Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1403
September 22, 2015
How to Build a Culture of Accountability
Accountability needs to be well embedded into the business culture, for individuals taking responsibility of what they DO and what they SAY!
Accountability is “the obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner.” (business dictionary.com). To step further, accountability is not only to accept the responsibility for what you DO - the actions or behaviors, but also what you SAY - the knowledge sharing or feedback giving, in order to build a culture of accountability.
Organizations have to consciously fight against establishing a culture of no accountability. People can learn to deal with a mistake that hurts, but you survive and can grow stronger. When a mistake/ stupidness will harm you, there is no benefit in taking responsibility. You try to survive, even at the cost of others. Accountability needs a safe environment. That starts with leaders at the top. Behaving accountable is the result of a culture with values that need to be organized and nurtured. People often run away from accountability because they had a personal experience or they have observed others being treated poorly or unfairly when being held accountable for results. Often times when the results do not measure up to expectations. Consequently, they fear the realm of accountability and run for the hills. Unfortunately, such experiences are prevalent in many of organizational cultures which in turn creates the blame game, etc. Mature cultures take accountability for results and have pride in affecting the outcome good or bad. They learn and then move forward stronger and more robust than before.
Accountability assignment is the job of the leader; The better s/he assigns accountability and empowers the individual/team, the better are the chances it will be in the least, accepted. We can't expect anyone to achieve the moon and also be standing in the line like everyone else. However, accountability is a word that does carry a great deal of baggage and negative connotations with it these days. When teams don't have control, they use that lack of control to put on a victim mentality and claim not accountability. This is where the influence piece fits in. The informal leaders or subject matter experts may not have control, and should not be held completely accountable, but they can still impact on things through influence, and should be held to using what tools they have to positively impact the outcome.
Most problems are systemic and require systemic solutions where people take accountability for their part in describing and solving them. Without denying the accountability of the person being asked about their performance, too often the leader fails, explicitly or even implicitly, to acknowledge what they are accountable for in a situation or demonstrate a willingness to explore legitimate systemic issues beyond the performance, or even control of the team member that contribute to the outcome. Every time someone makes a mistake, management institutes a new procedure/policy; never giving the employee an opportunity to actually learn from their mistake, but rather being subjected to a new "rule." Or there is a fine line between reasons (legitimate) and excuses (that aren't), but when "I want you to be accountable" comes across as "it's ONLY about you," it's little wonder that people become defensive. It falls into that same category of leader laziness as "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions." Sometimes the best a team member can offer is a clear description of the problem, the solution is based on the good alignment of leadership sponsorship, the technology-enabled process and the seamless cross-functional communication and collaboration.
Accountability needs to be well embedded into the organizational culture, to encourage responsible actions and communication, with the intention to build on morale and real productivity; advocating open leadership, but discouraging rumor mongering or negative gossiping; true accountability focuses on learning. It is not uncommon to confuse accountability with blame. They are actually opposites. Shared accountability or collective accountability involves shared ownership, empathetic communication, the true measure of accountability is about resilience: It is determined not by whether someone or a team makes a mistake or not, but on how quickly they can recover so that customers, teammates, and others aren't negatively affected by the breakdown. So shape a culture of accountability in order to build a high-performing organization.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Accountability is “the obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner.” (business dictionary.com). To step further, accountability is not only to accept the responsibility for what you DO - the actions or behaviors, but also what you SAY - the knowledge sharing or feedback giving, in order to build a culture of accountability. Organizations have to consciously fight against establishing a culture of no accountability. People can learn to deal with a mistake that hurts, but you survive and can grow stronger. When a mistake/ stupidness will harm you, there is no benefit in taking responsibility. You try to survive, even at the cost of others. Accountability needs a safe environment. That starts with leaders at the top. Behaving accountable is the result of a culture with values that need to be organized and nurtured. People often run away from accountability because they had a personal experience or they have observed others being treated poorly or unfairly when being held accountable for results. Often times when the results do not measure up to expectations. Consequently, they fear the realm of accountability and run for the hills. Unfortunately, such experiences are prevalent in many of organizational cultures which in turn creates the blame game, etc. Mature cultures take accountability for results and have pride in affecting the outcome good or bad. They learn and then move forward stronger and more robust than before.
Accountability assignment is the job of the leader; The better s/he assigns accountability and empowers the individual/team, the better are the chances it will be in the least, accepted. We can't expect anyone to achieve the moon and also be standing in the line like everyone else. However, accountability is a word that does carry a great deal of baggage and negative connotations with it these days. When teams don't have control, they use that lack of control to put on a victim mentality and claim not accountability. This is where the influence piece fits in. The informal leaders or subject matter experts may not have control, and should not be held completely accountable, but they can still impact on things through influence, and should be held to using what tools they have to positively impact the outcome.
Most problems are systemic and require systemic solutions where people take accountability for their part in describing and solving them. Without denying the accountability of the person being asked about their performance, too often the leader fails, explicitly or even implicitly, to acknowledge what they are accountable for in a situation or demonstrate a willingness to explore legitimate systemic issues beyond the performance, or even control of the team member that contribute to the outcome. Every time someone makes a mistake, management institutes a new procedure/policy; never giving the employee an opportunity to actually learn from their mistake, but rather being subjected to a new "rule." Or there is a fine line between reasons (legitimate) and excuses (that aren't), but when "I want you to be accountable" comes across as "it's ONLY about you," it's little wonder that people become defensive. It falls into that same category of leader laziness as "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions." Sometimes the best a team member can offer is a clear description of the problem, the solution is based on the good alignment of leadership sponsorship, the technology-enabled process and the seamless cross-functional communication and collaboration.
Accountability needs to be well embedded into the organizational culture, to encourage responsible actions and communication, with the intention to build on morale and real productivity; advocating open leadership, but discouraging rumor mongering or negative gossiping; true accountability focuses on learning. It is not uncommon to confuse accountability with blame. They are actually opposites. Shared accountability or collective accountability involves shared ownership, empathetic communication, the true measure of accountability is about resilience: It is determined not by whether someone or a team makes a mistake or not, but on how quickly they can recover so that customers, teammates, and others aren't negatively affected by the breakdown. So shape a culture of accountability in order to build a high-performing organization.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital IT Tuning: How to Balance People, Process and Priorities?
In reality, managing multiple people, projects, and timelines is more like the Spinning Plates act.
Due to the increasing speed of changes, the limitation of resources, the scarcity of IT talent, the high rate of project failure and the poor reputation as a business enabler, IT organizations today have to set the right priority, and make trade-off decisions by impact business's top growth and bottom line all the time. While some IT organizations manage IT project portfolios better than others, but there’s a theme out there of project overload in many businesses, which lead to schedule slips, taking shortcuts, cost/quality misses, and then an unsatisfied customer. Experience teaches you lessons, but it’s up to you to decide which lessons are important. There are some lessons that need to be forgotten, revised or completely updated because people change, technology change and knowledge life cycle is significantly shortened. Therefore, how do you balance people, process and priority in order to manage IT portfolio seamlessly?
It's helpful to have a clear vision and defined boundaries and know the difference between compromise and concession. Another benefit of a clear vision and boundaries is that you can separate what is critical and essential from what is "nice to have." IT Organizations that have not done that analysis usually end up spreading their resources too thinly to be effective and failing to achieve any goals. Research suggests that organizations cannot successfully tackle more than two goals at a time. Unfortunately, there are executives who set 5 and 6, and then wonder why there are confusion and poor execution. With all the information that is available, with the emphasis on speeding, and with so much to deal with a fire hose is a great analogy for quantity and pressure! Even many IT executives have years of experience in IT management, experience teaches you lessons, but it’s up to you to decide which lessons are important. There are some lessons that need to be forgotten, revised or completely updated because people change, technology change and knowledge life cycle is significantly shortened, continuous learning becomes strategic imperative for either IT leaders or any business professionals today.
In reality, managing multiple people, projects, and timelines is more like the Spinning Plates act. Usually projects are launched at different times, sometimes in synergy with existing programs, and tended to have at varying degrees of focus (the spin) to keep them going, so they don't fall off the pole. Thus, the best leaders will optimize each person's ability to handle the "plate load" effectively, all with the brand quality and emphasis on progress and delivery. The sooner you finish your existing commitments, the sooner you can launch new projects, whether your own idea that is successfully lobbied for resources or another that were pending, awaiting someone to manage it to completion. The spinning plates is one aspect of multiple projects.
