World-class teams

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on november 25th, 2014 by admin

Winning teams are tough to find—and even tougher to build. In this classic McKinsey Quarterly article from 1992, the former captain of New Zealand’s mighty All Blacks rugby team, David Kirk, explains how to develop superlative performers.

There are very few tricks for improving organizational performance left in the management deck of cards. In recent years, many eager corporate hands have played the organization redesign card;rugby 3 others, strategic planning; still others, value-based management. If they played them well, their companies are now fitter, stronger, more flexible, and more focused. But so too are their competitors. Sloppy strategies have been tightened; yawning skill gaps closed; troubled economies made healthy; and bloated organizations made lean. What remains—the trump card—is the effort to coax exceptional levels of performance from all the pieces now in place. And that means learning how to build and lead world-class—or what McKinsey’s Jon Katzenbach and Doug Smith refer to as “high-performing”—teams.

I have had the good fortune to lead two such teams. I played senior club rugby in New Zealand for eight years, provincial rugby for Otago and Auckland for six, and international rugby for New Zealand for five. During that time I played with many different collections of players, about forty-five or fifty of which I would characterize as genuine teams. Of these, two were indisputably world class: the World-Cup winning All Blacks of 1987, and the Auckland team of 1985–87.

A third, which came very close to being world class even if it was not the best in the world, was the All Black team of 1986, which played one Test match against France and one against Australia.

Teams such as these are extremely rare. They are tough to find and even tougher to build. But they do exist. They can be built. And they can be led. Anyone who has seen one in action or been fortunate enough to participate in or lead one will know it.

Perhaps these teams are most easy to recognize in the world of sports because performance there is so starkly quantified and transparent. I immediately think, for example, of the Liverpool Football Club, the McLaren Formula One racing team, the San Francisco 49ers, the LA Lakers, the Australian rugby league team, and the West Indies cricket team of the 1970s and 1980s. Each of these teams, of course, was immensely successful, but that alone does not make them world class. Many other very successful, even championship, teams do not pass the test. They lack something—some special quality of effortlessness and coherence, a wholeness that other teams, no matter how good, just do not have.

Team members know and feel this difference, the presence or absence of a certain sense of ease and unshakeable confidence. Subjectively, the dividing line is painfully clear. But how can we recognize it objectively, from the outside?

Signs of greatness
There are, I think, three “external” qualities that indelibly mark out genuine world-class teams:
•The first is a lack of mistakes. These teams seem to understand the game so well and to have practiced so much that they have almost eliminated unforced errors. This is partly a result of the “divine discontent” that drives their performance, as we will see later, and partly a result of the relaxation that comes from confidence and an implicit faith in themselves.
•The second is the margin of victory they achieve. World-class teams do not just scrape home; they thrash their opponents. This is hardly surprising. World-class teams are rare, so they seldom get to compete with other world-class teams. Nevertheless the margin of victory they achieve is a measure of just how much potential is waiting to be unlocked in building high-performing teams in sports and business.
•The third is the charge they get from what they do. World-class teams genuinely look like they are having fun. Even in the toughest moments at training or during a match, they maintain perspective and balance. Self-confidence coupled with belief in the other members fires each member of the team not only to perform, but to enjoy.

Qualities of greatness
If world-class teams can be recognized from the outside by a lack of mistakes, an ease of performance that leads to high margins of victory, and a joy in going about their business, what is it about them internally that enables them to perform so well?

The first characteristic of such teams is vision. Teams must have something to believe in, something to achieve, something to become. Vision does not mean objectives. All teams have objectives, and the best teams are clear about exactly what they are, but few have real vision. Objectives are cold, intellectual, rational, believable. Progress toward them is quantified, defined, measured. Visions must be rational, but they are also emotional. They are often distant. They must excite and engage and frighten. They must be big.

rugby 1Leaders of potential world-class teams ask for sacrifices—in time, in effort, and, most importantly, in individuality—that are immense. There has to be a reason for asking. Only a vision can unite and involve at the highest level. It must be so big that even the most confident team member cannot feel sure of achieving it; so big that even the most cynical cannot shoot it down.

In its most general sense, the vision of high-performing teams is about quality of performance and ultimately about trying to perfect performance. An important distinction needs to be made between vision and motivation. The two are quite different, and those who set out to build world-class teams need to understand how and why they differ.

Visions provide the opportunity for individuals to grow and achieve on a grand scale. Over time, the struggle to achieve the unachievable becomes a rational goal. However, most of us still need a reason for getting up in the morning. Teams that are consistent world-class performers have a clear vision, but they also have cold, hard incentives for individual and team performance at all times. This boils down to focus and a system of explicit and implicit incentives for performance.

True visions have two important dimensions. They have an external dimension. For the All Blacks, it varied, but in 1987 our vision was the World Cup, and more significantly what it stood for: to be the best in the world.

Not all of the All Black teams I played with had a true positive vision. But all had a type of negative vision, something they did not want to occur—a fear of letting down the past. All Black teams are acutely conscious of their predecessors and the team’s long history of success. Failing that tradition is the negative vision that haunts all New Zealand rugby teams. Negative vision underpins performance and prevents it falling below a level, but it does not act as a spur to world-class achievement. That spur must always be expansive and outward looking, not inward and fearful.

The second dimension all true visions have is an internal dimension. It is a vision of self and what it can achieve through the team. It is a vision of realizing potential, of growing, of taking the chance for the team and the members to become what they are able to be.

The world-class teams I played with had a vision of pushing back the boundaries of the game—of moving the playing of rugby union onto a higher plane. We were simply trying to play the game better than any team had ever played it before. The opposition was no longer the other teams we played against, but ourselves and the game itself. Opponents were the medium through which we attempted to realize our vision.

The second characteristic that distinguishes high-performing teams is ability. No one has yet figured out how to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and world-class teams will not be produced without a fair number of world-class players. All the same, being a world-class team does not mean being a team composed of world-class players. Ability is important, but so too is complementarity. Teams are created out of the belief that they generate an energy and synergy that make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. In the world-class team, the result is performance that is consistently at or beyond the level that any reasonable person could expect.

Ability is the result of the mastery of skills. In rugby these skills are very basic: running, kicking, passing, catching, pushing, jumping, tackling, and decision making. Each team member has a rugby 2specific job to do which combines a number of these skills. Prop forwards are pushers par excellence, but also runners, passers, and catchers. Lock forwards are jumpers, catchers, and pushers, and occasionally runners and passers. Fullbacks are catchers, runners, passers, and kickers. Each of these specialists must contribute his particular skills if the team is to perform to world-class standards.

But in an important way all the team members are generalists as well. In rugby, world-class teams are conspicuously breaking down the barriers of specialization. Forwards are learning to run and pass like backs; backs are getting bigger and learning to push and jump like forwards. Accentuated by rule changes, this trend has also led to adjustments in selection policy.

The move toward teams of generalized specialists in sports has been around for some time. The West German soccer teams of the 1970s and their brand of “total football” introduced the world to the idea that all the players should possess all the skills so as to maximize positional and tactical flexibility. The lesson was learned quickly. Now every successful football team in the world has players in all positions who can dribble, pass, head, and shoot, and who have real pace.

World-class teams take this trend as far as it can sensibly go. Their members are expert in their specialist tasks but able to turn their hand to other members’ tasks as well. This brings the team enormous benefits in flexibility and responsiveness, but more importantly it allows for the coherence and wholeness that only teams whose members really understand the nature of other members’ contributions can achieve.

