Making time management the organization’s priority

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Executive Coaching, Leadership / Ledarskap on September 16th, 2019 by admin

To stop wasting a finite resource, companies should tackle time problems systematically rather than leave them to individuals.

When a critical strategic initiative at a major multinational stalled recently, company leaders targeted a talented, up-and-coming executive to take over the project. There was just one problem: she was already working 18-hour days, five days a week. When the leaders put this to the CEO, he matter-of-factly remarked that by his count she still had “30 more hours Monday to Friday, plus 48 more on the weekend.”
Extreme as this case may seem, the perennial time-scarcity problem that underlies it has become more acute in recent years. The impact of always-on communications, the growing complexity of global organizations,1 and the pressures imposed by profound economic uncertainty have all added to a feeling among executives that there are simply not enough hours in the day to get things done.

Our research and experience suggest that leaders who are serious about addressing this challenge must stop thinking about time management as primarily an individual problem and start addressing it institutionally. Time management isn’t just a personal-productivity issue over which companies have no control; it has increasingly become an organizational issue whose root causes are deeply embedded in corporate structures and cultures.
Fortunately, this also means that the problem can be tackled systematically. Senior teams can create time budgets and formal processes for allocating their time. Leaders can pay more attention to time when they address organizational-design matters such as spans of control, roles, and decision rights. Companies can ensure that individual leaders have the tools and incentives to manage their time effectively. And they can provide institutional support, including best-in-class administrative assistance—a frequent casualty of recent cost-cutting efforts.
Approaches like these aren’t just valuable in their own right. They also represent powerful levers for executives faced with talent shortages, particularly if companies find their most skilled people so overloaded that they lack the capacity to lead crucial new programs. In this article, we’ll explore institutional solutions—after first reviewing in more detail the nature of today’s time-management challenge, including the results of a recent survey.

Time: The ‘infinite’ resource
When we asked nearly 1,500 executives across the globe2 to tell us how they spent their time, we found that only 9 percent of the respondents deemed themselves “very satisfied” with their current allocation. Less than half were “somewhat satisfied,” and about one-third were “actively dissatisfied.” What’s more, only 52 percent said that the way they spent their time largely matched their organizations’ strategic priorities. Nearly half admitted that they were not concentrating sufficiently on guiding the strategic direction of the business. These last two data points suggest that time challenges are influencing the well-being of companies, not just individuals.
The survey results, while disquieting, are arguably a natural consequence of the fact that few organizations treat executive time as the finite and measurable resource it is. Consider the contrast with capital. Say that a company has $2 billion of good capital-investment opportunities, all with positive net present value and reasonably quick payback, but just $1 billion of capital readily available for investment. The only options are either to prioritize the most important possibilities and figure out which should be deferred or to find ways of raising more capital.
Leadership time, by contrast, too often gets treated as though it were limitless, with all good opportunities receiving high priority regardless of the leadership capacity to drive them forward. No wonder that so few leaders feel they are using their time well or that a segmentation analysis of the survey data revealed the existence not only of dissatisfied executives but of four distinct groups of dissatisfied executives—“online junkies,” “schmoozers,” “cheerleaders,” and “firefighters”—whose pain points, as we’ll see, reflect the ways organizations ignore time (for a full description of each group, see the narrated slideshow, “Time management: Four flavors of frustration”).

Initiative overload
The myth of infinite time is most painfully experienced through the proliferation of big strategic initiatives and special projects common to so many modern organizations. The result is initiative overload: projects get heaped on top of “day jobs,” with a variety of unintended consequences, including failed initiatives, missed opportunities, and leaders who don’t have time to engage the people whose cooperation and commitment they need. Organizations often get “change fatigue” and eventually lack energy for even the most basic and rewarding initiatives.
Many dissatisfied executives, particularly firefighters and online junkies, struggle to devote time and energy to the personal conversations and team interactions that drive successful initiatives. The online junkies spend the least time motivating employees or being with their direct reports, either one on one or in a group; face-to-face encounters take up less than 20 percent of their working day. The communication channels they most favor are e-mail, other forms of asynchronous messaging, and the telephone—all useful tools, but often inadequate substitutes for real conversations.

Muddling through
Another unintended consequence of our cavalier attitude toward this supposedly infinite resource is a lack of organizational time-management guidance for individual managers.
Imagine someone on day one of a new job: she’s been through the training and onboarding, arrives at the office, sits down at her desk, and then . . . ? What determines the things she does, her schedule, the decisions she gets involved with, where she goes, whom she talks with, the information she reviews (and for how long), and the meetings she attends? Nine out of ten times, we find, the top two drivers are e-mails that appear in the inbox and meeting invites, albeit sometimes in reverse order.
Diary analyses of how different people spend their time in the same role—sales rep, trader, store manager, regional vice president—often provoke astonishment at the sharply contrasting ways different individuals perform the same job. The not-so-good performers are often highly fragmented, spending time on the wrong things in the wrong places while ignoring tasks core to their strategic objectives.
Our survey suggests that a laissez-faire approach to time management is a challenge for all four types of dissatisfied executives, but particularly for the schmoozers (CEOs are well represented) and cheerleaders (often C-suite executives one level down). These individuals seem to be doing valuable things: schmoozers spend most of their time meeting face to face with important (often external) stakeholders, while cheerleaders spend over 20 percent of theirs (more than any other dissatisfied group) interacting with, encouraging, and motivating employees.
But consider the things these people are not doing. Cheerleaders spend less time than other executives with a company’s external stakeholders. For schmoozers, more than 80 percent of interaction time takes place face to face or on the phone. They say they have difficulty connecting with a broad cross-section of the workforce or spending enough time thinking and strategizing. The same challenge confronts cheerleaders, who spend less than 10 percent of their time focused on long-term strategy. The bottom line: muddling through and devoting time to activities that seem important doesn’t always cut it, even for a company’s most senior leaders.