Leadership is really a dynamic challenge. Knowing how to juggle serves you well. Teams are expected to work on what they can do at once, but there are strategies for focusing so that progress will occur by most beneficial impacts, firm commitments or launch dates. The leadership alleviates overwhelm and prevents burnout or feeling inadequate. Note how you can spin one plate harder, leave it longer, then return to the wobbly ones for another quick spin. Projects are the same, always moving them forward at their respective "spins," or letting them set until you have more spin to give it. Equate spin as "energy and effort"--the actual work you do on a project. The need to monitor which one wobbles is critical. Sometimes the wobble comes from a change in direction, unanticipated risks, and new information.
The art of management is achieving goals despite limitations. So the right approach to solve “IT overloading” is to prioritize projects based on strategy and provides a mechanism to move resources to key projects at the cost of slowing down or even closing some other non-core projects, to ensure IT manages the right projects and become true strategic differentiator for high-performance businesses. Maybe in the end, you will more like spinning plates, seems to do it magically well, but put a lot of effort behind the scenes.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Due to the increasing speed of changes, the limitation of resources, the scarcity of IT talent, the high rate of project failure and the poor reputation as a business enabler, IT organizations today have to set the right priority, and make trade-off decisions by impact business's top growth and bottom line all the time. While some IT organizations manage IT project portfolios better than others, but there’s a theme out there of project overload in many businesses, which lead to schedule slips, taking shortcuts, cost/quality misses, and then an unsatisfied customer. Experience teaches you lessons, but it’s up to you to decide which lessons are important. There are some lessons that need to be forgotten, revised or completely updated because people change, technology change and knowledge life cycle is significantly shortened. Therefore, how do you balance people, process and priority in order to manage IT portfolio seamlessly?
It's helpful to have a clear vision and defined boundaries and know the difference between compromise and concession. Another benefit of a clear vision and boundaries is that you can separate what is critical and essential from what is "nice to have." IT Organizations that have not done that analysis usually end up spreading their resources too thinly to be effective and failing to achieve any goals. Research suggests that organizations cannot successfully tackle more than two goals at a time. Unfortunately, there are executives who set 5 and 6, and then wonder why there are confusion and poor execution. With all the information that is available, with the emphasis on speeding, and with so much to deal with a fire hose is a great analogy for quantity and pressure! Even many IT executives have years of experience in IT management, experience teaches you lessons, but it’s up to you to decide which lessons are important. There are some lessons that need to be forgotten, revised or completely updated because people change, technology change and knowledge life cycle is significantly shortened, continuous learning becomes strategic imperative for either IT leaders or any business professionals today.
In reality, managing multiple people, projects, and timelines is more like the Spinning Plates act. Usually projects are launched at different times, sometimes in synergy with existing programs, and tended to have at varying degrees of focus (the spin) to keep them going, so they don't fall off the pole. Thus, the best leaders will optimize each person's ability to handle the "plate load" effectively, all with the brand quality and emphasis on progress and delivery. The sooner you finish your existing commitments, the sooner you can launch new projects, whether your own idea that is successfully lobbied for resources or another that were pending, awaiting someone to manage it to completion. The spinning plates is one aspect of multiple projects.
Leadership is really a dynamic challenge. Knowing how to juggle serves you well. Teams are expected to work on what they can do at once, but there are strategies for focusing so that progress will occur by most beneficial impacts, firm commitments or launch dates. The leadership alleviates overwhelm and prevents burnout or feeling inadequate. Note how you can spin one plate harder, leave it longer, then return to the wobbly ones for another quick spin. Projects are the same, always moving them forward at their respective "spins," or letting them set until you have more spin to give it. Equate spin as "energy and effort"--the actual work you do on a project. The need to monitor which one wobbles is critical. Sometimes the wobble comes from a change in direction, unanticipated risks, and new information.
The art of management is achieving goals despite limitations. So the right approach to solve “IT overloading” is to prioritize projects based on strategy and provides a mechanism to move resources to key projects at the cost of slowing down or even closing some other non-core projects, to ensure IT manages the right projects and become true strategic differentiator for high-performance businesses. Maybe in the end, you will more like spinning plates, seems to do it magically well, but put a lot of effort behind the scenes.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The Opposite of Critical Thinking
The opposite of critical thinking is mindless thinking.
There are many types of thinking. Many of them overlap with each other. They are all happening in the same sphere of influence of an individual human or groups of humans, or humans interacting with knowledge of the past, or connection with some "super-conscious" field. Critical Thinking is the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion. What’s the opposite of Critical Thinking though?
The opposite of critical thinking is passive thinking. Critical thinking is analyzing, looking beyond the surface, not just accepting things at face value but asking questions and being active in your thought process. Passive thinking is taking things as they come and not really asking questions or analyzing the information presented for its value. More practically, critical thinking implies some systematic methodology, employing and applying the criteria deemed appropriate by the thinkers involved, to arrive at the tangible and reproducible truth - the commonly accepted objective, testable or measurable, time-bound reality. Still, we all have a cognitive bias, whether individually or collectively, such truths derived by imperfect people using imperfect processes will necessarily leave a measure of uncertainty. Thus, any question, whether perfect or imperfect, will by definition be imperfectly answered or unanswered.
The opposite of critical thinking would be unimaginative, evidence-driven, limited, and impoverished thinking that leads to the same old expected solutions. Critical thinking doesn't always cross over to include imaginative or resourceful thinking. The combination is truly powerful to conceptualize, communicate, develop and execute solutions, not just based on evidence, but on trends and discovery of hidden connections. "Trends and discovery of hidden connections" might be the new critical thinking, or some call it as “Agile critical thinking” with creativity deeply embedded in. It far outweighs than what we usually call critical thinking; reason, logic, calculation, and conscious weighing of expected outcomes, etc…For example, innovation can be a process with one step creative and the others involving significant critical thinking elements relying heavily on the judgment in evaluating ideas, and planning implementations and evaluating results. Also, when the environment is "fast," we have to employ good thinking fast. It is the employment of CRT-T - a Critical Thinking "Trigger," before deciding on a course of action. The "trigger" is infused in training and takes place in the chain of acting on your training, reaching a conclusion, and taking action - in less than a second in some career fields. The Critical Thinking Trigger ( CRT-T) can become a part of the thinking-to-action chain that does NOT slow actions, but gains a second opinion of its rightness.
The opposite of critical thinking is mindless thinking. In this age of information overload, it's hard to find the truth - let alone your own truth. In the truest sense of the word - to be mindless is to "not think," but rather follow down some well-worn grooves of behavior. While the form of science based mindful thinking incorporates being mindful - being present, noticing new things - with critical thinking. Asking questions to get at the truth of a situation while being mindful is a powerful tool. There are two trends of thinking — convenience and complexity. On one hand, organizations today are tasked with making information and knowledge more accessible and convenient. On the other, they need to find and develop people for whom convenience is no motivation. They’re looking for mental agility and curiosity — thinkers of consequence, not thinkers of convenience. They want intellectually engaged people motivated by hard problems. They’re looking for workers with what psychologists call “need for cognition.” People with that need relish a good debate and are in a world of clashing ideas.
Due to the hyperconnected and over-complex nature of Digital era, it is time to think more profoundly, not only avoid the symptom of the opposite of critical thinking, but harness the thinking skill optimization as well - to synthesize Critical-, Visual-, Design-, Systems-, Meta-, and Creative-Thinking. And real thinking is a multi-dimensional and integral thought processes to keep the mind flow and understand things in profundity.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
There are many types of thinking. Many of them overlap with each other. They are all happening in the same sphere of influence of an individual human or groups of humans, or humans interacting with knowledge of the past, or connection with some "super-conscious" field. Critical Thinking is the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion. What’s the opposite of Critical Thinking though?
