Svenska chefer har det allt jobbigare

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on december 24th, 2013 by admin

En stor del av Sveriges chefer har varit deprimerade, haft sömnsvårigheter och upplevt stress som känts ohanterlig de senaste åren. Det visar en undersökning som Novus har gjort på uppdrag av tidningen Chef.

DepressedEnligt undersökningen har hela 74 procent av de tillfrågade cheferna haft sömnstörningar. 61 procent har upplevt stress som känns ohanterlig och 51 procent har varit deprimerade eller nedstämda, skriver tidningen Chef.
Värst är det för de chefer som upplever att de inte har tillräckligt mandat. Chefer som upplever att de har svagt mandat sover sämre, upplever oftare stress som känns ohanterlig, drabbas i högre grad av utbrändhet, sömnstörningar, depression eller nedstämdhet, visar undersökningen.
– Jag är inte förvånad över siffrorna. Det finns forskning som tyder på att chefer har en pressad tillvaro i dag”, säger psykologen Ulla Risling, som arbetat som handledare och terapeut för chefer sedan 1980 till Chef.
Hon tror att stressen kan bero på att många chefer känner sig ensamma och har höga krav på sig själva. Press på att alltid vara nåbar är också en möjlig orsak.

I undersökningen har drygt 500 chefer svarat på frågor om sin psykiska hälsa.

Källa:, 18 december 2013
Av: Caroline Englund

Minikameran som gör hela ditt liv till ett sökbart fotografiskt minne

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Digitalisering / Internet on december 16th, 2013 by admin

Nu är den här. Minikameran Narrative Clip som gör hela ditt liv till ett sökbart fotografiskt minne. Bakom produkten står det svenska “lifelogging”-bolaget som tidigare hette tidigare Memoto.
I veckan började den lilla ”lifelogging”-kameran Narrative Clip …
Läs mer här!

Five predictions for social media in 2014

Posted in Aktuellt, Digitalisering / Internet on december 16th, 2013 by admin

Snapchat will get bigger, Twitter rants will grow louder, and your boss will learn to Tweet.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: An untested social media company with no revenue gets a mind-blowing offer. Against all advice, the cocky, twentysomething CEO refuses to sell. Meanwhile, competitors come out of the woodwork with lawsuits claiming their ideas were ripped off.

The parallels between Snapchat, the upstart “sexting” service, and social media behemoth Facebook (FB) in its early days are uncanny. We all know how well Zuckerberg’s long bet paid off (not to mention how thoroughly he vanquished those dastardly Winklevoss twins). Could Snapchat’s future be just as bright?

Here’s a look into social media’s crystal ball for 2014. Will Snapchat catch fire? Will those annoying Promoted Tweets keep invading your Twitter stream? Will your boss finally learn to tweet? These five trends are poised to shake up the industry and the way we use social media in 2014:

The rise of ephemeral social networks
Regardless of whether or not you think Snapchat is worth the $3 billion Facebook offered it, one thing is clear: There’s an appetite out there for so-called ephemeral networks, where content literally vanishes seconds after being received. And, contrary to popular perception, this isn’t just about sexting and X-rated selfies (though it definitely is about that, too). As content on the major networks becomes more corporate and commoditized, Snapchat and services like it restore some of the fun and spontaneity to social media. Just like a real-life interaction — where ideas flow freely and you generally don’t worry about everything being recorded for posterity and broadcast to the world — SnapChat and networks like it offer a channel for genuine, unfiltered exchange. And the kids really like it. While Facebook’s own CFO officially acknowledged last month that teen use of his network is declining, the number of teens on SnapChat — at least anecdotally — is exploding.

Learn to tweet. Your boss expects it
You know the old guy who’s been at the company forever and still can’t figure out email? If you don’t get up to speed on social media in 2014, you’ll beTweet that guy. Compared to last year, there are 13 times as many jobs advertised on that mention the use of social media. “We are seeing an increased demand for social savvy candidates across the business — from human resources to product to customer service,” Amy Crow, Indeed’s communication director told Quartz earlier this year. Not only are departments like marketing, sales, and customer service expected to be on Twitter (TWTR) and Facebook, teams as diverse as R&D, logistics, and HR are increasingly using internal networks like Yammer to streamline operations. Social media has grown so critical to the workplace, in fact, that major universities are beginning to offer certificate programs for socially inept corporate types to get up to speed.