These physical benefits are reinforced by psychological benefits. High-performing team members generalize their attitude to team performance. They see the big picture and how they fit into it. They feel responsible for their performance, for others’ performance, and for team performance. They become leaders.

Divine discontent

The third characteristic critical to world-class teams is “divine discontent.” It is an attitude to learning and growth that is never satisfied with past achievements but always searching for the next challenge. It is remarkable how many sports players and teams are perpetually dissatisfied with their performance. After what seems an outstanding performance they appear ill at ease. Outsiders may even think them churlish.

World-class teams are highly analytical and self-critical. They feel there is always more that could have been done, mistakes that could have been eliminated, and opportunities that could have been taken. The attitude is not one of unrelenting self-criticism, but rather a conviction that there is always more to be learned. The best teams I played with were forever searching for the tiniest possible increment of improvement.

Sometimes this quest can tip out of balance in a search for a new diet, or radical training methods, or improved equipment, but in my experience it was almost invariably the players and teams who were not performing so well who allowed the search for improvement to become obsessive.

Divine discontent with the limits of current performance is balanced in world-class teams by their confidence in their ability to improve. During the 1987 World Cup the team played and trained with a clear analogy in mind. This was the image of being on a staircase. Each match and each training session was both a step upward and at the same time nothing more than a preparation for the next step.

We believed absolutely that we had to improve with every match if we were to win the World Cup. We believed that a poor match was much more than “one of those things” or an off-day that could be forgotten with no ill effects. Rather, a poor performance was a precious missed opportunity that would never come again—one of only five matches before the Final in which every minute gave us a vital chance to improve.

In sports, the desire to improve and to make every opportunity count has a melancholic edge. Players know their days of sporting prowess are numbered. For most the chance to play in—let alone win—a World Cup will only come once. This pressure to beat the ticking clock may be missing in business. But there are parallels. Opportunities to achieve something significant are limited and any that emerge must be seized. A team that believes in what it is trying to achieve and acts accordingly can capture something of the urgency that drives the sportsman’s search for the ultimate performance.

Discipline is rather an old-fashioned term these days and conjures thoughts of rules, curfews, and punishments. But in my experience an understanding of discipline is vital for world-class teams. Without it there is confusion and waste. Nothing is as demotivating as not knowing what is required. To strive to achieve something important, only to discover that what you did is not what was wanted, is soul destroying.

Discipline in teams should begin as a set of boundaries that define what is acceptable and unacceptable. Paradoxically, the boundaries should be clearest about the small things. In the top teams I played with, great importance was placed on disciplined dress and punctuality. Team members did not turn up late and they did not turn up without correct team dress. The logic was simple. A team that observes standards of dress and punctuality off the field will carry that same pride and professionalism onto the field. Starting from small beginnings like this, the leader should ensure that discipline is applied to communications, team structure, organization, and management.

What begins as an external rule does not stay so for long in world-class teams. High performers internalize standards and drive themselves to meet them. This is the essence of true self-discipline, a quality shared by all the best players I knew.

Writing about army discipline, General de Gaulle described how a leader must inspire:
“If he is to have a genuine and effective hold on his men, he must know how to make their wills part and parcel of his own, and so to inspire them that they will look upon the task assigned them as something of their own choosing. He must increase and multiply the effects of mere discipline and implant in those under him a sort of moral suggestion which goes far beyond all reasoning, and crystallizes . . . their potentialities of faith, hope, and devotion.”3

De Gaulle well understood the profound influence of discipline. To my mind, however, true discipline promotes devotion not to the leadership of an individual but to the achieving of a cause.

The politics of world-class teams is not the politics practiced by professional politicians. It is not the politics of building positive interest groups, neutralizing opponents, and maneuvering for leadership. It is the politics of managing interpersonal relationships in a team.

All teams contain a variety of personalities, backgrounds, and outlooks. Sometimes the technical requirements of the game encourage this diversity. In rugby, goal kickers may be more introverted and focused than wingers; prop forwards more silent and brooding than halfbacks.

High-performing teams are no different. The All Black teams I played with contained individuals of greatly different outlook and interest. In all my time on the team, I estimate that there were only four or five players whom I really held to be firm friends. The others were respected colleagues.

Strong-willed, highly motivated players need to be able to manage the tensions that inevitably arise in teams. World-class teams are almost invariably composed of people with well-developed egos. They have a lot at stake and much to lose if things go wrong. They are not compromisers or diplomats.

The key competence for world-class teams is the ability to recognize, face, and tackle interpersonal issues promptly. Team members understand they must overturn any obstacles quickly and completely to focus on the job in hand. Issues may be settled by semiformal methods or by extensive networks and informal chats. Whatever form the exercise takes, in world-class teams it is always efficient, sensitive, and final.

The role of the leader
In one sense there can be no easier team to lead than a true world-class team. The sports captain fortunate enough to lead players with the qualities I have described has a team of talented, focused, and motivated people who understand exactly where they are going and how to get there. So the leader’s first and most important role is not to get in the way. It is surprising how many do.

The second requirement is simply for the leader to be good. The leader has a specific position and tasks to perform that are independent of the role of leader. He or she must work hard to be acknowledged as the best there is. Respect for the leader’s ability to contribute to team success just by playing underpins the respect team members develop for their leader as a leader. There have been notable exceptions—England cricket captain Mike Brearley is one—but it is no accident that most world-class teams are led by top performers.

The team leader must also be good at leadership—and management—itself. World-class performers set very high standards for themselves; the corollary is that they do not suffer fools gladly. Managers risk marginalization at best and frank opposition at worst if their administration fails to achieve the high quality that world-class performers expect of everything they are part of.

Central to the leader’s role are the values that animate this team and mark it out as something special. At all times it is the leader’s job to represent these values as powerfully as possible. Leaders must set an example in everything they do.

Almost by definition, high-performing teams do not need leading in any detailed way, but there are nevertheless some vital functions for the leader to perform. First, there is a critical control and integration task. Great teams encompass myriad capabilities; the leader must identify and unite the particular combination of capabilities that will meet the immediate goal.

There are times—because of the nature of the opposition or the bigger strategic picture—when players who are used to center stage have to accept lesser roles. There are other times when team rugby 4members have to change the way they play, and still others when they have not to play at all. Managing the balance of the team and the demands on the individual player’s performance is a critical role with implications for both team tactics and team selection.

Another leadership function is to provide focus within the team. Visions must be broken down into objectives; desires must be translated into incentives. Training must focus jointly on the immediate task in hand and on the building of long-term capabilities. The leader must boil things down and force the articulation of half-formed ideas to find answers to the key questions that confront the team. When problems arise, the leader must insist they are brought to a head and dealt with openly and cleanly.

World-class teams that last for long periods become institutions. This has implications for all team members, but particularly for the leader. One of the most basic human needs is to strike a balance between belonging to a group and remaining an individual. Evident in all groups, this tension exists acutely in many world-class teams. Team members are strong-willed individuals who believe passionately in their ability—or even destiny—to succeed in their own right. At the same time, the game demands that they submerge much of their individuality in the interest of the team.

The task of managing this balance falls to the leader. Dealing with the politics of interpersonal relationships, weighing up conflicting priorities, and curbing the egos of winners who know it, can only be done by someone who can stand above the fray. The leader must make each player feel needed and wanted in his or her own right, but at the same time ensure they understand that no one is bigger than the team and that everyone must make sacrifices for the group.