The opposite of critical thinking is passive thinking. Critical thinking is analyzing, looking beyond the surface, not just accepting things at face value but asking questions and being active in your thought process. Passive thinking is taking things as they come and not really asking questions or analyzing the information presented for its value. More practically, critical thinking implies some systematic methodology, employing and applying the criteria deemed appropriate by the thinkers involved, to arrive at the tangible and reproducible truth - the commonly accepted objective, testable or measurable, time-bound reality. Still, we all have a cognitive bias, whether individually or collectively, such truths derived by imperfect people using imperfect processes will necessarily leave a measure of uncertainty. Thus, any question, whether perfect or imperfect, will by definition be imperfectly answered or unanswered.
The opposite of critical thinking would be unimaginative, evidence-driven, limited, and impoverished thinking that leads to the same old expected solutions. Critical thinking doesn't always cross over to include imaginative or resourceful thinking. The combination is truly powerful to conceptualize, communicate, develop and execute solutions, not just based on evidence, but on trends and discovery of hidden connections. "Trends and discovery of hidden connections" might be the new critical thinking, or some call it as “Agile critical thinking” with creativity deeply embedded in. It far outweighs than what we usually call critical thinking; reason, logic, calculation, and conscious weighing of expected outcomes, etc…For example, innovation can be a process with one step creative and the others involving significant critical thinking elements relying heavily on the judgment in evaluating ideas, and planning implementations and evaluating results. Also, when the environment is "fast," we have to employ good thinking fast. It is the employment of CRT-T - a Critical Thinking "Trigger," before deciding on a course of action. The "trigger" is infused in training and takes place in the chain of acting on your training, reaching a conclusion, and taking action - in less than a second in some career fields. The Critical Thinking Trigger ( CRT-T) can become a part of the thinking-to-action chain that does NOT slow actions, but gains a second opinion of its rightness.
The opposite of critical thinking is mindless thinking. In this age of information overload, it's hard to find the truth - let alone your own truth. In the truest sense of the word - to be mindless is to "not think," but rather follow down some well-worn grooves of behavior. While the form of science based mindful thinking incorporates being mindful - being present, noticing new things - with critical thinking. Asking questions to get at the truth of a situation while being mindful is a powerful tool. There are two trends of thinking — convenience and complexity. On one hand, organizations today are tasked with making information and knowledge more accessible and convenient. On the other, they need to find and develop people for whom convenience is no motivation. They’re looking for mental agility and curiosity — thinkers of consequence, not thinkers of convenience. They want intellectually engaged people motivated by hard problems. They’re looking for workers with what psychologists call “need for cognition.” People with that need relish a good debate and are in a world of clashing ideas.
Due to the hyperconnected and over-complex nature of Digital era, it is time to think more profoundly, not only avoid the symptom of the opposite of critical thinking, but harness the thinking skill optimization as well - to synthesize Critical-, Visual-, Design-, Systems-, Meta-, and Creative-Thinking. And real thinking is a multi-dimensional and integral thought processes to keep the mind flow and understand things in profundity.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
September 21, 2015
Conformance vs. Performance: What’s Board’s Priority
To some degree, conformance is inherent within the value-driven performance.
Corporate Board is one of the most important governance bodies to oversight strategy and enforce GRC disciplines. Many directors think that the role of the director is conformance. The underlying question is actually fundamental: What is corporate governance, when is it necessary and how should it work? Conformance vs. Performance, which is more important for the Corporate Board? Is it possible that companies are burdening the boards with so many different tasks that the main task and focus of the board, which is to create long-term profitable companies, will be inundated by all other types of issues?
Both performance and conformance are important. Boards need to perform and conform at the same time. Performance without conformance is not genuine. Conformance without performance adds very little to the firm value. The 'elephant in the room' question for directors, boards and directors' institutes is authenticity. Many directors are aware of 'how time should be prioritized,' but in the heart of the engagement, a different pattern emerges, or so it seems. While some boards seem to balance these priorities well, many do not. What will it take for boards to do both well, in the name of value/wealth creation, and for directors to report accurately? The catalyst for the question is what appears to be a chasm between what directors claim as the priority and what actually occurs when boards are in session. Some suggest that a new conception of corporate governance is required. The current model is still skewed by too much emphasis on compliance, too much "hands off" and now a host of social and politically correct pressures being applied.
No question that performance is the priority for boards. Many boards think that the role of the individual director is conformance, which has the result to stifle probing questions and the natural tensions that allow for good decision-making. There is no doubt that the board only fulfills its role to shareholders and the management team when it is focused on performance. To some degree, conformance is inherent within the value-driven performance. More specifically, this "performance" should be focused on the maximization of 1) Capital allocation, 2) Company performance and 3) Shareholder value. The Board's role, in large part, is to make good decisions that enhance the value creation for the organization. They need to focus on their own performance as well as the performance of the management team; and, that performance is not limited to financial performance, but also to the firm's performance in creating value for employees and customers. It's not only about now, but also about the future and that means an open mindset to change.
Generating a high-performing Board is a question of appointing the right persons to Boards which implies inclusiversity (inclusiveness+ diversity); It's the diversity both from a cognitive difference or functional perspective. The question now becomes who (can or should) drive such diversity in the Boardroom and how can you make that happen? Board meetings can be intense with the much more in-depth questioning of management, plans, results, etc. accompanied by much higher levels of holding management accountable. In essence, it is about savvy business people digging in to make the business the best and most valuable it can be. In allocating board meeting time, it’s important to structure the agenda so strategic and performance related issues come first and compliance issues towards the end. Otherwise, there is a risk that the compliance or conformance issues crowd out performance matters.
As with anything, context is essential. When a board does not have any context or the wrong context, then everything else including non-executive chairman selection, director selection, agenda focus, interaction with management, etc. will be sub-optimal or worse. But, if a strong chairman who has the right stuff to lead a board, defines the primary purpose of the board as the maximization of capital allocation, business performance, and shareholder value, then there is a clear context for all of the other components to fall into place properly.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Corporate Board is one of the most important governance bodies to oversight strategy and enforce GRC disciplines. Many directors think that the role of the director is conformance. The underlying question is actually fundamental: What is corporate governance, when is it necessary and how should it work? Conformance vs. Performance, which is more important for the Corporate Board? Is it possible that companies are burdening the boards with so many different tasks that the main task and focus of the board, which is to create long-term profitable companies, will be inundated by all other types of issues?
Both performance and conformance are important. Boards need to perform and conform at the same time. Performance without conformance is not genuine. Conformance without performance adds very little to the firm value. The 'elephant in the room' question for directors, boards and directors' institutes is authenticity. Many directors are aware of 'how time should be prioritized,' but in the heart of the engagement, a different pattern emerges, or so it seems. While some boards seem to balance these priorities well, many do not. What will it take for boards to do both well, in the name of value/wealth creation, and for directors to report accurately? The catalyst for the question is what appears to be a chasm between what directors claim as the priority and what actually occurs when boards are in session. Some suggest that a new conception of corporate governance is required. The current model is still skewed by too much emphasis on compliance, too much "hands off" and now a host of social and politically correct pressures being applied.
No question that performance is the priority for boards. Many boards think that the role of the individual director is conformance, which has the result to stifle probing questions and the natural tensions that allow for good decision-making. There is no doubt that the board only fulfills its role to shareholders and the management team when it is focused on performance. To some degree, conformance is inherent within the value-driven performance. More specifically, this "performance" should be focused on the maximization of 1) Capital allocation, 2) Company performance and 3) Shareholder value. The Board's role, in large part, is to make good decisions that enhance the value creation for the organization. They need to focus on their own performance as well as the performance of the management team; and, that performance is not limited to financial performance, but also to the firm's performance in creating value for employees and customers. It's not only about now, but also about the future and that means an open mindset to change.
Generating a high-performing Board is a question of appointing the right persons to Boards which implies inclusiversity (inclusiveness+ diversity); It's the diversity both from a cognitive difference or functional perspective. The question now becomes who (can or should) drive such diversity in the Boardroom and how can you make that happen? Board meetings can be intense with the much more in-depth questioning of management, plans, results, etc. accompanied by much higher levels of holding management accountable. In essence, it is about savvy business people digging in to make the business the best and most valuable it can be. In allocating board meeting time, it’s important to structure the agenda so strategic and performance related issues come first and compliance issues towards the end. Otherwise, there is a risk that the compliance or conformance issues crowd out performance matters.
