Archive for the ‘johtaminen’ Category

Management is … communication


Esko Kilven puheenvuoro:

The mainstream view of management science sees the organization as having a separate existence from individuals. In organizations, as in machines, the interchangeability of parts is thought to promote efficiency. This means that processes retained in workers´ interaction should be recorded in documents and passed back to govern work. The aim is to rise above the individual memory and to establish an organizational memory. This is what mainstream knowledge management was all about twenty years ago: “If only HP knew what HP knows”.

Mutta tiukassa istuvat savupiipputeollisuuden ajattelutavat. Edelleen:

The ideology of management demanded “exact” written communication. It dismissed ordinary conversation as just talk. The controlled form of talk was a meeting with an agenda and clear outcomes. And you were supposed to come well prepared.

Näkökulman tulee muuttua:

What social media allow us to do in organizations is to create transparency of activities, close proximity of non-co-located people and active, ongoing, responsive communication that coordinates and controls. The price of communication has gone down and the quality of tools is dramatically better today.

Kehityskeskustelut historiaan?


Useimmissa keskisuurissa ja suuremmissa yrityksissä käydään vuosittain (joissakin puolivuosittain) kehitys- ja/tai tuloskeskusteluja, rakkalla lapsella voi olla useampiakin nimiä. Niiden hyödyllisyydestä tosin voi olla montaa mieltä. Ainakin Isossa-Britanniassa tehdyn tutkimuksen mukaan

Almost half (44 per cent) did not think their boss was honest during the process, 29 per cent thought they were pointless, and a fifth felt they had had an unfair appraisal, according to the YouGov poll of 3000 workers.

Alexander Kjerulf listaa 9 syytä, miksi nämä keskustelut ovat huono ajatus ja miksi ne pitäisi lopettaa. Tässä muutama niistä:

  • They become an excuse for not talking for the rest of the year
  • They may not be formally connected with promotions and salary negotiations – in reality everyone knows they are
  • No one says what they really think

Samuel C. Culbert jatkaa aihetta Wall Street Journalissa mm. seuraavasti:

I believe it’s immoral to maintain the facade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement, when it’s clear they lead to more bogus activities than valid ones. Instead of energizing individuals, they are dispiriting and create cynicism. Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.

The net result is a resource violation, and I think citations should be issued. If it’s a publicly held company, shareholder value gets decreased. If it’s a governmental organization, time is lost that could be spent in pursuit of the public good. And what participants learn in the process has more to do with how to survive than with meaningful self-development.

Hän tarjoaa vaihtoehdonkin: sen sijaan että arvioitaisiin mennyttä, suunniteltaisiinkin yhdessä tulevaa:

The preview structure keeps the focus on the future and what ”I” need from you as ”teammate and partner” in getting accomplished what we both want to see happen. It doesn’t happen only annually; it takes place each time either the boss or the subordinate has the feeling that they aren’t working well together.

Ainakin yksi yritys on todennut saman ja tehnyt radikaalin muutoksen toimintatavoissaan: Merrimac Pharmaseuticals on lopettanut käytännön:

So, why do companies spend so much time and money on trying to come up with new rating systems and fancy pay for performance plans? Actually, I have no idea. I’m hoping someone out there can help me on that one. But, this week is a milestone week in my career – I’ve officially decided to do something about it – I’ve propsed to my executive team that we eliminate our performance rating system and ditch this whole pay for performance idea.

Here’s why:

  • We’re a company trying to develop innovative medicines for patients and we know that real innovation is often preceded by multiple failures that we can learn from and improve upon. By rating short term employee performance through semiannual reviews, we’re preventing employees from focusing on the big picture, taking long-term risks and being innovative. We want employees to fail early and often.
  • A rating based system actually encourages a manager to give less frequent performance feedback to employees preventing real-time learning. That’s a bummer.
  • Having a compensation and reward system based on the faulty premise that financial incentives improve performance, we are undermining powerful intrinsic employee motivation towards achieving our mission of curing cancer. These guys don’t need to be ”bribed” to do a good job, they just want to be paid fairly and competitively.
  • There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that convinces me that a performance rating system acutally improves performance.

Ihan mielellämme seuraamme, josko Andy Porter jakaa myöhemmin kokemuksiaan.

The Three Threats to Creativity


Teresa Amabile on huolestunut luovuuden katoamisesta. Ja ihan oikein.

Creativity is under threat. It happens whenever and wherever there’s a squeeze on the ingredients of creativity, and it’s happening in many businesses today. According to the Labor Department’s most recent stats, productivity is up. But stretching fewer employees to cover ever more work in our job-starved recovery is no way to run the future. Without the creativity that produces new and valuable ideas, innovation — the successful implementation of new ideas — withers and dies. Creativity depends on the right people working in the right environment. Too often these days, the people come ill-equipped, and their work environments stink.

Lue hänen teesinsä luovuuden kolmesta elementistä.

Linkki: The Three Threats to Creativity

Kapitalismin ongelmana?


