Mitta Xinindlu's Blog: Mitta Xinindlu's scrap book - Posts Tagged "education"
Types of HR Managers Today
Power Driven Managers
Power hungry managers impose a great obstacle in the progress of those who possess qualities that are better than theirs. If and when the candidates make it through all the assessments and get the position, these managers will continue to assure that such people do not make it beyond the levels they are in. They will try to paralyse the growth of all ‘strong’ employees, however, at the same time expect them to do more tasks than it is per day. They become unhappy if, somehow, these candidates get promoted. They usually use regulations as means to bar other people from progressing. However, the same regulations seem not to matter when it comes to them and getting their way. They will do whatever it needs to be done to keep their position of power.
Insecure Managers
These managers usually possess weaknesses that are in a great number in comparison to those around them. They tend to take credit for other people’s hard work. They are good with words and it is through verbal interactions that they manage to manipulate people. They try to hold on to their positions using all tactics known to them. They usually have the following traits:
i) Less qualifications
ii) Manipulative
iii) Try to get everybody to like them
iv) Two-tongued / Double minded
v) Will try to be closest to the boss
vi) Find it easy to find faults with other people
Self-Driven Managers
Self-driven managers usually do not have much to say as long as things go their way. They will be careless about how others feel or are being treated. They will be, usually, concerned with their own progress. These managers usually possess more knowledge than others and they will try to elevate themselves by acquiring more knowledge so as to stay valuable. Usually, this type of managers will not treat others as equally important employees. In addition, in cases whereby they find weaknesses in colleagues, they will use those weaknesses against them. They easily find favourites and it is those favourites that will get to ‘dwell’ in their presence.
Silent Managers
I have come to realise that these types of managers will normally be silent when others speak. They will bury themselves in their work and hardly voice out their opinions. Silent Managers try to ‘fit in’ and will rarely draw attention to themselves. This type of managers is seldom considered for promotion. They are easy to bully, and as a result, they will be afraid of those who seem to appear stronger. These are usually people who survive during turnover because they do not intimidate top level management.
The Whiners
The whiners complain from the time they get to work until the time they leave for home. They will complain about almost everything. They will complain about their tasks, clients, colleagues and their managers. They will do their job and will usually be good at what they do. However, they are easily irritable, and likewise, also easy to find irritating. They are usually unhappy with the workload or the type of work given to them. They seek someone to lessen the workload although they will continue with the complaints regardless of the changes that are made to suit them.
Progress Seekers
This type of managers is usually ethical, supportive and with a vision that aligns with that of the company. They work hard to fulfil both the company’s goals and theirs. They look for talent and support growth of others. Their actions are rarely based on self-interest. Unfortunately, these will be the first to get fired in times of turnover due to their excessive capability to succeed beyond those who rule them. They survive only if their rulers are also Progress Seekers. These are usually positive thinkers and will try to do their best to defend those that are being misused or being taken advantage of. People who report to these managers are usually happy and more productive. They usually communicate freely and grow into innovative thinkers. They are more practical in thinking and do not let personal matters interfere with their work. They work longer hours and tend to advise those who report to them to follow suit.
The Favoured Managers
Usually, these will get positions or promotions only because they have a relationship with those that are at the top management. These managers are usually family members or friends to the current management. Their capabilities or qualifications will have less effect on their success. Basically, their success is almost guaranteed. They will then be put in the spotlight so as to erase all possible questions and thereby make them appear as able and willing to deliver.
The Not So Present Managers
This type of managers is usually not present in their job. They are good at delegating the tasks and demand outcomes from those who report to them. They will make excuses for all their failures and usually find it easy to put blame on other employees. They usually take more leaves than the rest and feel no obligation to commit to the company or the tasks allocated to them
Conclusion
From my observation, I have come to the conclusion that companies need to analyse their human management capabilities. Shareholders or the board should have certain assessment criteria when it comes to selecting its agents.
Power hungry managers impose a great obstacle in the progress of those who possess qualities that are better than theirs. If and when the candidates make it through all the assessments and get the position, these managers will continue to assure that such people do not make it beyond the levels they are in. They will try to paralyse the growth of all ‘strong’ employees, however, at the same time expect them to do more tasks than it is per day. They become unhappy if, somehow, these candidates get promoted. They usually use regulations as means to bar other people from progressing. However, the same regulations seem not to matter when it comes to them and getting their way. They will do whatever it needs to be done to keep their position of power.
Insecure Managers
These managers usually possess weaknesses that are in a great number in comparison to those around them. They tend to take credit for other people’s hard work. They are good with words and it is through verbal interactions that they manage to manipulate people. They try to hold on to their positions using all tactics known to them. They usually have the following traits:
i) Less qualifications
ii) Manipulative
iii) Try to get everybody to like them
iv) Two-tongued / Double minded
v) Will try to be closest to the boss
vi) Find it easy to find faults with other people
Self-Driven Managers
Self-driven managers usually do not have much to say as long as things go their way. They will be careless about how others feel or are being treated. They will be, usually, concerned with their own progress. These managers usually possess more knowledge than others and they will try to elevate themselves by acquiring more knowledge so as to stay valuable. Usually, this type of managers will not treat others as equally important employees. In addition, in cases whereby they find weaknesses in colleagues, they will use those weaknesses against them. They easily find favourites and it is those favourites that will get to ‘dwell’ in their presence.
