What’s missing in leadership development?

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on August 14th, 2017 by admin

Only a few actions matter, and they require the CEO’s attention.

Organizations have always needed leaders who are good at recognizing emerging challenges and inspiring organizational responses. That need is intensifying today as leaders confront, among other things, digitization, the surging power of data as a competitive weapon, and the ability of artificial intelligence to automate the workplace and enhance business performance. These technology-driven shifts create an imperative for most organizations to change, which in turn demands more and better leaders up and down the line.

Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence that the plethora of services, books, articles, seminars, conferences, and TED-like talks purporting to have the answers—a global industry estimated to be worth more than $50 billion—are delivering disappointing results. According to a recent Fortune survey, only 7 percent of CEOs believe their companies are building effective global leaders, and just 10 percent said that their leadership-development initiatives have a clear business impact. Our latest research has a similar message: only 11 percent of more than 500 executives we polled around the globe strongly agreed with the statement that their leadership-development interventions achieve and sustain the desired results.

In our survey, we asked executives to tell us about the circumstances in which their leadership-development programs were effective and when they were not. We found that much needs to happen for leadership development to work at scale, and there is no “silver bullet” that will singlehandedly make the difference between success and failure.

That said, statistically speaking, four sets of interventions appear to matter most: contextualizing the program based on the organization’s position and strategy, ensuring sufficient reach across the organization, designing the program for the transfer of learning, and using system reinforcement to lock in change. This is the first time we have amassed systematic data on the interventions that seem to drive effective leadership-development programs. Interestingly, the priorities identified by our research are to a large extent mirror images of the most common mistakes that businesses make when trying to improve the capabilities of their managers. Collectively, they also help emphasize the central role of technology today in necessitating and enabling strong leadership development.

Focus on the shifts that matter
In our survey, executives told us that their organizations often fail to translate their company’s strategy into a leadership model specific to their needs (whether it is, say, to support a turnaround, a program of acquisitions, or a period of organic growth). Conversely, organizations with successful leadership-development programs were eight times more likely than those with unsuccessful ones to have focused on leadership behavior that executives believed were critical drivers of business performance.1
The implications are clear for organizations seeking to master today’s environment of accelerating disruption: leadership-development efforts must be animated by those new strategic imperatives, translating them into growth priorities for individual managers, with empathy for the degree of change required. An important piece of the puzzle is enhancing the ability of leaders to adapt to different situations and adjust their behavior (something that requires a high degree of self-awareness and a learning mind-set). Leaders with these attributes are four times more prepared to lead amidst change.

Make it an organizational journey, not cohort specific
Ensuring sufficient reach across the organization has always been important to the success of leadership-development efforts. Organizations with successful programs were six to seven times more likely than their less successful peers to pursue interventions covering the whole organization, and to design programs in the context of a broader leadership-development strategy. The same went for companies whose leadership strategy and model reached all levels of the organization.

Achieving sufficient reach amidst today’s rapid change is challenging: most leadership-development programs are typically of short duration (a few weeks to several months), sporadic, and piecemeal—making it difficult for the program to keep up with changes in the organization’s priorities, much less develop a critical mass of leaders ready to pursue them.

Fortunately, technology isn’t just stimulating the need for change; it’s also enabling faster, more flexible, large-scale learning on digital platforms that can host tailored leadership development, prompt leaders to work on specific kinds of behavior, and create supportive communities of practice, among other possibilities.

Design for the transfer of learning
Technology can also help companies break out of the “teacher and classroom” (facilitator and workshop) model that so many still rely on, maximizing the value and organizational impact of what is taught and learned. Fast-paced digital learning is easier to embed in the day-to-day work flows of managers. Every successful leader tells stories of how he or she developed leadership capabilities by dealing with a real problem in a specific context, and our survey provides supporting evidence for these anecdotes: companies with successful leadership-development programs were four to five times more likely to require participants to apply their learnings in new settings over an extended period and to practice them in their job.

This is just one of several modern adult-learning principles grounded in neuroscience that companies can employ to speed the behavior and mind-set shifts leaders need to thrive in today’s fast-changing environment. Others include learning through a positive frame (successful leadership developers were around three times more likely to allow participants to build on a strength rather than correcting a development area), and providing coaching that encourages introspection and self-discovery (which also was three times more prevalent among successful leadership developers).

Embedding change
Leadership-development efforts have always foundered when participants learn new things, but then return to a rigid organization that disregards their efforts for change or even actively works against them. Given the pace of change today, adapting systems, processes, and culture that can support change-enabling leadership development is critically important. Technology can support organizational interventions that accelerate the process. For example, blogs, video messages, and social-media platforms help leaders engage with many more people as they seek to foster understanding, create conviction, and act as role models for the desired leadership behavior and competencies.

Also critical are formal mechanisms (such as the performance-management system, the talent-review system, and shifts in organizational structure) for reinforcing the required changes in competencies.2 In our latest research, we found that successful leadership-development programs were roughly five to six times more likely to involve senior leaders acting as project sponsors, mentors, and coaches and to encompass adaptations to HR systems aimed at reinforcing the new leadership model. Data-enabled talent-management systems—popularized by Google and often referred to as people analytics—can increase the number of people meaningfully evaluated against new competencies and boost the precision of that evaluation.

Most CEOs have gotten religion about the impact of accelerating disruption and the need to adapt in response. Time and again, though, we see those same CEOs forgetting about the need to translate strategy into specific organizational capabilities, paying lip service to their talent ambitions, and delegating responsibility to the head of learning with a flourish of fine words, only for that individual to complain later about lack of support from above. To be fair, CEOs are pulled in many directions, and they note that leadership development often doesn’t make an impact on performance in the short run.

At the same time, we see many heads of learning confronting CEOs with a set of complex interwoven interventions, not always focusing on what matters most.

But as the pace of change for strategies and business models increases, so does the cost of lagging leadership development. If CEOs and their top teams are serious about long-term performance, they need to commit themselves to the success of corporate leadership-development efforts now. Chief human-resource officers and heads of learning need to simplify their programs, focusing on what really matters.

Source: McKinsey.com, August 2017
By: Claudio Feser, Nicolai Nielsen and Michael Rennie
About the authors:Claudio Feser is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Zurich office; Nicolai Nielsen is an associate partner in the Dubai office, where Michael Rennie is a senior partner.
Link

How CEOs can work with an active board

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Coaching on August 10th, 2017 by admin

At companies of almost all sizes, across all sectors, boards are undergoing a profound transformation. Largely as a result of intensifying shareholder intolerance of mediocre or poor corporate performance, the ceremonial boards of the past are being replaced by active boards that are more demanding of managers and more intrusive in their affairs.

