Feeds:
Entradas
Comentarios

Archive for the ‘Organización’ Category

1.  Can you do the job?

2.  Will you love the job?

3.  Can we tolerate working with you?

That’s it.  Those three.  Think back, every question you’ve ever posed to others or had asked of you in a job interview is a subset of a deeper in-depth follow-up to one of these three key questions.  Each question potentially may be asked using different words, but every question, however it is phrased, is just a variation on one of these topics: Strengths, Motivation, and Fit.

Can You Do the Job? – Strengths

Executive Search firm  explained to me that it’s not just about the technical skills, but also about leadership and interpersonal strengths.  Technical skills help you climb the ladder.  As you get there, managing up, down and across become more important.

You can’t tell by looking at a piece of paper what some of the strengths and weaknesses really are…We ask for specific examples of not only what’s been successful but what they’ve done that hasn’t gone well or a task they they’ve, quite frankly, failed at and how they learned from that experience and what they’d do different in a new scenario.

Not only is it important to look at the technical skill set they have…but also the strengths on what I call the EQ side of the equation in terms of getting along and dealing or interacting with people.

Click here for more on interviewing and being interviewed for strengths

Will You Love the Job? -Motivation

…younger employees do not wish to get paid merely for working hard—just the reverse: they will work hard because they enjoy their environment and the challenges associated with their work…. Executives who embrace this new management style are attracting and retaining better employees.

Click here for more on interviewing and being interviewed for motivation

Can We Tolerate Working With You? – Fit

Continuing on with our conversation, Heidrick’s Kelly went on to explain the importance of cultural fit:

A lot of it is cultural fit and whether they are going to fit well into the organization…  The perception is that when (senior leaders) come into the firm, a totally new environment, they know everything.  And they could do little things such as send emails in a voicemail culture that tend to negatively snowball over time.  Feedback or onboarding is critical.  If you don’t get that feedback, you will get turnover later on.

He made the same point earlier in an interview with  Smart Business.

40 percent of senior executives leave organizations or are fired or pushed out within 18 months. It’s not because they’re dumb; it’s because a lot of times culturally they may not fit in with the organization or it’s not clearly articulated to them as they joined.

Click here for more on interviewing and being interviewed for fit

Preparing for Interviews

If you’re the one doing the interviewing, get clear on what strengths, motivational and fit insights you’re looking for before you go into your interviews.

If you’re the one being interviewed, prepare by thinking through examples that illustrate your strengths, what motivates you about the organization and role you’re interviewing for, and the fit between your own preferences and the organization’s Behaviors, Relationships, Attitudes, Values, and Environment (BRAVE).  But remember that interviews are exercises in solution selling.  They are not about you.

Think of the interview process as a chance for you to show your ability to solve the organization and interviewer’s problem. That’s why you need to highlight strengths in the areas most important to the interviewers, talk about how you would be motivated by the role’s challenges, and discuss why you would be a BRAVE fit with the organization’s culture.

by George Bradt http://www.primegenesis.com

 

Read Full Post »

En el último libro de Richard Rumelt se habla con contundecia de las confusiones existentes en cuanto a lo que es una estrategia empresarial:

The Jack Welch quote about “reaching for what appears to be the impossible” is fairly standard motivational fare, available from literally hundreds of motivational speakers, books, calendars, memo pads, and Web sites. This fascination with positive thinking has helped inspire ideas about charismatic leadership and the power of a shared vision, reducing them to something of a formula. The general outline goes like this: the transformational leader (1) develops or has a vision, (2) inspires people to sacrifice (change) for the good of the organization, and (3) empowers people to accomplish the vision. By the early 2000s, the juxtaposition of vision-led leadership and strategy work had produced a template-style system of strategic planning. (Type “vision mission strategy” into a search engine and you’ll find thousands of examples of this kind of template for sale and in use.)

The template looks like this: The Vision. Fill in your vision of what the school/business/nation will be like in the future. Currently popular visions are to be the best or the leading or the best known. TheMission. Fill in a high-sounding, politically correct statement of the purpose of the school/business/nation. Innovation, human progress, and sustainable solutions are popular elements of a mission statement. The Values. Fill in a statement that describes the company’s values. Make sure they are noncontroversial. Key words include “integrity,”“respect,” and “excellence.” The Strategies. Fill in some aspirations/goals but call them strategies. For example, “to invest in a portfolio of performance businesses that create value for our shareholders and growth for our customers.” This template-style planning has been enthusiastically adopted by corporations, school boards, university presidents, and government agencies. Scan through such documents and you will find pious statements of the obvious presented as if they were decisive insights.

The enormous problem all this creates is that someone who actually wishes to conceive and implement an effective strategy is surrounded by empty rhetoric and bad examples.