Social customer service kills the dreaded phone tree
The ability of customers to air their dirty laundry to the world via Twitter and Facebook has already changed the customer service game. A 2012 Nielsen survey shows more than half of all customers now turn to social media for redress; meanwhile, some 81% of Twitter users expect a same-day response to questions and complaints. But this fall, things got even more interesting: On Sept. 2, British Airways passenger Hasan Syed spent an estimated $1,000 to purchase several promoted Tweets blasting the company for losing luggage. With paid social media now in customers’ arsenal, 2014 may mark the beginning of the end of abysmal customer service at major airlines, credit card companies, banks, and other repeat offenders, characterized by endless phone wait times and those automated “phone trees” (i.e., “Press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish, 3 to waste your entire afternoon on hold …”).

Social media finds you as you browse
From the beginning, social networks have been effectively walled off from the Internet. The treasure trove of content on Facebook, for instance, doesn’t generally show up on Google (GOOG). But does it have to be that way? Wouldn’t it be convenient to see Twitter search results automatically displayed alongside a standard Google search, for example? And why, for instance, don’t the latest tweets about a restaurant pop up when you’re searching Yelp (YELP)? The competing interests of different networks sends this content behind proprietary walls, but a number of tools offer creative ways to bridge the gulf. (Full disclosure: My company has developed one such tool.)

Get ready to see ads from the neighborhood pub on Twitter
Native social media ads — the ones that appear right in your Twitter and Facebook streams — exploded in 2013. Love ’em or hate ’em, they’re only getting bigger in 2014. This year, expect some significant, if slightly creepy, advances in location-specific targeting. Twitter, for instance, just unveiled a feature enabling paid Tweets to be targeted by zip code. You walk into a neighborhood, for instance, and suddenly Promoted Tweets for the local watering hole, dry cleaner, and McDonald’s (MCD) pop up in your Twitter stream. This kind of “geo-fencing,” which Facebook has had since 2011, enables businesses to court nearby customers who might actually want to get ads offering special deals, in-store specials, etc. The upside: more relevant ads and promos you can actually use. The downside: more ads.

Source:, December 2013
By: Ryan Holmes (Ryan Holmes is the CEO of HootSuite, a social relationship platform)

Building the social enterprise

Posted in Aktuellt, Digitalisering / Internet on december 14th, 2013 by admin

By following a few simple principles, leaders can realize the vast potential of social technologies to engage employees and transform organizations.

Why do so few companies capture the full value of social technologies? There’s no doubt organizations have begun to realize significant value from largely external uses of social.Yet internal applications have barely begun to tap their full potential, even though about two-thirds of social’s estimated economic value stems from improved collaboration and communication within enterprises.Although more than 80 percent of executives say their companies deploy social technologies, few have figured out how to use them in ways that could have a large-scale, replicable, and measurable impact at an enterprise level. Just over a quarter of executives say that their companies have significantly incorporated social technologies into the day-to-day work flow by, for example, adapting internal structures, systems, processes, and practices to the greater connectedness they enable. Maximizing the odds of successful integration by coupling them with a robust organizational-change program is generally an afterthought, at best.

SM 1Companies are missing a potentially huge prize. The McKinsey Global Institute last year estimated that $900 billion to $1.3 trillion in annual value could be unlocked in just four sectors by products and services that enable social interactions in the digital realm. That’s not easy to do, but a large part of the problem is that many companies, viewing social technologies as yet another tool to be implemented rather than as an enabler of organizational transformation, fail to identify the specific organizational problems social technologies can solve.

These companies find that mind-sets are hard to shift, whether they’re trying to persuade employees to use social technologies rather than e-mail or to evolve into an environment where information sharing is standard. Often, leaders think social technologies can be left to IT or marketing, while others are simply intimidated by possible risks. And many are so focused on the technologies themselves that their ability to empower a dynamic, integrated business- and cultural-change program that drives productivity, innovation, and collaboration in core business processes is largely ignored.

So what should be done? We see four principles that should guide the implementation of social technologies.