Troublesome trade-offs
When new initiatives proliferate without explicit attention to the allocation of time and roles, organizations inadvertently make trade-offs that render their leaders less effective (see sidebar, “Drowning in managerial minutiae”).
Companies often exacerbate time problems through the blunt application of “delayering” principles. One organization we know applied “the rule of seven” (no more than seven direct reports for managers) to all parts of the organization. It forgot that different types of managerial work require varying amounts of time to oversee, manage, and apprentice people. In some cases (such as jobs involving highly complicated international tax work in finance organizations), a leader has the bandwidth for only two or three direct reports. In others (such as very simple call-center operations, where employees are well trained and largely self-managing), it is fine to have 20 or more.
While the average span of control might still work out at seven, applying simple rules in an overly simplistic way can be costly: managers with too few direct reports often micromanage them or initiate unnecessary meetings, reports, or projects that make the organization more complex. Conversely, when managers don’t have enough time to supervise their people, they tend to manage by exception (acting only where there’s a significant deviation from what’s planned) and often end up constantly firefighting.
We saw these dynamics most at work among our survey’s firefighters. General managers accounted for the largest number of people in this category, which is characterized by the amount of time those in it spend alone in their offices, micromanaging and responding to supposed emergencies via e-mail and telephone (40 percent, as opposed to 13 percent for the schmoozers). Such executives also complained about focusing largely on short-term issues and near-term operational decisions and having little time to set strategy and organizational direction.

Respecting time
The deep organizational roots of these time challenges help explain their persistence despite several decades of research, training, and popular self-help books, all building on Peter Drucker’s famous dictum: “Time is the scarcest resource, and unless it is managed nothing else can be managed.”
So where should leaders hoping to make real progress for their organizations—and themselves—start the journey? We don’t believe there’s one particular breakdown of time that works for all executives. But the responses of the relatively small group of satisfied executives in our survey (fewer than one in ten) provide some useful clues to what works.
Overall, the key seems to be balance (exhibit). On average, executives in the satisfied group spend 34 percent of their time interacting with external stakeholders (including boards, customers, and investors), 39 percent in internal meetings (evenly split between one on ones with direct reports, leadership-team gatherings, and other meetings with employees), and 24 percent working alone.

Of the time executives in the satisfied group spend interacting with others (externally and internally), 40 percent involves face-to-face meetings, 25 percent video- or teleconferences, and around 10 percent some other form of real-time communication. Less than a third involves e-mail or other asynchronous communications, such as voice mail.
The satisfied executives identified four key activities that take up (in roughly equal proportions) two-thirds of their time: making key business or operational decisions, managing and motivating people, setting direction and strategy, and managing external stakeholders. None of these, interestingly, is the sort of transactional and administrative activity their dissatisfied counterparts cited as a major time sink.
In our experience, all of those dissatisfied leaders stand to benefit from the remedies described below. That said, just as the principles of a good diet plan are suitable for all unhealthy eaters but the application of those principles may vary, depending on individual vices (desserts for some, between-meal snacks for others), so too these remedies will play out differently, depending on which time problems are most prevalent in a given organization.

1. Have a ‘time leadership’ budget—and a proper process for allocating it
Rather than add haphazardly to projects and initiatives, companies should routinely analyze how much leadership attention, guidance, and intervention each of them will need. What is the oversight required? What level of focus should the top team or the steering committee provide? In other words, how much leadership capacity does the company really have to “finance” its great ideas?

Establishing a time budget for priority initiatives might sound radical, but it’s the best way to move toward the goal of treating leadership capacity as companies treat financial capital and to stop financing new initiatives when the human capital runs out. One large health system we know has established a formal governance committee, with a remit to oversee the time budget, for enterprise-wide initiatives. The committee approves and monitors all of them, including demands on the system’s leadership capacity. Initial proposals must include time commitments required from the leadership and an explicit demonstration that each leader has the required capacity. If not, the system takes deliberate steps to lighten that leader’s other responsibilities.

2. Think about time when you introduce organizational change
Companies typically look at managerial spans of control from a structural point of view: the broader they are, the fewer managers and the lower the overhead they need. Augmenting that structural frame of reference with the time required to achieve goals is critical to the long-term success of any organizational change. The hours needed to manage, lead, or supervise an employee represent a real constraint that, if unmanaged, can make structures unstable or ineffective.
Getting this right is a delicate balancing act. Excessively lean organizations leave managers overwhelmed with more direct reports than they can manage productively. Yet delayering can be a time saver because it strips out redundant managerial roles that add complexity and unnecessary tasks. One major health-products company we know recently made dramatic progress toward eliminating unnecessary work and taming a notorious “meeting culture” just by restructuring its finance organization, which had twice as many managers as its peers did.
Likewise, when another company—this one in the technology sector—reset its internal governance structures, it saved more than 4,000 person-hours of executive time annually while enhancing its strategic focus, increasing its accountability, and speeding up decision making. In particular, the company revamped complex decision-making structures involving multiple boards and committees that typically included the same people and had similar agendas and unnecessarily detailed discussions.