This change can be daunting and frustrating for CEOs. However, based on our experience of advising CEOs, operating as CEOs, and sitting on boards, we have found that executives can be effective in the new environment by revamping their interactions with their boards. It consists of four approaches.

Work with board members individually as well as in the group — and selectively seek their help. It’s remarkable how many CEOs focus mainly on formal boardroom relationships. Yet by investing the time in regular one-to-one informal interactions, a CEO will help address the new active board members’ sense of duty to get close to the business. Through a personal dialogue, the CEO can better enlist them in important initiatives and address issues before they become crises. In addition, by creating a personal bond with the individual directors, the CEO lessens the odds that they will undermine or blindside him.

It is especially important to create a bond with the lead director and/or the chair. As boards have become more active, the lead director and board chair hold the keys to setting productive agendas and managing issues with the total board or individual members. One of us served on an active board that included members who frequently threatened to derail agendas and process with counterproductive questions. The CEO quietly recruited the lead director and chair to restore order, which they did. As boards have become more active, the lead director and board chair hold the keys to setting productive agendas and managing issues with the total board or individual members.

CEOs should consider recruiting one board member as an informal advisor. This must be done with great care and an ear for political nuances. For example, as one CEO we know discovered, a prospective board advisor actually had his eye on the CEO role for himself — hardly the right confidant! By using already-scheduled one-on-ones to assess board members for this advisory role, the CEO can better identify an appropriate advisory board member. This board member can be of great value as a sounding board and a guide to working effectively with the rest of the board.

Communicate less formally, more intensively, more often. Many CEOs and their teams still deliver traditional 80-slide PowerPoint summary presentations at board meetings. But given that today’s boards increasingly want a substantive dialogue, we advise replacing the presentation with a thoughtful, verbal review and Q&A around critical updates, challenges, and opportunities. (Further background can be provided in brief pre-reading material.)

This will show that the CEO is using his or her face-to-face time with the board for serious discussion. It will focus board activism on topics where the CEO will benefit from directors’ insight and counsel. And by taking the lead in inviting the board to engage on business-critical matters, the CEO can better manage the process and avoid one of the biggest downsides of the active board: disruptive interference by board members in business operations.

It may seem obvious that CEOs should communicate with board members regularly and substantively between board meetings. But in reality, CEOs often communicate mainly when there is a problem. Many also have difficulty regularly addressing a balanced mix of important topics.

One very effective approach to this issue is regular CEO letters to the board. The management of this letter should be delegated to a top lieutenant such as the head of communications or the COO. A monthly rhythm has proven effective with many boards. To assure balanced, relevant content, the letter should routinely address a fixed set of regular topics (e.g., business-environment trends, business updates, people/talent news, and early warnings of potential upside and downside developments).

Expose Level 3 and 4 managers to the board. While boards in the past were typically focused on CEO succession planning and the talent among the CEO’s direct reports, active boards are also very interested in the levels below. They rightly see these executives as the future leaders and the operational leaders of today who should be driving performance. Active board members will therefore seek to get to know them.

Some CEOs feel this is overly intrusive or worry that the lower-level executives are not ready for board exposure. But, in fact, it’s positive to have board members engaging with deeper levels of talent. They learn more about the business and the next generation of the company’s leaders. Board members can also give the CEO valuable feedback about the people they meet and their view of the company’s overall bench strength. And for the executives, the right kind of exposure to board members is a great development opportunity.

The CEO should take the lead with the board in driving the engagement process, which will allow him or her to have greater influence over it. She can select the highest potential individuals for the interactions and organize the interactions so that they are most productive — for example, by holding them as one-to-ones over a breakfast or dinner. She can also brief the executives in advance on the style of the board member and potential question areas and brief the board members on the executives they will meet.

Handle strategic planning… strategically. Older-style boards typically become involved only at the end of the strategic-planning process — typically in a board meeting devoted to review and approval of the strategy. By contrast, active boards often push to be involved from the start because the strategy is so important to the company’s performance.

The notion of involving the board in strategic planning can make CEOs anxious and defensive. They fear that the board may undermine the planning process due to insufficient knowledge about the business. They also worry that board involvement in strategic planning will be the thin edge of a wedge and lead to board interference in day-to-day management of the company.

The key to navigating this challenge is to keep strategic planning in the hands of management but to invite the board to provide advice and feedback from the beginning. One good way to do this is to involve the board early in deciding on the right, big-picture, strategic direction for the company, without getting into the details. The CEO and her team can develop and present to the board several options to the board, explaining why each has merit. Then the executives can solicit board input on each but not ask for a vote. In this way, the CEO and her team can gain valuable board perspective that will strengthen all the choices that are developed and obtain early board buy-in for both the options and the ultimate strategic plan that’s chosen.

The CEO can then provide periodic updates on the strategic-planning process through letters to the board and board meetings. This allows the board to stay engaged and provide input but keeps the control over the actual process with the executive team, where it belongs.

Active boards are a corporate reality. How to work with them effectively should be one of the most important items on the CEO agenda. As we have outlined, the CEO has an opportunity not only to manage this new relationship but also to make the active board an asset in building long-term, high performance of the company.

Source:hbr.com (Harvard Business Review)
Authors: Ken Banta and Stephen D.Garrow
Link

Richard Branson’s secret to being more productive, in just two words

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on August 7th, 2017 by admin

Peak performance starts with committing to these two words.

When it comes to inspiring entrepreneurs and business owners, Richard Branson is at the top of most lists.

After all, he’s a billionaire who has started over 400 companies and is easily in the running for the busiest individual in the world while still enjoying life.

Entrepreneurs striving to make their impact in the world look at Branson from the surface and may be tempted to think that he has some ultra-secret to credit for his success.

However, if you’re looking for a productivity hack, a morning routine, or the one book to read to change it all, you’ll be disappointed.

The secret to Richard Branson’s success and productivity is summed up in two words: “Work out.”

Simple as that. He claims that exercise is his tool that helps him double his daily productivity. Working out is often expressed as a great way to enhance your physical appearance. But working out is, more importantly, a tool that provides a huge ROI toward your productivity and overall well-being.

If you’re on the fence about investing fully into the power of exercise, here are three reasons why you should start today.

1. Improving brain power.
When you’re building a business and striving for massive amounts of career success, optimizing your brain output is an essential tool to making that desire a reality.

