Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1456
February 12, 2015
A Cognitive Mind: Is Cognition = thinking
Cognition is a perception, sensation and insight.
A simple look into the dictionary: Cognition is 1) the mental process of acquiring knowledge through thought, experience and senses. 2) a perception, sensation or resulting from 1). The “definition” of cognitive Science is the study of thought, learning and mental organization. Admittedly, a dictionary does not really tells us much, but it’s a good start...
In principle, a thought is a meaning. And the meaning could range from vague (ambiguous) to the very specific. Usually, the meaning slides towards specific by verbal means. However, music is also considered as a language organizing/ expressing emotional/physiological meanings. Another complications is that the act of perception is actually act of assigning meaning to stimuli. It’ll start with a century old definition of habit: "A habit, from the standpoint of psychology, is a more or less fixed way of thinking, willing, or feeling acquired through previous repetition of a mental experience." And to shun more light of Active Perception theory: "A habit, from the standpoint of psychology, is a more or less fixed way of perceiving, thinking, willing, or feeling acquired through previous repetition of a mental experience."
It is simplification to call cognition thinking, which means people acquire knowledge through thinking and sensing. When we explore the mental process of acquiring new knowledge through thought, experience and senses - the cognition involves exploring varieties of meanings/thoughts and abandoning old and establishing new relations. In neuronal terms, this involves disabling some of the “wiring” and working on the new ones. All of that requires a deliberate mental effort. The mental process itself is likely to employ the enhanced version of Kolmogorov’s Complexity (also known as descriptive complexity, Kolmogorov–Chaitin complexity, algorithmic entropy, or program-size complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is a measure of the computability resources needed to specify the object and enhanced version of nonmonotonic logic)...
Physicality and meaning are the two sides of the same coin. By sliding over the spectrum (from biology to anthropology), we have also erased traditional superficial boundaries of the meaning of the thought. And we have also tackled this mostly as habitual patterns. The description of the past and present is a basis for prediction about what is likely to happen next. The more accurate prediction - the better chances for survival are. And that offers a clear evolutionary advantage to an organism and to species in general. We actually do (most of the time) “think” - or, “rethink” (like react) habitually. The actual “thinking” is a conscious or non-conscious effort to reorganize your memories (meanings) and integrate newly acquired knowledge (new meanings). The conscious effort employs and tries to expand one’s attention span to stay focused on the wide range of meanings (memories) in order to reconcile them in a coherent whole. Up to now, we also have established links between traditional concept of “thinking,” “feeling” (music) and partly “willing.” Willing should be considered as any type of physical/ physiological acts (including verbal) - Intended to achieve desired outcome.
Cognition can happen in many different ways and their combinations: Enhancing our “description of the world and ourselves within it” - is cognition and differs from ordinary (usually habitual) thoughts. 1) Discovering meaningful differences between phenomena (meanings) we considered to be the “same”; 2) Discovering meaningful similarities between phenomena (meanings) we considered to be entirely “different”; 3) Discovering similarities between whole clusters of phenomena (meanings) we haven’t noticed before; 4) Discovering meaningful differences within whole clusters of phenomena (meaning) we haven’t noticed before; 5) Discovering entirely new levels of abstractions that might rearrange whole clusters and even the whole of our “description of the world and ourselves within it” And there is more. All of the rest are habitual and nonhabitual thoughts about details within the present belief system...
In short, cognition reorganizes parts of one’s belief system, and thoughts navigate within one’s present belief system as it is. That’s not to say that thoughts do not occasionally trip over beliefs that might prompt a reorganization. Just as it’s been defined, cognition is a perception, sensation and insight.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
A simple look into the dictionary: Cognition is 1) the mental process of acquiring knowledge through thought, experience and senses. 2) a perception, sensation or resulting from 1). The “definition” of cognitive Science is the study of thought, learning and mental organization. Admittedly, a dictionary does not really tells us much, but it’s a good start...
In principle, a thought is a meaning. And the meaning could range from vague (ambiguous) to the very specific. Usually, the meaning slides towards specific by verbal means. However, music is also considered as a language organizing/ expressing emotional/physiological meanings. Another complications is that the act of perception is actually act of assigning meaning to stimuli. It’ll start with a century old definition of habit: "A habit, from the standpoint of psychology, is a more or less fixed way of thinking, willing, or feeling acquired through previous repetition of a mental experience." And to shun more light of Active Perception theory: "A habit, from the standpoint of psychology, is a more or less fixed way of perceiving, thinking, willing, or feeling acquired through previous repetition of a mental experience."
It is simplification to call cognition thinking, which means people acquire knowledge through thinking and sensing. When we explore the mental process of acquiring new knowledge through thought, experience and senses - the cognition involves exploring varieties of meanings/thoughts and abandoning old and establishing new relations. In neuronal terms, this involves disabling some of the “wiring” and working on the new ones. All of that requires a deliberate mental effort. The mental process itself is likely to employ the enhanced version of Kolmogorov’s Complexity (also known as descriptive complexity, Kolmogorov–Chaitin complexity, algorithmic entropy, or program-size complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is a measure of the computability resources needed to specify the object and enhanced version of nonmonotonic logic)...
Physicality and meaning are the two sides of the same coin. By sliding over the spectrum (from biology to anthropology), we have also erased traditional superficial boundaries of the meaning of the thought. And we have also tackled this mostly as habitual patterns. The description of the past and present is a basis for prediction about what is likely to happen next. The more accurate prediction - the better chances for survival are. And that offers a clear evolutionary advantage to an organism and to species in general. We actually do (most of the time) “think” - or, “rethink” (like react) habitually. The actual “thinking” is a conscious or non-conscious effort to reorganize your memories (meanings) and integrate newly acquired knowledge (new meanings). The conscious effort employs and tries to expand one’s attention span to stay focused on the wide range of meanings (memories) in order to reconcile them in a coherent whole. Up to now, we also have established links between traditional concept of “thinking,” “feeling” (music) and partly “willing.” Willing should be considered as any type of physical/ physiological acts (including verbal) - Intended to achieve desired outcome.
Cognition can happen in many different ways and their combinations: Enhancing our “description of the world and ourselves within it” - is cognition and differs from ordinary (usually habitual) thoughts. 1) Discovering meaningful differences between phenomena (meanings) we considered to be the “same”; 2) Discovering meaningful similarities between phenomena (meanings) we considered to be entirely “different”; 3) Discovering similarities between whole clusters of phenomena (meanings) we haven’t noticed before; 4) Discovering meaningful differences within whole clusters of phenomena (meaning) we haven’t noticed before; 5) Discovering entirely new levels of abstractions that might rearrange whole clusters and even the whole of our “description of the world and ourselves within it” And there is more. All of the rest are habitual and nonhabitual thoughts about details within the present belief system...
In short, cognition reorganizes parts of one’s belief system, and thoughts navigate within one’s present belief system as it is. That’s not to say that thoughts do not occasionally trip over beliefs that might prompt a reorganization. Just as it’s been defined, cognition is a perception, sensation and insight.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
February 11, 2015
Digital Master Tuning XXXVII: How to Apply Creativity to Frame and Solve the Right problem?
The point is, framing the right problem is equally or even more important than solving it.
If the very purpose of business is to create customers, then, the big challenge for business’s survival and blossom is how to solve business problems systematically and skillfully. More critically, how to apply creativity to frame the right problem and solve it right is a fundamental capability to grow as a Digital Master?
The problem seems to be that a lot of the time the problem definition process is not implemented. Or there are several, even many processes suggested for defining problems. However the simplest way appears to be to identify the etymology of the word which suggests a “hidden barrier ahead.” Framing the right question more often needs to step back, or get out of box, in order to look at the problem from the different angle or understand the issues holistically via multi-disciplinary lenses , not get inundated into too much details. Hence, the problem-defining process needs to be not too rigid, but a robust and creative process to embrace emergent factor and welcome agile critical thinking.
