Zlatans lön = dubbelt så mycket som Sveriges högst betalda VD!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Nonsens, sport, skämt m.m. on januari 27th, 2016 by admin

Zlatan Ibrahimovic får en rejäl tillökning i plånboken lagom till säsongsspurten i PSG. Från och med nu nära dubbleras hans lön till 1,5 miljoner euro, motsvarande ungefär 14 miljoner kronor – i månaden, rapporterar Sportbladet och hänvisar till fransk press.
För att få perspektiv tjänar alltså Sveriges mest framgångsrike fotbollsstjärna mer än dubbelt så mycket som landets högst betalda vd. Enligt den här artikeln i Dagens Nyheter från december i fjol drog Maersk-imperiets arvtagerska Ane Maersk Mckinney Uggla in 70,3 miljoner kronor på årsbasis. Slår man ut det på tolv månader blir månadslönen drygt 5,8 miljoner.
Dealen är en del av ett lukrativt kontrakt som Zlatan förhandlade fram tillsammans med sin agent Mino Raiola i början av sommaren, skriver sajten.

Källa: DagensVD.se, 27 januari 2016

Leadership in context

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on januari 26th, 2016 by admin

Organizational health matters more than you might expect

Great leaders complicate leadership development—a notion that may seem paradoxical until you stop and consider just how much has been written about Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Golda Meir, Ernest Shackleton, and countless other celebrated leaders. The sheer volume is overwhelming, and the lessons that emerge from one leader’s experience may be completely inapplicable to another’s.

The complications run deeper for business leaders. In the corporate context, effectiveness depends less on the traits of any one executive (or of that person’s direct reports) and more on a company’s competitive challenges, legacies, and other shifting forces. If only we had a clear set of keys to effective organizational leadership—a “decoder ring” to understand which practices produce the best outcomes. Our latest research, however, does point to one major element of the equation: organizational health. For people seeking to lead companies effectively and for organizations seeking to develop managers who can deploy different kinds of leadership behavior when appropriate, recognizing and responding to a company’s health is far more important than following scripts written by or about great leaders. And that’s true even of great leaders whose circumstances might, on the surface, seem relevant under a given set of conditions.

To be sure, certain normative qualities, such as demonstrating a concern for people and offering a critical perspective, will always be part of what it takes to be a leader. But the importance of other elements, such as keeping groups on task and bringing out the best in others, vary in importance depending upon an organization’s circumstances. Organizational health changes over time. Effective situational leadership adapts to these changes by identifying and marshaling the kinds of behavior needed to transition a company from its present state to a stronger, healthier one.

‘How healthy are we?’
All this presupposes, of course, that leaders have an accurate sense of how healthy their organizations are. Developing such a view is easier said than done: it’s only natural for leaders to overestimate the health of their organizations and the effectiveness of their leadership, given the way many of them identify with their companies and roles. In our experience, too many executives default to describing their companies as good andleader A striving to be great. But this can’t be true; by definition, more companies can’t be above the median line of organizational health than below it. When we examine survey data through the lens of the different levels of an organization, we find that leading executives typically have more favorable views of its health than do its line workers—who are, after all, much closer to the true center of gravity.

What’s more, surveys, interviews, and a significant amount of honest self-reflection all go into more robust assessments of organizational health. Since a rigorous self-diagnosis isn’t always possible, we’ve developed some rules of thumb. These move a bit beyond guesswork and provide a more informed sense of what it feels like to be in one type of company or another; for a broad approximation, take McKinsey’s nine-question quiz, “How healthy is your organization?” In ailing organizations, for example, the leadership tends to rely on very detailed instructions and monitoring—a symptom of excessively tight control. A healthier organization’s leadership, by contrast, shows greater support for colleagues and subordinates, and sensitivity to their needs. And the leaders at elite organizations challenge employees to aspire higher still by setting stretch goals that inspire them to reach their full potential.

The situational-leadership staircase
To explore the effectiveness of different kinds of leadership behavior at companies in different states of organizational health, we surveyed more than 375,000 people from 165 organizations across multiple industries and geographies. Drawing both from our own work experience and from evolving academic research, we focused on more than 20 distinct kinds of behavior that cover a broad range of leadership characteristics and appear, at least under certain circumstances, to correlate closely with strong corporate performance.1
Analytically, we studied organizational health and leadership effectiveness in turn. First, health: We sorted companies into organizational-health quartiles, then observed which leadership behaviors were most prevalent in each quartile. We were particularly interested in identifying leadership behaviors that were almost always present (as it turned out, there weren’t many), and those that were more (or less) prevalent, depending upon an organization’s current state of health. Next, we repeated the quartile approach but this time, we focused not on health but on leadership effectiveness. Which behaviors did respondents perceive to be most effective? The purpose was to address the possibility that we were giving too much prominence to behaviors exhibited at companies that were otherwise healthy, but which survey recipients thought were ineffective practices nevertheless. Instead, we sought to identify behaviors that matched organizational health with perceived leadership effectiveness, and to isolate those behaviors that were most effective in different situations.

The analysis yielded what we call a leadership staircase—a pyramid of behavior analogous to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (exhibit).2 In our hierarchy, like similar ones, some kinds of behavior are always essential. As organizational health improves, quartile to quartile, additional behaviors become apparent. More tellingly, some appear to be differentiators: emphasizing them in different situations can lift the organizational health of a fourth-quartile company to the third quartile, a third-quartile company to the second quartile, and so on. This staircase model aligns squarely with our own real-world observations.

Baseline behavior
For companies at every level above the truly dysfunctional, a set of threshold forms of behavior appears to be essential. We call them “baseline behavior.” Others may also be called for, depending upon an organization’s state of health, but the following practices are appropriate no matter what a company’s health may be: effectiveness at facilitating group collaboration, demonstrating concern for people, championing desired change, and offering critical perspectives. The absence of such fundamentals of healthy interpersonal interaction invites disorder; shoring up these behaviors, on the other hand, serves to keep organizations from sliding backward into organizational trouble. But in themselves, they don’t spell the difference between mediocre and top-tier organizational health. Companies need additional practices to climb the staircase.

Digging out
Companies in the lowest (fourth) health quartile confront stark—even existential—challenges, such as low levels of innovation, declining customer loyalty, wilting employee morale, the loss of major talent, and critical cash constraints. Typically, these companies lack some or even all of the baseline forms of behavior. Implementing the full complement is essential. But under trying conditions, our research suggests, the most effective forms of leadership behavior are making fact-based decisions, solving problems effectively, and focusing positively on recovery. Ironically, these additional behaviors are often the opposite of what distressed organizations actually do. Leaders at too many fourth-quartile companies, in their urgency to act, seek quick top-down fixes (such as replacing senior executives one or more times) but forego granular, fact-based analyses or well-rooted strategies. Those missteps often mark a company in its death spiral.