When you exercise, you’re going to be mentally sharper, which leads to better decision making throughout the day. This equates to delivering better presentations, better food choices, and better choices within your daily operations.

When you work out, you’re increasing the amount of oxygen flowing into your brain while releasing various other chemicals that help improve your memory and concentration.

2. Make more money.
When you get off your bottom, you increase your bottom line. There’s a correlation that benefits both men and women when it comes to prioritizing the gym and making more money.

According to associate professor Vasilios Kostas of Cleveland State, of those who head to the gym at least three times per week, men made 7 percent more while women made 12 percent more than those who don’t.

The underrated reasoning for this increase is a boost in self-confidence. Often times, we’re our own worst enemy with the things we say and think about ourselves. Working out helps reframe the perception that we have of ourselves along with the energy we radiate out into the day-to-day world.

3. Reduce stress.
Waiting in line at Starbucks, delayed trains, traffic, deadlines, proposals, friends, family, and many other things can all be a form of stress.

None of these scenarios are likely to vanish from your life. However, you can prepare yourself to handle them better through working out.

Working out provides an outlet for releasing any pent-up tension from the day. The Anxiety and Depression Association of America reported that seven out of 10 of adults in the U.S. deal with daily stress or anxiety.

When you work out, you’re releasing endorphins and building up yourself to respond and be resilient to upcoming stressors. Don’t overcomplicate it when it comes to exercising– even a 20-minute walk can provide a much-needed jolt of happiness.

Source: Inc.com, July 2017
Link
By Julian Hayes II , Founder, The Art of Fitness & Life @thejulianhayes

Five easy ways to overcome procrastination

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Executive Coaching, Leadership / Ledarskap on July 29th, 2017 by admin

If you know the “why” of your procrastinating, you can easily find the “how” to overcome it.

Procrastination is like a sore throat; it’s a symptom with many possible causes. Unless you know the cause, the treatment for the symptom might things worse. This column contains the five most common causes of procrastination and how to overcome them.

1. The size of a task seems overwhelming.
Explanation: Every time you think about the task it seems like a huge mountain of work that you’ll never be able to complete. You therefore avoid starting.

Solution: Break the task into small steps and then start working on them. This builds momentum and makes the task far less daunting.

Example: You’ve decided to write a book. Rather than sitting down and trying to write the book (which will probably cause you to stare at the blank screen), spend one hour on each of the following sub-tasks:

1. Jot down as many ideas as possible.

2. Sort the ideas into an outline.

3. List out anecdotes you’ll want to include.

4. Write a sample anecdote to determine style.

5. Review existing materials (e.g. presentations).

6. Assign those materials to sections of your outline.

7. Write the first three paragraphs of a sample chapter.

8. Create a schedule to write 2 pages a day.

2. The number of tasks seems overwhelming.
Explanation: Your to-do list has so many tasks in it that you feel as if you’ll never be able to finish them all, so why bother getting started?

Solution: Combine the tasks into a conceptual activity and then set a time limit for how long you’ll pursue that activity.

Example: Your email account is being peppered by so many requests and demands that you feel as if you can’t possibly get them done. Rather than fret about the pieces and parts, set aside a couple of hours to “do email.” Schedule a similar session tomorrow or later that day.

Thinking of the work as an activity rather than a bunch of action items makes them seem less burdensome.

3. A set of tasks seem repetitive and boring.
Explanation: You’re a creative person with an active mind so you naturally put off any activity that doesn’t personally interest you.

Solution: Set a time limit for completing a single task in the set and then compete against yourself to see if you can beat that time limit. Reward yourself each time you beat the clock.

Example: You’re a newly-hired salesperson who must write personalized emails to two dozen customers. The work involves quickly researching their account, addressing any issues they’ve had with the previous salesperson, and then introducing yourself.

Rather than just slogging through the work, estimate the maximum amount of time it should take to write one letter (let’s say 5 minutes). It should thus take you 120 minutes (2 hours) to write all of them.

Start the stopwatch, write the first email. If you have time left over, do something else (like read the news). When the stopwatch buzzes, reset, write the second email, etc.

4. The task seems so important that it’s daunting.
Explanation: You realize that if you screw this task up, it might mean losing your job or missing a huge opportunity. You avoid it because you don’t want to risk failure.

Solution: Contact somebody you trust and ask if they’ll review your work (if the task is written) or act as a sounding board (if the task is verbal). Doing the task for your reviewer is low-risk and thus the task is easier to start. The reviewer’s perspective and approval provides you extra confidence when you actually execute the task.

Example: You need to write an email demanding payment from a customer who’s in arrears. Because you don’t want to damage the relationship and yet need to be paid, it’s a difficult balancing act–so difficult that you avoid writing the email.

To break the mental log-jam, ask a colleague or friend if they’ll review your email before you send it to see if it hits the right tone. Writing the email then becomes easier because you’re writing it for your friend to read rather than for the customer.

Problem: You just don’t feel like working.
Explanation: You’re feeling burned out and generally unmotivated, so you’re finding it very hard to get down to work.

Solution: You have two choices: 1) reschedule the activity for a time when you’ll be more motivated or 2) motivate yourself in the short-term by setting a reward.

Example: You need to write a trip report but you’re tired after a long day of travel. While you know that the report will be more accurate if you write it now, you decide to write it tomorrow morning after breakfast and coffee–a time when you’re typically more motivated.

Alternatively, you motivate yourself short-term promising yourself that you’ll buy and download a book that you’ve been wanting to read… but only if you write the report tonight.

Source:Inc.com, 7 July 2017
Author: Geoffrey James
Link

The CEO’s guide to competing through HR

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on July 25th, 2017 by admin

Technological tools provide a new opportunity for the function to reach its potential and drive real business value.

A leading US healthcare company was struggling recently to recruit more nurses and stem high staff turnover. Patients were suffering, and the crisis was beginning to hit revenues.

Instead of just continuing to “firefight,” however, the company’s human-resources department responded by launching an in-depth analysis of the tenures in the group’s nursing population, noting in its study some surprising correlations between length of service, compensation, and performance.

HR leaders quickly saw the source of the problem—as well as a solution. They raised the minimum rewards for those early in their tenure and tweaked the total rewards for those with longer career paths, with the result being that the company retained more early-tenure, high-performing nurses. When the company rolled out the plan more widely, employee engagement increased and productivity jumped by around $100 million.

The story shows what can happen when HR steps out of its traditional silo and embraces a strategic role, explicitly using talent to drive value rather than just responding passively to the routine needs of businesses. That’s a transformation many companies have been striving to make in recent years as corporate leaders seek to put into practice the mantra that their people are their biggest asset.

