aware that the choices they make are extensions of the reality that operates in their hearts and minds. Indeed, you can live your whole life without understandingchange 2 the inner dynamics that drive what you do and say. Yet it’s crucial that those who seek to lead powerfully and effectively look at their internal experiences, precisely because they direct how you take action, whether you know it or not. Taking accountability as a leader today includes understanding your motivations and other inner drives.

For the purposes of this article, we focus on two dimensions of looking inward that lead to self-understanding: developing profile awareness and developing state awareness.

Profile awareness
An individual’s profile is a combination of his or her habits of thought, emotions, hopes, and behavior in various circumstances. Profile awareness is therefore a recognition of these common tendencies and the impact they have on others.

We often observe a rudimentary level of profile awareness with the executives we advise. They use labels as a shorthand to describe their profile, telling us, “I’m an overachiever” or “I’m a control freak.” Others recognize emotional patterns, like “I always fear the worst,” or limiting beliefs, such as “you can’t trust anyone.” Other executives we’ve counseled divide their identity in half. They end up with a simple liking for their “good” Dr. Jekyll side and a dislike of their “bad” Mr. Hyde.

Finding ways to describe the common internal tendencies that drive behavior is a good start. We now know, however, that successful leaders develop profile awareness at a broader and deeper level.
State awareness

State awareness, meanwhile, is the recognition of what’s driving you at the moment you take action. In common parlance, people use the phrase “state of mind” to describe this, but we’re using “state” to refer to more than the thoughts in your mind. State awareness involves the real-time perception of a wide range of inner experiences and their impact on your behavior. These include your current mind-set and beliefs, fears and hopes, desires and defenses, and impulses to take action.

State awareness is harder to master than profile awareness. While many senior executives recognize their tendency to exhibit negative behavior under pressure, they often don’t realize they’re exhibiting that behavior until well after they’ve started to do so. At that point, the damage is already done.

We believe that in the future, the best leaders will demonstrate both profile awareness and state awareness. These capacities can develop into the ability to shift one’s inner state in real time. That leads to changing behavior when you can still affect the outcome, instead of looking back later with regret. It also means not overreacting to events because they are reminiscent of something in the past or evocative of something that might occur in the future.4

Close the performance gap
When learning to look inward in the process of organizational transformation, individuals accelerate the pace and depth of change dramatically. In the words of one executive we know, who has invested heavily in developing these skills, this kind of learning “expands your capacity to lead human change and deliver true impact by awakening the full leader within you.” In practical terms, individuals learn to align what they intend with what they actually say and do to influence others.

change 1Erica Ariel Fox’s recent book, Winning from Within, calls this phenomenon closing your performance gap. That gap is the disparity between what people know they should say and do to behave successfully and what they actually do in the moment. The performance gap can affect anyone at any time, from the CEO to a summer intern.

This performance gap arises in individuals partly because of the profile that defines them and that they use to define themselves. In the West in particular, various assessments tell you your “type,” essentially the psychological clothing you wear to present yourself to the world.

To help managers and employees understand each other, many corporate-education tools use simplified typing systems to describe each party’s makeup. These tests often classify people relatively quickly, and in easily remembered ways: team members might be red or blue, green or yellow, for example.

There are benefits in this approach, but in our experience it does not go far enough and those using it should understand its limitations. We all possess the full range of qualities these assessments identify. We are not one thing or the other: we are all at once, to varying degrees. As renowned brain researcher Dr. Daniel Siegel explains, “we must accept our multiplicity, the fact that we can show up quite differently in our athletic, intellectual, sexual, spiritual—or many other—states. A heterogeneous collection of states is completely normal in us humans.”

Putting the same point more poetically, Walt Whitman famously wrote, “I am large, I contain multitudes.”

To close performance gaps, and thereby build your individual leadership capacity, you need a more nuanced approach that recognizes your inner complexity. Coming to terms with your full richness is challenging. But the kinds of issues involved—which are highly personal and well beyond the scope of this short management article—include:
•What are the primary parts of my profile, and how are they balanced against each other?
•What resources and capabilities does each part of my profile possess? What strengths and liabilities do those involve?
•When do I tend to call on each member of my inner executive team? What are the benefits and costs of those choices?
•Do I draw on all of the inner sources of power available to me, or do I favor one or two most of the time?
•How can I develop the sweet spots that are currently outside of my active range?