No doubt it’s a bit dangerous to draw too many lessons from well-known historical examples; memories are selective, and researchers can easily see what they want. Yet we’re struck by the parallels between these findings and the experiences of IBM in the early 1990s and of Continental Airlines later that decade. When Lou Gerstner, hired from the outside, took over as the new chairman and CEO of a then–deeply troubled IBM, he prioritized clear, fact-based problem solving. One measure of this mandate was his insistence that the executive team essentially abandon slide presentations leader Band submit plans in jargon-free prose. He also refused to accept the idea that the company’s decline, partition, or even liquidation was inevitable. The ability to see the facts clearly and to demonstrate resilience helped Gerstner and his team to break a long downward slide, reconsider a product category previously dismissed as obsolete, and turn what many had presumed to be an inevitable asset breakup into a new trajectory for growth. The leadership’s mind-set, moreover, became ingrained in the enterprise; members of Gerstner’s team who rode out the reorganization bought into his practices, and passed many of them on to their own working teams.

So too at Continental: morale had been so broken that workers were reportedly tearing the Continental logo off their uniforms to avoid being recognized as company employees off the job. As part of the company’s turnaround, members of the new leadership team embraced effective attitudes and behaviors, drilled down to assess profitability on a route-by-route and flight-by-flight basis, and took decisive action grounded in reality. In fact, this uncompromising focus on facts led then-COO Greg Brenneman to discover, over Thanksgiving, that the company would run out of cash in less than two months. With spirited resilience, the leadership team eliminated unprofitable routes, implemented specific initiatives for recovery (such as bonuses for on-time departures), and brought a loss maker into the black within 12 months.3
Moving on up

Our research and experience suggests that a major differentiating leadership characteristic of companies on the upswing is the ability to take practices that are already used at some levels of the organization and use them more systematically, more reliably, and more quickly. This shift calls for behavior that places a special emphasis on keeping groups on task and orienting them toward well-defined results. Such situations also favor leaders who embrace agility and seek different perspectives to help ensure that their companies don’t overlook possibly better ways of doing things. But under these circumstances, qualities (such as the ability to motivate and bring out the best in others and to model company values) found at the top tier of organizational health typically have a less pronounced effect.

A US-based financial-services company we know supplies a practical example. Its leadership aspired to strengthen the organization’s financial performance, innovate in the core business, and use an integrated package of health, performance, and leadership initiatives to capture more value at risk. At the outset, this company’s organizational health was in the third quartile—below the median. Key challenges included a lack of clear objectives or accountability (highlighted by committees with muddled or overlapping missions; poor development and career opportunities for high performers; and weak management of financials, operations, and risk (reflected, among other ways, by the absence of robust metrics). Exacerbating these problems, the leadership’s approach to running the company was pervasively top down.

To meet the challenges, the leaders implemented an integrated set of health and performance initiatives—for example, they developed clear standards and outcomes to clarify day-to-day tasks. The company made its objectives (and the consequences of not achieving them) transparent by articulating a forceful strategic vision marked by specific operating goals and milestones. The leadership also aimed to foster bottom-up, employee-driven solutions and actively encourage new perspectives. Although many things went right for this company beyond its walls, these internal moves undoubtedly strengthened it, and the results were tangible. Within two years, it had achieved its topline objectives in health, performance, and leadership, and its stock price had increased by 250 percent.

Why not start at the top?

If identifiable forms of leadership behavior are associated with companies in the higher quartiles, can an organization in the lower ones apply them immediately and leap to the top? Our research and experience suggest that attempts to do so typically end poorly. Emphasizing kinds of behavior that are not attuned to an organization’s specific situation can waste time and resources and reinforce bad behavior. Worse, it can make an upgrade to a higher health quartile even more difficult. This makes intuitive sense: the leaders of a company in deep trouble should not prioritize, for example, modeling organizational values, a first-quartile behavior.

We observed one cautionary example at a joint venture that ended badly for a number of related health, performance, and leadership reasons. Its board installed a highly charismatic leader with an outsized focus on top quartile–style motivational behavior. He traveled globally with his chairperson, for example, touting the joint venture’s “premium on innovation” and declaring that despite its merger-like characteristics, there was a “job for everyone” who was passionate about its vision. Unfortunately, at the time of these pronouncements, the organization had done little groundwork on critical issues of integration, including the difficult how-tos of harmonizing disparate IT systems and organizational cultures. Both legacy organizations responded by continuing to execute and perform as if nothing had changed. There was evidence they hoped that nothing ever would.

The joint venture responded to missing its first-quarter targets by setting even more ambitious ones. It handed accountability to the executive responsible for sales and marketing, but no root-cause analyses were undertaken. When it discovered a cash crisis, it made no credible efforts to craft a practical response; instead, the top executive continued to trumpet his mission throughout his global visits. But a “job for everyone” fell victim to the joint venture’s alarming cash position, which forced mass layoffs, and with them came the end of the leadership’s credibility. The venture was dissolved after just over a year of misguided operation.

Even the best scripts can ring hollow in the wrong settings. Our research suggests that the most effective leadership behavior reflects the state of a company’s organizational health. Top-management teams that are serious about developing vibrant businesses and effective leaders must be prepared to look inward, assess the organization’s health objectively, and ask themselves frankly whether their leadership behavior is strong enough in the ways that matter most at the time. This question has implications not just for developing but also for assessing a company’s leaders. However much an executive may seem to have a leadership “it” factor, the organization’s health, not the claims of individuals, should come first when companies determine which kinds of behavior will be most effective for them. In short, they should spotlight different sets of actions in different situations. Fortunately for aspiring leaders, they don’t have to do everything at once.

Source: McKinsey.com, January 2016
By: Michael Bazigos, Chris Gagnon and Bill Schaninger
About the authors:Michael Bazigos, head of organizational science at McKinsey, is based in its New York office; Chris Gagnon is a principal in the New Jersey office; and Bill Schaninger is a director in the Philadelphia office.

Do corporate headquarters add value?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Board work / Styrelsearbete on januari 22nd, 2016 by admin

Knowing when corporate headquarters adds rather than subtracts value

Reduce value destruction by applying three tests to initiatives from the center.

It’s a familiar dilemma for managers in corporate headquarters everywhere: how to add value to operating units without inadvertently subtracting it through misguided influence, bureaucracy, delays, and time wasting.