Some companies are making progress. The best HR departments are creating centers of excellence (COEs) in strategic areas such as organizational development, talent acquisition, and talent management. They are also providing better support to line managers via strategic HR business partners, and gaining points for pulling up from administrative minutiae to work on the long-term health of the business.

But there is still a long way to go. We hear continued frustration from business and HR leaders alike that the value of the much touted “strategic” approach remains at best unquantified, at worst ill-defined and poorly understood. Too many HR organizations still fail to make a hard and convincing connection between talent decisions and value.

This article sets out an agenda for renewed action. We believe the time is right to accelerate the reinvention of HR as a hard-edged function capable of understanding the drivers of strategy and deploying talent in support of it—most importantly as a result of the availability of new technological tools that unleash the power of data analytics.

The new HR—at a glance
New roles
Short of rewriting job descriptions and changing roles right away, companies should launch a tailored training program for the best HR business partners—the ones who show the potential to become truly strategic talent value leaders (TVLs). Additionally, launching targeted and rotational career-development opportunities that move HR leaders into business roles, and vice versa, can jumpstart the development of TVLs.

People analytics
The first step for companies is to assess data readiness—how personnel data can enable analytics insights that add value to HR. Sustained progress will require a dedicated analytics capability, including roles, capabilities, and data governance.

HR operations
Most companies are already standardizing and centralizing key work flows. Next-generation automation technologies—robotics, cognitive agents, and natural-language processing, for example—will accelerate efficiency.

Resources
Making HR more agile requires companies to establish a rigorous strategic-planning process that lays out which initiatives HR will pursue each year to drive value and which ones it will not.

To advance the agenda, we believe businesses need to concentrate on four things: rethinking the role of business partner to enable a better understanding of the vital link with strategy, using people analytics to identify the talent actions that will drive the value, fixing HR operations so they are not a distraction from HR’s higher mission, and focusing HR resources in more agile ways so as to support these fresh priorities. Companies that take these steps will move toward a next generation of HR that’s data driven, not experience driven; systematic, not ad hoc; and consistent, not hit and miss. (For more, see sidebar, “The new HR—at a glance.”)

Rethink the role of the business partner
The starting point is for HR business partners—those senior HR individuals who counsel managers on talent issues—to stop acting as generalists and show that they really own the critical talent asset. This is a big enough change that it calls for a change in roles: replacing the business-partner role entirely with a new talent value leader (TVL), who would not only help business leaders connect talent decisions to value-creating outcomes but would also be held fully accountable for the performance of the talent.

The talent value leader
A TVL should have real authority over hiring and firing, even if actual decision rights remain with managers in the way actual spending decisions are taken by budget owners rather than being dictated by the finance function. Think of the manager of a European football team who is responsible for allocating resources using acquisition, compensation, evaluation, development, motivation, and other levers to maximize the players’ collective performance.

Unlike the typical HR business partner of today, TVLs should be held to account using metrics that capture year-to-year skills development, capability gaps, engagement, and attrition. And to the maximum extent possible, they should be disconnected from the day-to-day concerns of operational HR so as not to get pulled back into dealing with employee issues—that means eliminating the HR liaison role that so many HR business partners play today.

TVLs, however, won’t succeed without being able to deliver analytically driven talent insights to business managers systematically. This is a substantial change from today; while many HR business partners are resourceful and smart advisers to managers, few possess a data and analytical mind-set or the appropriate problem-solving tool kit.

When adopted, the expanded HR role we are describing starts to be taken seriously, as some companies are beginning to discover. A leading global materials company, for example, has been moving in this direction, specifying competencies for its HR leaders that now include the ability to “use analytics to diagnose and prescribe talent actions,” to “translate talent decisions into profit-and-loss impact,” and to “measure talent outcomes and their impact on value while holding managers accountable.” The results have been significant. After an adjustment period, internal surveys show managers are substantially more satisfied with the support they receive from HR. Anecdotally, we also hear that more business leaders are scripting a role for their talent advisers during the strategic business-planning processes.

Broader leaders for a bigger role
A key challenge, of course, is where to find appropriate candidates to fill these bigger HR shoes. Many business partners, after all, have grown up in traditional HR roles with an operational-service culture. HR departments should therefore start a cohort-based, high-potential program that balances rotations in and out of HR with dedicated time for skill building. Companies can also reward executives from other functions for stints in HR, and potential HR leaders should experience line and other functional-leadership roles—in finance, for example—in order to build better business-strategy capabilities. Eileen Naughton recently stepped in to run people operations at Google from her role as managing director and vice president of sales and operations in the United Kingdom and Ireland. And Pepsico has begun to fill some HR roles with people from engineering, technology, or process-oriented backgrounds: leaders at the soft-drink giant say that engaging the business with data is critical to expanding the strategic role of HR.

Put people analytics at the core
Many organizations have already built extensive analytics capabilities, typically housed in centers of excellence with some combination of data-science, statistical, systems-knowledge, and coding expertise. Such COEs often provide fresh insights into talent performance, but companies still complain that analytics teams are simple reporting groups—and even more often that they fail to turn their results into lasting value. What’s missing, as a majority of North American CEOs indicated in a recent poll, is the ability to embed data analytics into day-to-day HR processes consistently and to use their predictive power to drive better decision making.

In today’s typical HR organization, most talent functions either implicitly or explicitly follow a process map; some steps are completed by business partners or generalists, others by HR shared services, and still others by COE specialists. Many of these steps require a recommendation or decision by a human being—for example, the evaluation of an employee’s performance or the designation of a successor to a specific role.

Embedded analytics, by contrast, either inform or replace these steps with algorithms that leverage the data to drive fact-based insights, which are then directly linked to the deployment steps in the process. For example, many companies now use HR analytics to address attrition, allowing managers to predict which employees are most likely to leave and highlighting turnover problems in a region or country before the problem surfaces. By making the development and delivery of insights systematic, HR will start to drive strategic talent value in a more consistent way, rather than episodically and piecemeal as at present.

To understand more concretely the role of people analytics in an HR organization’s journey toward a more strategic role, let’s look closely at a single process—succession planning—and then assess the potential business impact of a broader suite of initiatives.