Answering these questions starts with developing profile awareness.

Leading yourself—and the organization
Individuals can improve themselves in many ways and hence drive more effective organizational change. We focus here on a critical few that we’ve found to increase leadership capacity and to have a lasting organizational impact.

1. Develop profile awareness: Map the Big Four

While we all have myriad aspects to our inner lives, in our experience it’s best to focus your reflections on a manageable few as you seek to understand what’s driving you at different times. Fox’s Winning from Within suggests that you can move beyond labels such as “perfectionist” without drowning in unwieldy complexity, by concentrating on your Big Four, which largely govern the way individuals function every day. You can think of your Big Four as an inner leadership team, occupying an internal executive suite: the chief executive officer (CEO), or inspirational Dreamer; the chief financial officer (CFO), or analytical Thinker; the chief people officer (CPO), or emotional Lover; and the chief operating officer (COO), or practical Warrior.
How do these work in practice? Consider the experience of Geoff McDonough, the transformational CEO of Sobi, an emerging pioneer in the treatment of rare diseases. Many credit McDonough’s versatile leadership with successfully integrating two legacy companies and increasing market capitalization from nearly $600 million in 2011 to $3.5 billion today.

From our perspective, his leadership success owes much to his high level of profile awareness. He also displays high profile agility: his skill at calling on the right inner executive at the right time for the right purpose. In other words, he deploys each of his Big Four intentionally and effectively to harness its specific strengths and skills to meet a situation.

McDonough used his inner Dreamer’s imagination to envision the clinical and business impact of Sobi’s biological-development program in neonatology. He saw the possibility of improving the neurodevelopment of tiny, vulnerable newborns and thus of giving them a real chance at a healthy life.

His inner Thinker’s assessment took an unusual perspective at the time. Others didn’t share his evaluation of the viability of integrating one company’s 35-year legacy of biologics development change 4(Kabi Vitrum— the combined group of Swedish pharmaceutical companies Kabi and Vitrum—which merged with Pharmacia and was later acquired, forming Biovitrum in 2001) with another’s 25-year history of commercializing treatments for rare diseases (Swedish Orphan), to lead in a rare-disease market environment with very few independent midsize companies.

Rising to a separate, if related, challenge, McDonough called on his inner Lover to build bridges between the siloed legacy companies. He focused on the people who mattered most to everyone—the patients—and promoted internal talent from both sides, demonstrating his belief that everyone, whatever his or her previous corporate affiliation, could be part of the new “one Sobi.”

Finally, bringing Sobi to its current levels of success required McDonough to tell hard truths and take some painful steps. He called on his inner Warrior to move swiftly, adding key players from the outside to the management team, restructuring the organization, and resolutely promoting an entirely new business model.

2. Develop state awareness: The work of your inner lookout

Profile awareness, as we’ve said, is only the first part of what it takes to look inward when driving organizational change. The next part is state awareness.

Leading yourself means being in tune with what’s happening on the inside, not later but right now. Think about it. People who don’t notice that they are becoming annoyed, judgmental, or defensive in the moment are not making real choices about how to behave. We all need an inner “lookout”—a part of us that notices our inner state—much as all parents are at the ready to watch for threats of harm to their young children.7

For example, a senior executive leading a large-scale transformation remarked that he would like to spend 15 minutes kicking off an important training event for change agents to signal its importance. Objectively speaking, he would probably have the opposite of the intended effect if he said how important the workshop was and then left 15 minutes into it.

What he needed at that moment was the perception of his inner lookout. That perspective would see that he was torn between wanting to endorse the program, on the one hand, and wanting to attend to something else that was also important, on the other. With that clarity, he could make a choice that was sensible and aligned: he might still speak for 15 minutes and then let people know that he wished he could stay longer but had a crucial meeting elsewhere. Equally, he might realize the negative implications of his early departure under any circumstances, decide to postpone the later meeting, and stay another couple of hours. Either way, the inner lookout’s view would lead to more effective leadership behavior.