Consultants and academics, ourselves included, have wrestled with this challenge for years. We know many head-office initiatives that successfully exploited economies of scale, uncovered opportunities to cross-sell products, or devised strategies to share valuable knowledge. But the net impact of many others is negative. Why else, after all, do spin-offs from large conglomerates often perform well after being released from the warm embrace of the parent company? Why do executives in divisions complain so frequently about corporate functions andladda ned (10) initiatives?

We have been experimenting with three simple tests that help companies reduce the risks of unproductive interference by head offices.
They entail asking whether the project adds significant value, whether there are risks of unintended value subtraction, and whether the initiative will encounter barriers to implementation. In this article, we’ll describe the application of these tests to one company’s recent efforts to improve its websites, as well as another company’s initiative to make its sales force more effective (see sidebar, “Failing to surmount the barriers”). But analytical tools alone are not enough, so we also reflect on how to improve the dialogue between business units and the center. That interaction is critical to the effectiveness of the three tests.

The three tests in action
The project to improve websites was typical of many head-office initiatives. The managers concerned wanted to go ahead with an upgrade to make the sites more mobile friendly and improve their search rankings, as well as integrate the sites across the company’s four businesses. The stakes may seem small, but it’s easy, even with the best of intentions, to do more harm than good. That’s why we believe that managers at headquarters and in the businesses need rules of thumb to guide such decisions.

Some head-office initiatives—preparing financial statements, paying taxes, or conducting internal audits, for example—are required for external governance or compliance and form part of an organization’s right to do business. But many others, such as the website example, are discretionary and can be evaluated with our added value, subtracted-value, and barriers-to-implementation tests.

1. The added-value test
Head-office projects should focus on significant opportunities. A corporate headquarters, after all, only has a limited amount of executive capacity, and the business units themselves can only cope with a limited number of initiatives from the center. So what is a significant opportunity? Our rule of thumb is that such projects should have the potential to improve a company’s overall performance—sales, profits, return on assets, or value to beneficiaries—by a number that is large enough to make the risk of subtracting value worth taking. As a starting point, we suggest 10 percent. The exact number isn’t important; it could be 5 percent or 20 percent, as long as it is large enough to command the attention of HQ executives.

In the case of the company that wanted to improve its websites, the upgrade was likely to deliver a considerable increase in sales: the number of mobile users was increasing and search rankings were becoming significant. A 10 percent impact was not impossible. So the project, at least on the overall level, appeared to pass this test. But we have learned from experience that good evaluation calls for disaggregating projects into their component parts and applying the added-value test to each part.

It was clear that all of the websites in question needed an upgrade. But the issue was whether to manage the project from the center or in a more decentralized way. A center-led project would not generate sales 10 percent higher than a decentralized project would. Also, the second goal of more fully integrating the four websites would, on its own, not have passed the 10 percent test.

The analysis would have been speculative, and managers might have disagreed. But it would have been hard to argue that centralized project management of the upgrade or greater integration of the websites would deliver significantly more than a decentralized, nonintegrated approach.

This suggests that the head-office project should not go ahead unless the results of the other two tests were favorable. It is OK to pursue small sources of added value if the risk of subtracted value is low and there are few barriers to execution.

2. The subtracted-value test
This test may seem obvious, but companies rarely apply it in a formal way. Managers in business divisions may be more sensitive to the risk of subtracted value than managers at headquarters, who may be overoptimistic, but neither side is wholly unbiased. Anecdotes from previous company initiatives and an analysis of possible downsides can help uncover areas where value could be subtracted.

For the upgrade objective, a plan to centrally manage the project appeared to involve relatively few risks of subtracting value. One risk was timing. Separately managed projects would let each unit choose the moment most suited to its business needs. Another risk was complexity. It might have proved harder to upgrade all sites simultaneously. But neither risk seemed large. However, raising the issue of subtracted value can suggest ways to manage projects with a view to reducing even these small risks.

The risks were greater for the integration objective. Integration would require some control of standardization from the center, which might reduce initiative in the businesses or their willingness to experiment. So the subtracted-value test suggests that centralizing the upgrade could be sensible, but the integration objective might be risky.

3. The barriers-to-implementation test
The barriers test allows executives to assess the likelihood that a project will be well implemented. Academic research on initiatives to transfer skills and good practices has helped us distill a list of nine barriers to successful implementation. We’ve observed that projects facing more than three of these barriers are so unlikely to be implemented successfully that they are not worth pursuing.

In upgrading the websites, the company faced only one barrier: the project leader had not led a similar project before and therefore wasn’t fully credible. But he was well supported by outside advisers.

As for the integration part of the project, there were a number of barriers. Neither the project leader nor the consultants had the necessary skills. It wasn’t clear what should be integrated to achieve a good outcome. There was little evidence that integration would increase sales or cut costs. Moreover, some of the businesses were lukewarm about integration and thus not likely to embrace it fully. There was little contextual pressure for integration—no burning platform. With at least five barriers to implementation, this part of the project would have failed the implementation test.

The verdict
Generally, if the opportunity to add value is big, it may be worth trying to manage subtracted value, to look for ways around the implementation barriers, or both. But if the opportunity to add value is small, problems with either of the other two tests should suffice to deter the initiative.

images (3)In the case of the website project, the three tests support management’s instinct to centralize the upgrade part of the project. But the integration part should only move forward if ways could be found to reduce the risks of subtracted value and to remove barriers to implementation.

In reality, the company launched a project to achieve both objectives, with unfortunate results. While the upgrade was successful, integration delivered few benefits at a high cost. The project ran over budget and was late, which was damaging to one business with a summer sales peak. Moreover, after the project was complete, the policies put in place to protect standardization discouraged the businesses from experimenting with ways to upgrade their sites. Looking back, the business heads doubt that the project in total added much net value. They would have preferred to have kept control of their own sites.

Process supports
The three tests are not simple calculations. Judgment is required, and we are not suggesting that the judgments are trivial. Moreover, the tests are easier to apply in hindsight than before a project starts. We also know that analysis alone is not sufficient. Good decisions come from a dialogue between headquarters managers and business managers based on mutual respect. Each side has something to offer. Because they have access to the big picture, managers at headquarters may see opportunities to add value that business managers miss. Business managers, on the other hand, are better positioned to detect subtracted value and implementation barriers.