3. Ensure that individuals routinely measure and manage their time
At one leading professional-services firm, a recent analysis revealed that the senior partners were spending a disproportionate amount of time on current engagements, to the exclusion of equally important strategic priorities, such as external networking, internal coaching, and building expertise. Today individual partners have a data-backed baseline as a starting point to measure how well their time allocation meets their individual strategic objectives.
Executives are usually surprised to see the output from time-analysis exercises, for it generally reveals how little of their activity is aligned with the company’s stated priorities. If intimacy with customers is a goal, for example, how much time are the organization’s leaders devoting to activities that encourage it? Most can’t answer this question: they can tell you the portion of the budget that’s dedicated to the organization’s priorities but usually not how much time the leadership devotes to them. Once leaders start tracking the hours, even informally, they often find that they devote a shockingly low percentage of their overall time to these priorities.
Of course, if you measure and manage something, it becomes a priority regardless of its importance. At one industrial company, a frontline supervisor spent almost all his time firefighting and doing unproductive administrative work, though his real value was managing, coaching, and developing people on the shop floor. The reason for the misallocation was that shop-floor time was neither structured nor measured—no one minded if he didn’t show up—but he got into trouble by not attending meetings and producing reports. The same issue exists for senior executives: if their formal and informal incentives don’t map closely to strategic priorities, their time will naturally be misallocated.
The inclusion in performance reviews of explicit, time-related metrics or targets, such as time spent with frontline employees (for a plant manager) or networking (for senior partners at a professional-services firm), is a powerful means of changing behavior. So is friendly competition among team members and verbal recognition of people who spend their time wisely. And consider borrowing a page from lean manufacturing, which emphasizes “standard work” as a way to reduce variability. We’ve seen companies define, measure, and reward leader-standard work, including easy-to-overlook priorities from “walking the halls” to spending time with critical stakeholders.

4. Refine the master calendar
To create time and space for critical priorities, business leaders must first of all be clear about what they and their teams will stop doing. Organizationally, that might mean reviewing calendars and meeting schedules to make an honest assessment of which meetings support strategic goals, as opposed to update meetings slotted into the agenda out of habit or in deference to corporate tradition.
While many large companies create a master calendar for key meetings involving members of the senior team, few take the next step and use that calendar as a tool to root out corporate time wasting. There are exceptions, though: one global manufacturer, for example, avoids the duplication of travel time by always arranging key visits with foreign customers to coincide with quarterly business meetings held overseas.
In our experience, companies can make even more progress by identifying which meetings are for information only (reporting), for cross-unit collaboration (problem solving and coordination at the interfaces), for managing performance (course-correcting actions must be adopted at such meetings, or they are really just for reporting), or for making decisions (meetings where everything is approved 99 percent of the time don’t count, since they too are really for reporting). Executives at the highest-performing organizations we’ve seen typically spend at least 50 percent of their time in decision meetings and less than 10 percent in reporting or information meetings. But most companies allocate their leadership time in exactly the reverse order, often without knowing it: the way people spend their time can be taken for granted, like furniture that nobody notices anymore.

5. Provide high-quality administrative support
One of the biggest differences we saw in the survey involved the quality of support. Of those who deemed themselves effective time managers, 85 percent reported that they received strong support in scheduling and allocating time. Only 7 percent of ineffective time allocators said the same.
The most effective support we’ve seen is provided by a global chemical company, where the CEO’s administrative assistant takes it upon herself to ensure that the organization’s strategic objectives are reflected in the way she allocates the time of the CEO and the top team to specific issues and stakeholders. She regularly checks to ensure that calendared time matches the stated priorities. If it doesn’t, during priority-setting meetings (every two weeks) she’ll highlight gaps by asking questions such as, “We haven’t been to Latin America yet this year—is that an issue? Do you need to schedule a visit before the end of the year?” Or, “Are these the right things to focus on? Since you’re already going to Eastern Europe, what else should we schedule while you’re out there? Do we need to clear the decks to make more time for strategic priorities?”
In addition, the CEO’s administrative assistant “owns” the master calendar for corporate officers and uses it to ensure that the executive team meets on important topics, avoids redundant meetings, and capitalizes on occasions when key leaders are in the same place. Finally, to give senior leaders time to reflect on the big picture, she creates “quiet zones” of minimal activity two or three days ahead of significant events, such as quarterly earnings reports, strategy reviews with business units, and board meetings. Such approaches, which make the executives’ allocation of time dramatically more effective, underscore the importance of not being “penny-wise and pound-foolish” in providing administrative support.

The time pressures on senior leaders are intensifying, and the vast majority of them are frustrated by the difficulty of responding effectively. While executives cannot easily combat the external forces at work, they can treat time as a precious and increasingly scarce resource and tackle the institutional barriers to managing it well. The starting point is to get clear on organizational priorities—and to approach the challenge of aligning them with the way executives spend their time as a systemic organizational problem, not merely a personal one.

Source: McKinsey.com
Authors: Frankki Bevins is a consultant in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office, and Aaron De Smet is a principal in the Houston office.
Link

Vid vilken ålder är man som mest nöjd med livet?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on September 10th, 2019 by admin

Är du 30 och nöjd med livet? Vänta bara tills du fyllt 65. Enligt lyckoforskningen är det i den åldern som vi mår som allra bäst.

– Tvärtemot vad många tror så pikar vi i livet när vi går i pension. Då har man slutat leta och lärt känna sig själv. Man tävlar inte längre i karriären och är mer tillfreds med livet i allmänhet, säger sociologen och beteendevetaren Per Grenert till Metro.

När vi fyllt 75 har snart hela livet passerat och då är dags för en dipp igen.

– Då börjar vi få krämpor och kompisarna går bort, säger Per Grenert. Han föreläser om lyckoforskning – ett högst subjektivt begrepp som är svårt att mäta – men som alla människor vill åt.

– Lycka betyder olika saker för olika individer, men ofta handlar det om att få känna trygghet och att man känner sig omtyckt av andra, säger Per Grenert.

Att sextio plussare mår bäst står klart men i vilken ålder är man minst nöjd med livet då?