During a period of organizational change, it’s critical that senior executives collectively adopt the lookout role for the organization as a whole. Yet they often can’t, because they’re wearing rose-tinted glasses that blur the limitations of their leadership style, mask destructive mind-sets at lower levels of the organization, and generally distort what’s going on outside the executive suite. Until we and others confronted one manager we know with the evidence, he had no idea he was interfering with, and undermining, employees through the excessively large number of e-mails he was sending on a daily basis.

Spotting misaligned perceptions requires putting the spotlight on observable behavior and getting enough data to unearth the core issues. Note that traditional satisfaction or employee-engagement surveys—and even 360-degree feedback—often fail to get to the bottom of the problem. A McKinsey diagnostic that reached deep into the workforce—aggregating the responses of 52,240 individuals at 44 companies—demonstrated perception gaps across job levels at 70 percent of the participating organizations. In about two-thirds of them, the top teams were more positive about their own leadership skills than was the rest of the organization. Odds are, in other words, that rigorous organizational introspection will be eye opening for senior leaders.

3. Translate awareness into organizational change
Those open eyes will be better able to spot obstacles to organizational change. Consider the experience of a company that became aware, during a major earnings-improvement effort, that an absence of coaching was stifling progress. On the surface, people said they did not have the time to make coaching a priority. But an investigation of the root causes showed that one reason people weren’t coaching was that they themselves had become successful despite never having been coached. In fact, coaching was associated with serious development needs and seen only as a tool for documenting and firing people. Beneath the surface, managers feared that if they coached someone, others would view that person as a poor performer.

Changing a pervasive element of corporate culture like this depends on a diverse set of interventions that will appeal to different parts of individuals and of the organization. In this case, what followed was a positive internal-communication campaign, achieved with the help of posters positioning star football players alongside their coaches and supported by commentary spelling out the impact of coaching on operating performance at other organizations. At the same time, executives put “the elephant in the room” and acknowledged the negative connotations of coaching, and these confessions helped managers understand and adapt such critical norms. In the end, the actions the executives initiated served to increase the frequency and quality of coaching, with the result that the company was able to move more rapidly toward achieving its performance goals.

4. Start with one change catalyst

While dealing with resistance and fear is often necessary, it’s rarely enough to take an organization to the next level. To go further and initiate collective change, organizations must unleash the full potential of individuals. One person or a small group of trailblazers can provide that catalyst.

change 1For many years, it was widely believed that human beings could not run a mile in less than four minutes. Throughout the 1940s and early 1950s, many runners came close to the four-minute mark, but all fell short. On May 6th, 1954, in Oxford, England, Roger Bannister ran a mile in three minutes and 59 seconds. Only 46 days after Bannister’s historic run, John Landy broke the record again. By 1957, 16 more runners had broken through what once was thought to be an impossible barrier. Today, well over a thousand people have run a mile in less than four minutes, including high-school athletes.

Organizations behave in a similar manner. We often find widely held “four-minute mile” equivalents, like “unattainable growth goals” or “unachievable cost savings” or “unviable strategic changes.” Before the broader organization can start believing that the impossible is possible, one person or a small number of people must embrace a new perspective and set out to disprove the old way of thinking. Bannister, studying to be a doctor, had to overcome physiologists’ claims and popular assumptions that anyone who tried to run faster than 15 miles an hour would die.

Learning to lead yourself requires you to question some core assumptions too, about yourself and the way things work. Like Joseph Campbell’s famous “hero’s journey,” that often means leaving your everyday environment, or going outside your comfort zone, to experience trials and adventures.8

One global company sent its senior leaders to places as far afield as the heart of Communist China and the beaches of Normandy with a view to challenging their internal assumptions about the company’s operating model. The fresh perspectives these leaders gained helped shape their internal values and leadership behavior, allowing them to cascade the lessons through the organization upon their return.

This integration of looking both inward and outward is the most powerful formula we know for creating long-term, high-impact organizational change.

Source: McKinsey Quaterly, 2014
Authors: Net Boaz and Erica Ariel
About the authors: Nate Boaz is a principal in McKinsey’s Atlanta office. Erica Ariel Fox is a founding partner at Mobius Executive Leadership, a lecturer in negotiation at Harvard Law School, and a senior adviser to McKinsey Leadership Development. She is the author of Winning from Within: A Breakthrough Method for Leading, Living, and Lasting Change (HarperBusiness, 2013).