Unless there is a problem there is no creativity. Any problem is the right problem if there is an attempt to find a solution. It becomes about addressing the correct need and perhaps the problem becomes how to identify the need at the right level, continue to ask 'Why is that a problem?' at each successive stage. Perhaps the underlying issue is one of understanding the application of creativity rather than the identification of a situation that demands a specific solution. Sometimes lack of creativity becomes the problem after many people refused to deal with it for various reasons, and ignored it until it becomes a problem and later, the bigger problem, and the harder problem; the even hard problem to avoid problem, the business survival problem or the career breaker problem.
Creative and methodical solvers exhibited different activity in areas of the brain that process visual information. The pattern of “alpha” and “beta” brainwaves in creative solvers was consistent with diffuse rather than focused visual attention. This may allow creative individuals to broadly sample the environment for experiences that can trigger remote associations to produce an Aha! moment… In addition to contributing to current knowledge about the neural basis of creativity, this study suggests the possible development of new brain imaging techniques for assessing potential for creative thought, and for assessing the effectiveness of methods for training individuals to think creatively. - Drexel University Source:
There is as much creative thinking that goes into problem identification as solution finding. Having brainstorming helps problem identification to avoid “worrying about the wrong thing” symptom. One of the problems with brainstorming in an organizational context is that everyone thinks it is easy! Ideally it is that a competent facilitator brought in at the right point will spend as much effort in 'problem identification' as they will do in solution finding. In reality, the Board have often decided they know what the problem is and then you end up with the situation you have identified..always encourage critical and creative thinking (agile critical thinking) at every level of your company.
The point is, framing the right problem is equally or even more important than solving it; it is important to applying the creativity in a recursive way to the creative process for both problem identification and problem solving, also learning from other’s failures, and breakdown the large problem into the small problems, in order to solve them in iterative and creative way.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun QuizFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
If the very purpose of business is to create customers, then, the big challenge for business’s survival and blossom is how to solve business problems systematically and skillfully. More critically, how to apply creativity to frame the right problem and solve it right is a fundamental capability to grow as a Digital Master?
The problem seems to be that a lot of the time the problem definition process is not implemented. Or there are several, even many processes suggested for defining problems. However the simplest way appears to be to identify the etymology of the word which suggests a “hidden barrier ahead.” Framing the right question more often needs to step back, or get out of box, in order to look at the problem from the different angle or understand the issues holistically via multi-disciplinary lenses , not get inundated into too much details. Hence, the problem-defining process needs to be not too rigid, but a robust and creative process to embrace emergent factor and welcome agile critical thinking.
Unless there is a problem there is no creativity. Any problem is the right problem if there is an attempt to find a solution. It becomes about addressing the correct need and perhaps the problem becomes how to identify the need at the right level, continue to ask 'Why is that a problem?' at each successive stage. Perhaps the underlying issue is one of understanding the application of creativity rather than the identification of a situation that demands a specific solution. Sometimes lack of creativity becomes the problem after many people refused to deal with it for various reasons, and ignored it until it becomes a problem and later, the bigger problem, and the harder problem; the even hard problem to avoid problem, the business survival problem or the career breaker problem.
Creative and methodical solvers exhibited different activity in areas of the brain that process visual information. The pattern of “alpha” and “beta” brainwaves in creative solvers was consistent with diffuse rather than focused visual attention. This may allow creative individuals to broadly sample the environment for experiences that can trigger remote associations to produce an Aha! moment… In addition to contributing to current knowledge about the neural basis of creativity, this study suggests the possible development of new brain imaging techniques for assessing potential for creative thought, and for assessing the effectiveness of methods for training individuals to think creatively. - Drexel University Source:
There is as much creative thinking that goes into problem identification as solution finding. Having brainstorming helps problem identification to avoid “worrying about the wrong thing” symptom. One of the problems with brainstorming in an organizational context is that everyone thinks it is easy! Ideally it is that a competent facilitator brought in at the right point will spend as much effort in 'problem identification' as they will do in solution finding. In reality, the Board have often decided they know what the problem is and then you end up with the situation you have identified..always encourage critical and creative thinking (agile critical thinking) at every level of your company.
The point is, framing the right problem is equally or even more important than solving it; it is important to applying the creativity in a recursive way to the creative process for both problem identification and problem solving, also learning from other’s failures, and breakdown the large problem into the small problems, in order to solve them in iterative and creative way.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun QuizFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
What’s The #1 Pick of Board Function
Governance is like a steer wheel, comprises six elements: culture, values, leadership, resource allocation, strategy, and controls.
Business management and governance are interdependent disciplines to keep businesses move towards the right direction with the proper speed. Governance is like a steer wheel, comprises six elements: culture, values, leadership, resource allocation, strategy, and controls. The first two are intangible but are reflected in choice of leadership, approval of how resources are allocated, approval of what strategies are pursued to convert those resources into stakeholder value, and controls that foster conformance with culture, values, allocation of resources and strategy. The board as one of the most significant governance bodies, if you had to choose one and only one function of a corporate board of directors, what is the single most important function / role?
The most important function of any board is the oversight of a holistic company strategy & execution through focused leadership; monitor its implementation and results, amend wherever necessary to match changing marketplace conditions; and by doing so to ensure the long term financial stability of the company while improving shareholder wealth. Also oversee the management of risks to the reputation, viability, and profitability of the enterprise.
Ensure integrity in the management of the organization. It means keeping the organization intact by ensuring sustainability. That would require picking the right senior executive team, ensuring effective governance and partnering with the CXOs to take the company forward while assessing long term risks as part of the overall strategy process. The most important function of 'an independent director' is to ensure integrity-ensure uninhibited checks and controls over the functioning and decision making of the 'collective Board.' Integrity encompasses accountability. A person of high integrity will also have good ethical conduct. Integrity causes management to leverage information that is required for decision making by the board and shareholders. Integrity causes management to be responsible and accountable.
Establish sound corporate governance structure framework that will steer up strategic goal setting and strong internal controls. The important board activities include deliberation, moving the enterprise forward, ensuring the organization makes sense, etc. These are strategies associated with the execution of the governance. It is to define the best possible working equilibrium between the often conflicting forces and drivers, both external and internal, whether imposed or adopted, acting on the organization’s vision and strategy. So the governance is an organization's ability to manage its responsibilities for environmental stewardship, social well being and economic prosperity over the long term transparently; while being held accountable to its stakeholders from the defined value holds through its impact capital results. The effective governance discipline can well balance a value-based equation, supported by a solid framework of governance structure and cultural values, through careful ROV calculations and evaluations.
It is hard to only pick one function, doing all above effectively are important for successful business governance; from strategy oversight to governance structure & framework; from leadership grooming to talent/culture development, the board provides an “outside-in” view of the business and multi-dimensional lenses to oversee and advise business strategy and execution and steer business toward the right direction.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Business management and governance are interdependent disciplines to keep businesses move towards the right direction with the proper speed. Governance is like a steer wheel, comprises six elements: culture, values, leadership, resource allocation, strategy, and controls. The first two are intangible but are reflected in choice of leadership, approval of how resources are allocated, approval of what strategies are pursued to convert those resources into stakeholder value, and controls that foster conformance with culture, values, allocation of resources and strategy. The board as one of the most significant governance bodies, if you had to choose one and only one function of a corporate board of directors, what is the single most important function / role? The most important function of any board is the oversight of a holistic company strategy & execution through focused leadership; monitor its implementation and results, amend wherever necessary to match changing marketplace conditions; and by doing so to ensure the long term financial stability of the company while improving shareholder wealth. Also oversee the management of risks to the reputation, viability, and profitability of the enterprise.