The final task for the leader, and in many senses the most important, is to build and nurture other players as leaders. Every team larger than a few members contains a number of sub-teams. These are usually based on shared skills or tasks. A rugby team, for instance, has the sub-teams of the front row, the loose forwards, the tight five, the forwards, the inside backs, the outside backs, and the backs. Within each of these sub-teams there is a number of potential leaders waiting to contribute. The leader must recognize the leadership in others and foster it.

As we saw earlier, members of world-class teams have learned to generalize their responsibility and their contribution to team success. In this and all the other most important ways, they already think and act as leaders. Only the most ignorant or insecure team leader would not tap such a rich store.

“If only I knew then what I know now.” It is, of course, far easier to look back, analyze, and prescribe than it is to do the right thing in the heat of battle. I firmly believe that building world-class teams is not something that can be learned or taught except by example. For that reason I doubt these observations would have been much use to me as I struggled to lead and build a world-class team.

If I had been able to write this at the time, when I was leading rather than thinking about it, I would certainly have done some things differently. I would have tried to be more confident, more prepared, more meticulous. As a result, I would probably have been more distant, less spontaneous, more of a professional, and less of an enthusiastic amateur. Would that have made me more successful? I don’t know. But I do know that leading and building a team is not about acting the role of leader. It is about being a leader. To the extent that analysis and planning interfere with spontaneity, they are a hindrance.

If I had any final insight it would be that there is no substitute for getting people involved and excited. A team that is knee-deep in problems, challenges, fears, and hopes, and that is reveling in them, convinced it will win, and excited about the prospect, is well on the way. The truth is simple. You can’t be world class unless you have world-class problems. The opposition is the opportunity. Take it.

Source:, 25 November 2014
By: David Kirk

Så blir du pigg på hösten

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on november 24th, 2014 by admin

Vi har gått in i en period av mörker där vi känner oss tröttare. Många blir deprimerade av årstiden. Sömnforskaren Torbjörn Åkerstedt berättar hur vi kan bli piggare.
– Det långsiktigt hållbara sättet är att utsätta sig för ljusbehandling på morgonen så att man kickar tillbaka den biologiska klockans inställning. Har man svårt att stiga upp är det som regel en fråga om att dygnsrytmen slunkit iväg så långt att bottennivån sammanfaller med uppstigandetiden, säger professor Torbjörn Åkerstedt vid Stressforskningsinstitutet, Stockholms universitet.
– Akut kan man använda sig av så kallad gryningssimulering, alltså lampor som tänds en trekvart innan man ska upp. Det innebär att sömnen störs, ämnesomsättningen sätter igång och det blir lättare att vakna.

Trötthet är ett svårfångat fenomen och kan bara mätas som subjektiva upplevelser. Åkerstedt säger att självrapporteringen tveklöst visar att vi är tröttare och sover längre under höst och vinter. Det motsatta gäller sommaren.

– Det hänger ihop med mängden ljus vi utsätts för, det piggar upp hjärnan. En andra indirekt effekt är på melatoninet som normalt toppar vid fyrasnåret på natten. Hormonet trycker ner oss, men är ljuskänsligt och får vi inte tillräckligt med ljus breder det ut sig, säger Torbjörn Åkerstedt.

tired 1Just i år har tillgången på höstsol varit ovanligt låg i den befolkningstätare södra delen av landet. Under november månad fram till och med lördagen noterade SMHI:s mätstationer i Stockholm två soltimmar, Växjö en, Karlstad sju, Göteborg nio och Lund tio soltimmar.

En tredje trötthetsalstrande faktor är dygnets omställningshastighet. När hastigheten ökar som mest, kring höstdagjämningen i slutet av oktober, har den biologiska klockan svårt att hänga med. En del drabbas så allvarligt att de får en årstidsbunden depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD).

Hur kan man motverka tröttheten?
– Det viktigaste är att exponera sig så mycket som möjligt för ljus, helst dagsljus och framför allt på morgonen. Känsliga människor påverkas även av inomhusljus, så det är inte fel att dra på lite extra hemma även om det går åt lite mer energi. Fysisk aktivitet är bra mot allt, också trötthet, säger Torbjörn Åkerstedt.

Höstdeprimerade patienter behandlas med ljus eller med antidepressiva läkemedel. Några regelrätta motsatser till sömnmedel, alltså något slags medicinska vakenmedel, finns inte inom lagens gränser.
– Koffein finns ju och det självmedicinerar många med. Och det finns en del studier som möjligtvis gör att man kan tro att vitaminer, särskilt D, är inblandade. Det är spekulationer och det forskas lite på det, men functional foods på det här området finns egentligen inte. Samtidigt är nyttig kost aldrig fel.

När och hur länge ska man sova?
– Sömnen ska alltid ligga runt dygnsrytmens bottenläge som är vid klockan fyra för de allra flesta. Sömnbehovet varierar mycket mellan individer, men om man ska se till livslängd är optimal sömnlängd generellt sju timmar. Sambandet är svagt, men tydligt.

Torbjörn Åkerstedt säger att omfattande studier på människor vars sömnlängd varierade mellan 6 och 9,5 timmar per natt inte kunde visa någon koppling till sjukdomar eller ökad dödlighet. Att, som andra forskare föreslagit, dela upp nattsömnen i två pass har inte några hälsoeffekter, säger han.
– Man har ett naturligt uppvaknande efter ungefär fyra timmar. Då har man sovit igen det viktigaste behovet och förr gick man ofta upp då för att ta en andra sömn lite senare på morgonen. Det finns inget som visar att man skulle må bättre av att dela upp sömnen, men rimligtvis skulle man totalt sova mindre eftersom varje sömnsnutt blir mer effektiv.

En av hösttrötthetens konsekvenser är att snooza mer. Förra hösten varnade danska sömnforskare för snoozeknappen som man kallade ”djävulens påfund” för att den försämrar sömnkvaliteten.
– Jag förstår inte argumentet. Har man väldigt svårt att gå upp är snoozning ett sätt att införa en sömnstörning den sista kvarten så är man lite vaknare än vad man annars skulle vara vid uppstigningen, säger Torbjörn Åkerstedt.

Och vad säger du om sömnappar?
– De är inte vetenskapligt utprovade utan det är någon oppfinnarjocke som gjort dem. De är ofta ganska roliga och kan fungera i vissa situationer, men de är inget att lita på.

Källa:, 24 november 2014
Av: Ossi Carp (

Unga kan välja Google som bank

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Digitalisering / Internet, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering, Technology on november 22nd, 2014 by admin

Ni som lyssnat till min föreläsning vet att jag bl.a. talar om betydelsen av att följa de allt snabbare förändringarna i kundpreferenser. Här följer ytterligare ett exempel på hur snabbt (och i många fall oväntat) marknaden kan förändras:

Yngre personer är mer öppna än äldre för att bli bankkunder i bolag som Google och Apple om de startar finansiell verksamhet, visar en ny undersökning.

Det är konsultbolaget Accenture som i en ny rapport tecknar en bild av hur bankmarknaden påverkas av den ökande digitaliseringen.

Google bankEn slutsats är att bolag i andra branscher snabbt kan börja konkurrera med de traditionella bankerna. Öppenheten för det finns också bland yngre kunder om man ska tro den amerikanska delen av undersökningen.

På frågan om man kan tänka sig att bli kund hos sökbolaget Google om de startade banktjänster svarade 40 procent i åldersgruppen 18– 34 år att det var troligt eller mycket troligt att de skulle bli det. I åldersgruppen 35– 54 år var andelen 23 procent och bland de över 55 år var det bara 5 procent som trodde det.