Silent Managers
I have come to realise that these types of managers will normally be silent when others speak. They will bury themselves in their work and hardly voice out their opinions. Silent Managers try to ‘fit in’ and will rarely draw attention to themselves. This type of managers is seldom considered for promotion. They are easy to bully, and as a result, they will be afraid of those who seem to appear stronger. These are usually people who survive during turnover because they do not intimidate top level management.
The Whiners
The whiners complain from the time they get to work until the time they leave for home. They will complain about almost everything. They will complain about their tasks, clients, colleagues and their managers. They will do their job and will usually be good at what they do. However, they are easily irritable, and likewise, also easy to find irritating. They are usually unhappy with the workload or the type of work given to them. They seek someone to lessen the workload although they will continue with the complaints regardless of the changes that are made to suit them.
Progress Seekers
This type of managers is usually ethical, supportive and with a vision that aligns with that of the company. They work hard to fulfil both the company’s goals and theirs. They look for talent and support growth of others. Their actions are rarely based on self-interest. Unfortunately, these will be the first to get fired in times of turnover due to their excessive capability to succeed beyond those who rule them. They survive only if their rulers are also Progress Seekers. These are usually positive thinkers and will try to do their best to defend those that are being misused or being taken advantage of. People who report to these managers are usually happy and more productive. They usually communicate freely and grow into innovative thinkers. They are more practical in thinking and do not let personal matters interfere with their work. They work longer hours and tend to advise those who report to them to follow suit.
The Favoured Managers
Usually, these will get positions or promotions only because they have a relationship with those that are at the top management. These managers are usually family members or friends to the current management. Their capabilities or qualifications will have less effect on their success. Basically, their success is almost guaranteed. They will then be put in the spotlight so as to erase all possible questions and thereby make them appear as able and willing to deliver.
The Not So Present Managers
This type of managers is usually not present in their job. They are good at delegating the tasks and demand outcomes from those who report to them. They will make excuses for all their failures and usually find it easy to put blame on other employees. They usually take more leaves than the rest and feel no obligation to commit to the company or the tasks allocated to them
Conclusion
From my observation, I have come to the conclusion that companies need to analyse their human management capabilities. Shareholders or the board should have certain assessment criteria when it comes to selecting its agents.
South African Labour Law: The Perception of Foreign Informal Employees- Introduction Part I
I do not seek to add to the literature on the 'experiences of foreigners' in South Africa, but I have a more focused purpose: I seek to examine the perspectives of foreigners who are employed in the informal sector, in South Africa. Before attempting to judge the state of foreign informal employees and whether or not they are entitled to equality, or if they are affected by the impact of labour law in their industry, I would advise everyone to work toward understanding their perspectives as an affected group.
I aim to answer the research questions that are discussed below. Furthermore, I try to solve a problem statement that arose during the initial stages of my research with regard to the informal sector. An informal sector is argued to be one of the biggest financial providers in a lot of South African households. It is further argued that it is highly characterised by unstructured procedures and unregulated work activities. Studies also argue that it is these irregularities that make it difficult for researchers to study its movements, and to find a valid conclusion. It has been discovered or rather assumed that an informal sector is a point of interest for foreigners in South Africa; although this may be true to some extent, Mazumdai (2002:655) argues against this point. Muzumdai further gives characteristics of an informal sector;
(i) these are employees who are either very young or very old
(ii) are not primary bread winners
(iii) are usually limited in education
(iv) and most are females.
However, some of his factors can be challenged since, when in comparison, South African informal workers are the ones who fit the description and foreigners do not.
I aim to answer the research questions that are discussed below. Furthermore, I try to solve a problem statement that arose during the initial stages of my research with regard to the informal sector. An informal sector is argued to be one of the biggest financial providers in a lot of South African households. It is further argued that it is highly characterised by unstructured procedures and unregulated work activities. Studies also argue that it is these irregularities that make it difficult for researchers to study its movements, and to find a valid conclusion. It has been discovered or rather assumed that an informal sector is a point of interest for foreigners in South Africa; although this may be true to some extent, Mazumdai (2002:655) argues against this point. Muzumdai further gives characteristics of an informal sector;
(i) these are employees who are either very young or very old
(ii) are not primary bread winners
(iii) are usually limited in education
(iv) and most are females.
However, some of his factors can be challenged since, when in comparison, South African informal workers are the ones who fit the description and foreigners do not.
South African Labour Law: The Perception of Foreign Informal Employees- Introduction Part II
Background
It becomes almost impossible to ignore the rights of all parties involved in labour relations when one is an academic in human relations and Labour studies. The concept of the theory is immediately transformed into a practical concept, unlike in philosophy studies. This research was triggered by the lack of research reports on this particular focus. Since the role of human relations personnel is to meet the needs of the company without sacrificing the needs of labour in the workplace; it became an urgent calling to shift business attention to this untapped field.