– När man är runt 43 år. Då befinner man sig mitt i livet och karriären, ofta har man barn, inte helt sällan i tonåren som man får problem med. Alla tror att man blir lycklig av barn men det funkar inte riktigt alltid så tyvärr, konstaterar Per Grenert.

Som bekant gör sig 40-årskrisen gällande. En stressig tid i livet då ens föräldrar inte helt sällan går bort i kombination med att halva livet snart passerat, gör att vi börjar vackla lite i tillvaron.

– När man är yngre har man allt framför sig och när man fyllt 43 har man nått den åldern där alla saker som skulle hända, redan har hänt eller uteblivit. Man frågar sig själv: Ska det inte bli mer än så här?

Ekonomi har enligt forskningen liten betydelse för vår lycka. Det spelar alltså ingen roll om du tjänar 25 00 eller 50 00 tusen.

– Så länge vi har kläder på kroppen, mat på bordet och tak över huvudet så är vi hemma, menar Per Grenert.

Är det något vi i stället ska prioritera för att hålla fast vid lyckan, så det våra nära och kära.

– Det är nästan lika viktigt för oss människor som syret i luften, säger Per Grenert.

När det gäller den fysiska hälsan däremot, så börjar den dala redan efter 30-årsåldern.

– Vi pikar fysiskt när vi är mellan 20-30 år, då har man bäst syreupptagningsförmåga, benmassan är komplett och muskelstyrkan bäst, därefter sjunker det fort, säger Katarina Woxnerud, naprapat och personlig tränare.

I 65-årsåldern har vi tappat mycket av benmassan, även muskelstyrkan och konditionen. Men det är aldrig försent att ta tag i träningen.

– En 50-åring kan fortfarande ha bättre kondition än en 20-åring om den håller i gång, säger Katarina Woxnerud.

Sedan Boo Björk fyllde 65 har livet bara blivit bättre. – Att inte behöva tänka på jag måste stiga upp tidigt för att vara på jobbet klockan halv nio är väldigt skönt, säger han.
Boo Björk är vad man kallar en man i sina bästa år. Trots att han uppnått pensionsåldern fortsätter han att jobba deltid som konsult på en egen arkitektfirma i Malmö – för att han vill och tycker det är kul. Tiderna styr han själv och den ena dagen är inte den andra sig lik.

– En dag kan jag sitta hemma i Limhamn och jobba, en annan dag kan möta upp min fru över en lunch i New York, jag har det jäkligt bra, säger han till Metro.

Hur skiljer sig livet efter 65?

– Du får en annan distans till livet än tidigare. Du har mer erfarenhet och kan ta saker som de kommer. Jag behöver inte längre oroa mig för mitt jobb eller vad andra kollegor ska tycka om vad jag har att säga, det kan jag strunta i. Passar det inte så är det bara att stiga av, säger han.

Bäst av allt med livet efter 65 är friheten att själv få styra över sin tid, menar Boo.

– Att inte behöva tänka på jag måste stiga upp tidigt för att vara på jobbet klockan halv nio är väldigt skönt. Jag kan åka på semester eller hälsa på sönerna när jag vill. Ingen kan säga till mig att det här ska vara klart till i morgon bitti, säger han.

Även om pengar inte kan köpa en lycka, är en trygg ekonomi en viktig faktor för att man ska kunna vara nöjd med livet, menar Boo.

– Tyvärr är det ju så att “cash is king”. Det underlättar ju när man är ute och reser att inte behöva gå och tänka på att man har det knapert, säger han.

Men Boo har inte alltid varit så nöjd med livet som han är nu. I familjeåren drabbades han, precis som många andra, av 40-årskris.

– Jag jobbade för mycket och det enda som intresserade mig var att tjäna pengar. Samtidigt hade jag små barn och kravet på att du ska vara både trevlig och sexig samtidigt blev svårt att upprätthålla, det blev en smäll helt enkelt, berättar han.

Även om Boo inte är ser sig själv som någon träningsfanatiker, är han noga med att ta hand om sin hälsa.

– Jag är en gammal fallskärmsjägare så jag håller mig i shape och är ute och mountainbikar i stort sett varje dag, säger han.

Har du något bra tips till dem som inte är nöjda med livet, hur ska man tänka?

– Sätt ner foten börja andas och fokusera på det käraste du har och se till så att den relationen fungerar. Gör den det, då brukar allt annat komma gratis.

Källa: Metro.se,september 2019
Länk

Upp klockan 05.00 – nyckeln till framgång?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on September 8th, 2019 by admin

Väck din potential – genom att gå upp klockan fem

Några av världens mest framgångsrika människor sägs gå upp i ottan, för att få ut det mesta av dagarna.

Enligt den kanadensiska ledarskapsexperten Robin Sharma kan en rigid en timme lång morgonrutin som börjar klockan fem vara nyckeln till deras framgång.

– Jag kallar den här tiden för segertimmen, säger Robin Sharma, som nu skrivit en bok om att gå upp klockan fem.

Klockan är 5.00 när larmet ringer. Jag gör mig redo för att trycka på snoozeknappen, men ångrar mig och gör ett tappert försök att faktiskt komma ur sängen. Och jag lyckas faktiskt den här måndagsmorgonen – även om jag måste trycka tillbaka lusten att lägga en kudde över huvudet för att tysta larmet.

Det är efter att jag talat med Robin Sharma, ledarskapsguru och författare till tolv böcker om hur man förbättrar sitt ledarskap, blir mer framgångsrik och förbättrar sin prestation, som jag gör försöket att hasa mig ur sängen när solen, trots att det är sommar, just håller på att gå upp.

Robin Sharma har på vänlig kanadensiska talat så övertygande om fördelarna med att varje morgon gå upp klockan fem, att till och med jag – en obotlig kvällsmänniska – blivit motvilligt inspirerad.