Liknande mönster var det för betalningstjänsten Paypal, e-handelsföretaget Amazon och datorjätten Apple. Undersökningen bygger på amerikanskt och brittisk data men Peter Ekdahl, expert på bank- och finansbranschen, på Accenture menar att det går att se samma utveckling i Sverige.
– Vi ser att de stora bankerna känner en större press och ökad konkurrens från andra aktörer och de måste försvara sina intäkter mot konkurrenterna, säger han.

Peter Ekdahl menar att 30 procent av bankernas intäkter är utsatt för konkurrensen. Exempel på trenden är att både Apple och Google har lanserat betaltjänster.

Det är väl känt att svenskarna är mycket trogna sina banker och byten är inte vanliga.
– Men våra analyser pekar på att de yngre har en annan syn på lojalitet mot bankerna och har en större benägenhet att titta på andra alternativ, säger Peter Ekdahl.

Den hårdare konkurrensen kan också leda till lägre priser för finansiella tjänster.
– Ser man det från kundens perspektiv är utvecklingen väldigt positivt. Det går att ha en fullservicebank samtidigt som man kan komplettera med nischaktörer, menar Peter Ekdahl.

Källa:, 22 november 2014
Av: Hasse Eriksson (

An easy way to make your employees happier

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on november 19th, 2014 by admin

Employee satisfaction is down in corporations of all sizes. SHRM reports that while 86% of Americans were happy with their jobs in 2009, that percentage has been in slow but steady decline ever since. Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace finds that only 13% of people around the world feel engaged at work.

Some companies are responding by holding their managers accountable for satisfaction levels in their departments. Others seek to engage employees in carefully constructed visions and values programs. Hot Silicon Valley start-ups lure and delight talent with massages and free food.

While these tactics might prove fruitful, there is a better, faster, cheaper way for organizations to help employees feel more fulfilled. Instead of trying to make them happy, ask them to do happy 3something hard. Here’s why: The SHRM survey indicates that “the opportunity to use skills and abilities” has displaced “job security” as the top driver of satisfaction, and it consistently ranks among the top two, regardless of a respondents’ tenure, age, gender, or organization staff size. My own research for the book Rookie Smarts confirms this finding and takes it one step further: Employees don’t just want their skills used; they want them stretched.

When we asked approximately 1,000 people from a variety of industries to indicate the current level of challenge in their jobs and their current level of satisfaction, we found a near-linear correlation between the two. In other words, as challenge level goes up, so does satisfaction. Upon further investigation, we discovered that people who had received a challenging assignment, in general, figured it out within three months and were ready for the next one. Respondents needed 12 months, on average, to begin to feel ready for a new role, and they started to feel stale after only 24 months, on average.

The lesson for managers? Although it’s important for your employees to stop and celebrate success or just catch their breath, they might also be ready for the next challenge sooner than you think.

Here are a few signs to watch for:
•Everything they manage has run smoothly for a significant period of time.
•When faced with problems, they jump quickly to solutions.
•They spend time trying to fix other peoples’ and other departments’ problems.
•They’ve become increasingly but inexplicably negative.

And here are three simple ways to make your employees feel challenged again:
1.Increase the degree of difficulty. Try giving them higher-stakes work that addresses more complex problems and a more diverse set of stakeholders. For example, it might be time for one employee to take a divisional program to the entire company. Remember to make it hard in the right ways though. If satisfaction is low, your staff is probably already under duress due to limited happy 1resources, bureaucracy, politics, or lack of control. Don’t ask them to do the same work while carrying sandbags and juggling knives. You want to productively expand on the meaningful work they’re already doing.
2. Turn them into rookies. Instead of letting employees stay comfortable in their respective areas of expertise, invite them to tackle projects in which they don’t have the full knowledge and skills required. Make sure to choose people who have core aptitude or adjacent skills, but then let them learn as they go. Their comfort zones will expand, and they’ll take great pride in mastering new things.
3. Pivot them to a new problem. Another strategy is to have your people point their existing expertise at new problems. For example, a scientist working for a pharmaceutical company was asked to shift her research and discovery skills from cellular biology to oncology. Initially, she was unsure how to do so. But, after several months, she said, “I feel completely invigorated in this new role. I feel more challenged than I’ve felt in years but also more creative and in control of my life and career than every before. New scientific ideas are just pouring out!”

When presenting these challenges to your employees, mindful leadership is critical. They need freedom coupled with guidance to propel them up the right learning curve. The goal is to stretch them, not break them, and you should be willing to provide a safety net.

Does keeping your team challenged mean more work for you? It doesn’t have to. In fact, if instead of concocting a new assignment, you can simply give them one off your plate, it might even lighten your load and increase your satisfaction in the process.

Pay raises, bonuses, and promotions are limited. Challenging work—assignments your employees can sink their teeth into—is not. It’s also one of the most effective ways to increase your employees’ satisfaction.

Source:, 13 November 2014
By: Liz Wiseman
About the author: Liz Wiseman is the author of Rookie Smarts: Why Learning Beats Knowing in the New Game of Work and Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter. You can connect with her at @LizWiseman.

”Som chef måste man leva som man lär”

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on november 17th, 2014 by admin

Tidigare Västeråschef om sina bästa tips att bli en bra ledare

Pär Eriksson, tidigare direktör för Proaros, blev förra året utsedd till Årets ledarutvecklare av tidningen Chef. Nu har han skrivit en bok i ämnet där han tar upp delar som ett gott ledarskap bör innehålla.

Under många år var organisationerna, särskilt de offentliga, uppbyggda så att den största kunskapen fanns högst upp i hierarkin. Men så är det inte längre, menar Pär Eriksson.
– Nu är det precis tvärtom. De som är närmast verksamheterna står för den största expertisen och det måste man som chef förstå. Vi ska vägleda, coacha, peka ut färdriktning. Sen bör man ju kunna verksamheten för att ha förtroende hos medarbetarna men man behöver inte kunna allt i detalj.

PENär han kom till Västerås 1990, från Örebro, blev han chef över ungdomsgruppen inom socialtjänsten. Ovanför sig hade han bland annat Kenneth Holmstedt och Bo Dahllöf.
– De stod för ett modernt ledarskap med inspiration från idrotten och folkrörelsen. Det involverade både medarbetare och medborgare och de formade en framtidsbild. Det fanns även en ingenjörskultur i ledarskapet med ordning och reda.

Han ger överlag gott betyg till alla chefer han har haft och en egenskap har varit genomgående hos dem.
– De har varit äkta vilket är absolut nödvändigt. Som chef måste man leva som man lär, leva budskapet.

Han hänvisar i boken till Gandhi som en gång ska ha fått besök av en mamma som var orolig för sin sons sockerkonsumtion. Gandhi bad dem komma tillbaka en vecka senare, vilket de gjorde.

Då sa Gandhi till pojken att sluta äta så mycket socker eftersom det är hälsofarligt.
– Varför kunde du inte säga det förra veckan?, frågade mamman.
– Jag var tvungen att först sluta själv, svarade Gandhi.

Förutom att man som chef måste leva som man lär finns det en rad andra egenskaper man som chef bör ha menar Pär Eriksson.
– Man måste vara synlig för sina medarbetare. Ha många möten, inte bara ett utvecklingssamtal en gång per år. Det gäller att också ha tålamod, vara prestigelös och vara emotionellt mogen.

En chef måste också förstå att medarbetaren många gånger är mer lojal mot professionen än mot arbetsgivaren.
– En lärare ska brinna för att lära ett barn att läsa och det är viktigt att man som chef förstår den drivkraften.