Research into the informal sector shows not only the help that this sector brings in alleviating unemployment but also the help that draws labour demand and supply curves closer to equilibrium. Furthermore, in stable environments where the minimum of unemployed individuals is minimal, this sector helps to stabilise those conditions. This is done through hiring those employees who would normally be disqualified from entering the formal sector because of lack of academic or practical skills. Nevertheless, foreigners who are employed in the informal sector are likely to have an education of some sort (Hunter & Skinner, 2001:13-14).
Governments hold power in decision making [Full Stop]. The government determines what happens in the country.
The government consisting of different people with different interests; some are interested in helping the helpless while some are interested in power and self-growth (Finkel, 1999:1, 2-4). However, this should not be a surprise because it is not something new; in 1979, Perrow wrote that our world is made of different men and women who have different needs, wants and interests. On the other hand, culture, which is extensively defined in the literature as norms, values and lifestyle, has taught us that a group with a dominating interest will tend to have more power over others.
One of the most important factors this approach neglects is the existence of some individuals’ perspectives, which may not be articulated because of these factors:
(i) Inferiority – Superiority
It is argued that foreigners are, by default, vulnerable parties. This is a result of a popular theory known as Erving Goffman's theory of social stigma. Goffman defined this behaviour as ‘the process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity.
(ii) Foreignism - Nationalism
Foreigners, unlike nationals, lack a right to vote; therefore, they lack a right to articulate views which may help alleviate negative actions aimed against them which, at most, hinder the process outlined by the Constitution.
Some theories have proved that demographics are an influence in the way people perceive the world.
(iii) Informal sector - Formal sector
The requirements and regulations set in a normal sector make it hard for entry in the labour market. However, it has been proven that in South Africa, the government plays a key role in forming and establishing certain regulations. This, however, does not only affect the formal sector but individuals who wish to join the market.
(iv) No qualifications - Qualifications
Workers with less or no appropriate qualifications may fit in the informal sector; a lot of research reports agree that workers who are less skilled and who get to work in the formal sector are more likely to be treated as slaves because of that, they get less respect and recognition for the roles they play.
(v) Lack of experience – Experience
Others are disqualified from entering the formal sector by default. They then opt to join the informal sector which, as a lot of scholars agree, does not require extensive skills or experience.
It becomes almost impossible to ignore the rights of all parties involved in labour relations when one is an academic in human relations and Labour studies. The concept of the theory is immediately transformed into a practical concept, unlike in philosophy studies. This research was triggered by the lack of research reports on this particular focus. Since the role of human relations personnel is to meet the needs of the company without sacrificing the needs of labour in the workplace; it became an urgent calling to shift business attention to this untapped field.
Research into the informal sector shows not only the help that this sector brings in alleviating unemployment but also the help that draws labour demand and supply curves closer to equilibrium. Furthermore, in stable environments where the minimum of unemployed individuals is minimal, this sector helps to stabilise those conditions. This is done through hiring those employees who would normally be disqualified from entering the formal sector because of lack of academic or practical skills. Nevertheless, foreigners who are employed in the informal sector are likely to have an education of some sort (Hunter & Skinner, 2001:13-14).
Governments hold power in decision making [Full Stop]. The government determines what happens in the country.
The government consisting of different people with different interests; some are interested in helping the helpless while some are interested in power and self-growth (Finkel, 1999:1, 2-4). However, this should not be a surprise because it is not something new; in 1979, Perrow wrote that our world is made of different men and women who have different needs, wants and interests. On the other hand, culture, which is extensively defined in the literature as norms, values and lifestyle, has taught us that a group with a dominating interest will tend to have more power over others.
One of the most important factors this approach neglects is the existence of some individuals’ perspectives, which may not be articulated because of these factors:
(i) Inferiority – Superiority
It is argued that foreigners are, by default, vulnerable parties. This is a result of a popular theory known as Erving Goffman's theory of social stigma. Goffman defined this behaviour as ‘the process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity.
(ii) Foreignism - Nationalism
Foreigners, unlike nationals, lack a right to vote; therefore, they lack a right to articulate views which may help alleviate negative actions aimed against them which, at most, hinder the process outlined by the Constitution.
Some theories have proved that demographics are an influence in the way people perceive the world.
(iii) Informal sector - Formal sector
The requirements and regulations set in a normal sector make it hard for entry in the labour market. However, it has been proven that in South Africa, the government plays a key role in forming and establishing certain regulations. This, however, does not only affect the formal sector but individuals who wish to join the market.
(iv) No qualifications - Qualifications
Workers with less or no appropriate qualifications may fit in the informal sector; a lot of research reports agree that workers who are less skilled and who get to work in the formal sector are more likely to be treated as slaves because of that, they get less respect and recognition for the roles they play.