John Paul Rollert kysyy HBR-blogissa että voiko kapitalisteihin luottaa? Hän siteeraa William F. Buckleyta joka kuuluu sanoneen:

The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.

Rollert kertaa viimeisen talouskriisin ympärillä tapahtuneita ylilyöntejä:

Buckley did not live long enough to see the financial crisis unfold, but I suspect he would have felt compelled to quote Schlamm at several points over the last two years, marking events such as the epic unraveling of Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme, the revelation that Merrill Lynch CEO Jon Thain bought an $87,000 rug for his office just months before his firm went belly up, or the incident in late 2009 when several Wall Street CEOs said they couldn’t make their scheduled meeting with the President due to ”inclement weather,” this just a year after emergency action by the government saved them from joining the ranks of the unemployed.

For those who may have forgotten, Goldman came under fire last fall when it seemed that the firm was on track to pay out huge bonuses for a year in which it made a record profit of $13.4 billion. (In the end, in response to the outcry, Goldmanscaled back its bonus pool.) In the eyes of most people, the fortunes of Goldman and the American economy already looked a little too much like A Tale of Two Cities, but complicating matters further was the fact that the firm had enjoyed the upside of both the run up to the crisis and its aftermath, relying on unprecedented government assistance to tide it over in between.

Buckleyn tavoin Rollert haluaa herättää keskustelua yritysten ja yritysjohtajien roolista yhteiskunnassa:

These questions include: What is the role of business in a free society? What about successful businesspeople? Do businesses have responsibilities to the public that go beyond the law? What do they include? What virtues does the practice of business instill? What vices? And what does it mean if the answers the general public gives to these questions diverge significantly from those given by the business elite?


Tom Peters YouTubessa


Tom Peters (mm. In Search of Excellence) julkaisee ajatuksiaan myös YouTubessa. Tomin lyhyitä puheenvuoroja löytyy jo alun toistakymmentä, esimerkiksi voitaisiin nostaa vaikka tämä, jossa hän puhuu kyvystä tulla huomatuksi.

Sosiaalinen media ja kontrolli


Greg Sterling summeeraa nasevasti sen, miksi sosiaalinen media kohtaa vastustusta yritysmaailmassa: sen taustalla on lopultakin yritysjohdon haluttomuus demokraattiseen yrityskulttuuriin. Siinä kun sosiaalinen media on lähtökohdaltaan ”bottom-up” liikettä, niin

The US corporation, at least among the largest, is a top-down operation that typically seeks to maintain relatively tight control over the rank and file, although that’s increasingly difficult these days. While I realize that I’m crudely generalizing, this “top-down culture” is what you might call antithetical to the culture of social media. In my mind then, the (non-perfunctory) use of social media implies a culture shift within organizations that pushes some degree of authority and control down to the lower levels and front lines. It also implies more transparency and “openness.”

Ja oman kokemukseni perusteella tämä kyllä pätee Suomessakin.

Tästä johdon kontrollista tuli mieleeni taloustieteessä ja juridiikassa esiintyvä ns. päämies-agentti -konstruktio, jossa juridiikan näkökulmasta

The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and legal realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only act through human agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency.

ja talousteorian näkökulmasta

In political science and economics, the principal–agent problem or agency dilemma treats the difficulties that arise under conditions of incomplete and asymmetric information when a principal hires an agent, such as the problem that the two may not have the same interests, while the principal is, presumably, hiring the agent to pursue the interests of the former.

Tiedän että tämä on karkea yleistys, mutta siinä vaiheessa kun pääomien merkitys taloudelliselle toiminnalle yleensä menettää merkitystänsä, (vrt. palvelutuotanto yleensä, palvelut jotka käyttävät entistä halvempaa tietotekniikka, jne.) tai osaaminen ja tieto muodostuu pääomia tärkeämmäksi (palvelut yleensä), niin päämies-agentti -konstruktionkin tulee  saada uusia muotoja: se ei voi enää ilmetä normeina, jotka luovat ainoastaan hierarkkisia organisaatioita, vaan sen tulee mahdollistaa myös uudenlaiset organisaatiot, jotka perustuvat yhteistoiminnallisuuteen, luottamukseen, avoimuuteen ja vuorovaikutukseen, verkostoihin jne. perinteisen agenttiaan valvovan päämiehen sijasta.

Esiin nousee lisäksi sellaisia kysymyksiä kuten:

  • pitääkö yrityskulttuurin muuttua ennen sosiaalisen median käyttöönottoa (top down), vai voidaanko sosiaalisella medialla muuttaa yrityskulttuuria (bottom-up)?
  • eikö lopultakin asiakas ole se joka on päämies?
  • entä kuka on verkostomaisen organisaation päämies?
  • miten taloudellinen hyöty jaetaan verkostomaisessa organisaatiossa, jossa ei ole selkeää päämiestä?

Tässä näin ensi alkuun.

The ultimate leadership challenge


An orchestra conductor faces the ultimate leadership challenge: creating perfect harmony without saying a word. In this charming talk, Itay Talgam demonstrates the unique styles of six great 20th-century conductors, illustrating crucial lessons for all leaders.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.