Din IPhone drar mer el än din kyl!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on November 2nd, 2014 by admin

Det är själva munstycket som avgör hur effektiv dammsugaren är – inte motoreffekten. Tv-n gör av med mindre el om du dämpar belysningen i rummet. Och visste du att en Iphone drar mer energi än en kombinerad kyl och frys?

Din ekonomi går igenom våra vardagsprylars elförbrukning.

Våra vardagsprylar blir allt mer energieffektiva. Kyl- och frysskåp har aldrig dragit så lite ström som nu. Ledlamporna förbrukar en bråkdel av den traditionella glödlampan. Men samtidigt skaffar vi oss allt fler prylar som drar el.

Och det är inte alltid de prylar som man tror som är de stora energislukarna. Visste du till exempel att en Iphone drar mer energi än en kombinerad kyl/frys? Om man tar hänsyn till den el som krävs för trådlösa anslutningar, dataanvändning och batteriladdning drar en genomsnittlig Iphone ungefär 361 kilowattimmar, kWh, per år enligt Vattenfalls energisparråd. Enligt Energimyndigheten drar en medelstor kyl/frys i dag cirka 200 kWh.

Om man vill minska sin elförbrukning är det bäst att börja titta på de elapparater som står på året om, till exempel kyl och frys. En modern kombinerad kyl och frys drar i dag cirka 200 kWh per år. Det är ungefär hälften mot vad en kyl/frys drog för tio år sedan.
När du ska köpa nya elprodukter som används ofta eller alltid, som kyl/frys, diskmaskin eller tv har du god hjälp av produkternas energimärkning som visas på en skala från grönt till rött. Energiklass A+++ är bäst.
– Även om vi har effektivare apparater i dag så har vårt beteende stor betydelse för elförbrukningen. Tänk till exempel på att släcka lamporna efter dig, säger Helena Ahlkvist Johansson, på Energimyndighetens avdelning för energieffektivisering.

En vanlig villfarelse är att det skulle vara mer energieffektivt att handdiska än att använda sig av en diskmaskin. Men det är precis tvärtom. Att diska i maskin drar ungefär en tredjedel så mycket energi som att diska för hand. Det beror framför allt på att man gör av med mycket mer varmt vatten när man handdiskar.

Valet av spis har också stor betydelse för energiåtgången. En modern induktionshäll drar cirka 40 procent mindre energi än en spis med gjutjärnsplattor och 20 procent mindre än en glaskeramikhäll när du kokar upp en liter vatten.
– Men det handlar om ett snabbt uppkok. Ju längre du kokar maten desto mindre blir skillnaden mellan en induktionshäll och en vanlig keramikhäll, säger Helena Ahlkvist Johansson.

Mikrovågsugnen kan vara ett energismart alternativ i köket.
– Men bara upp till tre portioner. Därefter kan en vanlig ugn vara lika energieffektiv, säger Helena Ahlkvist Johansson.

En modern tvättmaskin drar knappt en kWh per tvätt och förbrukar mindre vatten än äldre maskiner. Maskinerna har blivit större på senare år, men eftersom maskinerna ofta tvättas utan att vara helt fyllda så tappar man den möjligheten till energivinst.

Ett tips är att sänka vattentemperaturen om inte tvätten är hårt smutsad.

Valet av tv-apparat kan göra stor skillnad för elförbrukningen. En ny plasma-tv drar till exempel dubbelt så mycket energi jämfört med en led-tv. En några år gammal tv drar betydligt mer energi än en ny, uppåt det dubbla.

Ett sätt att spara energi vid tv-tittandet är att dämpa belysningen i rummet. Genom att minska ljusnivån på teven kan man nästan halvera energianvändningen.

Sedan den 1 juli i år gäller nya energikrav på datorer, och kraven på datorer, surfplattor och servrar kommer att skärpas de närmaste åren. Generellt drar en stationär dator betydligt mer energi än en bärbar.