Add value, not complexity
Social technologies add the most value when they become central to the organization and complement (or, ideally, substitute for) existing processes. They shouldn’t be distracting “extras”—they should be embedded into the day- to-day work flow. Consider the experience of The MITRE Corporation, a not-for-profit organization that provides IT, research-and-development, and systems-engineering expertise to the US government. When the company identified an urgent need for employees to collaborate more easily with colleagues and external partners, it used open-source social-networking software to build and customize its own social platform, called Handshake. The platform is secure, invitation only, and integrated with MITRE’s collaboration- and knowledge-management tools, so staff can start using the tool and make it part of their daily work seamlessly.

Provide essential organizational support
No particular social technology can transform organizations on its own. Companies must define their objective, select a technology, and then consider the additional elements of organizational change required to support it. That might mean everything from role modeling to fostering understanding and conviction, building capabilities, and aligning systems and structures. We call this approach the influence model—it encourages mind-set and behavioral shifts that assist organizational transformation.

When Canadian financial-services company TD Bank Group launched an internal social-media network, using IBM’s Connections platform, for example, SM 2individuals were designated as “Connections Geniuses” to spur its adoption. This group helped colleagues learn how to use the platform and evangelized for its ability to improve day-to-day work, thus making the potential impact more relevant to individual users. The support that’s required to maximize the odds that social technologies will be implemented successfully should obviously be customized to the needs and culture of individual organizations. But make no mistake—support is essential.

Experiment and learn
Top-down implementation directives don’t work for social technologies—and in fact directly contradict their very purpose. Organizations should adopt approaches that emphasize testing and learning; any lack of impact must be viewed not as a failure but as a lesson learned. Developing an atmosphere of experimentation enables organizational learning and keeps alive the possibility that technologies may have unexpected successes.

The mantra “Think big, start small, show impact” guided TD’s social-platform launch for its 85,000 employees around the world. A small pilot program launched in 2011 allowed the company to manage technology risks and thoughtfully identify communities for the platform. As examples of success became clear, TD leveraged its Geniuses to help it scale up the effort. This process of testing, learning, and thoughtful growth was instrumental in expanding the platform, which now has thousands of communities, blogs, and wikis that help colleagues find relevant knowledge and skills quickly and easily.

Track impact and evolve metrics
The head of social media at global shipping company Maersk Line, Jonathan Wichmann, discovered some 14,000 images in its photographic archive during his first week at work.4

Recognizing an opportunity to share the company’s rich history and engage both employees and outsiders, Maersk Line launched a low-cost, experimental social-media campaign. No metrics were attached; at this stage, the company was unsure of what to measure.

After the initiative took off—it’s currently delivering more than 170,000 unique social interactions a month and has doubled the number of the company’s job applicants—appropriate metrics were developed. What began as an outward-facing effort is now driving performance internally: Maersk Line executives now seek to track social media’s impact on everything from persuading recruits that they should join the company to aiding innovation and the gathering of customer insights. This is the best approach to metrics; while it’s important to be open minded about social initiatives, and not always possible to have robust metrics from the start, it’s critical to put rigorous ones in place once you find that something clearly adds value.

Employees, customers, external stakeholders, and future talent are all embracing social technologies. While the true impact of building them into the culture, structure, and work flow of organizations remains to be seen, we know that companies adapting to a more open, sharing, and flexible world stand to create tremendous value. They could also be the pioneers of new, more nimble and entrepreneurial operating models that will change business as we know it. In that sense, understanding social media is now a critical element of every executive’s tool kit.

Source:, November 2013
By: Michael Chui, Martin Dewhurst, and Lindsay Pollak
About the authors:
Michael Chui is a principal of the McKinsey Global Institute and is based in McKinsey’s San Francisco office; Martin Dewhurst is a director in the London office; and Lindsay Pollak is a consultant in the Silicon Valley office.

The “spoiled generation” shares their view on future dititala habits

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Digitalisering / Internet on december 12th, 2013 by admin

Just clic here

Merry Christmas!

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on december 11th, 2013 by admin

tomtenAirports are perhaps the least jolly of locales during the holiday season, generally filled with disgruntled people facing delays, lost luggage and other mishaps. But, thanks to WestJet, one gaggle of weary travelers was treated to a Christmas miracle that turned an airport into Santa’s workshop.

The Canadian airline, with the help of a virtual and tech-savvy Santa Claus, learned what passengers at the Toronto and Hamilton International Airports — who were waiting to board flights to Calgary — had on their Christmas wishlists this year. Once everyone boarded their planes, the WestJet team also took off — on shopping sprees, that is.

Check it out here!