Organizational clarity
A clear understanding of the division of responsibilities between headquarters and business units is always helpful. Franchise organizations provide an extreme but instructive metaphor. The franchisees (that is, the business divisions) are clearly less powerful than the franchisor (headquarters). But all parties understand that the relationship will work only if the franchisor provides value for the franchisees and if the franchisees have autonomy in all areas not covered by the franchise agreement. Both sides should evaluate any new initiative by the franchisor to test the likely impact on added and subtracted value.

Without clarity, power struggles and competing agendas can emerge when companies fail to communicate the different roles that headquarters, functions, and businesses should play.

Measuring perceived added value
Although the value that headquarters adds can’t always be measured in financial terms, companies can gauge perceptions. One approach is to ask senior managers in business divisions, every three or six months, to assess the net added value of different headquarters functions, processes, policies, and projects on a simple scale of one to ten. A low score typically sparks a dialogue.

The main argument against such an evaluation process is that headquarters sometimes needs to use tough love and hard-to-take medicine, and that the business units may therefore rate head-office performance unfairly. But our experience suggests that managers in the businesses understand the benefits of tough love. And headquarters, of course, can always choose how to react to a bad score after engaging in the appropriate dialogue.

Blowing the bureaucracy whistle
Our final suggestion is to give all managers, especially those in the business divisions, a notional “bureaucracy whistle.” Like the famous and on cord, the emergency cable once strung above Toyota production lines that brought managers and engineers running to pinpoint the problem so as to minimize downtime, the bureaucracy whistle should trigger a similarly focused dialogue.

Every month or every quarter, an appropriate management committee can review the reported bureaucracy issues. Of course, such a committee runs the risk of becoming a bureaucracy in its own right. But at the very least, it will show the organization the importance of keeping an eye on subtracted value.

Source: McKinsey.com, 22 January 2016
Authors: Andrew Campbell and Gabriel Szulanski
About the authors: Andrew Campbell, an alumnus of McKinsey’s London and Los Angeles offices, is a director of the Ashridge Business School’s Strategic Management Centre in the United Kingdom. Gabriel Szulanski is a professor of strategy at INSEAD in Singapore.

Organizing for the future

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete on januari 20th, 2016 by admin

Platform-based talent markets help put the emphasis in human-capital management back where it belongs—on humans.

The best way to organize corporations—it’s a perennial debate. But the discussion is becoming more urgent as digital technology begins to penetrate the labor force.

Although consumers have largely gone digital, the digitization of jobs, and of the tasks and activities within them, is still in the early stages, according to a recent study by McKinsey Global Institute (MGI). Even companies and industries at the forefront of digital spending and usage have yet to digitize the workforce fully.

ladda nedThe stage is set for sweeping change as artificial intelligence, after years of hype and debate, brings workplace automation not just to physically intensive roles and repetitive routines but also to a wide range of other tasks. MGI estimates that roughly up to 45 percent of the activities employees perform can be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technologies. (For more, see “Four fundamentals of workplace automation.”)

This coming digitization of the workforce—and the powerful economics of automation—will require a sweeping rethink of organizational structures, influence, and control. The current premium on speed will continue, to be sure, even as a new organizational challenge arises: the destabilization of the way people work.

From bedrock to quicksand

The threat to organizational health is plain. As we argue in “Agility: It rhymes with stability,” the hallmark of an agile age is the ability to be stable and dynamic, allowing incumbents to make the most of their big-company advantages, while simultaneously keeping pace with quicker-moving disruptors. Like old masonry buildings—such as the Musée d’Orsay in Paris or the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco—that have new glass and steel added to their existing structures, today’s leading companies must integrate the contrasting elements of stability and speed to create a more functional, modern whole.

McKinsey research shows that bedrock aspects of stability—workers’ roles and the processes that support them—are the first and fourth most important factors, respectively, differentiating agile companies from the rest. What happens when these roles and processes suddenly turn to quicksand? Most of the organizational ideas of the last half-century or more have taken for granted the underlying building blocks of jobs and the way people work, both individually and together.

Automation can devastate these assumptions by disaggregating jobs into their component tasks and subtasks and then hiving off those that can be automated. It will force companies to figure out how to reassemble the remaining tasks into something that makes a new kind of sense, even as it reconceptualizes the very idea of what a job is. The early stages of these efforts may already be visible as organizations free highly specialized knowledge workers from mundane tasks. The most talented surgeons at one cardiac hospital, for example, perform only the heart surgery itself, while more junior staffers handle pre- and post-op procedures; a similar redesign has helped lawyers on the partner track and school administrators make the most of their scarcest skills.

Once roles and tasks are sorted out, the newly constructed jobs that result must be reaggregated into some greater whole, or “box,” on the org chart. Those boxes then need a new relation to each other. Will the destabilization of jobs prove powerfully liberating to organizations, making them far more agile, healthy, and high performing? Or will it initiate a collapse into internal dysfunction as people try to figure out what their jobs are, who is doing what, and where and why?

Regaining stability

The answer may depend on the ability of corporate leaders to restabilize the workforce—and to reconceive organizational structures—by using the very same digital technologies that have destabilized it in the first place.

How can they do so? No doubt, at this early juncture, many possibilities exist. One intriguing approach might work as follows: first split multifaceted jobs into discrete tasks, automating some and determining what can be done more effectively by humans. Then match those needs with the employees who can meet them, where they are, and when they’re available.

Finally, introduce a market-clearing mechanism to tie everything together.

Executives have long dreamed of organizational market mechanisms that could mobilize talented people for their best opportunities.

But these have proved difficult to achieve at scale. They may be more feasible now, though, thanks to digital workforce platforms—software layers that help executives allocate collections of workers’ skills against a wide array of projects and processes. Companies can deploy such a platform even as they lower overhead costs and improve their responsiveness and flexibility.

These new platforms, as we will see, may provide a novel form of organizational structure, but they won’t restabilize the workforce in and of themselves. Companies must also be careful to account for the more permanent aspects of their employees’ working lives, such as the business segments they know best, their functional areas of expertise, and the geographies where they live. As digital workforce platforms remake organizational structures, these more enduring “homes” will provide a key aspect of stability. More important, a dynamic internal market, in which the most talented and sought-after workers receive the highest compensation, helps people find new and more meaningful ways to commit themselves to their roles, even as the organization finds new ways to assess, develop, and reward them.

The combination of platforms, markets, and deeper engagement with digitally enabled workers holds appealing implications for managing human capital. That means not just allocating talented people effectively and efficiently, which is alluring enough in itself, but also freeing employees to focus on the more meaningful parts of their roles, as machines take over those that can be automated. Managers can benefit as well, by getting out from under the burden of appraisals, which will be redefined and multisourced on the workforce platform, so they can focus more on the development and professional growth of their direct reports. All this, to be sure, must carefully sidestep an obvious pitfall reflected in the current anxiety about a new kind of “digital Taylorism,” which, rather than freeing employees to pursue greater meaning and purpose, would chain them to more highly controlled—and controlling—approaches to work.