Enligt Robin Sharma har hans rigida rutin, som han kallar ”Femklubben”, utvecklats utifrån 20 års erfarenhet av coachning av miljardärer, elitidrottsmän och företagsmoguler. På sin hemsida beskriver han hur han arbetar med organisationer som Starbucks, universitetet Yale och Nasa.

Han säger att han upptäckte att hans framstående klienters framgångar delvis berodde på deras morgonrutiner – och det faktum att de gick upp så tidigt. Han började sprida idén till klienter även utanför de ”superframgångsrika” – och det gav effekt, säger han.

Vid 25 års ålder hoppade Robin Sharma av en lovande karriär som jurist för att fokusera på coachning och att skriva vägledande böcker till de som vill prestera bättre. Den första boken, ”Munken som sålde sin Ferrari”, sålde i över 13 miljoner exemplar och översattes till över 40 språk.

Under fyra år har nu Robin Sharma skrivit på sin trettonde bok – ”The 5 A.M. club – Äg din morgon, förändra ditt liv”. Den här gången för att få fler att gå upp klockan fem, och därmed förbättra sin potential.

När vi pratar på Skype – Robin Sharma från sitt hem i Kanada – är klockan nio på morgonen där. Det bör innebära att han redan varit vaken i fyra timmar.

Och han låter frälst av sin upptäckt om kraften i de tidiga morgnarna:

– Tänk dig en timme när de flesta människor sover. Men du är uppe. Det här är den dramatiska distraktionens tidsålder. Och här får du en timme av tystnad, en ny lyx då du kan träna, meditera och läsa. Klockan sex kommer du att känna dig starkare, mer energisk och lyckligare. Det leder till en bättre dag som leder till bättre veckor, bättre månader och bättre år. Det är kraften i det här.

Men Robin Sharmas rutin går inte bara ut på att man ska vakna klockan fem. Därefter följer en rutin uppdelad i tre 20-minutersblock för att verkligen ta vara på det han kallar för dygnets ”segertimme”.

Fysisk aktivitet
De första 20 minuterna, det vill säga mellan klockan 5.00 och 5.20, ska ägnas åt hård fysisk aktivitet. Det kan innebära att springa, cykla eller göra armhävningar.

– Endorfiner frigörs av svettig träning. Det är som Red bull för din hjärna. Du frigör dopamin, vilket inspirerar. Du minskar stresshormonet kortisol efter ett träningspass. Du får mer energi. Så även om du vaknar och känner dig trött så visar vetenskapen att du tjugo minuter senare kommer att känna dig annorlunda.

Reflektion
– Hur många människor känner du som tar sig tiden att inte vara upptagna med att leka med sina telefoner, utan som faktiskt börjar dagen med att be eller meditera? frågar Robin Sharma.

Efter de 20 minuterna av hård fysisk aktivitet ska följande 20 minuter ägnas åt reflektion. Det kan innebära meditation, att be eller att skriva dagbok. Robin Sharma säger att det främjar ens kreativitet om man skriver upp sina tankar inför den nya dagen.

– Då kan man skriva om sina värderingar, vad man vill med sin dag och vad man står för. Om man inte reflekterar kring hur man är så kommer ens framgångar under dagen att vara förvirrade. Med reflektion kommer bättre prestationer.

Han fortsätter:

– Vaga planer leder till vaga resultat.

Utveckling
Efter reflektionen är det dags för personlig utveckling. Under timmens sista 20 minuter ska man därför fokusera på att lära sig något nytt: läs en bok, lyssna på en utbildande podd, gå en onlinekurs.

Robin Sharma liknar den personliga utvecklingen vid den hos en elitidrottsman, där man ser förra årets prestationer som årets lägstanivå.

– Vi är som lyckligast när vi växer och får använda vår kreativitet. Det är när vi fastnar som vi blir deprimerande.

Och så är klockan sex:

– Tänk dig nu hur du mår när klockan är sex. Du har optimerat din hjärna, förhöjt din fysiska hälsa och närt din emotionella sida – och ökat din själslighet. Och klockan är bara sex!

Så lyckas du komma upp klockan fem
Många kan nog känna igen sig i den hägrande tanken om att slå av väckarklockan och somna om när larmet ringer så tidigt som klockan 5. Robin Sharma säger att det kan vara lockande, men att det finns praktiska sätt att göra det enklare att bara stiga upp: ha väckarklockan långt ifrån dig, så att du tvingas sätta dig upp för att stänga av den.

– Så är du redan uppe!

Men för att lyckas gäller det också att skapa goda kvällsrutiner, för att få ut det mesta av sin sömn. Robin Sharma poängterar att hans morgonrutin inte handlar om att slå sig för bröstet över hur lite sömn man behöver.

– Nyckeln är att sova bättre och därmed sova djupare. Lägg dig för att sova i ett kallt rum – stäng av all teknik efter klockan 20.00. Om du följer de enkla råden kommer din sömn att bli djupare och det kommer bli lättare att gå upp tidigt.

Misslyckanden finns inte
Robin Sharma säger att alla kan klara av att gå med i Femklubben och utföra rutinen.

– Vi växer genom utmaningar. Människor säger att de inte kan gå upp tidigt. Men om man argumenterar för att man inte kan något så blir det verklighet. Det spelar ingen roll om det handlar om att gå upp klockan fem, att bli hälsosam eller att bli en bättre förälder, säger han.

Därför menar han att det är viktigt att inte fokusera på sina misslyckanden. Säg att man försover sig en dag, eller är ute för sent kvällen innan – då är det bara att börja om dagen efter.