Vad brukar du ge för råd till nya chefer?
– Att betona medarbetaren, vara tydlig men också ödmjuk. Och i min roll, som deras chef, gäller det att ge dem tid så att de får arbetsro. Fast de måste ändå förstå sin roll och vara trogen organisationens mål.

Är chefer generellt sett bra ledare i dag?
– Ja, det tycker jag.
Pär Erikssons bästa tips:
En chef måste:
•Leva som den lär
•Vara synlig för medarbetare, ha många möten med anställda
•Ha tålamod, vara prestigelös samt mogen emotionellt
•Ha insikten att en anställd är mer lojal till sitt yrke än till arbetsgivaren
•Vara tydlig men också ödmjuk

Källa:, 16 november 2014 och, 19 november 2015

Are you getting all you can from your board of directors?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on november 15th, 2014 by admin

Veteran director David Beatty finds many boards wanting—and considers how to improve them.

Boards of directors have always, in all cultures, represented the shareholders in publicly traded companies—validating financial results, protecting their assets, and counseling the CEO on strategy and on finding, then nurturing, the next generation of leaders. It’s a tough and demanding responsibility, requiring individual directors to learn as much as they can about a company and its operations so that their insights and advice can stand up alongside those of executives. That, at least, is the ideal.

One litmus test of whether or not the ideal is coming anywhere close to being the reality these days is the growth and involvement of activist investors. If boards were doing their jobs, there would be no activist opportunities. That’s according to David Beatty, Conway Chair of the Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics and Board Effectiveness at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. Apparently, they’re doing “badly enough that there’s been huge growth in activist firms,” says Beatty, who interprets that growth “as a direct comment on boards of directors and their past performance.”

He ought to know. In addition to his academic position, Beatty has served on more than 35 boards in five different jurisdictions and has been board chair at eight publicly traded companies. He currently serves on three boards—one as chair—and is the leader of the Directors Education Program offered by the Institute of Corporate Directors. In a recent interview with McKinsey’s Jonathan Bailey and Tim Koller, Beatty discussed the role of corporate boards in guiding and overseeing public companies, offered recommendations for directors, and shared his thoughts on the CFO’s role in working with boards.

McKinsey: What do you see as the most important change in the way corporate boards function?
David Beatty: Frankly, we used to be pretty lazy about boards. They were largely seen as being rewards for past service. There was an assumption that talented CEOs could move easily from their executive posts into a board setting. The boards were large and often perfunctory in the performance of their duties. I have been on the board of a large financial institution in a developing economy that had more than 50 directors, and the main event was always the lunch that followed the three-hour board meeting.

BRBut a seat on a board is no longer a sinecure—and the day of a board comprising solely gifted amateurs is over. Partly because of external circumstances, collapses, and stock-market failures, there’s a growing sense that boards have to be smaller, harder working, and more expert. And they have to be able to commit the time to do their work.

The last study I saw reported that directors were spending an average of around 240 hours per year across the S&P 500. That includes time spent at home studying, committee time, and board time. Today that number should be at least 50 percent greater—and if a potential director can’t put in 300 to 350 hours a year, she shouldn’t take the job. But even 300 hours per year has to be compared with the 3,000 hours a year that each member of a management team devotes to his or her work. And most managers these days have spent a lifetime working in their industry. Even a gifted amateur director who works hard is not likely to be able to add much value to an experienced management team about the day-to-day business.

The only place outside directors can really add value—aside from policing and oversight functions—is in offering a different perspective on the competitive environment and the changes in that environment. That’s where their general business judgment comes in, helping management think through strategy and specific objectives for three to five years down the line. That’s where directors have their best chance of making a difference.

McKinsey: On average, how well are the boards of directors doing at most large public companies?
David Beatty: Not well. Think of a long list of disgraceful performances at the beginning of this century—from Enron to WorldCom to HealthSouth to Adelphia Communications—and the recent collapse of the financial sector, which destroyed an aggregate of $1.2 trillion in shareholder value across the entire Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and even of the more recent collapse of the mining sector, which has obliterated over $600 billion in shareholder value. You have to ask, “Where were the directors?”

Boards of public companies have apparently been doing badly enough that there’s been huge growth in activist firms—which are in the alternative strategies. As a direct result, it’s not uncommon for the CEO to assume control of the agenda, arrange fairly anodyne planning sessions, and be fairly closed minded about the potential value the board can add.

CFOs have a unique capability to unlock the potential of the board. The CFO knows the numbers, understands the businesses, and lives with the top-management team but does not “own” the business or businesses the way the operating managers do. The CFO is therefore in a unique position to work with and help the other members of the C-suite understand the needs of the board and to work toward making it effective.

McKinsey: How do you see the role of the board chair?
David Beatty: Benjamin Zander once observed that he suddenly discovered at age 45 that as conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra he was the only person on the stage who didn’t make a sound. His job, he realized, was to create great things out of the individual talents that were in front of him.

That’s also a really good description of the job of a board chair: to bring out the very best in the talent that is around the board table, both the directors and the managers. A board chair is responsible for bringing individuals with the right mix of talent together, utilizing their time to the greatest possible effect, and ensuring that the tone around the boardroom is open, transparent, and productive.

Talent and time are relatively easy components of a chair’s task—the tough one is sensing and managing the tone of the board. Tone breaks down into two components: trust and tension. There has to be trust around the board table among the directors themselves, and there has to be trust between the board and management. At the same time, there has to be a certain tension between the board and the CEO and the CEO and his or her team, since they have different jobs to do. So the job of the chair is to make sure everyone comes together to make beautiful music.

McKinsey: Speaking of that tension, do you think the chair and CEO should be separate roles?
David Beatty: Yes, definitely. I can’t see any excuse for the US practice. The fundamental difficulty is that the same person can’t do both jobs; it’s difficult for the fox to look over the henhouse. And that kind of problem can spread much deeper if a CEO fills other board positions with friends and colleagues who always agree with her or, for example, appoints her personal accountant to chair the audit committee.

The practice isn’t likely to change in the United States, but there are work-arounds. A strong lead director, for example, can take control of the situation and ensure, over time, that a board is independent of management. But it’s an even tougher job than normal given the dual role of the CEO and the chair.

If the lead director can’t establish an effective, open, transparent, problem-solving, creative interface between the board and management and has done pretty much everything she could, then she should resign. That’s what I’ve done in those circumstances.

McKinsey: Short of waiting for a crisis, what should a director do if the CEO isn’t up to the job?
David Beatty: If the company is in difficulty or if doubt begins to creep in about the CEO’s effectiveness, a director needs to go into a different mode—because if you’ve got the wrong CEO, you’re out of business for three to five years. You have to begin by talking to your colleagues to see if others are also concerned. And study analyst reports carefully to see how the company is doing relative to its competition.

And talk to your chair. This is where the chair’s responsibility for in-camera meetings after board sessions can be hugely important. When I was chair of the board at Inmet Mining, at the time a $6 billion company, we’d invite the CEO to stay after every board meeting—so we could ask questions without other managers around. Once the CEO left, I would canvass the board, one by one, on what worked or didn’t work about the meeting, what each would like to see improved, and whether views on the CEO, if any, had changed.

McKinsey: How long should individual directors expect to serve on a board?
David Beatty: It’s very hard to get rid of directors, so I am definitely in favor of term limits, whatever the cost. The United Kingdom has decided that in publicly traded corporations, 9 years is enough; they can extend that to 12, but from 9 years on, a director can’t sit on the audit committee, the nominating committee, or the compensation committee, so her functional utility drops by about 60 percent, and typically she just leaves.