Done right, however, platform-based talent markets can help put the emphasis in human-capital management back where it always belonged—on humans.

Think ‘platform,’ not ‘structure’

Workforce platforms are therefore likely to provide considerable stability in changeable environments. Agile companies tend to have more fluid structures, in which day-to-day work is organized in smaller teams that often cut across business lines and market segments. Platform-based talent markets might provide a solid structure to help supplement and even replace traditional hierarchies. They could also greatly alter how matrix organizations work.

As the old view of hard and dotted lines begins to fade, companies might choose to group employees by their strongest activities and skills. From this functional home, they could be “rented,” via a talent market, by business-line and project leaders. The result would be at once more stable, since employees would be associated with familiar homes, yet more dynamic, as platform-based talent markets would help companies to reallocate their labor resources quickly when priorities and directions shift.

What is a platform?

“Platform” is one of those loosely used words that often lack a specific definition. Broadly speaking, digital platforms are software layers that gather and synthesize large volumes of data to make digital services available and accessible on various devices. They help define the rules and the way work gets done, while better coordinating activities and lowering interaction costs. The best kind of platform invites the involvement of diverse participants, some of whom build their own offerings, tools, and applications on top of it.

In practice, platforms typically take the form of a website, app, or other digital tool that connects different types of users.

Most of us are familiar with the impact of digital platforms on business and consumer markets. Think, for example, of Google’s AdSense, connecting advertisers, websites, and customers. Newer industrial platforms, such as GE’s Predix or the German manufacturer Trumpf’s Axoom platform, use the Internet of Things to connect machines and organize production.

Like digital technology in general, digital platforms have been slow to penetrate the world of work. But after transforming consumer and industrial markets, these platforms—publicly accessible ones like LinkedIn or Monster.com, as well as those inside companies—are now poised to do the same thing across the full spectrum of human-capital management. External platforms are alreadyimages (2) well established, but it’s a different story behind the corporate firewall: companies must themselves fashion digital workforce platforms using customized mash-ups of tools from solutions providers. HireIQ, for instance, provides software to digitize the interview process and apply predictive analytics to the results. More comprehensive solutions offer further unity and integration. In either case, they usually require extensive customization.

The investment required to put together digital workforce platforms is not small. They also call for superior technical capabilities, including sophisticated data management, advanced-analytics skills, and adaptable application development. Perhaps more important, they require a far more robust understanding of each employee’s skills, experiences, attitudes, performance, potential, and, if you will, desires or dreams for the future. Even though many of the tools used in platforms are available from third-party solutions providers, integrating them into a smoothly functioning whole is no trivial endeavor.

At least the utility of workforce platforms isn’t trivial, either. MGI modeled sample organizations in a range of industries with a diversity of workforce mixes, operating models, and financial characteristics. In this way, it estimated that companies using a combination of publicly available and behind-the-firewall platforms could realize an increase of 275 basis points in profit margins, on average, by 2025.

These increases come about through productivity gains among front- and middle-office workers (which can translate into revenue or other increased output opportunities) and through savings in recruiting, interviewing time, training, onboarding, and attrition costs. The upsides, we suspect, may be far greater for companies that actually succeed in making markets for talented workers inside their organizations.

What follows is a more detailed look at how workforce platforms can resolidify the way work gets done, even as they improve collaboration, retention, succession planning, and decision making.

Matching individuals, teams, and projects

Companies have long had difficulty maximizing the visibility and mobility of their best people. Managers can struggle to find the right person for a specific project, and talented workers can’t always see opportunities that might help them grow professionally and develop their expertise. Staffing coordinators have tried to step into the breach, but their efforts, even when effective, are necessarily limited in scale. These traditional shortcomings will soon increase as the exigencies of automation drive companies to break up jobs into their component parts.

Workforce platforms, which can sort information on employees’ skills, performance in previous assignments, working styles, personality traits, availability, and locations, can be particularly valuable matchmakers. Moreover, they can play the clearinghouse role in a neutral and nonbiased way, matching people and opportunities while improving the success of staffing efforts by expanding the known pool of candidates across a whole company. Workforce platforms can also streamline the way employees find colleagues with specific expertise—an important capability for large multinationals with operations spread around the world.

Consider the uses of workplace platforms in hospital systems. Nurses must constantly be matched to departments and cases, taking into consideration their specialized training, availability, doctors’ preferences, and technical requirements. Sophisticated software can better deploy the substantial float pool of nurses and per-diem physicians, and the platform’s real-time communication tools can help frontline medical personnel access specialists immediately.

Bringing science to talent management

Whom shall we hire? What should we pay them? How can we retain these employees and help them grow and develop as their careers progress? Such people decisions are at the crux of organizational health not only for executives but also for entry-level workers, administrative staff, sales teams, and customer-service representatives. In the absence of sufficient data, companies often fall back on time-consuming and bureaucratic review processes that attempt to look at a year’s performance and decide how to grade it for compensation purposes. These time sinks will probably become all the more difficult as companies break jobs into their component tasks, rendering previous role definitions and job descriptions less relevant for evaluating performance.

Ericsson, Google, 3M, Wells Fargo, Xerox, and other early adopters of digital workforce platforms are finding that they help ground people decisions in hard data rather than gut instinct. The software provider Symantec, for example, used a crowdsourced performance-evaluation process to gain a 16 percent increase in employee satisfaction and engagement.

Xerox reduced new-hire attrition and made call-center agents 3 to 4 percent more productive by implementing Evolv’s HR analytics software, which sets up a 30-minute online-screening test for applicants and compares the results with a profile of top performers.

An aging workforce gave 3M a reason to build an integrated workforce-technology platform to plan for succession management, thus increasing its employees’ internal mobility and boosting their annual productivity by 4 percent.

Wells Fargo used Big Data analysis by Kiran Analytics to identify its most engaged and high-performing frontline employees; the company then designed its hiring processes to screen for candidates with similar traits, raising teller retention by 15 percent.

Ericsson globalized its HR processes around an integrated platform designed to regather the tools and processes scattered by decentralization. (For more, see “How Ericsson aligned its people with its transformation strategy: An interview with chief HR officer Bina Chaurasia.”)