As with anything, context is essential. When a board does not have any context or the wrong context, then everything else including non-executive chairman selection, director selection, agenda focus, interaction with management, etc. will be sub-optimal or worse. But, if a strong chairman who has the right stuff to lead a board, defines the primary purpose of the board as the maximization of capital allocation, business performance, and shareholder value, then there is a clear context for all of the other components to fall into place properly.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Three Questions to Assess Talent Creativity
Creativity is the high level of intelligence.
As businesses get more cut-throat in the face of fierce competitions and unprecedented changes, this puts stress on the labor force that is not conducive to creative, experimental thinking. Thus, it’s no surprise that creativity is emerging as the #1 desired quality for the digital workforce. From talent management perspective, which questions shall you assess the creativity of your staff and, how to untap the potential of collective creativity in your workplace?
Are you good at questioning or are you always rushing to answers? Doesn't the real solution to innovation, creativity begin with inquiry? Observing, questioning, connecting, networking are the key steps in creativity. Creative people ask questions - usually questions no one else would think of, or initiate the open and bold questions such as “Why Not,” or “What if”... Frequently, by deeply observing and relentlessly questioning, the resulting work of art becomes richer and more evocative for the creative inspiration the artist came up with. Your mind is connecting the dots and your vision become clear - so be sensitive with your intuition and listen to it. Creative people are both problem finders and problem solvers, and always challenge conventional wisdom by asking questions which often lead to discovering situations others do not see at first. The challenge is perhaps that, this can earn you a label of being 'negative,' because you question everything. Would it not be prudent to focus on ensuring all levels of the organization are well founded on asking learning questions. Again as part of the school of action learning focus on reflection, which assumes one is listening attentively and taking action on the responses to the questions asked.
Are you an “out-of-box” thinker or always following the conventional wisdom: When someone asks you to "think outside the box" - they're telling you to throw conventional wisdom and pure linear logic out the window for a while, and to let the creative mind run free for a while. “The box" is a mental construct made up of personal (self imposed) and environmental (culture, parental influence, society) components that one operates within, so thinking outside "the box" means doing something outside of the confines of the construct. More often, the box is your safety net and your comfort zone. The box is anyone’s comfort zone, that things are ok and everyone agrees and have the same or similar thoughts. It's a boring tiny space with very little innovative thought contained within the box. In fact, everything in the box is easy to turn stale and stagnant. Great things don't happen inside your comfort zone or in a box; typically, it's associated with convention within context. Organizations need to allow time for a number of different 'creative' activities or opportunities to suit different types of people. In the same way that people have different 'learning' styles, they also have different innovation styles. Creativity is a synthesis of two qualities: imagination with which you create new ideas and the concreteness with which you can transform ideas into real work.
Do you have “discovering” eyes to see the patterns underneath via practicing Systems Thinking? Creativity is an outcome of a deep understanding of the patterns of thinking that underlies Systems Thinking. There are "common structures" that can be used for the purpose of creativity that are produced by combining different patterns of Systems Thinking. Perhaps this will help. A systems thinker without creativity ends up as a caretaker or administrator. A creative person without systemic thinking might lack structure frame to keep focus. Creativity to some extent, is the nature of seeing the patterns that already exist, and then being able to predict how they change, and sometimes manipulate them in a direction that fits our needs or that of our objective.
Creativity is the high level of intelligence. Encourage Diversity of thought and non-egalitarian review. The best way to end up where everybody else is to follow the majority guidance on where to go at every turn. At creative organizations, people are encouraged and given the time resources to work on new things that excite them, all are required to produce new ideas, people are often trained in creative methods and techniques, the business model is often challenged, everyone has a personal creativity objective at work and there is much humor to go around.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
As businesses get more cut-throat in the face of fierce competitions and unprecedented changes, this puts stress on the labor force that is not conducive to creative, experimental thinking. Thus, it’s no surprise that creativity is emerging as the #1 desired quality for the digital workforce. From talent management perspective, which questions shall you assess the creativity of your staff and, how to untap the potential of collective creativity in your workplace?
Are you good at questioning or are you always rushing to answers? Doesn't the real solution to innovation, creativity begin with inquiry? Observing, questioning, connecting, networking are the key steps in creativity. Creative people ask questions - usually questions no one else would think of, or initiate the open and bold questions such as “Why Not,” or “What if”... Frequently, by deeply observing and relentlessly questioning, the resulting work of art becomes richer and more evocative for the creative inspiration the artist came up with. Your mind is connecting the dots and your vision become clear - so be sensitive with your intuition and listen to it. Creative people are both problem finders and problem solvers, and always challenge conventional wisdom by asking questions which often lead to discovering situations others do not see at first. The challenge is perhaps that, this can earn you a label of being 'negative,' because you question everything. Would it not be prudent to focus on ensuring all levels of the organization are well founded on asking learning questions. Again as part of the school of action learning focus on reflection, which assumes one is listening attentively and taking action on the responses to the questions asked.
Are you an “out-of-box” thinker or always following the conventional wisdom: When someone asks you to "think outside the box" - they're telling you to throw conventional wisdom and pure linear logic out the window for a while, and to let the creative mind run free for a while. “The box" is a mental construct made up of personal (self imposed) and environmental (culture, parental influence, society) components that one operates within, so thinking outside "the box" means doing something outside of the confines of the construct. More often, the box is your safety net and your comfort zone. The box is anyone’s comfort zone, that things are ok and everyone agrees and have the same or similar thoughts. It's a boring tiny space with very little innovative thought contained within the box. In fact, everything in the box is easy to turn stale and stagnant. Great things don't happen inside your comfort zone or in a box; typically, it's associated with convention within context. Organizations need to allow time for a number of different 'creative' activities or opportunities to suit different types of people. In the same way that people have different 'learning' styles, they also have different innovation styles. Creativity is a synthesis of two qualities: imagination with which you create new ideas and the concreteness with which you can transform ideas into real work.
Do you have “discovering” eyes to see the patterns underneath via practicing Systems Thinking? Creativity is an outcome of a deep understanding of the patterns of thinking that underlies Systems Thinking. There are "common structures" that can be used for the purpose of creativity that are produced by combining different patterns of Systems Thinking. Perhaps this will help. A systems thinker without creativity ends up as a caretaker or administrator. A creative person without systemic thinking might lack structure frame to keep focus. Creativity to some extent, is the nature of seeing the patterns that already exist, and then being able to predict how they change, and sometimes manipulate them in a direction that fits our needs or that of our objective.
Creativity is the high level of intelligence. Encourage Diversity of thought and non-egalitarian review. The best way to end up where everybody else is to follow the majority guidance on where to go at every turn. At creative organizations, people are encouraged and given the time resources to work on new things that excite them, all are required to produce new ideas, people are often trained in creative methods and techniques, the business model is often challenged, everyone has a personal creativity objective at work and there is much humor to go around.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Vision vs. Strategy
Keeping it simple, you have a vision of what you are to become and a strategy for making that happen.
Vision is where or who you want to be and Strategy is how you can achieve or reach your goal. An unclear vision leads to defective strategy. Visions inspire; strategies compel; vision comes first, but sometimes vision appears and gets clear by working on the strategy. A vision describes the desired future position of the company. A strategy is an action or ways chosen to bring about the desired future, such as achievement of a goal.
Vision is the end goal, the strategy is the plan to get there.Vision is where to go, Strategy is how to get there. Vision is the visual interpretation of your finest dream of, or what you desire to become. Which inspires you and your followers and stakeholders. Whereas strategy is the professional breakdown of your philosophy and methodology to achieve something. Vision is your point on the horizon, the strategy is how you will get there. Vision is the visual interpretation of your finest dream of, or what you desire to become. Which inspires you and your followers and stakeholders. Whereas your strategy is the professional breakdown of your philosophy and methodology to achieve something. Vision is your point on the horizon, the strategy is how you will get there. As circumstances are changing rapidly, a strategy is a roadmap which need to be checked and revised constantly.