(v) Lack of experience – Experience
Others are disqualified from entering the formal sector by default. They then opt to join the informal sector which, as a lot of scholars agree, does not require extensive skills or experience.
Contradictions Of The Business World Today
Some managers ignore the long-lasting nature of skills acquired through training; they give employees no alternative skills which can be used beyond their current jobs, unless if those employees get selected for new positions. Needless to say, the business industry is all about that – business. Profit margins and the competitive industry give no legit opportunity to employees who demand better conditions of training. What is the main purpose of training employees if the training is meant to develop a person to a limited extent? Whatever happened to the theory we learnt in our post graduate classes; were we not taught to enter the business world and develop ‘the whole person’? In most cases, I was told that the real business is different from theory.
Who changed the rules? My first guess would be ‘the uneducated’. It is the people who are trained only to a certain (limited) extent that change the rules of the business and unfortunately not only does our academic structure gets manipulated but many employees are left behind in need of legit training. A businessman would argue that it is better to invest so little in an employee, to avoid investing too much in people who may, at some point, leave the firm for better opportunities. However, a smart businessman whose acumen is a little bit above average and whose main concern is to reap bigger profits through calculated investment methods would train a man to the extent that he would dedicate all his life to the firm. Of course, not all managers or businessmen are equipped enough to give challenging training to employees. It is only the elite who are able to train employees to the point of total sway.
By emphasising their right to train and develop, managers can equip employees to the extent that they would be able to transfer their skills from an informal sector to an informal sector without too much hustle. One would ask, “at whose cost?”; it is important to note that businesses do not like to operate beyond their means, that is, to the level that they help the community develop into a better one. Most importantly, we need to be reminded of the threat that employees impose to the growth of the business; no business would like to train a potential competitor, right?
Whatever happened to the adverts that our communities see on televisions, hear from radio and read from the print media all the time? Whatever happened to the promise of ‘social responsibility’? Statistically, for every training effort that a human being gets, his life is changed forever and for the better. In addition, this change is not only for himself but for his family, the government and, eventually, the whole country. On the other extreme end, why should firms care about such a long and expensive tactic used by above average businessmen who believe that one has to spend money to make profits to obtain wealth? As already mentioned, business is business – the less money spent the better.
Who changed the rules? My first guess would be ‘the uneducated’. It is the people who are trained only to a certain (limited) extent that change the rules of the business and unfortunately not only does our academic structure gets manipulated but many employees are left behind in need of legit training. A businessman would argue that it is better to invest so little in an employee, to avoid investing too much in people who may, at some point, leave the firm for better opportunities. However, a smart businessman whose acumen is a little bit above average and whose main concern is to reap bigger profits through calculated investment methods would train a man to the extent that he would dedicate all his life to the firm. Of course, not all managers or businessmen are equipped enough to give challenging training to employees. It is only the elite who are able to train employees to the point of total sway.
By emphasising their right to train and develop, managers can equip employees to the extent that they would be able to transfer their skills from an informal sector to an informal sector without too much hustle. One would ask, “at whose cost?”; it is important to note that businesses do not like to operate beyond their means, that is, to the level that they help the community develop into a better one. Most importantly, we need to be reminded of the threat that employees impose to the growth of the business; no business would like to train a potential competitor, right?
Whatever happened to the adverts that our communities see on televisions, hear from radio and read from the print media all the time? Whatever happened to the promise of ‘social responsibility’? Statistically, for every training effort that a human being gets, his life is changed forever and for the better. In addition, this change is not only for himself but for his family, the government and, eventually, the whole country. On the other extreme end, why should firms care about such a long and expensive tactic used by above average businessmen who believe that one has to spend money to make profits to obtain wealth? As already mentioned, business is business – the less money spent the better.
The fall of the business
At some point, someone has to remind employees the importance of separating personal life with that of business. I have not been exposed in the business world for a long period of time but I have seen and experienced so much, to the point that I was left with so many questions than before I got introduced to the business world. It was easy to think and assume, at first, that my analysis was paralysed by the academic world I was coming from. However, after a long time of gathering more information on employees and how they treat both colleagues and clients I have realised the immediate need to constantly remind employees (as a manager) to separate personal life with that of business. With this achieved, businesses could gain more financially and excel in building a good image.
I always say, ‘businesses never tarnish their image but it’s the employees who do that”; simply because they do not really care about the image of the business because it doesn’t belong them. They do not have a direct interest; I mean they could easily change jobs, right?
I always say, ‘businesses never tarnish their image but it’s the employees who do that”; simply because they do not really care about the image of the business because it doesn’t belong them. They do not have a direct interest; I mean they could easily change jobs, right?
How to attract and retain Top Talent - A book in progress
There are five main players in a strategic relationship – the one I call ‘a successful relationship’; Top Talent Recruiter, Top Talent, Competition, Stockholders, and Customers. Attracting and retaining the best partner in a relationship is as tough as it is in business, with statistics indicating a yearly high rate of, relationship failure, divorce, and break-ups.