Seven reasons employees don’t trust their leaders

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on december 11th, 2013 by admin

As the world mourns the loss of Nelson Mandela and commemorates his greatness as a leader, we would do well to remember that one of the many hallmarks of his leadership was trust. The greatest leaders in the world gravitated toward Mr. Mandela because he was genuinely trustworthy and his purpose was to support peace, prosperity and unity not only in South Africa – but throughout the world. Mandela was able to lead people in ways that many find impossible to do. As he famously said, “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”

Tumme 4Unfortunately, trust is in rare supply these days. People are having trouble trusting each other, according to an AP-GfK poll conducted in November 2013, which found that Americans are suspicious of each other in their everyday encounters. Only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted – down from half who felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question. Forty years later, in 2013, a record high of nearly two-thirds says “you can’t be too careful” in dealing with people.

This same sentiment can be carried over into the workplace, where employees want their leaders to be more trustworthy and transparent. Employees have grown tired of unexpected outcomes resulting from the lack of preparation. They want to be informed of any change management efforts before – not after the fact. Employees desire to know what is expected of them and be given the opportunity to reinvent themselves, rather than be told they are not qualified for new roles and responsibilities and can no longer execute their functions successfully.

Leaders are challenged between informing their employees of the entire truth and holding back certain realities so as not to unnecessarily scare people or lose top-talent. More and more leaders today are being placed into uncomfortable moral dilemmas because they are attempting to salvage their own jobs while trying to maintain the trust and loyalty of their employees.

The growing tensions between leaders and their employees are creating productivity challenges as uncertainty becomes the new normal in the workplace. Furthermore, leaders are beginning to lose control of their own identities and effectiveness as their employees begin to lose trust in their intentions because of hidden agendas and political maneuvering – casting clouds of doubt over their futures.

Employees just want the truth. They have learned that the old ways of doing things just don’t apply (as much) anymore and more than ever they need their Tumme 3leaders to have their backs. Unfortunately, many leaders are operating in survival mode and don’t have the sphere of influence they once had; without leaders to sponsor and mentor them, high-potential employees must now figure out the changing terrain on their own.

Here are seven early warning signs to look out for so you can course-correct when employees are having trouble trusting their leaders:

1. Lack Courage
Leaders that don’t stand up for what they believe in are difficult to respect and trust. Too many leaders today battle the gulf between assimilation and authenticity. They waste too much of their valuable time trying to act like other leaders in the organization – rather than attempting to establish their own identity and leadership style. This is why less than 15% of leaders have defined and live their personal brand.

Perhaps leaders don’t believe that their employees are paying attention to this behavior – but they are intently observing. Employees are always in tune to what their leaders are doing and how they manage themselves. Employees know that if their leaders are not savvy enough to move themselves into a position of greater influence, it will make it that much more difficult for them to get noticed and discovered as well. The influence of a leader carries a lot of weight when it comes to how their colleagues judge and evaluate the potential of their employees.

When leaders lack the courage to enable their full potential and that of others, it becomes a challenge to trust their judgment, self-confidence, self-awareness and overall capabilities.

2. Hidden Agendas
Leaders that are too politically savvy can be viewed as devious and inauthentic. Employees want to follow leaders who are less about the politics and more about how to accomplish goals and objectives. While being politically savvy is important, leaders must be careful not to give their employees the impression of orchestrating hidden agendas.

Employees want to believe that their leaders are focused on the betterment of the team. If this requires well-intentioned political maneuvering to advance team goals and objectives, then great. However, if it comes across that a leader is solely intent on protecting themselves and their own personal agendas – trust from the team will be lost quickly and difficult to recapture.

3. Self-Centered
Hidden agendas make it difficult to trust that a leader’s intentions and decision-making are not self-centered. When a leader is only looking out for themselves and lacks any sense of commitment to the advancement of their employees – this shuts-off employees quickly.

Tumme AGreat leaders are great coaches and are always looking to help their employees grow and prosper. When leaders lack any real desire to mentor, coach and/or guide the career advancement of their employees – it becomes increasingly difficult for employees to trust them. I’ve often said that leaders can’t go at it alone. But when leaders are too disruptive, their employees sense that they are in it for themselves and/or don’t trust the talent around them.

Also, when leaders are self-centered their ego stands in the way of advancing others – further eroding trust.