Hard data can support more robust yet streamlined discussions that help companies to reach better-informed decisions. By making it possible to evaluate the performance of employees through multiple sources, digital platforms release managers from lengthy appraisal processes, freeing them to focus on coaching and professional development. They also bring to bear more data, such as the information generated when project teams bid for a particular employee with a specific set of skills, pushing up that person’s per diem, which in turn gets reflected in the evaluation cycle. Rather than further destabilizing the organization, digital platforms, the markets they enable, and the hard data those markets provide can help to solidify and stabilize it.

Engaging the digital workforce

In a digital world, where switching jobs is easier than ever and top performers are increasingly in demand, it’s no surprise that employees have become more mobile.

This change might represent a positive dynamic in the broader economy. But many companies face increased rates of attrition, which is not only expensive but also destabilizing—particularly when strategic capabilities, institutional knowledge, and leadership skills walk out the door. Workplace platforms offer new ways to restabilize attrition rates by helping employees become more engaged with their work and flagging early warning signs, so that managers can intervene before high performers leave as a result of low morale or boredom.

Getting personal

By allowing even the largest organizations to move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to human resources and talent management, digital workforce platforms can help create the conditions in which employees feel energized by their work, valued by their organization, and happy in their environment. Such platforms can, for example, create a more personalized onboarding process that incorporates what companies know about new hires and their skills when they arrive. Appical, a Dutch start-up that uses digital games to transform the onboarding process, is among the companies creating tools to streamline orientation and training for new employees.

Workforce platforms also support the ongoing and self-directed virtual learning that’s crucial to professional development and growth. Digital training services like those provided by City & Guilds Kineo and LEO Learning enable companies to cut back on live training sessions and create more comprehensive, personalized, and effective online learning programs.

Designing employee journeys

In product and service markets, digital technology has helped companies take a new view of interactions with customers by mapping and shaping their “journeys” from their first awareness of a product to its purchase and beyond.

This new, technology-enabled approach helps companies answer an age-old question: Why should customers buy from us?

There’s a similarly long-standing question for employers, of course: Why should top performers choose to work for us?

In response, some companies have begun examining the design of their employee journeys with the same intensity they bring to designing the customer experience. Why does the employee experience matter? For one thing, because studies show that intrinsic factors—the meaningfulness and purpose of work, for example—can motivate employees more effectively than just traditional extrinsic ones (think: money) tend to do.

Furthermore, inroads by automation will doubtless leave many employees feeling vulnerable, though it is more likely to redefine jobs than to eliminate them. Improving the employee experience can help balance that feeling of vulnerability.

Just as digital technologies help companies design the customer decision journey, workforce platforms help them design the experience of employees as they move through their career paths, from their initial consideration of a company until they become alumni. At each stage along the way, the platform provides greater visibility into what works and what doesn’t, by tracking the behavior of employees and enabling real-time, personalized responses to it.

Workforce platforms could, for example, roll up and provide access to the data gathered through the “sociometric badges” invented by MIT computer scientist Alex Pentland, who cofounded the social-technology firm Humanyze. These badges look closely at the interactions and social behavior of employees, even while raising new questions about confidentiality, ethics, and the use and sharing of information, among other things. The data they generate can help reveal, measure, and analyze organizational dynamics—and give companies a better understanding of how employees work and of how to make them more satisfied with their jobs.

Will such devices bring the looming presence of Big Brother? Case studies conducted with them found that they can actually reinforce the more humanistic elements of high performance: a pharma company, for example, found ways to improve the way people communicate with each other across departmental lines, while a German bank used badge data in reconfiguring seating arrangements to encourage more face-to-face interactions and to control email overload.

Of course, legitimate privacy concerns must be carefully tended to, though millennial workers, who have grown up with wearable technology, may be more comfortable with potential privacy trade-offs. Using aggregated and anonymized (rather than individual) data will help.

The leader as organizational architect

Recent McKinsey research into the health of organizations finds that the definition of great leadership varies according to context. (For more, see “Leadership in context,” forthcoming on mckinsey.com.) Certain kinds of baseline behavior that are required of leaders when organizational health is poor, for example, recede as it improves and other, higher-order forms of behavior come to the forefront. This idea bears a resemblance to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: people concerned with their own (and their families’) physiological health and safety have little or no time for higher-order needs, like self-actualization.

ladda ned (9)The coming digitization of the workforce and the automation of tasks will take a toll on organizational health by destabilizing the ways and means through which work is performed. As this happens, executives should carefully reassess the well-being of their organizations and, in many cases, adjust their leadership styles for the new context. That may involve the kinds of behavior required when companies trend toward dysfunction: effectiveness at facilitating group collaboration, demonstrating concern for people, championing desired changes, and offering critical perspectives.

CEOs must be alert to how machine learning and advanced analytics will automate some of their own tasks, as well. They will not only have to rethink their leadership behavior but also keep a sharp eye out for their own comparative advantage.

In an age of automation, CEOs and their top teams will need to gain an almost architectural sense of how machines and people work together side by side, each making the other more productive and effective, while never losing sight of their employees’ humanity. They will have to look beyond the architecture of mechanical “hard” structures to include the orchestration of complex social systems as well.

Leaders must help to reconcile and interrelate the forces and mandates of digitization and automation, on the one hand, with the needs and tenets of organizational health, on the other. A virtuous circle could certainly arise, but so could a vicious one. If enthusiasm for technology makes executives lose sight of the human needs of the workforce—for example, by steering too far toward machine-based control of employees, especially lower-status, lower-paid employees—organizational health will surely suffer. (See sidebar, “Humanizing dynamic scheduling.”)

Humanizing dynamic scheduling

The broader view required will force CEOs to transcend their own functional or business-unit backgrounds. Former CFOs, for example, have always had to see beyond the numbers on becoming chief executives. Now top leaders will need an even deeper grasp of people, the roles and tasks they perform, and their fears about the future.

The approaching age of automation, together with the impending penetration of digital technology into the labor force, threatens to destabilize crucial aspects of how employees work, by undermining the stability companies depend on to be agile. Executives can resolidify their companies even while making the most of the coming transformation if they adjust their leadership behavior, embrace digital workforce platforms, and deepen their engagement with digitally enabled workers.

Source: McKinsey.cm, January 2016
Authors: yAaron De Smet, Susan Lund, and William Schaninger
About the authors: Aaron De Smet is a principal in McKinsey’s Houston office; Susan Lund is a principal with the McKinsey Global Institute, based in the Washington, DC, office; and Bill Schaninger is a director in the Philadelphia office.