That also brings up a question of board evaluations. This is a practice that’s grown up over the past decade, where boards formally sit down and appraise themselves. That can be a paper-driven appraisal, and it could be done in-house or by third-party experts.

When I’m the chair of a company, I tend to alternate between paper and personal. Every year, I sit down with each director and run through an extensive agenda of questions about the board’s talent, use of time, and tone. Every second year, I supplement that with a six-page questionnaire that inquires in more detail about the functioning of the board. I then use a third party to collate those results and report to the governance committee so that any critique of the chair can be included in the results.

Peer evaluations are not very common and can often be problematic. The basic purpose is an open and honest appraisal of colleagues against certain performance standards. The peer evaluation is designed to be helpful, not harmful, to individuals. If somebody’s clearly underperforming, it’s the chair’s job to figure that out, seek out the advice of other senior directors, and then act.

As chairman, I’ve asked two directors to leave major boards, and it’s a miserable job. But in both instances, I felt that the benefits of having that person continue were greatly overwhelmed by the potential costs. As a chair, I no longer use peer evaluations but rely instead on continual contact with my fellow directors.

McKinsey: Is there anything that can be done to mitigate the social stigma of being asked to leave?
David Beatty: Next to determining that your CEO is significantly underperforming and needs to go, asking a director to step down is the toughest job there is. So, all too frequently, nothing is done.

Here, too, we may learn from activist investors. Often, one of their first demands when they get involved with underperforming companies is to replace specific members of the board. It’s also not unheard of for board members to resign on their own after a testy proxy fight for control. That’s kind of a disciplinary function that ought to give spine and courage to chairs of boards who are wondering about their board’s performance, wondering about the performance of individual directors, and trying to find that courage to say, “On balance, we’re going to be better off without this director or that, adding some new talent that we don’t now have, and asking him to move along.” It’s not easy. But again, maybe the activists are teaching us that while it isn’t easy, it might be necessary. And if you, as chair, don’t do something, there’s a good chance someone else will.

McKinsey: Some companies are extremely complex. How does a board develop enough knowledge to add value in such cases?
David Beatty: The job gets asymptotically harder the bigger the company gets. The skill sets are so demanding, the level of understanding so deep, and the diversity of the company so profound that it gets ever harder even to conceive of the board adding value through strategic insight as opposed to general business judgment.

A company such as GE, for example, is a talent machine. The board’s contribution to the future lies less in the arena of business strategy and more in talent development and managerial succession. Directors see GE as an incredible university of capable people whose talents they develop. The oversight of that function, with respect to the future of the company, is intense and highly value added, versus the ability to say we should get out of credit, we should be doubling turbines, or we’ve got to move more deeply into China.

McKinsey: How can a board decide whether a company is making the right trade-offs between its short-term performance and its long-term health and ability to grow?
David Beatty: This is another topic that I would raise with the chair during in-camera meetings. Say you’re coming out of a one-and-a-half-day strategy session leading to decisions on capital expenditures and a competitive way forward, and you have anxiety about the timing. So, ask in the in-camera meeting, “Did anybody else feel that these investment decisions were being shaped more from a share-price perspective over the next six months than what’s in the longer- or medium-term interests of the company?” Just putting it out there as a topic for discussion can be a powerful tool.

Interestingly, family-controlled companies in Canada that are publicly owned have significantly outperformed the rest of the market. It’s kind of intuitive that they would have a longer investment horizon—you don’t invest in your kids’ education for the next quarter. By their nature, CEOs of family-controlled businesses think longer term than the hired gun you bring in from outside to be the CEO and pay with a lot of options. The average tenure of an external CEO in the United States is around five years, and of course he or she is thinking shorter term. You get what you pay for.

Happily, most other markets in the world are family controlled, so short-termism may be an endemic disease only in the United States, the United Kingdom, and some parts of Canada. It’s structured into our system, and we’ve fallen into the trap of measuring and compensating CEOs against “the market.” Fortunately, we’re now also hiring more from inside than outside—by a ratio of about 70 to 30 for the S&P. That’s a huge plus because it means you don’t have to go into the market to attract, retain, and motivate these gifted potential CEOs. But we’re probably not going to get away from short-termism as long as we have options.

McKinsey: What should the CFO’s role be with respect to the board?
David Beatty: I have a radical proposition: I’m a fan of the English system, where there are more executives on the board than just the CEO. And the first executive I would add to any North American board would be the CFO. That would give the CFO certain specific responsibilities with respect to his or her relationships with the audit committee, as well as with the board chair and other directors. It would also significantly enhance the quality of decision making around the board table over the medium term and empower the CFO to have an independent point of view—not necessarily in conflict with the CEO, but simply to have an honestly transmitted perspective on the company.

Where that doesn’t happen, I’d encourage CFOs to think about their relationship with directors from the director’s point of view—and how they can help directors do their job better. Certainly, a CFO should let the CEO know she was planning to do this, but she could reach out to directors independently and ask them what they feel about the quality of the material coming from her department. Are the numbers just too intense? Do they want more synthesis of what’s going on? Would they like more in-depth analysis? The CFO has the numbers and the intelligence and understands the business without emotionally owning the business.

McKinsey: What do you feel makes the best CFOs stand out?
David Beatty: As a director, I like strong, independent CFOs, not those who are deferential to the CEO. I want a CFO who understands the numbers, understands what’s behind them, and stands up independently. I’ve served on boards of companies with a CEO who had no trouble with me asking the CFO for more insight about this number or that, and the CFO himself would have no difficulty interrupting management meetings to clarify a point if it wasn’t quite what he’d understood during audit-committee meetings. So I really regard a strong, independent CFO, in the handling of board matters, as offering a great deal of value.

Source:, November 2014
By:Jonathan Bailey and Tim Koller
About the authors: Jonathan Bailey is a consultant in McKinsey’s New York office, where Tim Koller is a principal.

Gör ni också “medarbetarundersökningar 1.0″?

Posted in Aktuellt, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Leadership / Ledarskap on november 14th, 2014 by admin

Träffade i veckan en HR Direktör i ett svenskt internationellt företag. Han berättade om vilka utmaningar man står inför under de kommande 2-3 åren och vilka större projekt han ansvarar för under det närmaste halvåret.
Ett av de stora projekt han berättar om är den årliga personalkartläggningen. Den görs i år för sjunde året och i totalt 12 länder.
Han berättar om hur stort intresset är bland cheferna varje gång resultatet ska presenteras. Det har jag hört förut! Så jag frågar om hur stort intresset är en månad senare? Och framförallt hur aktivt ansvariga chefer arbetar med resultatet löpande fram till nästa mätning om ett år? Nu blir svaren mer svävande …

Min erfarenhet är att alltför många företag genomför sina personal- och medarbetarkartläggningar alltför slentrianmässigt (“Medarbetarkartläggning 1.0″). Och att man inte är i närheten av att få en “pay-off” på den investering man gör i tid och pengar.

happyDet finns flera skäl till att dessa kartläggningar inte används (tillräckligt) aktivt i det löpande arbetet och att man frånIlska199 HR-sidan ofta upplever ett bristande intresse i att verkligen arbeta aktivt med resultatet.
Jag har, baserat på min erfarenhet av att hjälpa uppdragsgivare i över 25 år i både Sverige och internationellt, tagit fram en lista på ett tiotal områden / faktorer som är avgörande för ett framgångsrikt arbete med medarbetarundersökningar. Mer om detta vid ett annat tillfälle!