The vision is the destination. The strategy is the road map to getting there. Vision is the future you want to realize from a coordinated effort. The strategy is the systematic plan that assists you in employing your efforts towards achieving the desired output; with optimal utilization of your skill and available resources in the minimum time possible. Vision provides insight into where an organization needs to go and is future oriented. It informs the Change Agenda and requires Leadership. The Change Agenda is typically a series of special projects or initiatives that help the organization move towards the vision. The Strategic Plan is the document that typically outlines the roadmap for the achievement of the vision. A strategy is the course of collective / personal actions to achieve milestones set by individual or collective conscious to achieve desired future result. Check out BHAG - Big Hairy Audacious Goal - and find out that many great companies have great goals and manage to live up to them! You can have one vision but multiple strategies to get there.
Vision is some mental picture which may be or may not be successfully projected to reality. The strategy is a pipe ending in fulfillment of your vision. A vision is how you see the future unfolding, how you dream about what the future will look like from your standpoint. A strategy is a way you will carry yourself out, your plan to make your vision a reality. A subset of the Strategic Plan is the Operational Plan which provides the short-term activities that business units are tasked to achieve as their contribution to the Strategic Plan and Vision. The Mission is often confused with Vision. The Mission is the description of the mandate of the organization that informs the sustaining Agenda - that is what the organization does on a day to day basis. The Mission is focused on the value that the organization brings to its customers and stakeholders. The strategy itself can encompass many techniques and tools. There are companies who, for example, have a vision of being global leaders in a particular segment. One can't assume that one strategy with different tools and techniques can work in every market. Thus, some markets would need a particular strategy to achieve that vision, and some markets would need a different strategy to achieve the same vision. The strategy is any long-term pattern of real behavior.
Keeping it simple, you have a vision of what you are to become and a strategy for making that happen. The purpose, embodied in the core value proposition, inspires the vision which defines the mission which informs the strategies which exist to achieve the objectives. So, vision is the inspirational end state while strategies exist to define the body of work needed to achieve the objectives. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Vision is where or who you want to be and Strategy is how you can achieve or reach your goal. An unclear vision leads to defective strategy. Visions inspire; strategies compel; vision comes first, but sometimes vision appears and gets clear by working on the strategy. A vision describes the desired future position of the company. A strategy is an action or ways chosen to bring about the desired future, such as achievement of a goal.
Vision is the end goal, the strategy is the plan to get there.Vision is where to go, Strategy is how to get there. Vision is the visual interpretation of your finest dream of, or what you desire to become. Which inspires you and your followers and stakeholders. Whereas strategy is the professional breakdown of your philosophy and methodology to achieve something. Vision is your point on the horizon, the strategy is how you will get there. Vision is the visual interpretation of your finest dream of, or what you desire to become. Which inspires you and your followers and stakeholders. Whereas your strategy is the professional breakdown of your philosophy and methodology to achieve something. Vision is your point on the horizon, the strategy is how you will get there. As circumstances are changing rapidly, a strategy is a roadmap which need to be checked and revised constantly.
The vision is the destination. The strategy is the road map to getting there. Vision is the future you want to realize from a coordinated effort. The strategy is the systematic plan that assists you in employing your efforts towards achieving the desired output; with optimal utilization of your skill and available resources in the minimum time possible. Vision provides insight into where an organization needs to go and is future oriented. It informs the Change Agenda and requires Leadership. The Change Agenda is typically a series of special projects or initiatives that help the organization move towards the vision. The Strategic Plan is the document that typically outlines the roadmap for the achievement of the vision. A strategy is the course of collective / personal actions to achieve milestones set by individual or collective conscious to achieve desired future result. Check out BHAG - Big Hairy Audacious Goal - and find out that many great companies have great goals and manage to live up to them! You can have one vision but multiple strategies to get there.
Vision is some mental picture which may be or may not be successfully projected to reality. The strategy is a pipe ending in fulfillment of your vision. A vision is how you see the future unfolding, how you dream about what the future will look like from your standpoint. A strategy is a way you will carry yourself out, your plan to make your vision a reality. A subset of the Strategic Plan is the Operational Plan which provides the short-term activities that business units are tasked to achieve as their contribution to the Strategic Plan and Vision. The Mission is often confused with Vision. The Mission is the description of the mandate of the organization that informs the sustaining Agenda - that is what the organization does on a day to day basis. The Mission is focused on the value that the organization brings to its customers and stakeholders. The strategy itself can encompass many techniques and tools. There are companies who, for example, have a vision of being global leaders in a particular segment. One can't assume that one strategy with different tools and techniques can work in every market. Thus, some markets would need a particular strategy to achieve that vision, and some markets would need a different strategy to achieve the same vision. The strategy is any long-term pattern of real behavior. Keeping it simple, you have a vision of what you are to become and a strategy for making that happen. The purpose, embodied in the core value proposition, inspires the vision which defines the mission which informs the strategies which exist to achieve the objectives. So, vision is the inspirational end state while strategies exist to define the body of work needed to achieve the objectives. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
From Survival Instincts to Thriving Sophistication!
The balance in everything is the key.
The mind is the software that promotes and regulates each function and each action of our body, from the reproduction and reconstruction of our cells, to the food process and distribution, to our voluntary and involuntary movements, and to all our behaviors, etc. All of the mind’s requests are then processed, implemented, and interfaced by the brain in the different areas of the body. This extraordinarily sophisticated operation is silently going on 24/7, and the most of us will never know much about it. However, the brain activities function for survival instincts are still primitive, what are the further aspect of human sophistication in regards of vision, communication and innovation for problem-solving or overcoming challenges?
The survival system is one of the most powerful and complex software applications of our mind. It has the task of protecting us from every possible physical and emotional risk and damage. Its actions are considered a priority in the behavioral system since our life may depend on it. How does it work? Human’s survival system collects a list of items that are considered dangerous. These may be all sorts of things like thoughts, feelings, emotions, people, animals, objects, sites, or some combination of those. It is database driven and uses a precompiled list of threats to spot and prevent danger. Everything that may represent a threat is listed in the ‘database of the unsafe.’ This list is being constantly compared (24/7) with all of the data that we receive from our senses and our thoughts and covers every physical and emotional aspect of our daily life. If a match is identified, our survival system will believe that we are in danger and initiate a survival protocol.
The balance in everything is the key. But hasn't all this evolved over time? Hasn't our mind learned to adopt the socially acceptable behavior and limited the wild habits? So if you repress the instincts too much, it is likely to cause trouble within you. But at the same time, it doesn't appears sane if you give these wild habits so much importance and embrace the barbaric competition in today's evolved world where we must be working on broader perspectives rather than spending our life in defeating a business competitor for survival. The paradox is that we have already developed so much that mere survival is the shadow perception of the human world. On the other side, as society expands, it becomes more complex and instead of remaining a society more complex, it reverts to chaos hence the struggle for survival more intense.
From survival instincts to thriving sophistication, it’s not quantitative accumulation, but quantum leap. According to discontinuity theory (study.com): Some people see development as consisting of different stages. The discontinuity view of development believes that people pass through stages of life that are qualitatively different from each other. For example, children go from only being able to think in very literal terms to being able to think abstractly. They have moved into the 'abstract thinking' phase of their lives. As you can imagine, discontinuous development is like walking up the stairs: a series of stages, or steps, that get you to the top of the mountain. Noam Chomsky, the prominent proponent of discontinuity theory, argued that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual in the order of 100,000 years ago, instantaneously installing the language faculty, a component of the mind-brain in "perfect" or "near-perfect" form. According to this view, sophistication emergence resembled the formation of a crystal; with digital as the seed crystal in a supersaturated primate brain, on the verge of blossoming into the human mind, by physical law, once evolution added, a single small but crucial keystone. It follows from this hypothesis that sophistication appeared rather suddenly within the history of human evolution.