Analytics in action: Succession planning
A standard approach starts with a talent-management or organizational-development COE laying out the process for the organization, designing the tools or templates, and training key stakeholders in what to do. Managers might then sit down with their HR partners and discuss potential succession candidates for key roles—ideally taking skills, competencies, and development pathways into account (in practice, of course, there may be a bit of “gut feel”). A traditional best-practice process would then create individual development plans for potential successors, based on the gap between that person and the potential role. As vacancies occur, these potential successors may or may not be tapped, much depending on whether the manager (or his or her HR partner) bothers to refer back to those plans.

An analytics-driven succession-planning process looks and feels very different. First, machine-learning algorithms might review years of succession data so as to understand success factors in a given role. Using that insight, the company might then derive the top five internal candidates for that role, accompanied by customized development plans (that is, what courses to take, what skills to build) based on their individual competencies. Such information would support subsequent strategic decisions, consultations between managers and strategic HR partners, and cross-functional assessments of enterprise bench strength.

Business impact
The real prize is for those that can use data analytics not just to improve a single process, like recruitment or retention, but also to drive business performance—as has happened at a leading global quick-service restaurant business. The company mined data on employee personality traits, leadership styles, and working patterns and introduced changes that have improved customer service and had a tangible impact on financial performance (see “Using people analytics to drive business performance: A case study,” forthcoming on McKinsey.com).

To achieve such impact across the board, leaders will have to make significant investments in analytics skills and capabilities—but the returns should be commensurate. Based on a study of a range of industries with diverse workforces, operating models, and financial features, the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that companies using a portfolio of HR-analytics solutions could realize an increase of 275 basis points in profit margins, on average, by 2025. These increases will likely come about through productivity gains among front- and middle-office workers (which can translate into revenues or other increased-output opportunities) and through savings in recruiting, interviewing time, training, onboarding, and attrition costs.

Fix HR operations
The current reality of HR, as many business partners will attest, is that of the function routinely being pulled into operational issues and distracted from its core strategic mission. McKinsey research, indeed, shows that typical HR departments still spend close to 60 percent of their time and resources on transactional and operational HR, despite decades of pushing work out to shared services; the best-performing HR departments spend less than 40 percent of their time and resources on these transactional activities.

As part of its continuing transformation, HR must therefore raise service levels and improve the employee experience, using next-generation automation tools and standardized processes to drive higher productivity. There are three critical operational priorities for the HR organization of the future: continuous process improvement, next-generation automation technology, and user-experience-focused service improvement.

Continuous process improvement
Based on our work with companies, we see several ways to make HR operations more efficient—including finding further things that individuals and managers can do more easily themselves—notably by providing direct access to information or transactions online, introducing simpler processes, and ensuring clearer decision making. It’s also worth considering more geographically diverse sourcing of work and talent, as a leading agricultural company did when it found deep pockets of high-end instructional design talent in several Indian cities. These people, it turned out, not only were less costly but proved themselves capable of delivering equal or better service than the relatively well-compensated instructional designers who had served the businesses previously, mostly from the United States and Western Europe. There is always scope for smarter sourcing of external vendors, whether through insourcing or outsourcing: one US insurance company, for example, improved its reliability and cut the overall cost of its payroll process in half by bringing it back in-house.

Next-generation automation technology
New automation technologies will soon reshape a number of HR processes, building on core human-resource-management-system platforms (both on premises and in the cloud). Robotic process automation (RPA), smart work flows, cognitive agents, and natural-language processing, for example, will automate HR tasks previously carried out by people. The case of a leading global automotive-component manufacturer that was struggling with its employee-onboarding process is instructive. Thanks to the cross-functional complexity of the work flow, with different HR people needed to complete steps such as employee paperwork and scheduling orientation—and with IT, facilities, and security people needed to complete others—onboarding used to take weeks. RPA solved the problem with a bot that can access multiple systems, follow an intelligent work flow, and initiate communications. Onboarding time, on average, has been reduced by more than two-thirds, many errors created by manual tasks have been eliminated, and the journey has become more compelling for the individual.

Toward a new HR philosophy
For operational HR, the new frontier of technology is cognitive agents, especially when paired with natural-language processing. The former have developed to the point where in many cases employees can’t tell that they’re interacting with a piece of software. Natural-language processing may not yet offer seamless unstructured voice conversations for an HR setting—but leading HR-service organizations already leverage chat as a communication channel to answer most questions, “learn” from past interactions, and conduct “warm” handoffs when needed. One major international food and beverage company believes these automated technologies can reduce its costs by 20 percent while maintaining or increasing service levels (for instance, by enabling 24/7 immediate response).

User experience
Operational effectiveness is a critical part of employee satisfaction with HR. But whether it’s understanding the customer decision journey in marketing or understanding user needs as the foundation to driving digital user experience, other areas of the business have sought to improve customer satisfaction in ways that most HR departments generally have not. The HR department at the Orlando International Airport is a notable exception. It found that staff employed by about 60 organizations based at the airport, ranging from airlines and security to retail and janitorial, faced a common set of challenges. These challenges were both undermining the employees’ job satisfaction and affecting the quality of services they were providing for passengers and other customers. An overhaul of the staff experience tackled both problems. The airport revamped its shuttle-bus schedules, reducing commuting time for workers using the employee parking lots, which had a tangible effect on morale at the start of the day. The airport also made it easier for employees to find their way through its buildings and facilities. Finally, it took an entirely new approach to onboarding employees, providing them with updated weekly information so that everyone, regardless of their role, could help customers with queries about directions, the availability of services, or events taking place in other parts of the airport.

Focus HR resources in more agile ways
The changes discussed not only require the HR organization to recruit a new cadre of TVLs and to use people analytics to drive business value—they also demand a new type of agile organizational structure. Applying agility to the organization of HR will be critical to HR’s ability to deliver a harder link between talent decisions and value.

Agile HR: A case study
It’s easiest to understand HR agility through an example. A leading European bank implemented an agile HR model aligned to this vision, with great results. Previously siloed HR resources responded to opportunities or issues slowly and inefficiently, their work dominated by transactional and operational tasks. Morale was low as a result of a lack of role clarity and a surfeit of meetings aimed at engaging every conceivable HR stakeholder. In response, the bank’s HR leaders implemented an agile “flow to the work” organizational model: there are a limited number of deep specialists and talent value leaders in a few global roles, and they are supported by strong shared-service centers and a pool of multiskilled HR professionals—people with capabilities to perform most HR actions and who are responsible for much of the talent work.

The model reduced the HR budget by 25 percent in its first year of implementation, the goal being 40 percent within three years. Just as important, the HR organization is working with renewed purpose, implementing key talent initiatives faster and substantially accelerating HR’s response to opportunities and issues. Now fewer in number, the bank’s HR business partners (TVLs in all but name) and COE leaders are devoting much more of their time to connecting talent to business strategy.