Ensure integrity in the management of the organization. It means keeping the organization intact by ensuring sustainability. That would require picking the right senior executive team, ensuring effective governance and partnering with the CXOs to take the company forward while assessing long term risks as part of the overall strategy process. The most important function of 'an independent director' is to ensure integrity-ensure uninhibited checks and controls over the functioning and decision making of the 'collective Board.' Integrity encompasses accountability. A person of high integrity will also have good ethical conduct. Integrity causes management to leverage information that is required for decision making by the board and shareholders. Integrity causes management to be responsible and accountable.
Establish sound corporate governance structure framework that will steer up strategic goal setting and strong internal controls. The important board activities include deliberation, moving the enterprise forward, ensuring the organization makes sense, etc. These are strategies associated with the execution of the governance. It is to define the best possible working equilibrium between the often conflicting forces and drivers, both external and internal, whether imposed or adopted, acting on the organization’s vision and strategy. So the governance is an organization's ability to manage its responsibilities for environmental stewardship, social well being and economic prosperity over the long term transparently; while being held accountable to its stakeholders from the defined value holds through its impact capital results. The effective governance discipline can well balance a value-based equation, supported by a solid framework of governance structure and cultural values, through careful ROV calculations and evaluations. It is hard to only pick one function, doing all above effectively are important for successful business governance; from strategy oversight to governance structure & framework; from leadership grooming to talent/culture development, the board provides an “outside-in” view of the business and multi-dimensional lenses to oversee and advise business strategy and execution and steer business toward the right direction.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
February 10, 2015
Is IT an Enabler or an Obstacle to Get Things Done in Organizations
IT leaders must know how to promote their organizations by "selling the right things right."
In many organizations, IT has been perceived as a controller, a cost center, or even an obstacle to get things done in the business. What’s the reality of your IT organization? How do you get the non-IT stakeholders to recognize and support the notion that IT and Business are not separate or independent departments? How do you get all stakeholders (IT and non-IT) to encourage the notion that IT and business need to work together to be successful? How do you get non-IT stakeholders to focus on collaboration, transparency, respect, and providing clear leadership?
Having collaborative understanding of business goals & planning: Having a collaborative understanding environment is essential. The issue being raised regarding obstacles is that IT is viewed as an inhibitor, rather than an enabler/driver of change. Too often IT is not involved at a goal level but instead at a task level. This creates an environment where the IT folks focus less on the objective and more on the rules and processes that are defined for their department. So instead of working to find solutions they sometimes view their responsibility as to evaluate risks solely from a risk perspective. IT and the business need to work together in the planning process. This is becoming ever more important since IT is indeed becoming more and more as business in most sectors. So in order to develop sound plans, plenty of IT and process expertise needs to be involved, to ensure that the IT organizational leadership is involved setting the business strategy and goals of the company. Then work to build, support and reward an environment that recognizes diversity and inclusion (cross-functional brainstorming and collaboration) for success. Break down old school silos of thought, IT and Business are not separate departments. IT does not run the show and should not hold up the business and business does not own the goals and own the solution. The company, every department needs to work together to be successful. Collaboration, transparency, respect and clear leadership are the keys to breaking down the realities and the perceptions of this issue.
Decomplexitizng the processes: There is a combination of factors at work which indeed link closely to the issues around business-IT enablement. Too often IT is usually involved too late in the decision making process. This results in a dynamic where the business develops enthusiastically nice and shiny plans and goals, and IT then has to explain why this cannot be developed and fit into the existing architecture at a reasonable investment. Often the business then turns to external IT suppliers who always tell them they can deliver in a cheap and timely fashion, not being constrained by governance or architecture related issues. This reinforces the perception that the internal IT department cannot deliver. The process of changing a good business idea into an effective IT solution has become awfully complex and messy in many larger organizations. You can not deliver value without "de-complexitizing" and making transparent what is being delivered and how or what is being delivered. Unless there is a collaborative and understanding environment, the perception is that IT is raising roadblocks. As part of and in concert with the top management team, IT leadership needs to sort through the issues, develop rationalizations and achieve mutually acceptable solutions that are then communicated up, down and across the enterprise. Simplifying such processes using agile principles and just common sense helps a great deal in improving predictability, which makes it easier to manage expectations. Just putting IT and the business physically in the same room can often already help a great deal and enhances business understanding of IT.
Leadership and culture: In many cases the business still views IT as a service desk, not as a business partner. This results in that the business usually blames IT for not delivering without understanding and accepting their own role in the failure. IT becomes an easy excuse for being too late and above budget. Leadership that understand both business and IT and focuses on a shared responsibility for effective delivery of IT solutions is usually needed to break through such behavior. IT leaders must know how to promote their organization by "selling the right things right," to have the seat at the big table to envision the radical digital transformation IT can catalyze and the culture of innovation IT shall enable. IT includes the organization/people, technology, and processes that are in place; anything less would be a misnomer or at the very least relinquishing responsibilities. If the focus is on operations and controlling only, it is no wonder non-IT executives consider IT as an obstacle. - IT can enable and DRIVE the enterprise, as it should as an equal partner. - Not only should IT understand the business, but the non-IT organizations need to understand IT. - The focus needs to be more on TVO (Total Value of Ownership) than the TCO, PMO, etc.
IT can not be seen as an enabler unless IT management clearly understands what their organization does for living. IT should be integral to and knowledgeable of the business, aligned to enterprise objectives, an enabler and a facilitator.....and of course, fully competent to provide on-going support and tactical execution. That is not an easy task but it is not impossible either. While it is essential to have IT represent their values as part of entire organization's objectives, it is even more important to have IT and non-IT organizations collaborate on creating the organizations vision, strategy, objectives, mission, plans…
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
In many organizations, IT has been perceived as a controller, a cost center, or even an obstacle to get things done in the business. What’s the reality of your IT organization? How do you get the non-IT stakeholders to recognize and support the notion that IT and Business are not separate or independent departments? How do you get all stakeholders (IT and non-IT) to encourage the notion that IT and business need to work together to be successful? How do you get non-IT stakeholders to focus on collaboration, transparency, respect, and providing clear leadership?
Having collaborative understanding of business goals & planning: Having a collaborative understanding environment is essential. The issue being raised regarding obstacles is that IT is viewed as an inhibitor, rather than an enabler/driver of change. Too often IT is not involved at a goal level but instead at a task level. This creates an environment where the IT folks focus less on the objective and more on the rules and processes that are defined for their department. So instead of working to find solutions they sometimes view their responsibility as to evaluate risks solely from a risk perspective. IT and the business need to work together in the planning process. This is becoming ever more important since IT is indeed becoming more and more as business in most sectors. So in order to develop sound plans, plenty of IT and process expertise needs to be involved, to ensure that the IT organizational leadership is involved setting the business strategy and goals of the company. Then work to build, support and reward an environment that recognizes diversity and inclusion (cross-functional brainstorming and collaboration) for success. Break down old school silos of thought, IT and Business are not separate departments. IT does not run the show and should not hold up the business and business does not own the goals and own the solution. The company, every department needs to work together to be successful. Collaboration, transparency, respect and clear leadership are the keys to breaking down the realities and the perceptions of this issue.
Decomplexitizng the processes: There is a combination of factors at work which indeed link closely to the issues around business-IT enablement. Too often IT is usually involved too late in the decision making process. This results in a dynamic where the business develops enthusiastically nice and shiny plans and goals, and IT then has to explain why this cannot be developed and fit into the existing architecture at a reasonable investment. Often the business then turns to external IT suppliers who always tell them they can deliver in a cheap and timely fashion, not being constrained by governance or architecture related issues. This reinforces the perception that the internal IT department cannot deliver. The process of changing a good business idea into an effective IT solution has become awfully complex and messy in many larger organizations. You can not deliver value without "de-complexitizing" and making transparent what is being delivered and how or what is being delivered. Unless there is a collaborative and understanding environment, the perception is that IT is raising roadblocks. As part of and in concert with the top management team, IT leadership needs to sort through the issues, develop rationalizations and achieve mutually acceptable solutions that are then communicated up, down and across the enterprise. Simplifying such processes using agile principles and just common sense helps a great deal in improving predictability, which makes it easier to manage expectations. Just putting IT and the business physically in the same room can often already help a great deal and enhances business understanding of IT.