The number of young and old people who continuously change partners due to the failure of their relationships is shocking. Young people seem to enter into relationships because they hope that things will turn out differently if they keep changing partners. However, it is impossible to get it right if one doesn’t know the good qualities of a successful relationship.
The number of one’s partners will never be big enough for one to understand the ins and outs of a successful relationship. Furthermore, a heart once filled with love will never be perfectly replaced, and new partners will not replace those who are leaving. Despite all the heartaches, tears and misunderstandings, you can attract and retain top talent. We all know the rule which clearly states that we should have one opening at a time for any one potential partner. Similarly, in business, we have never had one job position and hired two or more people to fill it. Why then when you get a lot of ‘applications’ you choose not to use your business acumen? Why do you end up dating two or more partners? Remember, there’s always one position only at any given relationship chance. That’s rule number one. However, some will argue that in an African culture a man is allowed to have more partners or wives. Similarly, a businessman may argue and say that a business can hire two or more employees to do the same job.
Both arguments are acceptable but not strategic. Hence many relationships –both business and personal- fail dismally.
There are seven negative factors that contribute to the failure of relationships; namely, cost, time constraints, satisfaction abuse, stress, resource constraints, conflicts and unmet expectations.
As a top talent recruiter, despite the rule, it doesn’t stop you to have more applications than what you need. However, at the end of the day, you have to make the final decision which is to accept one application only. Perhaps, you are already asking yourself, ‘How to choose the top talent?’. In this book, I will equip you with the skills of being able to recruit your top talent without suffering the seven negative factors people face in relationships. This is the first book that will equip you with first hand best practice.
The number of young and old people who continuously change partners due to the failure of their relationships is shocking. Young people seem to enter into relationships because they hope that things will turn out differently if they keep changing partners. However, it is impossible to get it right if one doesn’t know the good qualities of a successful relationship.
The number of one’s partners will never be big enough for one to understand the ins and outs of a successful relationship. Furthermore, a heart once filled with love will never be perfectly replaced, and new partners will not replace those who are leaving. Despite all the heartaches, tears and misunderstandings, you can attract and retain top talent. We all know the rule which clearly states that we should have one opening at a time for any one potential partner. Similarly, in business, we have never had one job position and hired two or more people to fill it. Why then when you get a lot of ‘applications’ you choose not to use your business acumen? Why do you end up dating two or more partners? Remember, there’s always one position only at any given relationship chance. That’s rule number one. However, some will argue that in an African culture a man is allowed to have more partners or wives. Similarly, a businessman may argue and say that a business can hire two or more employees to do the same job.
Both arguments are acceptable but not strategic. Hence many relationships –both business and personal- fail dismally.
There are seven negative factors that contribute to the failure of relationships; namely, cost, time constraints, satisfaction abuse, stress, resource constraints, conflicts and unmet expectations.
As a top talent recruiter, despite the rule, it doesn’t stop you to have more applications than what you need. However, at the end of the day, you have to make the final decision which is to accept one application only. Perhaps, you are already asking yourself, ‘How to choose the top talent?’. In this book, I will equip you with the skills of being able to recruit your top talent without suffering the seven negative factors people face in relationships. This is the first book that will equip you with first hand best practice.
Think About It
Many managers usually feel intimidated by the success of potential candidates. They then deny those candidates the deserved opportunities. If only we could stop feeling inferior, we would make the business world a better place.
Discussing PHD and Employment
Many have come across the PHD debacle many a time - PHD graduates are turned away from obtaining junior positions. This does not result from the lack of ability to grow and learn, which, is usually one of the key traits that set apart a candidate from others. No - these candidates have turned away because some companies are under the assumption that they cannot afford to keep a well-educated person in a junior position for too long. As much as this makes a ‘profit’ sense, it fails to make an objective and ‘operational’ sense.
How do you expect people to obtain a position that will match their academic qualifications if you refuse them an opportunity to obtain the necessary practical training? Are we saying that people should lower their greatness so that they can fit in properly with our company cultures? Are we saying that we are not capable of grooming an individual who has more degrees than we do? Are we saying that we are no longer interested in training those whose IQ levels are higher than the 99% of the individuals in our companies?
Maybe we should raise the bar. Maybe we should recruit more of these so-called overqualified individuals. Maybe we should create a new employment standard that, in return, will force individuals and companies to aim higher. This will force students to want to achieve more and acquire more knowledge. We need a new standard that will say that a Diploma on its own is totally unacceptable, an undergraduate degree is no longer acceptable, an honours degree is no longer adequate, and a masters degree is no longer enough. We need to build an economy that is focused - not on what’s been done - but on what can be done.
We need to create a new world that is filled with high expectations and high levels of achievements. We need to start creating Job Specs that have “PHD” as the main requirement.
We have been offering millions and millions of cash to people who have experience that is accompanied by only a diploma for so many years, and discarding those whose knowledge could, indeed, turn the companies’ standards around. But of course, the fist step we would need to take would be to provide programs that focused on training PHD graduates with no working experience.