– Varje försök räknas. Varje gång du lyckas gå upp, varje gång du lyckas göra rutinen, gör skillnad. Jag misslyckas ibland – för jag är en människa. Låt inte misslyckanden hålla dig ifrån din egen privata styrka. Det här är en process.

Segertimmen
Anledningen till att Robin Sharma har dubbat just tiden mellan fem och sex på morgonen till ”segertimmen” är att han menar att det är den tid på dagen då ”vårt sinne och vårt hjärta är mest öppna för att lära sig nya saker

– Många av historiens hjältar gick upp klockan fem. Det är en så tyst del av dagen. Visste du att Nelson Mandela under sin tid på Robben Island steg upp klockan fem för att göra armhävningar? säger han.

Robin Sharma menar att vi vaknar varje morgon med en begränsad mängd uppmärksamhet. Under dagen förbrukar vi vår uppmärksamhet genom de distraktioner som finns i vardagen.

– Varje gång du kollar en notifikation försvinner lite av uppmärksamheten. Varje gång du kollar sociala medier – mer uppmärksamhetsspill. En radio i bakgrunden likaså. Om du börjar dagen med att kolla mejlen, sociala medier och nyheter kommer du att komma till jobbet klockan åtta och inte ha mycket av din dagliga uppmärksamhet kvar.

Just att vi lever i ”distraktionens tidsålder” är ett stort hinder på vägen till framgång, menar Robin Sharma som predikar att framgång inte behöver innebära att hela tiden vara uppkopplad och nåbar. I stället borde vi kalla vår vurm för att vara uppkopplade för vad det verkligen är: ett beroende.

– Vi måste ställa oss frågan om vi får betalt för att utföra genialt arbete, eller för att hela tiden kolla telefonen? Vi kan göra det ena eller det andra – vi kan inte göra båda.

Att i stället gå upp klockan fem och utföra hans rutin är enligt honom ett sätt att bryta beroendet – eftersom den timmen också ska kännetecknas av att man håller sig borta från teknik som dränerar ens uppmärksamhet.

Varje gång du kollar en notifikation försvinner lite av uppmärksamheten.
Enligt ny forskning från universitetet i Kalifornien kan det dock vara genetiskt betingat vilka som har lätt att gå upp tidigt. Studien, som tagit ett decennium att utföra, visar att runt en person på trehundra är det som kallas för ”extrema uppstigare” – människor som vaknar mellan två och fem på morgonen.

Louis Ptáček, forskaren bakom studien menar att det inte behöver vara en fördel att gå upp tidigt, men att fördomen att de som går upp tidigt är mer målinriktade, medan de som hellre snoozar och är uppe sent på kvällen är lata, gör att det kan uppfattas så.

– Vi är alla olika, och vår genetik definierar delvis vilka vi är. Det som är bra för mig kan vara annorlunda än det som är bra för dig, säger Louis Ptáček till The Atlantic.

Men Robin Sharma säger att alla kan klara av att gå upp klockan fem och följa hans rutin. Det gäller bara att inte vara rädd för förändringen, som kommer att vara svår till en början, eftersom forskning visat att det tar över två månader att skapa en ny rutin.

– Du kommer att hata mig om en månad. Men om 66 dagar kommer du att se stora resultat. Kom ihåg att all förändring är stökig i början, hemsk i mitten och fantastisk på slutet, säger Robin Sharma.

Hur det gick för mig? Den första dagen gick okej. Jag hann till och med äta frukost och träna innan jag kom i tid till jobbet – och var inte riktigt så arg som jag förutsett.

Men redan på tisdagen hittade jag en ursäkt till varför det var omöjligt att fortsätta mitt välmenande experiment, och åter stänga av larmet när det ringde. Men nu med en vilja att någon gång faktiskt ge rutinen ett ärligt försök, och se vad den leder till.

Bara inte just nu.

Källa: DN.se, september 2019
Länk
Av: Evelyn Jones

‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on September 4th, 2019 by admin

Long before the term “influencer” was coined, young people played that social role by creating and interpreting trends. Now a new generation of influencers has come on the scene. Members of Gen Z—loosely, people born from 1995 to 2010— are true digital natives: from earliest youth, they have been exposed to the internet, to social networks, and to mobile systems. That context has produced a hypercognitive generation very comfortable with collecting and cross-referencing many sources of information and with integrating virtual and offline experiences.

As global connectivity soars, generational shifts could come to play a more important role in setting behavior than socioeconomic differences do. Young people have become a potent influence
on people of all ages and incomes, as well as on the way those people consume and relate to brands. In Brazil, Gen Z already makes up 20 percent of the country’s population. McKinsey recently collaborated with Box1824, a research agency specializing in consumer trends, to conduct a survey investigating the behaviors of this new generation and its influence on consumption patterns in Brazil. 1 The survey coupled qualitative insights about Gen Z in three of the country’s major cities (Recife, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo) with multigenerational quantitative data that cut across socioeconomic classes. Our goal was to understand how this new generation’s views might affect the broader population, as well as consumption in general.

Our study based on the survey reveals four core Gen Z behaviors, all anchored in one element: this generation’s search for truth. Gen Zers value individual expression and avoid labels. They mobilize themselves for a variety of causes. They believe profoundly in the efficacy of dialogue to solve conflicts and improve the world. Finally, they make decisions and relate to institutions in a highly analytical and pragmatic way. That is why, for us, Gen Z is “True Gen.” In contrast, the previous generation—the millennials, sometimes called the “me generation”—got its start in an era of economic prosperity and focuses on the self. Its members are more idealistic, more confrontational, and less willing to accept diverse points of view.