Agility, operations, and structure
As this example suggests, the move toward a more agile HR organizational model has both operational and structural implications. Operationally, HR functions need to be able to create a solid backbone of core processes that either eliminate the clutter or camouflage the complexity to the business, all while delivering the basics (such as payroll, benefits, recruiting, and simple employee and manager transactions) without error or delay.

Agility, combined with analytics, also suggests structural change, particularly for centers of excellence. With more automation of insight generation, and especially the mass customization and delivery of those insights through technology, HR COEs will probably be a much smaller group in the HR organization of the future. Shorn of transactional resources and unburdened by operational responsibilities, these pools of talent will be able to work across disciplines (talent management, learning and development, and organizational design), supporting the new talent value leaders and business as a whole.
Calls for a more assertive and strategic role for HR are not new. The idea that the CHRO (controller of human capital) should be part of a C-suite triumvirate that includes the CEO (principal owner of strategy) and the CFO (owner of financial capital) has been championed by our colleague Dominic Barton, among others. But if HR leaders are to finally achieve the promise of being strategic—the sustained delivery of talent insights and actions that drive real business value—they will need to transform their own function to provide a foundation. By changing the way HR interacts with the business on strategic questions, notably through the creation of new talent value leaders, HR can gain responsibility and accountability for driving talent-linked value. By deploying data-driven insights and solutions in a systematic way, HR can dramatically ramp up the level of talent insight it delivers to the business. By driving continuous improvement in operational performance, HR can create the space for its leading thinkers to drive strategic talent insight and solutions. And by adopting a more agile approach to its resources, HR can drive significant productivity and focus execution and investments on the core initiatives each year that are proven to link to value.

Source: McKinsey.com, July 2017
Authors: Frank Bafaro, Diana Ellsworth and Neel Gandhi
About the author(s)
Frank Bafaro is a consultant in McKinsey’s Southern California office; Diana Ellsworth is an associate partner in the Atlanta office, where Neel Gandhi is a partner.
Link

Culture eats CEO for breakfast

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on July 13th, 2017 by admin

Who has to take the blame when a company is deemed to have the wrong workplace culture? Is it the individual managers who are not behaving correctly? Is it your Chief HR Officer? Will your board feel that it is their responsibility? Or will it be you, the CEO?

You have most likely read that Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber, has been ousted from the company which he himself co-founded. Previously celebrated by many for running an aggressive strategy and a high-energy workplace culture, Kalanick has seen things go from bad to worse since Susan Fowler wrote her now famous post. Fowler, an engineer who left Uber in December, described in her post a sexist, discriminatory, and seemingly well-established side of the company’s workplace culture. Uber has defined 14 core values to guide decisions, processes and priorities – super-pumpedness, always be hustlin’, make magic are a few of them. Kalanick was not ousted for putting these in place. He was ousted because how he managed – or mismanaged – other aspects of workplace culture, as manifested in leadership, career paths, and collaboration.

Another celebrated CEO recently losing his throne is Martin Winterkorn of Volkswagen. The company’s engineers had installed software to cheat emission tests. Winterkorn resigned days after the scandal broke, and long before the total cost to Volkswagen was known, now estimated to more than 20 billion euros. Winterkorn still denies blame, claiming he was not informed. But whether he was informed or not, he is deemed to have neglected his duties as supervisor. The question being how this cheating could have been imagined at the first place and then survived the scrutiny of the Volkswagen management. The behaviour was shared and spread within the organisation and as such it was systematic. Cheating regulations was a way of doing things at Volkswagen (and arguably several other car manufacturers). Culture – the way of doings things – claimed the CEO as its victim.

After the last financial crisis, financial companies had to face numerous new interventions from the regulator. The goal of these rules are to avoid another financial meltdown, by trying to control excessive risk-taking. Legal checks and balances are part of most processes and transactions. Every CEO will have a well-staffed legal team to ensure full compliance. But the regulator is even more ambitious, indicating that financial companies must also manage their culture of risk taking. Basically, requiring companies and with their CEOs in charge, to monitor and shape “the way things around here”.

Corporate culture is not just about having Communications or HR stating the core values that you have decided. Culture is the way things are done in your organisation. It is worth paying attention to. Your CFO would approve as research shows that companies with a great work place culture are outperforming the average in terms of growth, profit and share price. And not paying attention to it could, similar to Kalanick and Winterkorn, ultimately claim your job.

Since you have read this far, culture is probably already one of your priorities. Or if not, perhaps you have found something to reflect on over summer. Unlike sales, not investing in culture doesn’t leave you with no culture. Instead it leaves you with a culture you probably don’t want. And perhaps, that you can’t afford to have.

Source: Linkedin.com, 29 June 2017
By: Michael Daun
About the author: Michael Daun, founder of Wellevue.com – the app that shapes company culture

Link

Vem har tagit mina beslut?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on July 9th, 2017 by admin

Välkommen till en ny tids ledarskap!

Välkommen till Lagercrantz Associates och tredje numret av vårt nyhetsbrev Nya Ögon. Vi arbetar med executive och board search, rådgivning och styrelseutvärderingar. Vår verksamhet bygger på decennier av erfarenhet, ett omfattande nätverk och ett djupt engagemang i våra uppdrag.


Vem har tagit mina beslut?
I Nya Ögon 3 har vi tittat närmare på en differens som kan skapa irritation i styrelserummen. Skillnaden mellan beslut och uppföljning.

Det är snart dags för sommarledigheten och du har förmodligen lovat dig och din familj att i år blir det äntligen en lång, härlig sammanhängande ledighet utan oplanerade jobbavbrott.

Sannolikt kommer det inte att hålla.

Du är dessvärre i gott sällskap. I våra styrelseutvärderingar har vi sedan 2012 analyserat hur toppstyrelser utvecklar sin styrkraft och effektivitet. Över åren har vi sett en statistisk avvikelse som tyvärr är konstant: Alltför många beslut når inte över tröskeln i styrelserummet. De försvinner på vägen. Någon eller något har tagit dem.

Styrelsemedlemmar har stor tilltro till egna förmågan att fatta beslut, men när det kommer till uppföljning minskar tilltron.

Långsiktiga beslut riskerar att inte bli så långsiktiga. Besluten når inte fram till sin adress. Och därmed omsätts de inte i praktiken.

I vår utvärdering har vi såväl konkreta frågor om hur styrelsen fattar beslut och frågor med en direkt koppling till uppföljning, hur mycket tid som avsätts samt hur styrelsen håller sig informerad om avvikelser mot beslut.