Now, imagine a business world that is led by individuals who have the highest education obtainable and the adequate training that is most suitable for the job - which was provided by those same companies to those same leaders? High achieving companies!
How do you expect people to obtain a position that will match their academic qualifications if you refuse them an opportunity to obtain the necessary practical training? Are we saying that people should lower their greatness so that they can fit in properly with our company cultures? Are we saying that we are not capable of grooming an individual who has more degrees than we do? Are we saying that we are no longer interested in training those whose IQ levels are higher than the 99% of the individuals in our companies?
Maybe we should raise the bar. Maybe we should recruit more of these so-called overqualified individuals. Maybe we should create a new employment standard that, in return, will force individuals and companies to aim higher. This will force students to want to achieve more and acquire more knowledge. We need a new standard that will say that a Diploma on its own is totally unacceptable, an undergraduate degree is no longer acceptable, an honours degree is no longer adequate, and a masters degree is no longer enough. We need to build an economy that is focused - not on what’s been done - but on what can be done.
We need to create a new world that is filled with high expectations and high levels of achievements. We need to start creating Job Specs that have “PHD” as the main requirement.
We have been offering millions and millions of cash to people who have experience that is accompanied by only a diploma for so many years, and discarding those whose knowledge could, indeed, turn the companies’ standards around. But of course, the fist step we would need to take would be to provide programs that focused on training PHD graduates with no working experience.
Now, imagine a business world that is led by individuals who have the highest education obtainable and the adequate training that is most suitable for the job - which was provided by those same companies to those same leaders? High achieving companies!
(Mis)Management
Introduction.
I have seen different management styles and some were shocking.
Faced with the highly competitive environment in which companies operate, their complexity and in which innovation and speed of action are the keys to success, I have decided that management courage is an essential skill.
Demonstrating managerial courage is to tell the right things, at the right time, to the right person and appropriately. In theory, it seems easy but if one could take the time to think well, one could find that the reality is more complex! Courage is essential in a management context and, above all, leadership.
Here are some signs or leads that a manager would gain by developing his managerial courage.
1. Does not take firm positions
The lack of managerial courage is very damaging in terms of productivity and the performance of a team. In addition, leaders who suffer from a chronic lack of managerial courage end up losing credibility and respect from their employees. My question regarding this point is: who can feel admiration for a passive, fearful boss who remains in his "comfort zone" and who constantly dreads difficult decisions?
Knowing how to manage requires being able to initiate movement rather than just follow it, and take firm positions when necessary. The captain cannot too often try to avoid tensions, crises or confrontations.
Why is this essential? One may ask. Well, it's simple; it is because ambiguity is counterproductive.
Faced with a position that is not clear, there will inevitably be nebulous actions on the part of the employees; therefore, a loss of efficiency and potential motivation. Take the example of an employee who asks his boss if he has to go left or right. If there is no response, the employee will have 3 (three) choices: stand still and wait for the directive, go right or go left. Staying still or going in the wrong direction is a loss of efficiency and risk of frustration and error.
Take the other example of a manager who, today, says to go left but tomorrow will say to go right. In this context, the employee loses time, efficiency, and motivation; consequently, his manager loses credibility. If the manager manages 30 employees, then the impact will be multiplied by 30, which is damaging to the business.
2. Does not address problems
The manager has to face the problems and face the truth since avoiding or avoidance rhymes with the loss of time. Also, the manager must always beware of collateral damage.
A manager who delays in addressing an ethical issue may lose a client or an employee and potentially has to handle a complaint. Tackling a problem often causes other problems.
Managerial courage is also to make sure to face reality, to share it and to face it with the team. Any truth is not necessarily good to share and wanting to hide problems is human. Nevertheless, the reality must not be denied because, as a result, the employees will work in the wrong direction and the efforts will be in vain.
What a waste of time and especially what a loss of credibility.
3. Avoids conflicts
Conflicts should be addressed as quickly as possible because, like problems, they can cause significant collateral damage and be counterproductive.
A manager who delays in addressing a conflict or avoids it for fear of being caught in the controversy does not optimise the achievement of short-term outcomes and may have to deal with the collateral damage that is often much greater. Sometimes, expectations allow conflicts to resolve themselves; however, is this the right approach by default? The answer is no! And of course, a manager must also know how to handle conflicts in an optimal way.
4. Hesitates to decide on his staff
A manager who demonstrates managerial courage must know how to address the real things, give direction and decide. A rotten apple is damaging to a team and the longer the decision is made, the more productivity is lost; thus, causing the risk of significant collateral damage. Unfortunately, hesitation has costs.
In the world today, companies that hesitate are overwhelmed by those that are running. Businesses, therefore, need to have action-oriented managers. Usually, those who hesitate generally do so through perfectionism, procrastination or fear of risk, which has the effect of delaying the necessary actions at the right time.
5. Does not know how to announce a difficult decision
It is obviously easier to manage in calm times, on calm and sunny waters, than in the storm. That said, a true leader with managerial courage must announce the bad news, know how to navigate in troubled waters and make the tough decisions that are required. He must know how to deal with pressure but must also have the courage to take calculated risks quickly.