4. Reputation Issues
When people begin to speak negatively about their leader, it makes it more difficult for others to trust their intentions and vision. For example, look at what has happened to President Barrack Obama since December 2009 when his approval rating was 69%. According to the Rasmussen Reports, four years later (as of December 7th), Obama’s approval rating is now at 43%. Nearly a 30% decline has created massive disruption to his reputation and many who have followed and supported him for years are now having troubling trusting him.

If you conducted a comparative approval rating survey in your workplace, how would your employees rate the performance of your leaders?

Every leader must be aware that they are constantly being evaluated and thus they can never grow complacent. When they do, this begins to negatively impact their reputation and the trust employees have in their leadership.

5. Inconsistent Behavior
People are more inclined to trust those who are consistent with their behavior. Isn’t it easy to begin questioning one’s motives/judgment when they are inconsistent? For example, I’ve worked with clients who appear to be on the same page – only to notice that they begin to disconnect when they believe that the direction of a project is not allowing them to mobilize their own agendas. In order words, when everyone but the leader is on board with a strategy – you begin to wonder if their intentions are to support the organization’s advancement or their own.

Leaders who are consistent with their approach and intentions are those who can be trusted. This is why so many leaders need to refresh their leadership style before they lose the trust of their employees.

6. Don’t Get Their Hands Dirty
Leaders must touch the business, just as much as they lead it. When leaders are over-delegating and not getting their hands dirty – employees begin to question whether or not their leader actually knows what is required to get the job done. Distrust amongst employees begins to rise.

Though leaders cannot be expected to have all of the answers – they should not playTumme 2 at arms-length either. The 21st century leader must be more high-touch in order to effectively evaluate the business and coach-up their employees. How else can a leader establish the standards to maintain and improve workplace performance?

Are your leaders getting their hands dirty or are they merely acting the part?

Leaders must earn the trust of their employees and stop believing that their titles, roles and responsibilities automatically warrant trust from others.

7. Lack a Generous Purpose
When a leader doesn’t genuinely have your best interests at heart, it’s difficult to trust them. When leaders are not grateful for your performance efforts – and are always attempting to squeeze every bit of effort they can out of you – it’s difficult to trust that they have intentions to be more efficient, resourceful and collaborative.

Employees don’t ever want to feel taken advantage of – especially during a time when everyone is being asked to do more with less. Leaders must be more appreciative of their employees and more mindful of their endeavors.

Leaders who lack a generous purpose and are not compassionate towards their employees are difficult to trust. How can leaders expect their employees to give them everything they’ve got to increase their performance impact when they are not willing to do the same?

These seven behavioral traits are becoming much more prevalent in the workplace and if leaders fail to course-correct they will be putting their employees in positions of increased risk – disrupting their focus and the momentum of their careers.

This is what today leaders must consider: how to lead in new ways that focus less on oneself, but more on the betterment of a healthier whole. Leaders must enable positive social change through ethical innovation – what I call “innovation humanity.”

Let’s honor Mandela’s courage and compassion by letting his leadership inspire us now as it did throughout the life he lived with such generous purpose.

Source:, 10 December 2014
By:Glenn Llopis
Read more about how 3S support our clients in developing their leadership culture by Fact Based Management.

12 tips for team building

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on december 9th, 2013 by admin

12 Tips for Team Building – How to build successful work teams

People in every workplace talk about building the team, working as a team, and my team, but few understand how to create the experience of team work or how to develop an effective team. Belonging to a team, in the broadest sense, is a result of feeling part of something larger than yourself. It has a lot to do with your understanding of the mission or objectives of your organization.

In a team-oriented environment, you contribute to the overall success of the organization. You work with fellow members of the organization to produceTeamwork A these results. Even though you have a specific job function and you belong to a specific department, you are unified with other organization members to accomplish the overall objectives. The bigger picture drives your actions; your function exists to serve the bigger picture.

You need to differentiate this overall sense of teamwork from the task of developing an effective intact team that is formed to accomplish a specific goal. People confuse the two team building objectives. This is why so many team building seminars, meetings, retreats and activities are deemed failures by their participants. Leaders failed to define the team they wanted to build. Developing an overall sense of team work is different from building an effective, focused work team when you consider team building approaches.

Twelve Cs for Team Building

Executives, managers and organization staff members universally explore ways to improve business results and profitability. Many view team-based, horizontal, organization structures as the best design for involving all employees in creating business success.