Leadership and culture: In many cases the business still views IT as a service desk, not as a business partner. This results in that the business usually blames IT for not delivering without understanding and accepting their own role in the failure. IT becomes an easy excuse for being too late and above budget. Leadership that understand both business and IT and focuses on a shared responsibility for effective delivery of IT solutions is usually needed to break through such behavior. IT leaders must know how to promote their organization by "selling the right things right," to have the seat at the big table to envision the radical digital transformation IT can catalyze and the culture of innovation IT shall enable. IT includes the organization/people, technology, and processes that are in place; anything less would be a misnomer or at the very least relinquishing responsibilities. If the focus is on operations and controlling only, it is no wonder non-IT executives consider IT as an obstacle. - IT can enable and DRIVE the enterprise, as it should as an equal partner. - Not only should IT understand the business, but the non-IT organizations need to understand IT. - The focus needs to be more on TVO (Total Value of Ownership) than the TCO, PMO, etc.
IT can not be seen as an enabler unless IT management clearly understands what their organization does for living. IT should be integral to and knowledgeable of the business, aligned to enterprise objectives, an enabler and a facilitator.....and of course, fully competent to provide on-going support and tactical execution. That is not an easy task but it is not impossible either. While it is essential to have IT represent their values as part of entire organization's objectives, it is even more important to have IT and non-IT organizations collaborate on creating the organizations vision, strategy, objectives, mission, plans…
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
February 7, 2015
Digital Master Tuning XXXIIII: How to Digitalize Human Capital Management
Organizational talent management, performance management, knowledge management and culture management need to be well integrated in order to well align organizational vision with staff engagement.
As always, talent is the most significant asset in any organization today. However, many businesses still treat their people as cost or resource only, lack of integrative approach to manage performance & potential; knowledge & culture in holistic way. With the latest digital technologies and social platform, how to manage your human capital with effectiveness and agility?
Leveraging the latest digital thinking, technology and methodology to invest talent smartly. It is understood that Human Capital Management has been made complicated using means of traditional approaches, because there’s silos thinking and rigid processes in HR to stifle innovation, the traditional hiring or training programs also are out of date and costly; too much focusing on searching for static knowledge and maintain the cost, rather than hunting for the right mindsets and dynamic capability to make smart investment. The main principles keep the same - it is treating the HR assets as you would treat other capital asset -it takes calculated risks and make smart investment. With the digital evolution and innovation taking place in organizations globally, the management also must be mindful that driving force behind the success and prosperity of organizations are employees and they deserves to be rewarded accordingly. Reward creativity, not mediocrity; reward "thinking productivity" to improve business agility & maturity, not just “working productivity” for achieving efficiency. This in turn is a motivating factor for their staff engagement, output capacity improvement, and it needs to be reality in many organizations around the World.
Integrate different pieces of HR into a holistic human capital management solution: Organizational talent management, performance management, knowledge management and culture management need to be well integrated in order to well align organizational vision with talent engagement. The integrated HR has been adopted in many organizations globally today, and varies with the size and value based economy. It’s a good idea to network and share views and perceptions in regards to the innovations and undergoing change process taking place in the field of HR & Management in organizations. The modern Human Capital Management programs and the key HR Programs are integrated including the establishment of the contribution of the role (Size and value based on the country and market placement). The critical issue is that the size and value of the ideal role is determined first and then you assess the employee or applicant against this and end up with a size and value for the employee as well. The modern and innovative HR Approaches is also essential as get employee directly involved in the means of production and attain equitable returns.
The employee involvement into decision making process with the management and their team participation certainly produces excellent results in many organizations around the world. The valuable contribution of employees in the decision making process enables employee to feel the sense of belongingness to the organization and sets a mission to achieve organizations common objective in a sustainable manner.
The challenge is still about how to improve staff engagement and achieve high-performing business result. It takes hard, disciplined work to get it right, especially when either a change in direction is needed or if the leadership isn’t clear on what the desired values are (or if they themselves fit), it is the key to engagement, success and easier management in the long-run. However it is fundamental to a synergize organization. The values identify why and how the organization exists and how it consisting of the people within operates, reacts to circumstance, communicates internally and externally and also attracts and expels people. Hiring people with fitting attitude & behavior, but “misfit” thinking or cognition, not only manage performance to keep business on; but also unleash potential to lift up organizations into the next level. It is challenge to build a high-performing team with complimentary talent or skills, because businesses naturally tend to hire homogeneously, such teams look fit, but not creative enough to perceive things from different angles or approach the problems via alternative solutions.
It makes strategic sense for the organizations to exercise integrated HRM and engaging employee in the means of production with shared vision, it reasonably shared benefits to the both stakeholders which eventually reduces class conflict, and creating stable organizational environment, highly motivated workforce as to achieve management goal solidly. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
As always, talent is the most significant asset in any organization today. However, many businesses still treat their people as cost or resource only, lack of integrative approach to manage performance & potential; knowledge & culture in holistic way. With the latest digital technologies and social platform, how to manage your human capital with effectiveness and agility?
Leveraging the latest digital thinking, technology and methodology to invest talent smartly. It is understood that Human Capital Management has been made complicated using means of traditional approaches, because there’s silos thinking and rigid processes in HR to stifle innovation, the traditional hiring or training programs also are out of date and costly; too much focusing on searching for static knowledge and maintain the cost, rather than hunting for the right mindsets and dynamic capability to make smart investment. The main principles keep the same - it is treating the HR assets as you would treat other capital asset -it takes calculated risks and make smart investment. With the digital evolution and innovation taking place in organizations globally, the management also must be mindful that driving force behind the success and prosperity of organizations are employees and they deserves to be rewarded accordingly. Reward creativity, not mediocrity; reward "thinking productivity" to improve business agility & maturity, not just “working productivity” for achieving efficiency. This in turn is a motivating factor for their staff engagement, output capacity improvement, and it needs to be reality in many organizations around the World.
Integrate different pieces of HR into a holistic human capital management solution: Organizational talent management, performance management, knowledge management and culture management need to be well integrated in order to well align organizational vision with talent engagement. The integrated HR has been adopted in many organizations globally today, and varies with the size and value based economy. It’s a good idea to network and share views and perceptions in regards to the innovations and undergoing change process taking place in the field of HR & Management in organizations. The modern Human Capital Management programs and the key HR Programs are integrated including the establishment of the contribution of the role (Size and value based on the country and market placement). The critical issue is that the size and value of the ideal role is determined first and then you assess the employee or applicant against this and end up with a size and value for the employee as well. The modern and innovative HR Approaches is also essential as get employee directly involved in the means of production and attain equitable returns.
The employee involvement into decision making process with the management and their team participation certainly produces excellent results in many organizations around the world. The valuable contribution of employees in the decision making process enables employee to feel the sense of belongingness to the organization and sets a mission to achieve organizations common objective in a sustainable manner.
The challenge is still about how to improve staff engagement and achieve high-performing business result. It takes hard, disciplined work to get it right, especially when either a change in direction is needed or if the leadership isn’t clear on what the desired values are (or if they themselves fit), it is the key to engagement, success and easier management in the long-run. However it is fundamental to a synergize organization. The values identify why and how the organization exists and how it consisting of the people within operates, reacts to circumstance, communicates internally and externally and also attracts and expels people. Hiring people with fitting attitude & behavior, but “misfit” thinking or cognition, not only manage performance to keep business on; but also unleash potential to lift up organizations into the next level. It is challenge to build a high-performing team with complimentary talent or skills, because businesses naturally tend to hire homogeneously, such teams look fit, but not creative enough to perceive things from different angles or approach the problems via alternative solutions. It makes strategic sense for the organizations to exercise integrated HRM and engaging employee in the means of production with shared vision, it reasonably shared benefits to the both stakeholders which eventually reduces class conflict, and creating stable organizational environment, highly motivated workforce as to achieve management goal solidly. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
An Integrative Mind
Integrative thinking means being able to hold two opposite hypotheses and integrating them in a new, synergistic way.