Obviously, it is equally important to announce it with diplomacy and in a constructive and appropriate manner, depending on the context - as well as to exercise sound judgment.
6. Does not say everything that has to be said
We are all witnesses of things that must be addressed: something went wrong, a fault was camouflaged, someone did not do his job, a professional ethics breach was committed, a lie, a secrecy, and so on. Some choose to address things while others choose silence and avoidance.
To have courage is to know how to give, directly, to those concerned a complete "feedback" by expressing it in a positive and constructive way. Attention to detail must be given; however, because it can also happen that managerial courage is used in excess, too much is not enough!
Is your manager too critical and direct? Too harsh or too negative? Does he exaggerate the bad side? All that is needed is a question of dosage and especially of judgment.
Saying the real things is also accepting one's own vulnerability as a manager. Having the courage to be vulnerable as a manager, the courage to be himself and accountable, even in the wrong, is the cornerstone of inspiring leadership.
The manager who knows everything, who never takes the wrong decision, who has an answer to everything and that nothing can shake is not only a myth but also an ideal to which one should not aspire. We are all inspired by genuine people - thus, having the courage to admit their vulnerability, to ask for help and to show real feelings is courageous.
Do your managers accumulate many of the previous points? Maybe it is a sign that they would gain in developing their managerial courage!
Why do they lack courage? The causes can be multiple, including: wanting to avoid conflicts, low tolerance to pressure, difficulties to assert oneself, fear of being wrong or losing, being too emotional, or simply not loving to meddle in the affairs of others.
In this context, it is essential to understand their personality and management style, understand the causes to know what to work on.
Courage is to know one's limits and to know how to surpass them.
Good luck!
I have seen different management styles and some were shocking.
Faced with the highly competitive environment in which companies operate, their complexity and in which innovation and speed of action are the keys to success, I have decided that management courage is an essential skill.
Demonstrating managerial courage is to tell the right things, at the right time, to the right person and appropriately. In theory, it seems easy but if one could take the time to think well, one could find that the reality is more complex! Courage is essential in a management context and, above all, leadership.
Here are some signs or leads that a manager would gain by developing his managerial courage.
1. Does not take firm positions
The lack of managerial courage is very damaging in terms of productivity and the performance of a team. In addition, leaders who suffer from a chronic lack of managerial courage end up losing credibility and respect from their employees. My question regarding this point is: who can feel admiration for a passive, fearful boss who remains in his "comfort zone" and who constantly dreads difficult decisions?
Knowing how to manage requires being able to initiate movement rather than just follow it, and take firm positions when necessary. The captain cannot too often try to avoid tensions, crises or confrontations.
Why is this essential? One may ask. Well, it's simple; it is because ambiguity is counterproductive.
Faced with a position that is not clear, there will inevitably be nebulous actions on the part of the employees; therefore, a loss of efficiency and potential motivation. Take the example of an employee who asks his boss if he has to go left or right. If there is no response, the employee will have 3 (three) choices: stand still and wait for the directive, go right or go left. Staying still or going in the wrong direction is a loss of efficiency and risk of frustration and error.
Take the other example of a manager who, today, says to go left but tomorrow will say to go right. In this context, the employee loses time, efficiency, and motivation; consequently, his manager loses credibility. If the manager manages 30 employees, then the impact will be multiplied by 30, which is damaging to the business.
2. Does not address problems
The manager has to face the problems and face the truth since avoiding or avoidance rhymes with the loss of time. Also, the manager must always beware of collateral damage.
A manager who delays in addressing an ethical issue may lose a client or an employee and potentially has to handle a complaint. Tackling a problem often causes other problems.
Managerial courage is also to make sure to face reality, to share it and to face it with the team. Any truth is not necessarily good to share and wanting to hide problems is human. Nevertheless, the reality must not be denied because, as a result, the employees will work in the wrong direction and the efforts will be in vain.
What a waste of time and especially what a loss of credibility.
3. Avoids conflicts
Conflicts should be addressed as quickly as possible because, like problems, they can cause significant collateral damage and be counterproductive.
A manager who delays in addressing a conflict or avoids it for fear of being caught in the controversy does not optimise the achievement of short-term outcomes and may have to deal with the collateral damage that is often much greater. Sometimes, expectations allow conflicts to resolve themselves; however, is this the right approach by default? The answer is no! And of course, a manager must also know how to handle conflicts in an optimal way.
4. Hesitates to decide on his staff
A manager who demonstrates managerial courage must know how to address the real things, give direction and decide. A rotten apple is damaging to a team and the longer the decision is made, the more productivity is lost; thus, causing the risk of significant collateral damage. Unfortunately, hesitation has costs.
In the world today, companies that hesitate are overwhelmed by those that are running. Businesses, therefore, need to have action-oriented managers. Usually, those who hesitate generally do so through perfectionism, procrastination or fear of risk, which has the effect of delaying the necessary actions at the right time.