Den 1 september i år fick dammsugare energikrav för första gången. De visar även dammupptagning och ljudnivå.

Tester har visat att det inte finns något självklart samband mellan hög effekt och bra dammupptagning på en dammsugare. En dammsugare med 1 200 watts motoreffekt kan vara lika bra som en med 2 000 watt.
– Det är munstycket som avgör hur mycket smuts en dammsugare kan suga upp. Dessutom behöver du inte dammsuga lika länge med ett effektivt munstycke, vilket säkert många uppskattar, säger Helena Ahlkvist Johansson.

Källa:, 2 november 2014
Av: Hans Arbman,

How to drive change successfully

Posted in Aktuellt, Fact Based Management, Leadership / Ledarskap, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on November 2nd, 2014 by admin

Build a change platform, not a change program

It’s not you, it’s your company. Management Innovation eXchange founders Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini believe that continuous improvement requires the creation of change platforms, rather than change programs ordained and implemented from the top.

Transformational-change initiatives have a dismal track record. In 1996, Harvard Business School professor John Kotter claimed that nearly 70 percent of large-scale change programs didn’t meet their goals and virtually every survey since has shown similar results. Why is change so confounding? We don’t think the issue lies with an understanding of its building blocks—Kotter’s classic eight-step change-management model is still a helpful guide. The problem lies in beliefs about who is responsible for launching change and how change is implemented.

change 2The reality is that today’s organizations were simply never designed to change proactively and deeply—they were built for discipline and efficiency, enforced through hierarchy and routinization. As a result, there’s a mismatch between the pace of change in the external environment and the fastest possible pace of change at most organizations. If it were otherwise, we wouldn’t see so many incumbents struggling to intercept the future.

In most organizations, change is regarded as an episodic interruption of the status quo, something initiated and managed from the top. The power to initiate strategic change is concentrated there, and every change program must be endorsed, scripted, and piloted before launch. Transformational change, when it does happen, is typically belated and convulsive—and often commences only after a “regime change.” What’s needed is a real-time, socially constructed approach to change, so that the leader’s job isn’t to design a change program but to build a change platform—one that allows anyone to initiate change, recruit confederates, suggest solutions, and launch experiments.

The problem with change management

Three intertwined assumptions limit the efficacy of the traditional model of change:
Change starts at the top. This mind-set implies that executives have the sole right to initiate deep change and are best placed to judge when it is necessary. Truth is, executives are often the last to know. They are insulated from reality by layers of managers who are often reluctant to sound an alarm. By the time an issue is big enough and unavoidable enough to attract the scarce attention of the CEO, the organization is already playing defense. That’s why most change programs are, in fact, catch-up programs. Moreover, risk-averse executives are seldom willing to launch a company-wide change program that ventures beyond the safe precincts of best practice. The result: change programs that are too little, too late.

Change is rolled out. When change is imposed from above, with both ends and means prescribed, it’s rarely embraced. Traditional change programs fail to harness the discretionary creativity and energy of employees and often generate cynicism and resistance. Senior executives talk about the need to get buy-in, but genuine buy-in is the product of involvement, not slick packaging and communication. To be embraced, a change effort must be socially constructed in a process that gives everyone the right to set priorities, diagnose barriers, and generate options. Despite assertions to the contrary, people aren’t against change—they are against royal edicts. The alternative: change that’s rolled up, not rolled out.

Change is engineered. The phrase “change management” implies that deep change can be managed, like a large-scale construction project or an IT overhaul. But if change is truly transformational—if it breaks new ground—it can’t be predetermined. Think for a moment about how our lives have been changed by the social web—Facebook, Pinterest, Snapchat, Twitter, and all the rest. No single individual or entity invented the social web. It emerged, in all its weird and wonderful variety, because the Internet is a powerful platform for making connections and because thousands of entrepreneurs were free to develop new business models to harness that power. When change programs are engineered, the solution space is limited by what people at the top can imagine. A change platform, by contrast, gives everyone the right to suggest strategic alternatives. The advantage: options that are diverse, radical, and nuanced.