According to Wikipedia: “Integrative Thinking is a field which was originated by Graham Douglas. He describes Integrative Thinking as the process of integrating intuition, reason and imagination in a human mind with a view to developing a holistic continuum of strategy, tactics, action, review and evaluation for addressing a problem in any field. A problem may be defined as the difference between what one has and what one wants. Integrative Thinking may be learned by applying the SOARA (Satisfying, Optimum, Achievable Results Ahead) Process devised by Douglas to any problem. The SOARA Process employs a set of triggers of internal and external knowledge. This facilitates associations between what may have been regarded as unrelated parts of a problem.
The integrative thinking is also defined as the ability to constructively face the tensions of opposing models; and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generating a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new model that contains elements of the individual models, but is superior to each. Integrative thinkers build models rather than choose between them. Their models include consideration of numerous variables — customers, employees, competitors, capabilities, cost structures, industry evolution, and regulatory environment — not just a subset of the above. Their models capture the complicated, multi-faceted and multidirectional causal relationships between the key variables in any problem. Integrative thinkers consider the problem as a whole, rather than breaking it down and farming out the parts. Finally, they creatively resolve tensions without making costly trade-offs, turning challenges into opportunities. (The Rotman School of Management)
Systems thinking vs. Integrative thinking vs. Synthetic Thinking: Systems thinking would benefit from integrative thinking but systems are defined as parts interacting toward a shared purpose/aim/goal. Feedback loops define them. To think in systems is to think about cause and effect, communications, influence, obstruction, etc. By thinking in systems one looks for the parts that influence each other. Integrative thinking is looking at an issue from multiple perspectives. One could argue that integrative thinking is simply synthesis. Synthesis requires analysis, but it doesn't have to be directed toward understanding the issue in terms of a chain or loop of causal events. Or to even require that it's subject be viewed as a system or part of a system.
Integrative thinkers differ from conventional thinkers among a number of dimensions: They tend to consider most variables of a problem to be salient. Rather than seeking to simplify a problem as much as possible, they are inclined to seek out alternative views and contradictory data.They are willing to embrace a more complex understanding of how those salient features interconnect and influence one another, a more complex understanding of causality. Rather than limiting the possible causal relationships to simple, linear, one-way dynamics, they entertain the possibility that the causal forces may be multi-directional (circular) and complex.Integrative thinkers approach problem architecture differently. Rather than try to deal with elements in piece-parts or sequentially, they strive at all times to keep the whole of the problem in mind while working on the individual parts.When faced with two opposing options that seem to force a trade-off, integrative thinkers strive for a creative resolution of the tension rather than simply accepting the choice in front of them.
“Fundamentally, the conventional thinker prefers to accept the world as it is. The integrative thinker welcomes the challenge of shaping the world for the better.” ― Roger L. Martin, Opposable Mind: Winning Through Integrative ThinkingFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
According to Wikipedia: “Integrative Thinking is a field which was originated by Graham Douglas. He describes Integrative Thinking as the process of integrating intuition, reason and imagination in a human mind with a view to developing a holistic continuum of strategy, tactics, action, review and evaluation for addressing a problem in any field. A problem may be defined as the difference between what one has and what one wants. Integrative Thinking may be learned by applying the SOARA (Satisfying, Optimum, Achievable Results Ahead) Process devised by Douglas to any problem. The SOARA Process employs a set of triggers of internal and external knowledge. This facilitates associations between what may have been regarded as unrelated parts of a problem.
The integrative thinking is also defined as the ability to constructively face the tensions of opposing models; and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generating a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new model that contains elements of the individual models, but is superior to each. Integrative thinkers build models rather than choose between them. Their models include consideration of numerous variables — customers, employees, competitors, capabilities, cost structures, industry evolution, and regulatory environment — not just a subset of the above. Their models capture the complicated, multi-faceted and multidirectional causal relationships between the key variables in any problem. Integrative thinkers consider the problem as a whole, rather than breaking it down and farming out the parts. Finally, they creatively resolve tensions without making costly trade-offs, turning challenges into opportunities. (The Rotman School of Management)
Systems thinking vs. Integrative thinking vs. Synthetic Thinking: Systems thinking would benefit from integrative thinking but systems are defined as parts interacting toward a shared purpose/aim/goal. Feedback loops define them. To think in systems is to think about cause and effect, communications, influence, obstruction, etc. By thinking in systems one looks for the parts that influence each other. Integrative thinking is looking at an issue from multiple perspectives. One could argue that integrative thinking is simply synthesis. Synthesis requires analysis, but it doesn't have to be directed toward understanding the issue in terms of a chain or loop of causal events. Or to even require that it's subject be viewed as a system or part of a system.
Integrative thinkers differ from conventional thinkers among a number of dimensions: They tend to consider most variables of a problem to be salient. Rather than seeking to simplify a problem as much as possible, they are inclined to seek out alternative views and contradictory data.They are willing to embrace a more complex understanding of how those salient features interconnect and influence one another, a more complex understanding of causality. Rather than limiting the possible causal relationships to simple, linear, one-way dynamics, they entertain the possibility that the causal forces may be multi-directional (circular) and complex.Integrative thinkers approach problem architecture differently. Rather than try to deal with elements in piece-parts or sequentially, they strive at all times to keep the whole of the problem in mind while working on the individual parts.When faced with two opposing options that seem to force a trade-off, integrative thinkers strive for a creative resolution of the tension rather than simply accepting the choice in front of them.
“Fundamentally, the conventional thinker prefers to accept the world as it is. The integrative thinker welcomes the challenge of shaping the world for the better.” ― Roger L. Martin, Opposable Mind: Winning Through Integrative ThinkingFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The Journey to High-Performing Agile
Overall, Agile is a mindset change - from doing agile to being agile; from agile newbie to high-performing agilist.
The journey from a traditional software product development team to a high-performing Agile team entails a number of key destinations. Awareness of what constitutes a high-performing Agile team needs to first occur so that all participants on the voyage possess a clear view of the end game. More specifically, what are the steps need to be taken and what’re the hurdles need to be overcome?
Some mindset change is important up-front: There is a difference in agile thinking vs. conventional thinking, that behaviors which make you a hero in one culture may make you a pariah in the other. The idea of productivity as value/time instead of output/time highlights the idea that "output != value" -- and that's something better to understand as soon as possible; or team members will not have the permission to experiment, improve, change, revise specifications, test and prove the framework, and automate their way to a real success. The team needs to understand the motivation to make the change. Let's say if you have a high performing team and you change the way they do business. If they don't understand the motivation behind the change and don't buy into the new way of doing things, they tend to fall back to what worked for them. After all, they were performing to a high standard in their eyes, but not really high-performing from broader organizational perspective.
Accountability & responsibility: Accountability is actually required, but teams can be accountable only if they are given real power to make their own commitments and to decide how to proceed to deliver them (which, many managers too often forget to do). That is, they cannot be held accountable for things pushed on them by their managers. Besides accountability, there’s responsibility. That is, being responsible for something is to agree that you'll do your best to solve a particular problem and that you'll take on the problem as your own. If solving the problem ends up taking longer than expected, then the team might choose to make you responsible for some other aspect of the system, but there's no notion of punishment involved.