No matter what you call your team-based improvement effort: continuous improvement, total quality, lean manufacturing or self-directed work teams, you are striving to improve results for customers. Few organizations, however, are totally pleased with the results their team improvement efforts produce. If your team improvement efforts are not living up to your expectations, this self-diagnosing checklist may tell you why. Successful team building, that creates effective, focused work teams, requires attention to each of the following.

•Clear Expectations: Has executive leadership clearly communicated its expectations for the team’s performance and expected outcomes? Do team members understand why the team was created? Is the organization demonstrating constancy of purpose in supporting the team with resources of people, time and money? Does the work of the team receive sufficient emphasis as a priority in terms of the time, discussion, attention and interest directed its way by executive leaders?

•Context: Do team members understand why they are participating on the team? Do they understand how the strategy of using teams will help the organization attain its communicated business goals? Can team members define their team’s importance to the accomplishment of corporate goals? Does the team understand where its work fits in the total context of the organization’s goals, principles, vision and values?
Read more about Team Culture and Context.

•Commitment: Do team members want to participate on the team? Do team members feel the team mission is important? Are members committed to accomplishing the team mission and expected outcomes? Do team members perceive their service as valuable to the organization and to their own careers? Do team members anticipate recognition for their contributions? Do team members expect their skills to grow and develop on the team? Are team members excited and
challenged by the team opportunity?

•Competence: Does the team feel that it has the appropriate people participating? (As an example, in a process improvement, is each step of the process represented on the team?) Does the team feel that its members have the knowledge, skill and capability to address the issues for which the team was formed? If not, does the team have access to the help it needs? Does the team feel it has the resources, strategies and support needed to accomplish its mission?

•Charter: Has the team taken its assigned area of responsibility and designed its own mission, vision and strategies to accomplish the mission. Has the team defined and communicated its goals; its anticipated outcomes and contributions; its timelines; and how it will measure both the outcomes of its work and the process the team followed to accomplish their task? Does the leadership team or other coordinating group support what the team has designed?

•Control: Does the team have enough freedom and empowerment to feel the ownership necessary to accomplish its charter? At the same time, do team members clearly understand their boundaries? How far may members go in pursuit of solutions? Are limitations (i.e. monetary and time resources) defined at the beginning of the project before the team experiences barriers and rework?
Is the team’s reporting relationship and accountability understood by all members of the organization? Has the organization defined the team’s authority? To make recommendations? To implement its plan? Is there a defined review process so both the team and the organization are consistently aligned in direction and purpose? Do team members hold each other accountable for project timelines, commitments and results? Does the organization have a plan to increase opportunities for self-management among organization members?

teamwork 2•Collaboration: Does the team understand team and group process? Do members understand the stages of group development? Are team members working together effectively interpersonally? Do all team members understand the roles and responsibilities of team members? team leaders? team recorders? Can the team approach problem solving, process improvement, goal setting and measurement jointly? Do team members cooperate to accomplish the team charter? Has the team established group norms or rules of conduct in areas such as conflict resolution, consensus decision making and meeting management? Is the team using an appropriate strategy to accomplish its action plan?

•Communication: Are team members clear about the priority of their tasks? Is there an established method for the teams to give feedback and receive honest performance feedback? Does the organization provide important business information regularly? Do the teams understand the complete context for their existence? Do team members communicate clearly and honestly with each other? Do team members bring diverse opinions to the table? Are necessary conflicts raised and addressed?

•Creative Innovation: Is the organization really interested in change? Does it value creative thinking, unique solutions, and new ideas? Does it reward people who take reasonable risks to make improvements? Or does it reward the people who fit in and maintain the status quo? Does it provide the training, education, access to books and films, and field trips necessary to stimulate new thinking?

•Consequences: Do team members feel responsible and accountable for team achievements? Are rewards and recognition supplied when teams are successful? Is reasonable risk respected and encouraged in the organization? Do team members fear reprisal? Do team members spend their time finger pointing rather than resolving problems? Is the organization designing reward systems that recognize both team and individual performance? Is the organization planning to share gains and increased profitability with team and individual contributors? Can contributors see their impact on increased organization success?