Vårt utvärderingsmaterial visar en tydlig skillnad mellan hur styrelserna bedömer kraften i beslutsfattandet jämfört med förmågan och styrkan i uppföljningen av besluten. Vi ser även ett liknande mönster när det handlar om rena investeringsbeslut. På den värderingsskala vi arbetar med finns det en 35-procentig förbättringspotential i uppföljningen.

Kanske har avvikelsen sin naturliga förklaring. I en disruptiv värld med tvära kast, krävs en allt större anpassningsförmåga. Snabba beslut kräver effektivare processer. Och uppföljningen av många förändringsprocesser hamnar till slut utanför styrelserummen.

Det finns även några klassiska orsaker till beslutsbromsar enligt Harvardprofessorerna Galford, Frisch och Greene:

1. Ingen frågade mig

Behovet av en genomarbetad förankringsprocess är underskattad, inte minst tidsmässigt. Är processen förankrad? Är rätt personer informerade?

2. Jag sa inget tidigare, men…

Gör klart att tystnad är detsamma som ett ja i styrelsen. Ingen ska efter ett beslut är fattat säga att ”jag var inte helt säker”. Men räkna inte med att samma ska gälla i hela organisationen.

3. Jag gör det på mitt sätt

Den i särklass vanligaste orsaken. Beror ofta på att underlaget för genomförandet urvattnas på väg ut i organisationen redan på VD-nivå. Tydliga ”milestones” och regelbundna uppföljningar som avrapporteras i styrelserummet råder bot på detta.

Att komma ikapp besluten

1. Förändring är ett ständigt tillstånd

Utgår styrelsen från rätt omvärldsförutsättningar? Det finns under genomförandeprocessen skäl att ifrågasätta och kalibrera innan någon annan gör det på grund av förändringar i omvärlden. En sammanställning av svaren i våra utvärderingar, avseende området: ”Styrelsen ägnar tillräckligt mycket tid åt omvärldsbevakning” ger vid handen att styrelser inte anser att man lägger tillräckligt mycket tid på detta idag. Ändrade råvarupriser, andra viktigare processer som riskerar att störas, nytt beslutsunderlag kan i många fall leda till alternativa beslutsvägar. Nya aktörer dyker plötsligt upp mellan dig och kunden och kundernas köppreferenser och beteenden förändras i en rasande fart.

2. Svaret finns inte i siffrorna – utan i regelbundna avrapporteringar

Ett vanligt svar i våra intervjuer är att ”uppföljningen ser vi i siffrorna och resultaten”. Men som 10 000-meterlöparen behöver regelbundna mellantider för att sitt mål, måste förändringsprocesser avrapporteras mer regelbundet. Det måste ske med en tydlig koppling mellan vilka insatser / aktiviteter som genomförs och vilket resultat som nås.

3. Utvärdera ledningsteamet mot förändrade förutsättningar

Tar styrelsemedlemmarna beslutsprocessen hela vägen? Lagercrantz Associates har mångårig erfarenhet av VD-rekrytering och utvärderingar av såväl VD:ar som ledningsgrupper och dess enskilda ledningsgruppsmedlemmar . Teamets sammansättning och samspel skall ständigt ställas mot de utmaningar som organisationen står inför.

Lycka till med årets långa, härliga sammanhängande sommarledighet!

Vännerna på Lagercrantz Associates

Nya ögon på ledarskap relaterat till aktieägarvärde

Kort om oss på Lagercrantz Associates

Det sägs att världens totala kunskap dubbleras var tredje år. Att styra ett företag i denna omsättningshastighet ställer onekligen krav på den utvalde.

I takt med förändringarna förändras även kravprofilen på svenska företags styrelser och ledningar. Hur hanterar dagens ledare de allt snabbare omställningarna, som tex omfattande regelverk, digitalisering, förändrade köpbeteenden, media, miljöfrågor?

Förändringens pris läser vi om på näringslivssidorna. VD och styrelseordföranden lever ett kortare liv och felrekryteringar kostar företag och aktieägare stora pengar. Lagercrantz Associates startades 2012 med nya ögon på ledarskap, governance, hållbara rekryteringar och styrelseutveckling.

Vi har många års erfarenhet, unikt kontaktnät, faktabaserade utvärderingsverktyg av ledarskap och styrelser samt en djup förståelse av aktieägarperspektivet.

Lagercrantz Associates erbjuder fyra tjänster:
1. Rekrytering av ledare.
2. Rekrytering av styrelsemedlemmar.
3. Utvärdering av styrelsearbete.
4. Utvärdering av ledningsgrupper

Tillsammans har detta byggt Lagercrantz Associates – ett kondenserat, personligt företag för ledarrekrytering och styrelseutveckling, med en högre karat av kunskap hos våra enskilda medarbetare och en gemensam passion för att finna och utveckla den nya tidens ledare och styrkraft.

Nyheter

Vi är stolta och glada över att vi under våren har fått in Erika Magnus i vårt team. Erika har en bred internationell erfarenhet från finans, strategifrågor, IR och Corporate Communication, bl a från tillverkningsindustrin och telekom. Mer information om Erika här.

How anxiety affects CEO decision making

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Leadership / Ledarskap on June 29th, 2017 by admin

While top executives tend to be thought of as a confident bunch, they are no less susceptible to anxiety than the rest of us. After all, they routinely have to make important decisions, often under conditions of uncertainty, that affect countless people, organizations, and industries.

It is less clear, though, what this anxiety means for how they do their jobs. Psychology research has shown that anxiety influences decision making—for example, job anxiety can cause people to fixate on potential threats, thus missing big opportunities. This made us wonder whether boards or employees should be worried about anxiety influencing their CEO’s strategic decision making in ways that might hold back their firm.

We interviewed 84 CEOs and other top executives of major corporations to find out. They described some of the toughest decisions they had faced in their roles. Overall we collected data on 174 big decisions, such as those relating to acquisitions, major product launches, new foreign market entries, and complex corporate restructurings. We analyzed transcripts to assess whether executives’ language focused on opportunities or threats. Then we surveyed the people who knew them best – their spouses (mostly wives, but a few husbands), close friends and family, and their chief lieutenants (COOs, general counsels, etc.) – to get more information about their personal lives and how they handled tough decisions. We combined this with archival data about their businesses, competitors, and industries. Finally, we conducted a follow-up survey of employees at the lower levels of these organizations to see how their anxiety levels compared to top executives.