Despite the roar of voices equating strategy with ambition, leadership,vision, or planning, strategy is none of these. Rather, it is coherent action backed by an argument. And the core of the strategist’s work is always the same: discover the crucial factors in a situation and design a way to coordinate and focus actions to deal with them.

 Good and bad strategy.

Let me close by trying to give you a leg up in crafting good strategies, which have a basic underlying structure:

1. A diagnosis: an explanation of the nature of the challenge. A good diagnosis simplifies the often overwhelming complexity of reality by identifying certain aspects of the situation as being the critical ones.

2. A guiding policy: an overall approach chosen to cope with or overcome the obstacles identified in the diagnosis.

3. Coherent actions: steps that are coordinated with one another to support the accomplishment of the guiding policy.

Read Full Post »

En una entrevista reciente de McKinsey al CEO de Google (Eric Schmidt), comenta lo siguiente:
Hiring and recruiting:
One of the things about companies is, as you build them, you get a chance to sort of
determine the culture, the people, the style. And one of the things that I learned—and I
learned a lot from Larry and Sergey—is that it makes an enormous difference who you hire
at every level. And people don’t really sort of manage that. So we worked very, very hard
on who’s going to be in our company.
And we spent more time, and pretty ruthlessly, on academic qualifications, intelligence,
intellectual flexibility, passion and commitment. What bothers me about management books
is they all say this stuff generically, but nobody does it. You need to develop a culture where
people actually are going to do what they’re going to do, and you’re trying to assist them.
They don’t need me. They’re going to do it anyway, because they’re driven; they have that
passion. They’re going to do it for their whole lives. It’s everything they ever wanted. And,
oh yeah, maybe they could use a little help from me.
That’s the kind of person that you want. At Google, we give the impression of not managing
the company because we don’t, really. It sort of has its own “Borg-like” quality, if you will—
it just sort of moves forward. So you have the problem of, once you get started and get the 3
right seating of people, you’re going to get this kind of behavior. Then you have to deal with
the odd people. Because not every one of these incredibly smart people is a team player,
and so forth.
So I would suggest that as part of the recruiting, you need to look at whether they’re sort
of compatible with the other people. Benchmark [Capital] is a company in [Silicon] Valley
which has been a very successful venture company, and they had a rule that they would
hire people if when they walked down the hall and they looked in the room, people smiled
at them. They wanted them around. And we don’t have that rule.
Because we basically want people—even if you don’t want them around, we still need them.
But you have to sort of figure the interpersonal stuff out. If you have a meeting, and you
have consensus without disagreement, you have nothing. So basically what I would do in
a meeting is I would see if everyone agreed, and then I would try to get some controversy.
And if you can get one person to say something, then the person who’s shy, or a little
concerned about saying it, will speak up. Then you have a real conversation. So you need a
certain amount of discord in your meetings. If you just have discord, well, then you have a
university, right?
So what you want to do is you need a deadline. So discord plus deadline. Who enforces
the deadline? Me. That’s my job. Or whoever’s running the meeting. So if you have discord
and deadline, then you’re likely to produce a consensus. And if you look at the academic
literature, and all of the surveys and so forth, this is going to produce, on average, the best
sort of business judgment kind of outcomes. And I think that’s roughly right.
We use 70–20–10: 70 percent on our core business, 20 percent on adjacent business, 10
percent on others, as a sort of allocation principle, and we are constantly moving people
around to achieve that percentage. Another thing we have is something called 20 percent
time, where we tell people, especially in engineering, that they can spend 20 percent of
their time on whatever they want. Now, these people are not that clever. They work on
things which are adjacent to their areas of interest, which is what we hired them for.
They’re not off doing opera. Unless it’s the browser, right? So the 20 percent time is a very
good recruiting tool, but more importantly it serves as a pressure valve against managers
who are obnoxious. So the way it works is, if you’re my manager and you say, “Eric, you
know, we’re on deadline, we’ve got a problem,” and so forth. I’ll look at you, and I’ll say,
“I’m going to give you 100 percent of my 80 percent of my time.”
It serves as a check-and-balance. And in practice that conversation doesn’t occur, because
it doesn’t need to occur. There are many, many other examples. When you’re doing
recruiting, make sure that you don’t allow managers to hire their friends. Make sure you
have a recruiting team, like universities do—a hiring committee.
We would allow people to have an arbitrary number of interviews. It got to the point where
people were being interviewed 15, 16, 17 times, and then we were turning them down.
So eventually, by fiat, I ordered that it be taken down to 8. And we’ve since statistically
modeled that you can get a probabilistically correct outcome at 5 interviews. So if five
people interview a person, you should be able to make a decision whether you’re going to
hire them.

Read Full Post »