•Coordination: Are teams coordinated by a central leadership team that assists the groups to obtain what they need for success? Have priorities and resource allocation been planned across departments? Do teams understand the concept of the internal customer—the next process, anyone to whom they provide a product or a service? Are cross-functional and multi-department teams common and working together effectively? Is the organization developing a customer-focused process-focused orientation and moving away from traditional departmental thinking?

•Cultural Change: Does the organization recognize that the team-based, collaborative, empowering, enabling organizational culture of the future is different than the traditional, hierarchical organization it may currently be? Is the organization planning to or in the process of changing how it rewards, recognizes, appraises, hires, develops, plans with, motivates and manages the people it employs?
Does the organization plan to use failures for learning and support reasonable risk? Does the organization recognize that the more it can change its climate to support teams, the more it will receive in pay back from the work of the teams?

Spend time and attention on each of these twelve tips to ensure your work teams contribute most effectively to your business success. Your team members will love you, your business will soar, and empowered people will “own” and be responsible for their work processes. Can your work life get any better than this?

Source:, 2013
Author: Susan M. Heatfield

Is leadership born or built?

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on december 5th, 2013 by admin

In his book, “Executive Instinct,” Nigel Nicholson of the London Business School suggests that there may be a leadership gene — that some people are just driven to be in charge. But the University of Michigan’s Noel Tichy — in his book “The Leadership Engine” — declares that leadership style and abilities emerge from experience.
Yet another opinion comes from the former chief executive of a $40 billion business who claims that leadership is irrelevant — it’s all about designing the right employer contracts.

GL 1Is leadership born or built? What about the in-between position that says early childhood is an imprinting that’s hard to undo? That faction claims that unless the tendency to lead is learned early on, it’s not likely to happen later in life.

I say leadership can be taught. But then, I have a unique definition of leadership.

I think leadership is about managing energy, first in yourself and then in those around you. What this definition implies is that unless you are deeply committed to an outcome that others can engage in and understand, no amount of teaching will make you a leader.

Deep commitment implies clarity of vision — because leadership implies the question, “To what end?” A lack of vision is one of the two main reasons for a lack of leadership in the world. In my experience, most people are not clear about what they are trying to do; and getting rich off the backs of others, by the way, is not very motivating to everyone else.

So the first step is deciding what you want to do with your life and career. We can teach strategic thought processes, but only the individual can actuallyGL 2 go through with them. Since attitude and style are contagious, you must interact with others who possess energy and clarity of purpose, or else your influence on them will be deflected and dissipated.

If you have something you really want done, and you’re ready to commit your life to it, you can have an enormous impact on the world. If your goal is to be rich, powerful and famous, but you don’t know how — look out. Type I leaders are in the game for their own rewards. Type II leaders are in it for what they want to build. In today’s culture of extraction — where the rich take from the poor — Type I leaders are common, and increasingly distrusted and shunned.

Type II leaders are more rare and in more demand.

So, step one to becoming a leader? Clarify your purpose in life and, by extension, what your vision is for your organization, regardless of your current position. If you do that, you will be able to participate in strategic conversations when the opportunities arise.

GL 3And beware of mission statements like this one: “We deliver world-class goods and services that delight our customers beyond their expectations and give our investors an above-industry average return.” A committee cobbled that bland and uninspiring statement together. In contrast, British Aerospace created a mission statement that is direct, powerful, inspiring and relates to every employee: It reads: “We protect those who protect us.”

I fear that too many experiences in life push that kind of simple, powerful clarity out of us. The danger is not so much that we can’t teach leaders; rather the danger is that so many organizations pound leadership principles out of us as well. Don’t be one of those.

Find your vision before you die. Find one for your organization. Find something you can devote your professional life to, and then let that work in you until you’re vibrating with energy and enthusiasm — and you’ll find a way to get others to go along for the ride.

Source: Washington Post,, 1 December 2013
By: James G. Clawson. James G. Clawson is the Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business.

Mentally strong people: The 13 things they avoid

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Executive Coaching, Leadership / Ledarskap on december 4th, 2013 by admin

For all the time executives spend concerned about physical strength and health, when it comes down to it, mental strength can mean even more. Particularly for entrepreneurs, numerous articles talk about critical characteristics of mental strength—tenacity, “grit,” optimism, and an unfailing ability as Forbes contributor David Williams says, to “fail up.”

m strong AHowever, we can also define mental strength by identifying the things mentally strong individuals don’t do. Over the weekend, I was impressed by this list compiled by Amy Morin, a psychotherapist and licensed clinical social worker, that she shared in LifeHack. It impressed me enough I’d also like to share her list here along with my thoughts on how each of these items is particularly applicable to entrepreneurs.