Being “fearless”: And when fear is a driver for taking decisions, the next step is to use blame when things go wrong--independently on the goodness of the behavior of the people involved. In many large scale transitions to Agile development, fear has always been one of the major obstacles to change--fear of failure, fear of loss of control, etc. That is happening when they recognize the changes they should be making, but postpone any action to after releasing the next version of the product because there is no time now...
The biggest hurdles of going Agile include:
1). Fear of transparency, which is necessary to have a great Agile implementation 2). Agile used as a way to eliminate certain steps, like planning (some Fragile teams perhaps are lack of priority on making effective decisions) 3). Business sees Agile as something the IT department does, rather than embracing it - this leads to lack of prioritization, which means you still have to deliver everything on the list to get an acceptable grade and you end up, as before, with a project constrained in time and features, with minimal play in resources.
There are many things that need to be done to make a transition to a more Agile way of working. Changes in the sizing and structuring of teams, their decision making, and team members’ levels of accountability and responsibility are just a few of the paradigm shifts you will encounter throughout the transition to Agile teams. Overall, it is a mindset change - from doing agile to being agile; from agile newbie to high-performing agilist transformation.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The journey from a traditional software product development team to a high-performing Agile team entails a number of key destinations. Awareness of what constitutes a high-performing Agile team needs to first occur so that all participants on the voyage possess a clear view of the end game. More specifically, what are the steps need to be taken and what’re the hurdles need to be overcome?
Some mindset change is important up-front: There is a difference in agile thinking vs. conventional thinking, that behaviors which make you a hero in one culture may make you a pariah in the other. The idea of productivity as value/time instead of output/time highlights the idea that "output != value" -- and that's something better to understand as soon as possible; or team members will not have the permission to experiment, improve, change, revise specifications, test and prove the framework, and automate their way to a real success. The team needs to understand the motivation to make the change. Let's say if you have a high performing team and you change the way they do business. If they don't understand the motivation behind the change and don't buy into the new way of doing things, they tend to fall back to what worked for them. After all, they were performing to a high standard in their eyes, but not really high-performing from broader organizational perspective.
Accountability & responsibility: Accountability is actually required, but teams can be accountable only if they are given real power to make their own commitments and to decide how to proceed to deliver them (which, many managers too often forget to do). That is, they cannot be held accountable for things pushed on them by their managers. Besides accountability, there’s responsibility. That is, being responsible for something is to agree that you'll do your best to solve a particular problem and that you'll take on the problem as your own. If solving the problem ends up taking longer than expected, then the team might choose to make you responsible for some other aspect of the system, but there's no notion of punishment involved.
Being “fearless”: And when fear is a driver for taking decisions, the next step is to use blame when things go wrong--independently on the goodness of the behavior of the people involved. In many large scale transitions to Agile development, fear has always been one of the major obstacles to change--fear of failure, fear of loss of control, etc. That is happening when they recognize the changes they should be making, but postpone any action to after releasing the next version of the product because there is no time now...
The biggest hurdles of going Agile include:
1). Fear of transparency, which is necessary to have a great Agile implementation 2). Agile used as a way to eliminate certain steps, like planning (some Fragile teams perhaps are lack of priority on making effective decisions) 3). Business sees Agile as something the IT department does, rather than embracing it - this leads to lack of prioritization, which means you still have to deliver everything on the list to get an acceptable grade and you end up, as before, with a project constrained in time and features, with minimal play in resources.
There are many things that need to be done to make a transition to a more Agile way of working. Changes in the sizing and structuring of teams, their decision making, and team members’ levels of accountability and responsibility are just a few of the paradigm shifts you will encounter throughout the transition to Agile teams. Overall, it is a mindset change - from doing agile to being agile; from agile newbie to high-performing agilist transformation.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
February 6, 2015
A Customer-centric mind
A customer-centric mind is to put customers at the center of what you do, to expand the thinking angle and to keep the end in mind.
How to become a customer-centric business is in every forward-thinking organization’s agenda, it requires not only management, but each digital professional to shape such a customer-centric mind, think from the lenses of customers, outside-in, instead of inside-out, more specifically, what’s the thought processes evolve:
An insightful thinking about customers: The customer (including prospects) should be studied and observed and gain the insight upon. Deep understanding of the user through empathy and observation with the innovator using a more inductive approach as to what the customer wants to accomplish "next." This involves gaining a deep understanding of the motivational construct of the customer, in order that the innovator can become "anticipatory" of what the customer will likely "want next." Remember innovation is not invention! It must prove its value in the market. Customers must be willing to pay for this, be it product, process or service innovation. Thus, customers become important link in the innovation process.
Design thinking vs. empathic design: According to Wikipedia: Design Thinking -“As a style of thinking, design thinking is generally considered the ability to combine empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to analyze and fit solutions to the context." “Empathic design is a user-centered design approach that pays attention to the user's feelings toward a product.” Design Thinking (DT) is fundamentally an inclusive approach where the intent is to go beyond just need and utility. The thinking that is added to conventional design is almost always empathic because DT -thinks of other elements such as, what may be affected in future, influence behavior and not obviously visible. While DT is considered to be a subjective delivery, a very tangible objective result of an ideal DT delivery is to enhance the "sustainability of the designed product or process."
Analytics thinking: There are still quite a bit of work to do in turning analytical results and connecting to the customer satisfaction and business achievement. More often, the analytics team in the company correctly recognizes the customer value, but that knowledge is still only within the analytics team. There are plenty of organizations doing the analytics, but not yet have matured the process enough to drive the front end systems. Some customer analytics focuses on alluring new customer, with the ignorance of long term loyal customers. The business model ignores long term loyal customers because the model says that those customers are satisfied and will continue paying the company for services, many companies currently do not care whether you leave or not; their emphasis is on using marketing, advertising, data analytics to entice new customers to pay for their services. There're analytics gaps need to be filled out for delighting the current customers as well.
From reactive thinking to proactive thinking: The focus on customer success is the key, as it changes your way of thinking (from reactive to proactive) - how do you make the customer successful, using the service, platform etc. Customer success says a lot more than just customer service. There's an expectation of more than just service now, but for future as well. It is clear that customers do not make the distinction between service, experience nor success. They want to feel confident that they get what they pay for with a commensurate level of purchase fulfillment and that the interaction with the supplier is pleasant and at times exceptional when things go wrong. They enjoy the whole end-to-end experience. Being proactive also implies that functions within an organization need to look at upstream functions and call out any actions that result in a poor customer experience within one’s own function. The proactive thinking would be to understand and improve cross-functional communication and collaboration.
From reactive to proactive, inside-out to outside in, logistic to design and empathetic thinking, customer-centric thinking is a type of professional and progressive thinking to drive radical digital - to put customers at the center of what you do, to expand the thinking angle and to keep the end in mind.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to become a customer-centric business is in every forward-thinking organization’s agenda, it requires not only management, but each digital professional to shape such a customer-centric mind, think from the lenses of customers, outside-in, instead of inside-out, more specifically, what’s the thought processes evolve:
An insightful thinking about customers: The customer (including prospects) should be studied and observed and gain the insight upon. Deep understanding of the user through empathy and observation with the innovator using a more inductive approach as to what the customer wants to accomplish "next." This involves gaining a deep understanding of the motivational construct of the customer, in order that the innovator can become "anticipatory" of what the customer will likely "want next." Remember innovation is not invention! It must prove its value in the market. Customers must be willing to pay for this, be it product, process or service innovation. Thus, customers become important link in the innovation process.
Design thinking vs. empathic design: According to Wikipedia: Design Thinking -“As a style of thinking, design thinking is generally considered the ability to combine empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to analyze and fit solutions to the context." “Empathic design is a user-centered design approach that pays attention to the user's feelings toward a product.” Design Thinking (DT) is fundamentally an inclusive approach where the intent is to go beyond just need and utility. The thinking that is added to conventional design is almost always empathic because DT -thinks of other elements such as, what may be affected in future, influence behavior and not obviously visible. While DT is considered to be a subjective delivery, a very tangible objective result of an ideal DT delivery is to enhance the "sustainability of the designed product or process."