Such behaviors influence the way Gen Zers view consumption and their relationships with brands. Companies should be attuned to three implications for this generation: consumption as access rather than possession, consumption as an expression of individual identity, and consumption as a matter of ethical concern. Coupled with technological advances, this generational shift is transforming the consumer landscape in a way that cuts across all socioeconomic brackets and extends beyond Gen Z, permeating the whole demographic pyramid. The possibilities now emerging for companies are as transformational as they are challenging. Businesses must rethink how they deliver value to the consumer, rebalance scale and mass production against personalization, and—more than ever—practice what they preach when they address marketing issues and work ethics.

Meet True Gen
Generations are shaped by the context in which they emerged. Baby boomers, born from 1940 to 1959, were immersed in the post–World War II context and are best represented by consumption as an expression of ideology. Gen Xers (born 1960–79) consumed status, while millennials (born 1980–94) consumed experiences. For Generation Z, as we have seen, the main spur to consumption is the search for truth, in both a personal and a communal for. This generation feels comfortable not having only one way to be itself. Its search for authenticity generates greater freedom of expression and greater openness to understanding different kinds of people.

‘Undefined ID’: Expressing individual truth
I need to be free; I need to be myself, increasingly be myself, every day. With the internet, I feel much more free.
—Female respondent, 22, city of São Paulo

I really like things that are unisex! I think it’s absurd that stores and brands split everything into “male” and “female.” After all, fabric is genderless.
—Female respondent, 22, Goiânia

For Gen Zers, the key point is not to define themselves through only one stereotype but rather for individuals to experiment with different ways of being themselves and to shape their individual identities over time. In this respect, you might call them “identity nomads.”

Seventy-six percent of Gen Zers say they are religious. At the same time, they are also the generation most open to a variety of themes not necessarily aligned with the broader beliefs of their declared religions. For example, 20 percent of them do not consider themselves exclusively heterosexual, as opposed to 10 percent for other generations. Sixty percent of Gen Zers think that same-sex couples should be able to adopt children—ten percentage points more than people in other generations do.

Gender fluidity may be the most telling reflection of “undefined ID,” but it isn’t the only one. Gen Zers are always connected. They constantly evaluate unprecedented amounts of information and influences. For them, the self is a place to experiment, test, and change. Seven out of ten Gen Zers say it is important to defend causes related to identity, so they are more interested than previous generations have been in human rights; in matters related to race and ethnicity; in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues; and in feminism.

‘Communaholic’: Connecting to different truths
We each have our own style and way of being, but what binds us is that we accept and understand everyone’s styles.
—Male respondent, 16, Recife

Gen Zers are radically inclusive. They don’t distinguish between friends they meet online and friends in the physical world. They continually flow between communities that promote their causes by exploiting the high level of mobilization technology makes possible. Gen Zers value online communities because they allow people of different economic circumstances to connect and mobilize around causes and interests. (Sixty-six percent of the Gen Zers in our survey believe that communities are created by causes and interests, not by economic backgrounds or educational levels. That percentage is well above the corresponding one for millennials, Gen Xers, and baby boomers.) Fifty-two percent of Gen Zers think it is natural for every individual to belong to different groups (compared with 45 percent of the people in other generations), and Gen Zers have no problem with moving between groups.

‘Dialoguer’: Understanding different truths
We must practice tolerance, and we must learn to listen and accept differences.
—Male respondent, 20, Gioânia

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com
Gen Zers believe in the importance of dialogue and accept differences of opinion with the institutions in which they participate and with their own families (Exhibit 5). They can interact with institutions that reject their personal values without abandoning those values. The fact that Gen Zers feel comfortable interacting with traditional religious institutions without abandoning personal beliefs that might not be broadly accepted by these institutions also demonstrates their pragmatism. Rather than spurn an institution altogether, Gen Zers would rather engage with it to extract whatever makes sense for them.

Members of this generation therefore tend to believe that change must come from dialogue: 57 percent of millennials, Gen Xers, and baby boomers think they would have to break with the system to change the world, compared with 49 percent of Gen Zers. Gen Z is also more willing to accommodate the failings of companies. Thirty-nine percent of the people in this generation, for example, expect companies to answer customer complaints in the same day; for the three earlier generations, the percentage is much higher—52 percent.

Gen Z’s belief in dialogue combines a high value for individual identity, the rejection of stereotypes, and a considerable degree of pragmatism. That brings us to the fourth core behavior of Gen Z.

‘Realistic’: Unveiling the truth behind all things
I don’t believe this talk of investing in the dream and all that. Work is work.
—Female respondent, 22, Salvador, state of Bahia

Gen Zers, with vast amounts of information at their disposal, are more pragmatic and analytical about their decisions than members of previous generations were. Sixty-five percent of the Gen Zers in our survey said that they particularly value knowing what is going on around them and being in control. This generation of self-learners is also more comfortable absorbing knowledge online than in traditional institutions of learning.

What’s more, Gen Z was raised at a time of global economic stress—in fact, the greatest economic downturn in Brazil’s history. These challenges made Gen Zers less idealistic than the millennials we surveyed (Exhibit 6). Many Gen Zers are keenly aware of the need to save for the future and see job stability as more important than a high salary. They already show a high preference for regular employment rather than freelance or part-time work, which may come as a surprise compared to the attitude of millennials, for example. According to the survey, 42 percent of Gen Zers from 17 to 23 years old are already gainfully employed in either full- or part-time jobs or as freelance workers—a high percentage for people so young.

Gen Z: Consumption and implications for companies
The youthful forms of behavior we discuss here are influencing all generations and, ultimately, attitudes toward consumption as well. Three forces are emerging in a powerful confluence of technology and behavior.