Låt mig dock helt kort beskriva huvudskälet till att man ofta inte får en tillräcklig pay-off på dagens sätt att arbete:
En operativ chef vill lyckas i sitt arbete! Punkt slut! Om han / hon får ett hjälpmedel att bli mer framgångsrik mottas det alltid positivt. Här är huvudskälet till att det idag inte fungerar fullt ut med dagens traditionella medarbetarundersökningar.
Oftast saknas en (tillräckligt tydlig) koppling till företags huvudstrategier och det som verkligen driver och utvecklar affären. Om så var fallet skulle denna insats mottas med entusiasm och användas för att utveckla verksamheten. Men framförallt för att förverkliga företagets övergripande strategier och nå de övergripande målen. Här måste både formaten och genomförandet av medarbetarkartläggningar utvecklas (till “Medarbetarkartläggning 2.0 eller varför inte 3.0″?).

Hur väl förankrade är företags strategier internt? Vilka är företagets viktigast fokusområden under året? Har man ett ledarskap som stöder detta? Hur väl fungerar det interna samarbetet inom de mest väsentliga områdena för att genomföra den beslutade strategin? såväl internt som externt? Hur väl agerar företagets chefer / ledare i linje med företagets utarbetade värderingar? Vilka delar av företaget / vilka chefer har lyckats förankra den strategsika inriktningen och företagets kort- och långsiktiga mål?
Det är bara några av de frågor som man bör kartlägga i en medarbetarkartläggning. Åtminstone om man vill göra anspråk på att stödja och bidra till företagets utveckling och framgång.
Här har dagens HR-avdelningar en jätteutmaning!

Lär gärna mer om hur ert arbete med medarbetarkartläggningar kan utvecklas.

Forskaren: Så minskar du skadlig stress på jobbet

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on november 13th, 2014 by admin

Ta djupa andetag, ändra förhållningssätt och sätt upp konkreta mål.
Det är några sätt att minska negativ jobbstress, enligt experten Dan Hasson.

Allt fler får besvär på grund av arbetet och det är stress och andra psykiska orsaker som ökar mest. Det kom Arbetsmiljöverket fram till i en stor undersökning som presenterades i början av oktober. Var fjärde person som arbetar i Sverige har besvär som kan kopplas till jobbet och det är en betydande ökning sedan 2012, visar undersökningen.

Dan Hasson, som är stress- och arbetsmiljöforskare, ser tendenser på att sjukskrivningarna ökar, men tycker inte att man ska se stress som något enbart negativt.stress 1
– Den som har hög arbetsbelastning och klarar av det kan oftast må bra. Då medför stressen positiva konsekvenser. Vad som gör att den går över i negativa konsekvenser kan variera stort mellan olika personer, men ofta beror det på att belastningen från arbetet eller privatlivet blir för stor. Det kan ­exempelvis handla om yttre omständigheter som konflikter, otrygghet, höga krav och brist på kontroll, förklarar han.

Den som känner att stressen tar överhand kan, enligt Dan Hasson, använda en rad olika metoder för att må bättre.
– Det viktigaste är att se till att varva ner och återhämta sig. Har man svårt att göra det kan man träna på att ta djupa andetag eller göra avslappningsövningar. Det är också viktigt att man får ordentligt med sömn, säger Dan Hasson.

stress 2Han tipsar även den som jobbstressar om att variera sina arbetsuppgifter.
– Om man känner att det låser sig kan det vara bra att göra något ­annat ett tag.

Det är dessutom viktigt att försöka se sin situation i ett nytt perspektiv, anser Dan Hasson.
– Ibland kan man inte påverka sin arbets- eller livssituation särskilt mycket. Däremot kan man kanske förhålla sig till den på ett annat sätt.

En annan central del i effektiv stresshantering är att sätta upp konkreta mål och att fokusera mot dem.
– Problemet för många som är stressade är att de flyr från omedvetna eller medvetna hot.

Om man tar reda på vad man egentligen vill slipper man ta omvägar och behöver inte lägga energi på onödiga saker.

Dan Hasson arbetar bland annat med att hjälpa arbetsplatser med att förebygga skadlig stress och att främja hälsa och god arbetsmiljö. Han tycker att det är viktigt att arbeta både främjande och förebyggande och att sätta in åtgärder så tidigt som möjligt när man ser negativa trender.
– Många arbetar reaktivt med negativ stress, det vill säga att åtgärder sätts in när ohälsan har uppstått. Det bästa är om man kan komma åt den innan det har gått för långt, säger han.

Övningar för att minska stress
Den som har mycket att göra vill gärna göra allt på en gång. Det kan sluta med att man känner skuld för det man inte har hunnit göra och att man inte gör något alls. Här kommer en övning som kan få den typen av stress att lätta.
1. Sitt, stå eller ligg ner bekvämt. Dra gärna tre fyra djupa andetag. Det går bra att skriva samtidigt som du utför denna övning om du önskar.
2. Föreställ dig att du har ett skrivbord med tre lådor framför dig. På bordet har du massor med saker som måste göras.
3. Välj de saker som någon annan kan åtgärda eller som är någon annans problem och placera dem i den nedersta lådan.
4. I den mittersta lådan kan du placera de saker som du eller någon annan absolut inte kan åtgärda.
5. Slutligen kan du i den översta lådan lägga in alla saker du faktiskt kan göra något åt. Öppna den översta lådan på bordet och besluta dig för vilka delar du ska ta dig an först.

Källa:, 13 nvember 2014
Av: Caroline Englund (

On Twitter, 140 characters = $716 million in car sales

Posted in Aktuellt, Digitalisering / Internet, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering, Technology on november 12th, 2014 by admin

Analytics company measures social network’s impact.

It’s a burning question for auto marketers on Twitter: Are our tweets influencing people to buy cars?

To tackle this question, the social network released new data today that attempts to show just how much 140 characters are worth.

MarketShare, a marketing analytics company that has partnerships with global brands including Twitter, measured the direct and indirect effects that Twitter had on auto sales for more than 20 volume midsize and luxury compact cars that accounted for 34 percent of annual U.S. sales in 2013. Twitter says the model also includes “broader media mix, and non-marketing factors that influence purchases such as vehicle price and the economy.”

twitterIn 2013, MarketShare concluded that Twitter drove $716 million in auto sales among those 20 nameplates through Twitter Ads, positive brand mentions, amplification of TV advertising and the Twitter activity of the automakers themselves.

Luxury compact autos generated $17.80 in revenue for every $1 invested, while volume midsize cars generated $7.90 for each $1 invested, according to the research.

“With over 65,000 daily tweets about purchasing or researching a new car, Twitter gives auto brands the unique opportunity to connect with an audience of in-market shoppers who have expressed intent to buy a car,” said Rob Pietsch, head of Twitter’s auto vertical, in a statement.

“The new research from MarketShare highlights the power of Twitter for auto marketers, who can leverage the platform to not only build brand awareness and affinity with auto-intenders, but actually move cars off the lot.”

Audi TV connection
Twitter has been pushing for brands to strengthen the impact of TV ads by sending out corresponding tweets on the social network that give the messaging longer legs. The idea is that a user engaged enough with a TV show to tweet about it is very likely to have seen the commercials and is a perfect target for promoted tweets.

Showcasing this approach, Audi waged a full-scale offensive this summer with a multiscreen effort surrounding the mystery series “Pretty Little Liars” on ABC Family, which was tied to the A3 launch.