Analytics thinking: There are still quite a bit of work to do in turning analytical results and connecting to the customer satisfaction and business achievement. More often, the analytics team in the company correctly recognizes the customer value, but that knowledge is still only within the analytics team. There are plenty of organizations doing the analytics, but not yet have matured the process enough to drive the front end systems. Some customer analytics focuses on alluring new customer, with the ignorance of long term loyal customers. The business model ignores long term loyal customers because the model says that those customers are satisfied and will continue paying the company for services, many companies currently do not care whether you leave or not; their emphasis is on using marketing, advertising, data analytics to entice new customers to pay for their services. There're analytics gaps need to be filled out for delighting the current customers as well.
From reactive thinking to proactive thinking: The focus on customer success is the key, as it changes your way of thinking (from reactive to proactive) - how do you make the customer successful, using the service, platform etc. Customer success says a lot more than just customer service. There's an expectation of more than just service now, but for future as well. It is clear that customers do not make the distinction between service, experience nor success. They want to feel confident that they get what they pay for with a commensurate level of purchase fulfillment and that the interaction with the supplier is pleasant and at times exceptional when things go wrong. They enjoy the whole end-to-end experience. Being proactive also implies that functions within an organization need to look at upstream functions and call out any actions that result in a poor customer experience within one’s own function. The proactive thinking would be to understand and improve cross-functional communication and collaboration. From reactive to proactive, inside-out to outside in, logistic to design and empathetic thinking, customer-centric thinking is a type of professional and progressive thinking to drive radical digital - to put customers at the center of what you do, to expand the thinking angle and to keep the end in mind.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital Master Tuning XXXIII: Performance vs. Potential - Which One is More Crucial
Performance keeps business running; and potential moves the business to the next level.
Performance is how someone has performed in the past plus the present in various related contexts/ jobs. Potential is how one might perform in a different context or within the same context as a result of growth, maturity, skill development, etc. Performance keeps business running; and potential moves the business to the next level; so performance vs. potential, how shall you assess them objectively; are organizations really buying-in to talent development? In this day and age of instant up-to-the-minute information of stock performance and earnings reports that are due on a quarterly basis, what are the real odds of companies that actually put in the time to develop their human capital so employees would achieve their full potential, and ultimately organizations can grow into a Digital Master?
Potential is very different from performance. Performance is well done of current assignments and demonstrated capacity of doing great work. However, do not assume though that top performers are the “top talent” for the future. High performers may be at the top of their game at the moment, but the question is how well will they adapt to changes, having learning agility or their innate capability. This is where potential comes into play. Potential is about future performance, not past performance. How well does the individual continue to perform and grow in their current roles, how likely are they to take on new challenges at work, rapidly learn and grow into next-level roles, or roles that are expanded and redefined as business changes? Individuals showing potential are distinguished usually by their mastery of new roles quickly and effectively, learning more rapidly than their peers, more innovative, taking initiative proactively, and presenting emotional maturity in dealing with others.
Depending on what you are looking for, performance and potential does both play important roles in the organization. Performance keeps your business running, churning numbers etc, whereas potential looks at employee that can bring your company to the next level, they usually falls into your talent employee grouping. Potential is the ability and interest to take on more responsibilities in the future which is displayed by their thought leadership or exemplified behavior ; it is to do with one’s reputation so it is qualitative whereas performance stands for expectations for current job & grade so it is to do with the action and therefore can be quantified. Potential does have quantitative elements in it too, depending on what tools you use to assess employees potential.
What gets more important depends on the purpose, moreover they go hand in hand. High performers are great at their job and take pride in their accomplishments, but may not have the potential - nor the aspiration - to succeed in a higher-level role or to tackle more complex work. High potentials have demonstrated consistent strategic insight or technical abilities and have future potential to lead and make a big impact. The fair reason for hiring self motivated people is mainly not to cut cost; but let them work independently with minimal interference and guidance so that they think strategically new ways and means precisely " out of the box" techniques to enhance growth for themselves as individuals and for company per se. Potential includes your ability to perform in the future and that's what really matters when you have to make a decision. Potential is an investment, employees with potential haven't performed to level where there is actual performance in all the areas desirable.
Pygmalion Effect. The mere fact that you expect someone to have "more potential" causes you to treat them in a way that they actually do perform better. Why not establish personal and team baselines and always expect the best from everyone? You will see more qualitative and quantitative improvement from a much greater base in your organization. Measure performance, provide feedback, and allow each to exercise creative initiative in relation to how their work is done, and then recognize improvement. It is also true and very important that a company has a lot of responsibility on how potential can be deployed. The top management and the HR must do all their best in order to take advantage of high potential people, putting them in conditions to transform it in results.
In today's world, one’s business should feel blessed if they got one employee who is self motivated to utilize his/her full potential to set targets independently to achieve business goals and yield returns in quantitative terms - performance. Performance, is mostly a mix of past and present; potential relates to the innate talent and capability of employees. The importance of potential really depends on how & what the organization is utilizing potential for. So, the true aspect of any talent management strategy is to ensure that the true potential of the employees is transformed into performance.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun QuizFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Performance is how someone has performed in the past plus the present in various related contexts/ jobs. Potential is how one might perform in a different context or within the same context as a result of growth, maturity, skill development, etc. Performance keeps business running; and potential moves the business to the next level; so performance vs. potential, how shall you assess them objectively; are organizations really buying-in to talent development? In this day and age of instant up-to-the-minute information of stock performance and earnings reports that are due on a quarterly basis, what are the real odds of companies that actually put in the time to develop their human capital so employees would achieve their full potential, and ultimately organizations can grow into a Digital Master?Potential is very different from performance. Performance is well done of current assignments and demonstrated capacity of doing great work. However, do not assume though that top performers are the “top talent” for the future. High performers may be at the top of their game at the moment, but the question is how well will they adapt to changes, having learning agility or their innate capability. This is where potential comes into play. Potential is about future performance, not past performance. How well does the individual continue to perform and grow in their current roles, how likely are they to take on new challenges at work, rapidly learn and grow into next-level roles, or roles that are expanded and redefined as business changes? Individuals showing potential are distinguished usually by their mastery of new roles quickly and effectively, learning more rapidly than their peers, more innovative, taking initiative proactively, and presenting emotional maturity in dealing with others.
Depending on what you are looking for, performance and potential does both play important roles in the organization. Performance keeps your business running, churning numbers etc, whereas potential looks at employee that can bring your company to the next level, they usually falls into your talent employee grouping. Potential is the ability and interest to take on more responsibilities in the future which is displayed by their thought leadership or exemplified behavior ; it is to do with one’s reputation so it is qualitative whereas performance stands for expectations for current job & grade so it is to do with the action and therefore can be quantified. Potential does have quantitative elements in it too, depending on what tools you use to assess employees potential.
What gets more important depends on the purpose, moreover they go hand in hand. High performers are great at their job and take pride in their accomplishments, but may not have the potential - nor the aspiration - to succeed in a higher-level role or to tackle more complex work. High potentials have demonstrated consistent strategic insight or technical abilities and have future potential to lead and make a big impact. The fair reason for hiring self motivated people is mainly not to cut cost; but let them work independently with minimal interference and guidance so that they think strategically new ways and means precisely " out of the box" techniques to enhance growth for themselves as individuals and for company per se. Potential includes your ability to perform in the future and that's what really matters when you have to make a decision. Potential is an investment, employees with potential haven't performed to level where there is actual performance in all the areas desirable.