1. Waste Time Feeling Sorry for Themselves.
You don’t see mentally strong people feeling sorry for their circumstances or dwelling on the way they’ve been mistreated. They have learned to take responsibility for their actions and outcomes, and they have an inherent understanding of the fact that frequently life is not fair. They are able to emerge from trying circumstances with self-awareness and gratitude for the lessons learned. When a situation turns out badly, they respond with phrases such as “Oh, well.” Or perhaps simply, “Next!”

2. Give Away Their Power.
Mentally strong people avoid giving others the power to make them feel inferior or bad. They understand they are in control of their actions and emotions. They know their strength is in their ability to manage the way they respond.

3. Shy Away from Change.
Mentally strong people embrace change and they welcome challenge. Their biggest “fear,” if they have one, is not of the unknown, but of becoming complacent and stagnant. An environment of change and even uncertainty can energize a mentally strong person and bring out their best.

4. Waste Energy on Things They Can’t Control.
Mentally strong people don’t complain (much) about bad traffic, lost luggage, or especially about other people, as they recognize that all of these factors are generally beyond their control. In a bad situation, they recognize that the one thing they can always control is their own response and attitude, and they use these attributes well.

5. Worry About Pleasing Others.
Know any people pleasers? Or, conversely, people who go out of their way to dis-please others as a way of reinforcing an image of strength? Neither position is a good one. A mentally strong person strives to be kind and fair and to please others where appropriate, but is unafraid to speak up. They are able to withstand the possibility that someone will get upset and will navigate the situation, wherever possible, with grace.

6. Fear Taking Calculated Risks.
A mentally strong person is willing to take calculated risks. This is a different thing entirely than jumping headlong into foolish risks. But with mental strength, an individual can weigh the risks and benefits thoroughly, and will fully assess the potential downsides and even the worst-case scenarios before they take action.

7. Dwell on the Past.
There is strength in acknowledging the past and especially in acknowledging the things learned from past experiences—but a mentally strong person is able to avoid miring their mental energy in past disappointments or in fantasies of the “glory days” gone by. They invest the majority of their energy in creating an optimal present and future.

8. Make the Same Mistakes Over and Over.
We all know the definition of insanity, right? It’s when we take the same actions again and again while hoping for a different and better outcome than we’ve gotten before. A mentally strong person accepts full responsibility for past behavior and is willing to learn from mistakes. Research shows that the ability to be self-reflective in an accurate and productive way is one of the greatest strengths of spectacularly successful executives and entrepreneurs.

9. Resent Other People’s Success.
It takes strength of character to feel genuine joy and excitement for other people’s success. Mentally strong people have this ability. They don’t become jealous or resentful when others succeed (although they may take close notes on what the individual did well). They are willing to work hard for their own chances at success, without relying on shortcuts.

10. Give Up After Failure.
Every failure is a chance to improve. Even the greatest entrepreneurs are willing to admit that their early efforts invariably brought many failures. Mentally strong people are willing to fail again and again, if necessary, as long as the learning experience from every “failure” can bring them closer to their ultimate goals.

11. Fear Alone Time.
Mentally strong people enjoy and even treasure the time they spend alone. They use their downtime to reflect, to plan, and to be productive. Most importantly, they don’t depend on others to shore up their happiness and moods. They can be happy with others, and they can also be happy alone.

12. Feel the World Owes Them Anything.
Particularly in the current economy, executives and employees at every level are gaining the realization that the world does not owe them a salary, a benefits package and a comfortable life, regardless of their preparation and schooling. Mentally strong people enter the world prepared to work and succeed on their merits, at every stage of the game.

13. Expect Immediate Results.
Whether it’s a workout plan, a nutritional regimen, or starting a business, mentally strong people are “in it for the long haul”. They know better than to expect immediate results. They apply their energy and time in measured doses and they celebrate each milestone and increment of success on the way. They have “staying power.” And they understand that genuine changes take time. Do you have mental strength? Are there elements on this list you need more of? With thanks to Amy Morin, I would like to reinforce my own abilities further in each of these areas today. How about you?

Source:, December 2013
Author: Cheryl Connor