Aligning people with a transformation strategy

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Leadership / Ledarskap, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on januari 18th, 2016 by admin

How Ericsson aligned its people with its transformation strategy: An interview with chief HR officer Bina Chaurasia

A recent shift in strategy required an overhaul of HR. Ericsson’s chief human-resources officer, Bina Chaurasia, describes how skills, technology, and processes had to change on a global scale.

It’s been more than a decade since Ericsson relied on its own mobile-phone production, and nearly four years since it sold its stake in the Sony–Ericsson joint venture. In 2010, Ericsson embarked on a journey to reframe its strategy and become a leader in telecom services, software, and hardware.

This strategic shift brought with it a talent challenge, as new markets and priorities required different capabilities. In this interview conducted by McKinsey’s Simon London, Bina Chaurasia, Ericsson’s chief human-resources officer, describes how the company has revamped HR in response—increasing its agility, coordination, global scale, and ability to leverage data analytics.

ladda ned (8)The Quarterly: What was the business context for the organizational changes human resources has been driving over the past few years?
Bina Chaurasia: When Hans Vestberg started as CEO six years ago, he decided to get out of the remaining consumer businesses and grow the software and services segments, which now make up about two thirds of our total operations. The idea was to leverage the core network-infrastructure business to develop new growth areas, including TV and media, cloud services, and support software—what you might call telecom IT solutions. At the time, it was very clear to Hans that you couldn’t accomplish this vision without transforming the skills and capabilities of our people across the organization.

The Quarterly: What were the company’s biggest organizational strengths and liabilities in pursuing this new strategy?
Bina Chaurasia: Our culture was our strongest asset. It’s a culture of collaboration and innovation; people are used to working with colleagues across the globe or taking assignments in other locations. Our employees are also very clear about our deeper purpose—we are ultimately creating technology for good. We go where no one’s gone before, and we build communications infrastructure that makes a difference in communities across the world.

At the same time, we were incredibly decentralized. We had 23 regional groups that are now consolidated into 10. Every region had their own way of doing things. We had no clear systems in place. From an HR perspective, we had scattered processes and tools.

We had to tackle the problem in three simultaneous waves. One, we needed a single people strategy that was fully aligned with the business strategy. Two, we needed an integrated IT platform for HR. You can’t run an efficient global company with disjointed IT tools. We’re now on an integrated platform that can be used by both managers and employees, where our data can be centrally gathered and analyzed. And, three, we had to globalize our HR processes, with the criteria that each one should be simple, user friendly, and business focused. For example, we created global learning programs that our employees can access virtually on our Ericsson Academy portal from anywhere in the world.

We also had a larger vision to build an HR team with the knowledge and skills to partner with our leaders on implementing strategic shifts in the business. So we had to clarify roles, promote from within, bring in some strong external talent, and provide everyone with thorough training that included business acumen, financial analysis, and data analytics.

The Quarterly: What kind of insights have you been able to glean from the data analytics?
Bina Chaurasia: It’s incredible. It’s a guiding indicator in a variety of areas for the business as a whole. We can pool and crunch data from all over, not just from recruiting or performance. For example, in 2014, we did an extensive data analysis across more than 52,000 job applications for over 2,000 open positions in the US. We saw that more female candidates were applying to jobs posted by female managers. So we started looking at what might be the cause. Is the wording in the female managers’ job descriptions different?

We decided to use an app to do a “gender bias wash” of job descriptions, removing male-focused references. Overall, we have now increased the percentage of external female applicants to one of our key global job portals from 16 percent to 21 percent in just the last 9 months. We have similar analytics insights into our learning programs, which enable us to develop and deliver those programs to our employees that best enable knowledge transfer on the job. It’s essentially provided us with an ROI that we had not previously seen.

These kinds of stats are great, but the key is to move beyond data reporting and basic analytics to true predictive analytics—make the data a parameter in decision making. And you can’t have that kind of analysis across the whole enterprise, if you don’t go through the initial pain of bringing everyone onboard with common platforms and processes. And, of course, we build flexibility into our processes as needed to ensure that we are fast and relevant across our business lines and regions.

The Quarterly: How did you go about tackling your new people strategy?
Bina Chaurasia: From a business perspective, it was important for us to identify the skill gaps that we would need to fill in order to succeed in our targeted growth areas. And a big part of that is building a competency model that we could use as a framework. So, we literally took every single function in the company and all of its roles, mapped out the stages of each job, and laid out the competence needed for each one. That took a couple years, as you might imagine, getting every functional area into the framework. At that time, many in the company thought it would be impossible. Today, every position in the company is mapped out.

At the same time, we had to ask ourselves, “How do we get an aggregated assessment of capabilities across the entire organization?” Our answer was to tie in the gap-identification process with our annual strategy review. Every business unit, every region develops their annual operating plan and their three-year plan. We then analyze the competencies needed to deliver those plans, and determine how we’ll fill the gaps. The aggregated information creates clear demand signals for our learning and recruiting teams. They know exactly what competence will be needed by which date, and in which country. And how you fill those competence gaps is equally important. You can’t just go and hire all of them. You have to have a clear idea of what talent to hire, what learning programs to develop, and at what scale. It has always been very important to us as a company to focus on developing our employees’ competence instead of just relying on hiring from the outside.

The Quarterly: How do you manage your talent pipeline?
Bina Chaurasia: Hans and I meet annually with every member of our global leadership team, and their HR partners, to review their talent and succession plans. The executive-leadership team then calibrates our top talent as a group and this talent-planning process culminates in my presentation to the board of directors. Over the years, our talent pools have been extremely healthy for any position. So when we look externally, it’s because we want to, not because we have to.

The Quarterly: Have you put any directional targets in place when it comes to geographic presence or diversity?
Bina Chaurasia: Along with many leading Silicon Valley tech companies, we publicized our diversity figures. We weren’t happy with the reality, so we put down a milestone—by 2020, at least 30 percent of our global employees will be women, up from 22 percent in 2014. It starts with the tone from the top. Hans has changed the makeup of his own leadership team. Before, there was oneladda ned (7) woman on the executive team; now there are four. If employees don’t see it from the leaders, then it won’t happen across the board. I’ve also been very clear in communicating our philosophy: Not only do you have to send the right signals from the top, but you have to make it organic so it’s not about a quota system; naturally embed it into your hiring and talent-review process. Finally, make it locally relevant.

The Quarterly: What role have social tools played in the transformation, internally or externally?
Bina Chaurasia: We’ve invested a lot in collaboration tools for our internal learning programs. It’s increasingly the way people want to learn, particularly millennials. We created Ericsson Play, a video learning model, where any employee can upload their own videos. Today, we have over 30 video channels with over 450,000 video views. We also launched Ericsson Academy Virtual Campus, which makes online training available to all our employees, and we’ve included mobile programs as well so people can learn on the go.