Pygmalion Effect. The mere fact that you expect someone to have "more potential" causes you to treat them in a way that they actually do perform better. Why not establish personal and team baselines and always expect the best from everyone? You will see more qualitative and quantitative improvement from a much greater base in your organization. Measure performance, provide feedback, and allow each to exercise creative initiative in relation to how their work is done, and then recognize improvement. It is also true and very important that a company has a lot of responsibility on how potential can be deployed. The top management and the HR must do all their best in order to take advantage of high potential people, putting them in conditions to transform it in results.
In today's world, one’s business should feel blessed if they got one employee who is self motivated to utilize his/her full potential to set targets independently to achieve business goals and yield returns in quantitative terms - performance. Performance, is mostly a mix of past and present; potential relates to the innate talent and capability of employees. The importance of potential really depends on how & what the organization is utilizing potential for. So, the true aspect of any talent management strategy is to ensure that the true potential of the employees is transformed into performance.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Introduction URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun QuizFollow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Apply Soft Skill Training to the Management Employees
The spirit of the organization comes from the top.
Management plays a significant role in shaping high-performing business culture. In order to improve management quality, how to apply soft skill training to the management employees. Your development interventions may be individual or group training based on the outcomes of the assessments. What soft skills should be taught to the management employees in a short time to help them achieve goals better?
The first step is to assess their competencies and use the profiles to identify where the gaps in performance lie. Before deciding on what to train management-level employees on, you need to determine where they are now, in terms of corporate core competencies. Not every manager is short of the same competencies as another manager. Managers have different experiences, sets of knowledge and personal traits. First, identify the skills and knowledge need to be able to perform to be successful. Next determine where they are. Then develop the training to get them from where they are to where they need to be.
What is the purpose of the training. Is it to drive bottom line results or to catalyze long term development through collaboration and effective communication? Same outcome, two different approaches and impacts. Before deciding on the training intervention for soft skills managerial training, there is a need to determine the current state of company culture. What one organization sees as a priority may not be the same in another. Are managerial training end-result goals focused upon the bottom line and profitability, or is there a perceived need for soft skills training to develop more interaction, collaboration and effective communication within internal groups? In order to determine the correct training intervention, one needs to have a good grasp of the need for the soft skills training prior to any course determination and development.
There are a quite long list of soft skills ranked in "what is your top three most taught soft skills?"leadership survey:1). Communication2). Team-work / Participation3). Leadership4). Listening5) Self-awareness6) Inter-personal7) Time management8) Conflict management9) Emotional intelligence10) Confidence11).Coaching (Mentoring)12). Positive mindset (thinking / attitude)13) Confidence14) Influencing15) Cross-cultural sensitivity16) Problem solving (creative thinking)17) Coping with / Managing change18) Presentation skills19) Team building20) Customer (service / mindset)21) Negotiation22) Assertiveness23) Responsibility / Accountability24) Dealing with difficult situation25) Collaboration26) Giving & receiving feedback27) Motivation28) Decision making29) Humility30) Working communicating remotely / virtually31) Learning attitude32) Diversity (handling)33) Observation34) Courage35) Initiative
Effectively giving and receiving feedback. Often times, new managers understand they must provide feedback to their team members but don't have the proper methods for delivery. And, they have a difficult time receiving feedback from colleagues, their own supervisors, and their subordinates...all of which are important for the new manager to succeed in his/her position. It's all about communication - influencing, listening, understanding your audience, knowing the purpose of your communication efforts, choosing the right morality, giving and receiving feedback, negotiation..You should ask them of a leader they felt was highly effective and why they were effective. Once they can identify those effective leadership characteristics, the next step is to determine the behaviors they need to embody those same characteristics. Sometimes it is the experiences you go through that determine who and what you want to be from any perspective - leader, team member, etc.
The results of 360-degree assessments and Performance Management would also highlight potential developmental areas on an individual basis. What leads you to the conclusion that your managers need help to achieve goals better? Which goals - Operational? Organizational? Human Resource? Other? Each requires a different skill-set and not necessarily a one-size-fits-all generic quick-fix solution. Their perceived lack of skills may be more fundamental - possibly the lack of agreement and buy-into an organizational goal or shared management vision. Then market your values surrounding these attitudes and skills internally. It is not their current soft skill ability that will determine if they are successful. It is their attitude about how important these skills are (or aren't) and whether or not they will do the work to get there.
Statistically, more than two thirds of leadership development training fail to achieve the expectation, leadership and management are both the art and science, some leadership characteristics can be trained, some cannot, organizations need to well-tailor their training programs to better assess and improve their overall management capability. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Management plays a significant role in shaping high-performing business culture. In order to improve management quality, how to apply soft skill training to the management employees. Your development interventions may be individual or group training based on the outcomes of the assessments. What soft skills should be taught to the management employees in a short time to help them achieve goals better?
The first step is to assess their competencies and use the profiles to identify where the gaps in performance lie. Before deciding on what to train management-level employees on, you need to determine where they are now, in terms of corporate core competencies. Not every manager is short of the same competencies as another manager. Managers have different experiences, sets of knowledge and personal traits. First, identify the skills and knowledge need to be able to perform to be successful. Next determine where they are. Then develop the training to get them from where they are to where they need to be.
What is the purpose of the training. Is it to drive bottom line results or to catalyze long term development through collaboration and effective communication? Same outcome, two different approaches and impacts. Before deciding on the training intervention for soft skills managerial training, there is a need to determine the current state of company culture. What one organization sees as a priority may not be the same in another. Are managerial training end-result goals focused upon the bottom line and profitability, or is there a perceived need for soft skills training to develop more interaction, collaboration and effective communication within internal groups? In order to determine the correct training intervention, one needs to have a good grasp of the need for the soft skills training prior to any course determination and development.
There are a quite long list of soft skills ranked in "what is your top three most taught soft skills?"leadership survey:1). Communication2). Team-work / Participation3). Leadership4). Listening5) Self-awareness6) Inter-personal7) Time management8) Conflict management9) Emotional intelligence10) Confidence11).Coaching (Mentoring)12). Positive mindset (thinking / attitude)13) Confidence14) Influencing15) Cross-cultural sensitivity16) Problem solving (creative thinking)17) Coping with / Managing change18) Presentation skills19) Team building20) Customer (service / mindset)21) Negotiation22) Assertiveness23) Responsibility / Accountability24) Dealing with difficult situation25) Collaboration26) Giving & receiving feedback27) Motivation28) Decision making29) Humility30) Working communicating remotely / virtually31) Learning attitude32) Diversity (handling)33) Observation34) Courage35) Initiative
Effectively giving and receiving feedback. Often times, new managers understand they must provide feedback to their team members but don't have the proper methods for delivery. And, they have a difficult time receiving feedback from colleagues, their own supervisors, and their subordinates...all of which are important for the new manager to succeed in his/her position. It's all about communication - influencing, listening, understanding your audience, knowing the purpose of your communication efforts, choosing the right morality, giving and receiving feedback, negotiation..You should ask them of a leader they felt was highly effective and why they were effective. Once they can identify those effective leadership characteristics, the next step is to determine the behaviors they need to embody those same characteristics. Sometimes it is the experiences you go through that determine who and what you want to be from any perspective - leader, team member, etc.
The results of 360-degree assessments and Performance Management would also highlight potential developmental areas on an individual basis. What leads you to the conclusion that your managers need help to achieve goals better? Which goals - Operational? Organizational? Human Resource? Other? Each requires a different skill-set and not necessarily a one-size-fits-all generic quick-fix solution. Their perceived lack of skills may be more fundamental - possibly the lack of agreement and buy-into an organizational goal or shared management vision. Then market your values surrounding these attitudes and skills internally. It is not their current soft skill ability that will determine if they are successful. It is their attitude about how important these skills are (or aren't) and whether or not they will do the work to get there. Statistically, more than two thirds of leadership development training fail to achieve the expectation, leadership and management are both the art and science, some leadership characteristics can be trained, some cannot, organizations need to well-tailor their training programs to better assess and improve their overall management capability. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