If we look, we see that all things and especially living creatures have numerous different needs and numerous different wants. And those wants and needs are provided for them at the appropriate time, in unexpected ways, from places they do not know and their hands cannot reach. Among causes human beings are self-evidently the most superior, have the greatest power of choice, and the most extensive ability to control and direct other causes. And among the most obvious of human's actions over which s/he exercises choice are eating and the powers of speech and thought. Furthermore, all these faculties are extremely well-ordered, wonderful, and purposeful chains. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The mind is the software that promotes and regulates each function and each action of our body, from the reproduction and reconstruction of our cells, to the food process and distribution, to our voluntary and involuntary movements, and to all our behaviors, etc. All of the mind’s requests are then processed, implemented, and interfaced by the brain in the different areas of the body. This extraordinarily sophisticated operation is silently going on 24/7, and the most of us will never know much about it. However, the brain activities function for survival instincts are still primitive, what are the further aspect of human sophistication in regards of vision, communication and innovation for problem-solving or overcoming challenges?
The survival system is one of the most powerful and complex software applications of our mind. It has the task of protecting us from every possible physical and emotional risk and damage. Its actions are considered a priority in the behavioral system since our life may depend on it. How does it work? Human’s survival system collects a list of items that are considered dangerous. These may be all sorts of things like thoughts, feelings, emotions, people, animals, objects, sites, or some combination of those. It is database driven and uses a precompiled list of threats to spot and prevent danger. Everything that may represent a threat is listed in the ‘database of the unsafe.’ This list is being constantly compared (24/7) with all of the data that we receive from our senses and our thoughts and covers every physical and emotional aspect of our daily life. If a match is identified, our survival system will believe that we are in danger and initiate a survival protocol.
The balance in everything is the key. But hasn't all this evolved over time? Hasn't our mind learned to adopt the socially acceptable behavior and limited the wild habits? So if you repress the instincts too much, it is likely to cause trouble within you. But at the same time, it doesn't appears sane if you give these wild habits so much importance and embrace the barbaric competition in today's evolved world where we must be working on broader perspectives rather than spending our life in defeating a business competitor for survival. The paradox is that we have already developed so much that mere survival is the shadow perception of the human world. On the other side, as society expands, it becomes more complex and instead of remaining a society more complex, it reverts to chaos hence the struggle for survival more intense.
From survival instincts to thriving sophistication, it’s not quantitative accumulation, but quantum leap. According to discontinuity theory (study.com): Some people see development as consisting of different stages. The discontinuity view of development believes that people pass through stages of life that are qualitatively different from each other. For example, children go from only being able to think in very literal terms to being able to think abstractly. They have moved into the 'abstract thinking' phase of their lives. As you can imagine, discontinuous development is like walking up the stairs: a series of stages, or steps, that get you to the top of the mountain. Noam Chomsky, the prominent proponent of discontinuity theory, argued that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual in the order of 100,000 years ago, instantaneously installing the language faculty, a component of the mind-brain in "perfect" or "near-perfect" form. According to this view, sophistication emergence resembled the formation of a crystal; with digital as the seed crystal in a supersaturated primate brain, on the verge of blossoming into the human mind, by physical law, once evolution added, a single small but crucial keystone. It follows from this hypothesis that sophistication appeared rather suddenly within the history of human evolution.If we look, we see that all things and especially living creatures have numerous different needs and numerous different wants. And those wants and needs are provided for them at the appropriate time, in unexpected ways, from places they do not know and their hands cannot reach. Among causes human beings are self-evidently the most superior, have the greatest power of choice, and the most extensive ability to control and direct other causes. And among the most obvious of human's actions over which s/he exercises choice are eating and the powers of speech and thought. Furthermore, all these faculties are extremely well-ordered, wonderful, and purposeful chains. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Fill Skills Gaps via Proper Trainings?
Training should be a means to an end for improving competence and increased workforce capability.
We live in a time of rapidly changing technology and business dynamic, the growth minds, the new skills, or digital capabilities are needed every day. From talent management perspective, more specifically, how do you identify skill gap issues (some are real, some are “artificial,”) and how to fill competency gaps via proper training?
Well identify the skill gaps and define the competencies required to achieve business goals. Before you can train you need to first define the competencies required to achieve your organizational goals at a technical/functional level, behavioural and attitudinal, core competencies including values, the generic and foundation skills/training that affect all employees and the management and leadership competencies. It's often the case that organization’s training without defining the value impacts what they are looking for. If you know what is done now, what the results are and have been, and you know where you need to be, you can plan for several options. The skills question is one that need to permeate into all levels of the company. You can acquire talent based on skills, train existing employees on these needed skills, or perhaps do a little of both.
Training should be a means to an end for improving competence and increased workforce capability. Often organizations have a training matrix at best, with no measure or assessment of the output, competence or the acquisitions of increased knowledge or skills. It is vitally important if organizations are to see a return on investment and objectively identify talent based on competence and capability, not just training attended. The budget should never be an excuse to not provide the organization with the skill sets it needs to move forward. Training doesn't have to be expensive to be impactful. Being able to succinctly identify what training is needed and deliver those necessary skill sets to the business are critical deliverables for organizational goal achievement. Get creative, find a way. Recruit with the intention to fill not only positions, but skill gaps. Look at recruiting and training budgets together - the better recruit, the less training. The less recruiting costs, the more money available for training. It's a basic make or buy scenario - are you going to grow your people or replace your people? Once you've found the answer to that question, then reassess the budgets with a truer picture of priority. Training budgets that increase without a solid understanding of the performance company leadership have articulated are as dangerous as those that assume performance is not an issue. Performance has to be at the core of any training budget.
E-learning would be efficient for knowledge approach type of training (hard competency). This would be easily observed because you can check directly and immediately after the training completed. What takes time is more on the soft competency such as leadership. Coaching and 360 degrees might be one of the tools to provide feedback to employees if s/he has implemented correctly. The question is to what extent that the trained employee wants or commits to implement what s/he has learned. Otherwise, it will be considered as a waste of time and money on the company side. It is not easy to calculate the ROI especially on soft competency.. it takes time to monitor and prove it. The condition at that time (politics, economy, and globalization) might play a significant role as well.
Every organization must address their common and unique skills requirements and map that out through some sort of skills/competency matrix within their organization. Too often, leaders are allowed to complain generically about what they mean by skill and competency gaps and often they pick the symptom, not digging through the root causes. As the say’s going -hire for character, and train for skills. The organization’s skill gaps can be bridged through futuristic leadership, the culture of learning, effective training and innovation fostering.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
We live in a time of rapidly changing technology and business dynamic, the growth minds, the new skills, or digital capabilities are needed every day. From talent management perspective, more specifically, how do you identify skill gap issues (some are real, some are “artificial,”) and how to fill competency gaps via proper training?
Well identify the skill gaps and define the competencies required to achieve business goals. Before you can train you need to first define the competencies required to achieve your organizational goals at a technical/functional level, behavioural and attitudinal, core competencies including values, the generic and foundation skills/training that affect all employees and the management and leadership competencies. It's often the case that organization’s training without defining the value impacts what they are looking for. If you know what is done now, what the results are and have been, and you know where you need to be, you can plan for several options. The skills question is one that need to permeate into all levels of the company. You can acquire talent based on skills, train existing employees on these needed skills, or perhaps do a little of both.
Training should be a means to an end for improving competence and increased workforce capability. Often organizations have a training matrix at best, with no measure or assessment of the output, competence or the acquisitions of increased knowledge or skills. It is vitally important if organizations are to see a return on investment and objectively identify talent based on competence and capability, not just training attended. The budget should never be an excuse to not provide the organization with the skill sets it needs to move forward. Training doesn't have to be expensive to be impactful. Being able to succinctly identify what training is needed and deliver those necessary skill sets to the business are critical deliverables for organizational goal achievement. Get creative, find a way. Recruit with the intention to fill not only positions, but skill gaps. Look at recruiting and training budgets together - the better recruit, the less training. The less recruiting costs, the more money available for training. It's a basic make or buy scenario - are you going to grow your people or replace your people? Once you've found the answer to that question, then reassess the budgets with a truer picture of priority. Training budgets that increase without a solid understanding of the performance company leadership have articulated are as dangerous as those that assume performance is not an issue. Performance has to be at the core of any training budget.