We found that more-anxious leaders (those that were described as experiencing job anxiety “to some extent,” “to a considerable extent,” or “to a great extent”) took fewer strategic risks than their less anxious peers in order to avoid potential losses. Job anxiety reduced the attractiveness of big strategic bets for the company, despite their potential to drive large gains.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as excessive risks can lead companies into ruin. But smart risks are often key to driving corporate growth, and our results suggest that anxious executives may, in their overriding desire to avoid threats, miss out on high-upside strategic opportunities and thus limit growth.

However, context matters. Researchers have shown that executives facing loss contexts (e.g., when the company has recently underperformed relative to peers) are more inclined to make big strategic bets that, if successful, can undo the loss. Conversely, executives facing gain contexts (e.g., when the company has recently performed better than its peers) eschew risky bets in favor of safer alternatives that offer more predictable, albeit lower upside, returns.

This suggests that while anxiety may lead executives to avoid risky strategic initiatives, such tendencies may be counteracted when the executive is facing a loss context that calls for bold action. We found that job anxiety exerts a weaker effect on risk-taking in loss contexts, while gain contexts exacerbate anxious executives’ risk-reducing tendencies.

For example, consider the case of a tech CEO in our sample who was described as experiencing “a considerable extent” of job anxiety by his close friends and family. This CEO was facing an important strategic decision for his firm regarding future growth, and made the decision to sell the firm to a larger rival rather than pursue the potentially much higher upside of independent growth as a standalone business.

Already naturally inclined to play it safe, anxious executives are especially careful not to upset the apple cart when things are going well. While a conservative bias might sound reasonable, or even admirable, markets might very well see this as a serious threat to shareholder interests if it causes a firm to miss out on promising opportunities that would propel growth.

Our results also showed that anxiety drives some executives to stack the deck. Prior research has shown that one of the ways anxious individuals deal with their worries is to lean on trusted others for support and protection, a phenomenon known as “social buffering.” Similarly, we found that anxious executives are more likely to staff their teams with loyal subordinates whom they know and trust. This is especially true in loss contexts, where threats loom large. Anxious executives are particularly driven to close ranks within their teams and stack their inner decision-making circle with loyalists. This effect disappears in gain contexts where anxious executives are presumably less compelled to create a protective shield against perceived threats.

The main takeaway is that top executives are influenced by job anxiety just like the rest of us, but because the impact of their biases can have serious downstream consequences for thousands of employees, shareholders, and stakeholders, leaders should ask:

Maybe the paranoid are more likely to survive, but at what cost? Intel CEO Andy Grove famously noted that paranoia can be a good thing for executives when it compels them to keep a close eye on their environment. Our results suggest, however, that overly anxious (and perhaps paranoid) executives may be less willing to make the big strategic bets that could catapult the company to long-term success. Serious consideration of both potential upside and downside outcomes is necessary for forming a clear-eyed assessment of firm strategy, but anxiety may cause executives to become myopic to such balanced views.

Who is asking the tough questions? One can hardly fault anxious executives for relying upon subordinates that they trust. But this could come with drawbacks if a sense of loyalty prevents subordinates from asking difficult questions or otherwise engaging in healthy debate with leaders. Executives are well-advised to put together teams that are nevertheless unafraid to challenge them when the situation calls for it.

What can boards do? Boards may not have an easy way to assess anxiety in executives, but they should realize that anxiousness plays a meaningful role in the fortunes of their firms. For instance, an anxious executive’s risk-averse outlook may run counter to the board’s (or shareholder’s) vision for bold strategies.

Although a CEO is unlikely to report to their board that they are feeling anxious about their job, boards can be proactive in looking for signs of stress that may bias executive decision-making, perhaps through informal conversations with executives’ close colleagues. They can also offer social support and encouragement to help mute some of the more dysfunctional effects of executive job anxiety. And to avoid anxious leaders surrounding themselves with loyalists, board members can protect the firm by requiring CEOs to present multiple strategic options before making big decisions, or by asking individuals other than the CEO to present opposing options.

Source: Harvard Business Review, July 19, 2016
Authors:Mike Mannor, Adam WowakViva, Ona BartkusLuis and R. Gomez-Mejia
Link

Chefens mest irriterande egenskaper

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on June 27th, 2017 by admin

Favorisering, arrogans och konflikträdsla är några av de egenskaper hos chefer som retar oss mest, enligt en ny undersökning från Yougov. Det bör inte viftas bort, eftersom det påverkar människors hälsa.

Kan påverka arbetsmiljön – rejält
Enligt undersökningen av Yougov retar vi oss allra mest på konflikträdsla, det angav 21 procent som chefens mest irriterande sida. Anna Nyberg, psykolog och forskare i arbetsmiljö, har skrivit en avhandling om hur chefers ledarskap påverkar medarbetarnas hälsa. Hon säger att en chefs oförmåga att ingripa vid konflikter kan få väldigt negativa effekter:
– Det har visat sig påverka arbetsgruppens dynamik negativt, så att det till exempel kan uppstå mer utstötnings- och mobbingprocesser med mer stress och psykisk ohälsa i de här grupperna, säger hon.

Viktigt att människor blir sedda
18 procent av de svarande uppgav att de stör sig på att chefen inte tar tillvara på deras kompetens. Anna Nyberg är inte förvånad över att det hamnar högt upp på listan.
– Att inte ta vara på medarbetares kompetens kan handla om att inte vilja ge dem inflytande, men att ha inflytande i arbetet är en av de mest studerade faktorerna i arbetsmiljöforskning och vi vet att det är viktigt för vår hälsa.

Chefskapet kan vara störande i sin egen rätt
Att chefen favoriserar vissa anställda mer än andra och inte kan ta kritik är andra egenskaper som svenskarna inte gillar hos sina chefer. Men enligt Anna Nyberg kan bara det faktum att en chef har inflytande över medarbetaren vara tillräckligt för att man ska irritera sig.
– En auktoritet aktiverar ofta processer inom oss som kan härstamma från relationen från våra föräldrar eller andra tidigare auktoritetsfigurer.

Topp 5 dåligt chefsbeteende – enligt anställda

• Konflikträdd 21 %
• Tar inte vara på min kompetens 18 %
• Favoriserar vissa anställda över andra 16 %
• Tål inte kritik 13 %
• Allt ska göras på chefens sätt 12 %

Informationsbas: Stressforskningsinstitutet

Källa: HRnytt.se, juni 2017
Länk

Slutfakturerat för styrelearvodet!

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete on June 26th, 2017 by admin

Läs mer här!