Reimagining the model for change
Management literature is rich with case studies of bottom-up, spontaneous change and of product and business innovation sparked by the efforts of frontline activists.3
Inspiring as such stories are, however, few of these efforts effect systemic change across an entire organization. Internal activism and small wins don’t easily scale. Neither do they address the core management systems, processes, and cultural norms that dictate how large organizations run.

The challenge is to tackle deep change for tough systemic issues in a way that avoids the pitfalls of traditional change programs. Put another way: how do you create platforms for sustained company-wide conversations that can amplify weak signals and support the complex problem solving needed to address core management challenges?

We believe that three shifts in approach are necessary:
From top-down to activist-out. Transformational change conventionally starts at the top because companies haven’t enabled it to start anywhere else. To make deep change proactive and pervasive, the responsibility for initiating change needs to be syndicated across the organization. For instance, it was a small group of trainee clinicians, young leaders, and improvement facilitators in Britain’s National Health Service who developed and ran NHS Change Day 2013—the biggest improvement effort in the history of the NHS. Internal activists, multiplying their impact through social media, spawned a grassroots movement of 189,000 people who pledged to take concrete action to improve healthcare outcomes. When Change Day was repeated this year, the number of pledges exceeded 800,000. Change Day has enabled everyone to be a change leader and improved the care of patients.

From sold to invited. Transformational change cannot be sustained without genuine commitment on the part of those who will be most affected. This commitment is best achieved by bidding out the¨Change 1 change program’s “how” to everyone in the organization. Consider the approach that fast-growing medical-device company Nuvasive took to reengineer its supply chain. Instead of appointing a task force of senior leaders, the CEO invited the entire company to “hack” the customer-fulfillment process. Associates from around the organization, supported by a small coordination team and volunteer coaches, eagerly contributed to a process that generated a common view of the problem (from the front line up), a set of shared aspirations for world-class performance, and a portfolio of new initiatives to achieve it.

From managed to organic. Psychologist Kurt Lewin’s seminal “unfreeze-change-freeze” model still guides how most leaders think about change. But in a world that’s relentlessly evolving, anything that is frozen soon becomes irrelevant. What we need instead is constant experimentation—with new operating models, business models, and management models. Not freeze and refreeze, but “permanent slush.” This approach means placing less emphasis on building a powerful project-management office and more on building self-organizing communities that identify, experiment, and eventually scale new initiatives. At Cemex, the global cement and building-materials company with revenue of $15 billion in 2013, self-defined communities generate and implement thousands of change initiatives each year. For example, the ReadyMix Network, which brings together specialists from more than 50 counties, was instrumental in developing the company’s first global brands and related value-added services, which now account for a third of Cemex’s total revenue. The lesson? Change comes naturally when individuals have a platform that allows them to identify shared interests and to brainstorm solutions.

Change platforms take advantage of social technologies that make large-scale collaboration easy and effective. But they are qualitatively different from the idea wikis and social networks commonly used today. The difference isn’t primarily about specific features; rather, it’s in the encouragement individuals are given to use the platform to drive deep change. Specifically, effective change platforms:
•encourage individuals to tackle significant organizational challenges; that is, those that are typically considered beyond an employee’s “pay grade” or sphere of influence
•foster honest and forthright discussion of root causes and, in the process, develop a shared view of the thorniest barriers
•elicit dozens (if not hundreds) of potential solutions rather than seeking to coalesce prematurely around a single approach; the goal is first to diverge, then to converge
•focus on generating a portfolio of experiments that can be conducted locally to help prove or disprove the components of a more general solution, as opposed to developing a single grand design
•encourage individuals to take personal responsibility for initiating the change they want to see and give them the resources and tools necessary to spur their thinking and imaginations

Guiding a process of socially constructed change is neither quick nor easy—but it is possible and effective. The biggest obstacles to creating robust change platforms aren’t technical. The challenge lies in shifting the role of the executive from change agent in chief to change enabler in chief. This means devoting leadership attention to the creation of an environment where deep, proactive change can happen anywhere—and at any time—and inspiring the entire organization to swarm the most pressing issues.

Source:, October 2014
By: Gary hamel and Michele Zanini
About the authors: Gary Hamel is Visiting Professor of Strategic and International Management at the London Business School. He cofounded the Management Innovation eXchange (MIX) with Michele Zanini, who serves as its managing director.