Consumption re-signified: From possession to access
This more pragmatic and realistic generation of consumers expects to access and evaluate a broad range of information before purchases. Gen Zers analyze not only what they buy but also the very act of consuming. Consumption has also gained a new meaning. For Gen Z—and increasingly for older generations as well—consumption means having access to products or services, not necessarily owning them. As access becomes the new form of consumption, unlimited access to goods and services (such as car-riding services, video streaming, and subscriptions) creates value. Products become services, and services connect consumers.

As collaborative consumption gains traction, people are also starting to view it as a way to generate additional income in the “gig economy.” Another aspect of the gig economy involves consumers who take advantage of their existing relationships with companies to generate additional income by working temporarily for them. Some companies are already embracing the implications.

Car manufacturers, for example, are renting out vehicles directly to consumers, so that instead of selling 1,000 cars, these companies may sell one car 1,000 times. The role of sporting-goods businesses, likewise, has shifted to helping people become better athletes by providing access to equipment, technology, coaching, and communities of like-minded consumers. Similarly, traditional consumer-goods companies should consider creating platforms of products, services, and experiences that aggregate or connect customers around brands. Companies historically defined by the products they sell or consume can now rethink their value-creation models, leveraging more direct relationships with consumers and new distribution channels.

Singularity: Consumption as an expression of individual identity
The core of Gen Z is the idea of manifesting individual identity. Consumption therefore becomes a means of self-expression—as opposed, for example, to buying or wearing brands to fit in with the norms of groups. Led by Gen Z and millennials, consumers across generations are not only eager for more personalized products but also willing to pay a premium for products that highlight their individuality. Fifty-eight percent of A-class and 43 percent of C-class consumers2 say they are willing to pay more for personalized offerings. Seventy percent of A-class and 58 percent of C-class consumers are willing to pay a premium for products from brands that embrace causes those consumers identify with. And here’s another finding that stood out in our survey: 48 percent of Gen Zers—but only 38 percent of consumers in other generations—said they value brands that don’t classify items as male or female. For most brands, that is truly new territory.

Although expectations of personalization are high, consumers across generations are not yet totally comfortable about sharing their personal data with companies. Only 10 to 15 percent of them declare not to have any issues in sharing personal data with companies. If there is a clear counterpart from companies to consumers, then the number of consumers willing to share personal information with companies goes up to 35 percent—still a relatively small number.

As the on- and offline worlds converge, consumers expect more than ever to consume products and services any time and any place, so omnichannel marketing and sales must reach a new level. For consumers who are always and everywhere online, the online–offline boundary doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, we are entering the “segmentation of one” age now that companies can use advanced analytics to improve their insights from consumer data. Customer information that companies have long buried in data repositories now has strategic value, and in some cases information itself creates the value. Leading companies should therefore have a data strategy that will prepare them to develop business insights by collecting and interpreting information about individual consumers while protecting data privacy.

For decades, consumer companies and retailers have realized gains through economies of scale. Now they may have to accept a two-track model: the first for scale and mass consumption, the other for customization catering to specific groups of consumers or to the most loyal consumers. In this scenario, not only marketing but also the supply chain and manufacturing processes would require more agility and flexibility. For businesses, that kind of future raises many questions. How long will clothing collections grouped by gender continue to make sense, for example? How should companies market cars or jewelry in an inclusive, unbiased way? To what extent should the need for a two-speed business transform the internal processes and structure of companies?

Consumption anchored on ethics
Finally, consumers increasingly expect brands to “take a stand.” The point is not to have a politically correct position on a broad range of topics. It is to choose the specific topics (or causes) that make sense for a brand and its consumers and to have something clear to say about those particular issues. In a transparent world, younger consumers don’t distinguish between the ethics of a brand, the company that owns it, and its network of partners and suppliers. A company’s actions must match its ideals, and those ideals must permeate the entire stakeholder system.

Gen Z consumers are mostly well educated about brands and the realities behind them. When they are not, they know how to access information and develop a point of view quickly. If a brand advertises diversity but lacks diversity within its own ranks, for example, that contradiction will be noticed. In fact, members of the other generations we surveyed share this mind-set. Seventy percent of our respondents say they try to purchase products from companies they consider ethical. Eighty percent say they remember at least one scandal or controversy involving a company. About 65 percent try to learn the origins of anything they buy—where it is made, what it is made from, and how it is made. About 80 percent refuse to buy goods from companies involved in scandals.

All this is relevant for businesses, since 63 percent of the consumers we surveyed said that recommendations from friends are their most trusted source for learning about products and brands. The good news is that consumers—in particular Gen Zers—are tolerant of brands when they make mistakes, if the mistakes are corrected. That path is more challenging for large corporations, since a majority of our respondents believe that major brands are less ethical than small ones.

For consumers, marketing and work ethics are converging. Companies must therefore not only identify clearly the topics on which they will take positions but also ensure that everyone throughout the value chain gets on board. For the same reason, companies ought to think carefully about the marketing agents who represent their brands and products. Remember too that consumers increasingly understand that some companies subsidize their influencers. Perhaps partly for that reason, consumers tend to pay more attention to closer connections—for example, Instagram personas with 5,000 to 20,000 followers. Marketing in the digital age is posing increasingly complex challenges as channels become more fragmented and ever changing.

Young people have always embodied the zeitgeist of their societies, profoundly influencing trends and behavior alike. The influence of Gen Z—the first generation of true digital natives—is now radiating outward, with the search for truth at the center of its characteristic behavior and consumption patterns. Technology has given young people an unprecedented degree of connectivity among themselves and with the rest of the population. That makes generational shifts more important and speeds up technological trends as well. For companies, this shift will bring both challenges and equally attractive opportunities. And remember: the first step in capturing any opportunity is being open to it.

Source: McKinsey.com, November 2018
Link
By Tracy Francis and Fernanda Hoefel