E-learning would be efficient for knowledge approach type of training (hard competency). This would be easily observed because you can check directly and immediately after the training completed. What takes time is more on the soft competency such as leadership. Coaching and 360 degrees might be one of the tools to provide feedback to employees if s/he has implemented correctly. The question is to what extent that the trained employee wants or commits to implement what s/he has learned. Otherwise, it will be considered as a waste of time and money on the company side. It is not easy to calculate the ROI especially on soft competency.. it takes time to monitor and prove it. The condition at that time (politics, economy, and globalization) might play a significant role as well.Every organization must address their common and unique skills requirements and map that out through some sort of skills/competency matrix within their organization. Too often, leaders are allowed to complain generically about what they mean by skill and competency gaps and often they pick the symptom, not digging through the root causes. As the say’s going -hire for character, and train for skills. The organization’s skill gaps can be bridged through futuristic leadership, the culture of learning, effective training and innovation fostering.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
September 20, 2015
How to Communicate Effectively in Digital Dynamic?
The great communication is not to create more gaps but to bridging the difference and encourage creativity.
The speed of change is significantly increasing. Decentralization, globalization, and diversified workforces can all be practical reasons for communicating barriers. How do you communicate a common message across the globe with empathy, and, in particular, make sure the message you want to communicate resonates effectively?
The communication should tailor your audience, so the solution lies in changing how the message is delivered. There are multiple causes for poor communication, but by far the problem most often is the inability of the "speaker" to adequately accept the real nature of the message or the environment. When someone cannot accept the situation as it really is, the message is often "altered" to fit the need of the speaker. Instead of how you want to communicate, it would be better to understand what method or means or mode of communication will make the receiver comfortable. The biggest barrier has been to say not the way others wanted to listen. Communication barriers are influenced by socio-cultural traits as well. So, respect your audience's cognitive diversity, and try to send the message which appeals to them. You need to tailor what you say, when you say it, and how to say it to the audience. For example, over communication achieves nothing, communication for communication’s sake fails on all levels, face to face works well unless you are trying to get a consistent message to the large group of people. The trick is to keep it short, concise and focused, being considerate of culture, personal circumstance and political sensitivities. Interpersonal communication is often influenced and sometimes hindered by social customs, psychology, and learned behavior. What do these all have in common, and how can they be overcome? Simply put "risk." Risking a little of yourself by putting down your barrier, often encourages others to do the same. Taking the time to know a person’s story can often help improve communication and trust.
Creative communication is often more effective in today’s paradoxical and ambiguous business dynamic: There are descriptive communication and creative communication. A descriptive communicator can well articulate the circumstances and describe the situation clearly, it’s efficient at considerably static and silo industrial age. Because, often the thing is “as-is,” for years without dramatic change, and the audience is often the homogeneous group who gets used to such hierarchical style of communication with black and white reasoning. However, digital means the increasing speed of changes, the knowledge life cycle is significantly shortened, and today’s workforce is multi-generational, multi-cultural and multi-devicing, creative communicators can connect the heterogeneous audience via philosophical insight, vivid metaphors or universal wisdom. They not just articulate what happens today, but convey the vision of “to be,” because future is what really matters. Such communication style is more open and interactive to bridge the gaps and connect the minds and hearts.
Build strong teams: A lot of time and energy is spent on keeping and maintaining that wall instead of developing honest and genuine relationships with people. Once people see you as genuine, the freedom to communicate results in a far more effective system. Communication improves when team development is at its peak. Want more effective communication? Build stronger teams and make effective cross-functional communication. For example, if something important needs to be communicated across departmental boundaries, those doing the communicating might "leave out" information they deem trivial or unimportant, when in fact, it is pertinent. Why do they leave it out? They will assert it doesn't matter, but the reality is that it might be important, and it may implicate someone or the department in general. These omissions lead to mistrust and further poor communication. In addition, open communication doesn’t mean rumor mongering or gossip encouraging, on the opposite, it’s about brainstorming how to bring wisdom to the workforce and build a positive culture to improve organizational maturity. The biggest barriers to effective communication, and to championing change include, but not limited to 1) the need to be the smartest person in the room; 2) not wanting to give up control; 3) not taking the time to explain your vision so that others have a chance to buy into it; 4) expecting others to follow even if you don't lead.
Well mix the richness of multiple digital communication channels. Information overload can be a major barrier to communication. It varies from person to person, some can take more information, others can't. The best way is to make the information crisp and simple so that it is communicated well. For communicating changes, the richest communication channel you can possibly use is important. It’s important to leverage multiple digital channels and methods to communicate both via virtual communication channels and face-to-face meetings. Also, communication is a two-way street, it takes a while for two-way communication if handled properly. After all everyone likes to be part of the proceedings and learn. How do you overcome those barriers? Overcoming barriers that originate from the sender seem far more substantial than the other communication components. Issues with the sender (or anyone for that matter) are usually deep-seated and often layered under a form of denial. Overcoming this requires a very high emotional intelligence level since it probes at the core of the ego. Many times people are so set in preparing their answer or set in justifying their own answer, that they are unable to truly listen and be open.
Authenticity is important to engage with others. It's only when we lead with our true selves that we're able to connect meaningfully, build trust, and truly engage with others' authentic selves. Lack of trust is an often overlooked barrier to communication. Words and techniques won't matter if the relationship between the giver and sender has been damaged. Leaders, or those who are sending the message, must have integrity, openness, and insight. Usually in the workplace, some managers put up a barrier of being judgmental. Without leaving an open mind, and allowing the individual to finish their message, they would have taken a stand. If communication has to develop fully, it is essential that the person communicating should also be equally aware of what he/she wants to communicate, how he/she communicates and above all ensure that he/she has communicated correctly. Respect in any situation goes along way in getting your message across, however difficult. Also ensuring that you are using a respectful tone in delivering the message to the individual is important.
Regarding communication of change and new initiatives, it's very important to remember that change occurs on a continuum, and you are ahead of the pack because you already know what the change is going to be. You need to help your audience wrap their brains around what will change, what the timeline is, what the benefits are and what the desired outcomes of the change are. What your audience really cares about is what-does-this-mean-to-them. Ask yourself 5W + 1H questions: “What messages do I want to convey? Why is it important to convey this? Who is the target audience? When & Where can I communicate? And how to communicate it more effectively?” The great communication is not to create more gaps but to bridging the difference and encourage creativity.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The speed of change is significantly increasing. Decentralization, globalization, and diversified workforces can all be practical reasons for communicating barriers. How do you communicate a common message across the globe with empathy, and, in particular, make sure the message you want to communicate resonates effectively?
The communication should tailor your audience, so the solution lies in changing how the message is delivered. There are multiple causes for poor communication, but by far the problem most often is the inability of the "speaker" to adequately accept the real nature of the message or the environment. When someone cannot accept the situation as it really is, the message is often "altered" to fit the need of the speaker. Instead of how you want to communicate, it would be better to understand what method or means or mode of communication will make the receiver comfortable. The biggest barrier has been to say not the way others wanted to listen. Communication barriers are influenced by socio-cultural traits as well. So, respect your audience's cognitive diversity, and try to send the message which appeals to them. You need to tailor what you say, when you say it, and how to say it to the audience. For example, over communication achieves nothing, communication for communication’s sake fails on all levels, face to face works well unless you are trying to get a consistent message to the large group of people. The trick is to keep it short, concise and focused, being considerate of culture, personal circumstance and political sensitivities. Interpersonal communication is often influenced and sometimes hindered by social customs, psychology, and learned behavior. What do these all have in common, and how can they be overcome? Simply put "risk." Risking a little of yourself by putting down your barrier, often encourages others to do the same. Taking the time to know a person’s story can often help improve communication and trust.
Creative communication is often more effective in today’s paradoxical and ambiguous business dynamic: There are descriptive communication and creative communication. A descriptive communicator can well articulate the circumstances and describe the situation clearly, it’s efficient at considerably static and silo industrial age. Because, often the thing is “as-is,” for years without dramatic change, and the audience is often the homogeneous group who gets used to such hierarchical style of communication with black and white reasoning. However, digital means the increasing speed of changes, the knowledge life cycle is significantly shortened, and today’s workforce is multi-generational, multi-cultural and multi-devicing, creative communicators can connect the heterogeneous audience via philosophical insight, vivid metaphors or universal wisdom. They not just articulate what happens today, but convey the vision of “to be,” because future is what really matters. Such communication style is more open and interactive to bridge the gaps and connect the minds and hearts.