Externally, we’ve used social to build the company’s employer brand. When I joined the company, we asked an outside firm to evaluate our employer brand and in their words it was “an incredibly well-kept secret.” So we tried to change that, and our employees have been our best advocates on social media. We started winning in rankings for great places to work.

The Quarterly: Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently?
Bina Chaurasia: I would have focused more on change management. I would have prepared the organization more by saying up front, “This is going to be a year of transition.” I kept the unit heads apprised, and the next level down was also engaged, but I could’ve done better to ensure communication all the way down the line. Building enterprise-wide tools and processes, and an HR department engaging on a strategic level, was a big change. But if we hadn’t done that, we would not be able to transform Ericsson’s capabilities, or contribute fully to the people side of our business strategy.

Source: McKinsey.com, January 2016
Authors: Simon London
About the authors: Bina Chaurasia is the chief human-resources officer of Ericsson. This interview was conducted by Simon London, McKinsey’s digital communications director, who is based in the firm’s Silicon Valley office.

Här är de viktigaste ledaregenskaperna, enligt en omfattande analys

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on januari 14th, 2016 by admin

20 krav på en bra chef

Affärsvärldens nätupplaga berättar att hela 15 miljoner jobbannonser granskats av Microsoft och IDC för att få svar på vilka kompetenser som står högst i kurs till de bäst avlönade jobben.

Det är inte tekniktunga eller yrkesspecifika kunskaper som står högst i kurs, enligt undersökningen. I stället är det så kallade mjuka kompetenser som toppar listan.
ladda ned (11)
Det som anses allra viktigast är förmågan att kommunicera i tal och skrift. På andra plats kommer kunskaper i Office-paketet. Arbetsmoral anses inte riktigt lika viktigt och återfinns först på plats 19 på listan.

De 20 toppkompetenserna, enligt artikeln, är:
1. Muntlig- och skriftlig kommunikation
2. Microsoft Office
3. Detaljorienterad
4. Problemlösare
5. Självgående, självmotiverad
6. Organiserad
7. Arbetar självständigt
8. Microsoft PowerPoint
9. Projektledning
10. Erfarenhet av sälj
11. ”Felsökare” som ser problemen innan de blir stora
12. Kundservice-orienterad
13. Duktig på att hushålla med tid
14. Affärsutvecklare
15. Analytisk
16. Microsoft Word
17. Flerspråkighet
18. Social medarbetare
19. Arbetsmoral
​20. Kunskaper i Linux

Källa: Dagensvd.se, 14 januari 2015

Ny forskning: Män överdriver sitt späckade arbetsschema

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Executive Coaching, Leadership / Ledarskap on januari 13th, 2016 by admin

Fullspäckad kalender och upp emot 100 arbetstimmar per vecka. Den bilden vill många ge av sitt arbetsliv. Inte minst män. Men ofta överdriver de, visar en studie vid Questrom School of Business vid Boston universitet.

Vi lever i tidspressade tider. Spontana möten är få och kalendrar fullspäckade. Många hävdar, inte utan stolthet, att de jobbar klart mer än en 40-timmarsvecka. Men ofta ljuger de, visar en studie vid Questrom School of Business vid Boston University.

Särskilt män visar sig överdriva den tid de arbetar, visar rapporten där forskaren Erin Read har närstuderat arbetsförhållandena på en konsultfirma. Read intervjuade över 100 medarbetare vid företaget, fick se chefernas bedömning om deras insatser och andra dokument om medarbetarna på företaget.

Hon tecknar en bild av ett företag där de anställda förväntas ställa upp och vara tillgängliga i stort sett jämt. De som levde upp till den bilden fick beröm och en god löneutveckling.

Enligt Read var det flera på arbetsplatsen som trivdes i den typen av arbetskultur och gärna arbetade långa dagar. Andra ville arbeta mindre och efterfrågade mer flexibla arbetstider.
ladda ned
Men det mest intressanta är strategin hos en tredje grupp av de anställda. Det visar sig att 31 procent av männen och 11 procent av kvinnorna hade ett annat angreppssätt. De ställde utåt sett upp på den arbetsintensiva kulturen, framstod som om de jobbade jämt och alltid var redo att göra en insats. Men i själva verket planerade smart. Möten bokades lokalt så att behov av resor minskade. Och när de stannade hemma med barn eller inte gick till arbetet på grund av något annat, var det utan att dra uppmärksamhet till sig. Tillsammans såg de till att täcka upp för varandra.

Resultatet blev att de framstod som idealarbetare, men spenderade i själva verket ganska mycket tid utanför jobbet. I företagets bedömning fick de goda betyg och utåt sett såg de ut som ambitiösa arbetsnarkomaner. De var helt enkelt bra på att låtsas att de arbetade jämt.

Kvinnor med små barn däremot bad ofta att gå ned i arbetstid för att hinna med. Därmed fick de både lägre lön och uppfattades som att de uträttade mindre än sina manliga kolleger som drog ner på arbetstiden på ett mer inofficiellt sätt.

En slutsats som Read drar är att det kanske snarast är intrycket av att vara ambitiös och arbeta mycket som uppskattas, än vad som verkligen görs.

Någon liknande studie har inte gjorts i Sverige. Här är det ett faktum att skillnad i faktisk arbetstid mellan kvinnor och män, trots stora förändringar, är fortsatt stor.

Under 1970-och 80-talen ökade antalet kvinnor som arbetade markant och sysselsättningsgraden gick upp från 59 till 84 procent. En starkt bidragande orsak var den utbyggda barnomsorgen.

Men fortfarande arbetar klart fler kvinnor än män deltid. Det beror både på att de inte erbjuds något heltidsjobb och på att de tar ett större ansvar för familjen.

2013 arbetade 30 procent kvinnor deltid. Det är en minskning med 45 procent jämfört med 1987. Men jämfört med männen är skillnaden stor, 11 procent av männen arbetade deltid.

Följden är olika ekonomiska förutsättningar som hänger kvar ända till pensionen. Senaste uppgifterna från Pensionsmyndigheten visar att kvinnors snittpension endast uppgår till 73 procent av männens. Och trots att fler kvinnor har högre utbildning, arbetar de ofta i yrken som har lägre löner än mansdominerade yrken. Till det kommer att kvinnor stannar hemma med barn under längre tid än männen, vilket gör att de halkar efter i löneutvecklingen. 2013 togs 75 procent av föräldramånaderna ut av mammorna.

Källa: DN.se