5. Does not know how to announce a difficult decision
It is obviously easier to manage in calm times, on calm and sunny waters, than in the storm. That said, a true leader with managerial courage must announce the bad news, know how to navigate in troubled waters and make the tough decisions that are required. He must know how to deal with pressure but must also have the courage to take calculated risks quickly.
Obviously, it is equally important to announce it with diplomacy and in a constructive and appropriate manner, depending on the context - as well as to exercise sound judgment.
6. Does not say everything that has to be said
We are all witnesses of things that must be addressed: something went wrong, a fault was camouflaged, someone did not do his job, a professional ethics breach was committed, a lie, a secrecy, and so on. Some choose to address things while others choose silence and avoidance.
To have courage is to know how to give, directly, to those concerned a complete "feedback" by expressing it in a positive and constructive way. Attention to detail must be given; however, because it can also happen that managerial courage is used in excess, too much is not enough!
Is your manager too critical and direct? Too harsh or too negative? Does he exaggerate the bad side? All that is needed is a question of dosage and especially of judgment.
Saying the real things is also accepting one's own vulnerability as a manager. Having the courage to be vulnerable as a manager, the courage to be himself and accountable, even in the wrong, is the cornerstone of inspiring leadership.
The manager who knows everything, who never takes the wrong decision, who has an answer to everything and that nothing can shake is not only a myth but also an ideal to which one should not aspire. We are all inspired by genuine people - thus, having the courage to admit their vulnerability, to ask for help and to show real feelings is courageous.
Do your managers accumulate many of the previous points? Maybe it is a sign that they would gain in developing their managerial courage!
Why do they lack courage? The causes can be multiple, including: wanting to avoid conflicts, low tolerance to pressure, difficulties to assert oneself, fear of being wrong or losing, being too emotional, or simply not loving to meddle in the affairs of others.
In this context, it is essential to understand their personality and management style, understand the causes to know what to work on.
Courage is to know one's limits and to know how to surpass them.
Good luck!
Narcissism and leadership
Many people go on with life without acknowledging or addressing what I propose to be the biggest misunderstanding between people in the workplace today, a personality disorder. More specifically, a narcissistic personality disorder; a characteristic that defines the majority of our leaders in all industries. Narcissism, in the English language, is defined as an exceptional interest in and admiration for one’s own self. There are several types of narcissism, including vulnerable narcissism and grandiose narcissism. I would like to highlight that there is a direct path of a richer conceptualization that is increasingly close to the theory of narcissistic perversion, which has a tremendous influence in managerial styles today. The reader must remember that this concerns the pathology of power and leadership.
We’ve seen many research reports regarding leadership and managerial thinking over the years; however, it seems that nothing has changed much. Reports have had similar statistics throughout the years, which brings us to my next question: is there someone out there that is taking all these stats reports into consideration, or are we just gathering and analysing data for the sake of reporting? Although there are several defining variants, most reports agree that leadership is generally the ability of an individual to intentionally and momentarily mobilise members of a group, whether hierarchically or horizontally, in order to achieve common objectives.
A constructive personality order is designed when this mobilisation is at the service of the common good; namely, the ethical realisation of the mission of an organisation, and while respecting individual rights. In my previous articles, I’ve discussed the types of traits or personalities that leaders need to have to be certified as great leaders. I can also attest that it is possible to associate leadership with a constructive form using categories/types such as the transactional, transformational and serving. As for the destructive form, it mainly includes the toxic and narcissistic types.
To conclude this article, we have two general streams of leadership: Constructive and Destructive. I will continue with this topic in my next articles as it is a large topic that needs to be disseminated on an ongoing basis.
Until then, keep analysing!
We’ve seen many research reports regarding leadership and managerial thinking over the years; however, it seems that nothing has changed much. Reports have had similar statistics throughout the years, which brings us to my next question: is there someone out there that is taking all these stats reports into consideration, or are we just gathering and analysing data for the sake of reporting? Although there are several defining variants, most reports agree that leadership is generally the ability of an individual to intentionally and momentarily mobilise members of a group, whether hierarchically or horizontally, in order to achieve common objectives.
A constructive personality order is designed when this mobilisation is at the service of the common good; namely, the ethical realisation of the mission of an organisation, and while respecting individual rights. In my previous articles, I’ve discussed the types of traits or personalities that leaders need to have to be certified as great leaders. I can also attest that it is possible to associate leadership with a constructive form using categories/types such as the transactional, transformational and serving. As for the destructive form, it mainly includes the toxic and narcissistic types.
To conclude this article, we have two general streams of leadership: Constructive and Destructive. I will continue with this topic in my next articles as it is a large topic that needs to be disseminated on an ongoing basis.
Until then, keep analysing!
Mitta Xinindlu's scrap book
Experience and interaction with others have taught me how to manage processes, assess human behaviour, and the application of corrective measures that need to be taken seriously in our world.
I am a wr ...more
I am a wr ...more
- Mitta Xinindlu's profile
- 13 followers