Build strong teams: A lot of time and energy is spent on keeping and maintaining that wall instead of developing honest and genuine relationships with people. Once people see you as genuine, the freedom to communicate results in a far more effective system. Communication improves when team development is at its peak. Want more effective communication? Build stronger teams and make effective cross-functional communication. For example, if something important needs to be communicated across departmental boundaries, those doing the communicating might "leave out" information they deem trivial or unimportant, when in fact, it is pertinent. Why do they leave it out? They will assert it doesn't matter, but the reality is that it might be important, and it may implicate someone or the department in general. These omissions lead to mistrust and further poor communication. In addition, open communication doesn’t mean rumor mongering or gossip encouraging, on the opposite, it’s about brainstorming how to bring wisdom to the workforce and build a positive culture to improve organizational maturity. The biggest barriers to effective communication, and to championing change include, but not limited to 1) the need to be the smartest person in the room; 2) not wanting to give up control; 3) not taking the time to explain your vision so that others have a chance to buy into it; 4) expecting others to follow even if you don't lead.
Well mix the richness of multiple digital communication channels. Information overload can be a major barrier to communication. It varies from person to person, some can take more information, others can't. The best way is to make the information crisp and simple so that it is communicated well. For communicating changes, the richest communication channel you can possibly use is important. It’s important to leverage multiple digital channels and methods to communicate both via virtual communication channels and face-to-face meetings. Also, communication is a two-way street, it takes a while for two-way communication if handled properly. After all everyone likes to be part of the proceedings and learn. How do you overcome those barriers? Overcoming barriers that originate from the sender seem far more substantial than the other communication components. Issues with the sender (or anyone for that matter) are usually deep-seated and often layered under a form of denial. Overcoming this requires a very high emotional intelligence level since it probes at the core of the ego. Many times people are so set in preparing their answer or set in justifying their own answer, that they are unable to truly listen and be open.
Authenticity is important to engage with others. It's only when we lead with our true selves that we're able to connect meaningfully, build trust, and truly engage with others' authentic selves. Lack of trust is an often overlooked barrier to communication. Words and techniques won't matter if the relationship between the giver and sender has been damaged. Leaders, or those who are sending the message, must have integrity, openness, and insight. Usually in the workplace, some managers put up a barrier of being judgmental. Without leaving an open mind, and allowing the individual to finish their message, they would have taken a stand. If communication has to develop fully, it is essential that the person communicating should also be equally aware of what he/she wants to communicate, how he/she communicates and above all ensure that he/she has communicated correctly. Respect in any situation goes along way in getting your message across, however difficult. Also ensuring that you are using a respectful tone in delivering the message to the individual is important.
Regarding communication of change and new initiatives, it's very important to remember that change occurs on a continuum, and you are ahead of the pack because you already know what the change is going to be. You need to help your audience wrap their brains around what will change, what the timeline is, what the benefits are and what the desired outcomes of the change are. What your audience really cares about is what-does-this-mean-to-them. Ask yourself 5W + 1H questions: “What messages do I want to convey? Why is it important to convey this? Who is the target audience? When & Where can I communicate? And how to communicate it more effectively?” The great communication is not to create more gaps but to bridging the difference and encourage creativity.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
September 19, 2015
Analytical Philosophy
Philosophy consists in clarifying how language can be used.
Analytical Philosophy, also called linguistic philosophy, is a 20th century movement in philosophy which holds that philosophy should apply logical techniques in order to attain conceptual clarity, and that philosophy should be consistent with the success of modern science. For many Analytic Philosophers, language is the principal, and perhaps the only tool, and philosophy consists in clarifying how language can be used.
All philosophy is analytical, including existentialism, phenomenology, etc. The usual stuff misleadingly and meaninglessly referred to as 'Continental philosophy;' but what is presumptively called 'analytic philosophy' is usually about analyzing language with the intention of not so much solving, but dissolving philosophical problems and can itself produce some specious and superficial reasoning, which can be particularly irksome. The situation between object-language and metalanguage, between interpreter and interpreter of interpretation, is the same as the text of ethnography. But once all meaningful levels in a text, including theories and interpretations, are recognized as allegorical, it becomes difficult to view one of them as privileged, accounting for the rest.
Analytic philosophy is a wonderful, albeit antiquated, tradition. A truly modern analytics would be able to see through the hallucination of the entheogens in order to make logical deductions regarding their effects as well. The description of the relation between the canon of signs and an interpretive language which “speaks” that canon, and the description of that relationship in a third text, replicates precisely the same structural relationship. The text of theory is not situated higher in an ontological hierarchy, nor can its language be divided, as in Plato, from the specificity of its linguistic effects, allowing it to become a master language which looks down upon other languages from above.
The problem with the analytic movement has its historical root. “The question then arises whether philosophy itself is to be assimilated to the empirical or to the a priori sciences. Early empiricists assimilated it to the empirical sciences. Moreover, they were less self-reflective about the methods of philosophy than are contemporary analytic philosophers. Preoccupied with epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and the philosophy of mind, and holding that fundamental facts can be learned about these subjects from individual introspection, early empiricists took their work to be a kind of introspective psychology. Analytic philosophers in the 20th century, on the other hand, were less inclined to appeal ultimately to direct introspection. More important, the development of modern symbolic logic seemed to promise help in solving philosophical problems—and logic is as a priori as science can be. It seemed, then, that philosophy must be classified with mathematics and logic. The exact nature and proper methodology of philosophy, however, remained in dispute. (britannica.com)
Many scientists think that philosophy has no place, so for me it's a sad time because the role of reflection, contemplation, meditation, self-inquiry, insight, intuition, imagination, creativity, free will, is in a way not given any importance, which is the domain of philosophers. -Deepak Chopra
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Analytical Philosophy, also called linguistic philosophy, is a 20th century movement in philosophy which holds that philosophy should apply logical techniques in order to attain conceptual clarity, and that philosophy should be consistent with the success of modern science. For many Analytic Philosophers, language is the principal, and perhaps the only tool, and philosophy consists in clarifying how language can be used.
All philosophy is analytical, including existentialism, phenomenology, etc. The usual stuff misleadingly and meaninglessly referred to as 'Continental philosophy;' but what is presumptively called 'analytic philosophy' is usually about analyzing language with the intention of not so much solving, but dissolving philosophical problems and can itself produce some specious and superficial reasoning, which can be particularly irksome. The situation between object-language and metalanguage, between interpreter and interpreter of interpretation, is the same as the text of ethnography. But once all meaningful levels in a text, including theories and interpretations, are recognized as allegorical, it becomes difficult to view one of them as privileged, accounting for the rest.
Analytic philosophy is a wonderful, albeit antiquated, tradition. A truly modern analytics would be able to see through the hallucination of the entheogens in order to make logical deductions regarding their effects as well. The description of the relation between the canon of signs and an interpretive language which “speaks” that canon, and the description of that relationship in a third text, replicates precisely the same structural relationship. The text of theory is not situated higher in an ontological hierarchy, nor can its language be divided, as in Plato, from the specificity of its linguistic effects, allowing it to become a master language which looks down upon other languages from above.
The problem with the analytic movement has its historical root. “The question then arises whether philosophy itself is to be assimilated to the empirical or to the a priori sciences. Early empiricists assimilated it to the empirical sciences. Moreover, they were less self-reflective about the methods of philosophy than are contemporary analytic philosophers. Preoccupied with epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and the philosophy of mind, and holding that fundamental facts can be learned about these subjects from individual introspection, early empiricists took their work to be a kind of introspective psychology. Analytic philosophers in the 20th century, on the other hand, were less inclined to appeal ultimately to direct introspection. More important, the development of modern symbolic logic seemed to promise help in solving philosophical problems—and logic is as a priori as science can be. It seemed, then, that philosophy must be classified with mathematics and logic. The exact nature and proper methodology of philosophy, however, remained in dispute. (britannica.com)Many scientists think that philosophy has no place, so for me it's a sad time because the role of reflection, contemplation, meditation, self-inquiry, insight, intuition, imagination, creativity, free will, is in a way not given any importance, which is the domain of philosophers. -Deepak Chopra
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