The show’s audience demographics fit the income range Audi was looking to hit with the aggressively priced A3, which starts at $30,795 including shipping, and it performed strongly among women. Plus, “Pretty Little Liars” has a built-in reach stemming from its legion of 2.46 million Twitter followers.

In addition to running A3 ads during the show’s commercial breaks, Audi took its outreach a step further by directing tweeters to its Snapchat mobile account, where it posted video clues and puzzles of what would happen next in the episode.

Although Snapchat videos can be viewed for just a few seconds before disappearing, people took screenshots of the clues and distributed them on Twitter.

Audi had to work closely with the “Pretty Little Liars” creative team to keep up with the plotline so it could develop content for the campaign. Ian Harding, one of the show’s stars, sometimes tweeted clues.

The Twitter push drew 876,000 engagements overall, and the campaign’s #PLLAudi hashtag was mentioned nearly 30,000 times. The promotion resulted in 487 million social impressions on networks, including Twitter, Snapchat and Facebook.

While finding a direct correlation to sales in a campaign like this is difficult, a Nielsen brand effect study found that Audi awareness ticked upward among those who were exposed to it. Nielsen based the research on a control group, which wasn’t exposed to the campaign, and another group that was.

When people were asked what cars came to mind when they thought of the luxury sector, Audi responses rose 30 percent among those who saw the “Pretty Little Liars” campaign. In addition, opinions of Audi became 56 percent more favorable among the exposed group.

Audi’s efforts were successful because the brand’s content was authentic to each channel it was shared on, said Anna Russell, Audi of America’s general manager for brand marketing.

Twitter, she says, is well-suited for awareness campaigns that can raise favorability among potential buyers. Russell said Audi sometimes gets anecdotal feedback from people who bought cars because of Twitter.

“It’s not about just inserting yourself into a conversation,” Russell said. It’s about “bringing added value.”

In another instance of connecting Twitter to commercials, Jaguar — through Twitter TV ad targeting — amplified the messaging of its “Your Turn” F-Type marketing campaign in 2013 by funneling promoted tweets to people who live-tweeted about TV shows that were flanked by Jaguar’s commercials.

MarketShare’s analysis found that when auto marketers run TV spots and Twitter ads in a coordinated effort, there’s a 19 percent higher return on investment than when running solo TV ads without a related tweet. A Twitter Ad can take the form of a promoted tweet, a promoted account or a promoted trend, which shows up on the list of trending topics.

Acura push
Acura brought a new twist to Twitter in August with a campaign allowing users to build their own TLX sedan within a tweet. It was the first time an auto brand used an in-tweet configurator for a vehicle.

The TLX Twitter card push, which encouraged sharing, saw engagement that was five times higher than normal, said brand spokeswoman Jessica Fini.

Fini said another rollout of in-tweet configurators could be on the way for more Acura and Honda models.

Fini added, “It was so successful with TLX that we definitely want to use it again.”

Source:, 28 October 2014
By: Vince Bond Jr. Automotive News

Strikt traditionell handel hör hemma på museum

Posted in Aktuellt, Customer care / Kundvård, Digitalisering / Internet, Technology on november 12th, 2014 by admin

Nu är det allvar! Handlare, börja tänka utanför boxen… Bortse från gamla branschsanningar och stegvisa förbättringar à la Toyota! Efterlyses: analogt, digitalt och icke-linjärt nytänkande. Det skriver Mats Wallin i en krönika på

En personlig betraktelse kring musik, från en möjlighet per dag i mitten på 50-talet till 20 miljoner år 2014! Då som tio-årig musikintresserad kille, var det första jag gjorde på morgonen att spotifykolla i morgontidningen vilken musik som skulle spelas mellan 17.30 – 18.10. Det var i princip det enda musikprogram som fanns, i den enda radiokanalen. Den sista låten, ca 18.05, var alltid en aktuell modern låt. Sen styrde jag min eftermiddag så att jag satt hemma och lyssnade med örat mot radion (vi hade ingen ”radiogrammofon” i mitt hem). Utvecklingen tog sen ett stort steg på 10 år; Radio Luxemburg, reklamradiopiraten Radio Nord som tvingade Sveriges Radio att starta P3. Stenkakorna försvann och ersattes av EP- och LP-skivor. Och karusellen fortsatte och fortsätter i oförminskad takt. Vadå 20 miljoner? Det är antalet valmöjligheter i den strömmade musikbranschen idag för en vanlig människa (kreditkort kan behövas). Bara Spotify lägger upp hela 15-20 tusen nya låtar om dagen. Är utvecklingen inom musikbranschen de senaste 60 åren något som andra branscher nu står inför?

Nytt digitalt mönster
Den nyutkomna boken ”Den digitala affärsomvandlingen” talar om att vi står mitt i ett skifte och att den digitala utvecklingen går allt snabbare.
Författarna anser att många företag är otillräckligt förberedda och inser inte att mod, nytänkande och radikalitet belönas. Det kan tyckas gå trögt för e-handeln, som bara står för 4 procent av den totala detaljhandeln och e-handeln börjar alltmer också öppna fysiska butiker. Men under ytan visar sig ett helt annat digitalt mönster: 51 procent av alla konsumenter gör research online och genomför köpet i fysisk butik. ”E-handelssajten och/eller hemsidan har blivit vår tids skyltfönster”, som Fredrik Palm, vd för Lekmer, sa på seminariedagen Retail Forum i Stockholm nyligen. Medan ”bara” 15 procent kollar i fysisk butik och gör inköp på nätet. Jag minns en episod från år 2000, min son i 25-årsåldern ställde då en fråga som var fullständigt obegriplig för honom. Jag minns det väl eftersom hans sätt att fråga förflyttade mig till hur han frågade som barn. ”Pappa, kan du förklara för mig varför det fortfarande finns fysiska resebyråer och till och med nya startar, hur är det möjligt?”

Nya megatrender
Konsumenternas sätt att tänka förändras också radikalt. Ett exempel är ”uthyrandes-ekonomin” som inte är en kortsiktig trend, det är en megatrend. Vem kunde t ex tro att Airbnb (social marknadsplats för uthyrning av privata hem, finns i mer än 35.000 städer i 192 länder) skulle bli en sån gigantisk framgång och utmana hotellbranschen. Åhléns startar nu samarbete i Sverige med Airbnb. På flygplatserna i San Francisco och Boston hyr Flightcars ut resenärers bilar. Istället för att betala för en långtidsparkering kan frekventa resenärer tjäna pengar på sin bil. Många nyablocket uthyrningsformer kommer att se dagens ljus för de mest oväntade produkter. En annan megatrend som pågått i 20 år och bara växer sig starkare och starkare är att köpa begagnat. Vem kunde tro för några år sedan att en galleria skulle upplåta och marknadsföra Bakluckeloppis i sitt P-garage, som Liljeholmstorgets Galleria gör vissa söndagar. Vid ett besök i den gallerian en vanlig måndag eftermiddag var det också påfallande många kunder i Stadsmissionens butik medan övriga butiker hade ett mer normalt antal kunder för den tidpunkten. Det totala värdet på det som annonserades ut 2013 via Blocket var 414 miljarder kr. Det motsvarar 11procent av Sveriges BNP. Räknar man in Traderas summor hamnar man på drygt 500 miljarder. Den samlade e-handeln har alltså ”bara” cirka 7 procent av Blockets och Traderas siffror. Handeln måste sluta agera som den alltid gjort. Nya konsumentbeteenden och konsumtionsmönster kräver en kombination av analog handel och digital algoritm.

Källa:, november 2014
Av: Mats Wallin, retailkonsult, Unlimited Communication