Sobre personas y organizaciones

Etiqueta: Leadership

5 comportamientos para Liderar e Innovar generando Disrupción

prohibido_prohibirLa mayoría de organizaciones y sus directivos han entendido que el cambio es la única variable constante y que la mera adaptación al mismo se ha convertido en una característica no determinante. En estos tiempos “VUCAlizados” la clave no es adaptarse al cambio, sino diseñarlo y provocarlo. Tan sencillo y tan complejo al mismo tiempo.

Pero “el cambio” resulta un término demasiado genérico en este tiempo convulso e impredecible que nos ha tocado transitar. Las organizaciones y las personas que las componen siempre han estado en permanente proceso de cambio. Sin embargo, son las condiciones del contexto en el que vivimos en la actualidad y la velocidad a la que se desarrollan los acontecimientos las que obligan a que las organizaciones a través de sus personas lleven a cabo planteamientos mucho más agresivos para poder liderar el mercado diferenciándose de sus competidores y ofreciendo productos y servicios que provoquen la obsolescencia de los existentes; en definitiva generando disrupción.

Más allá de lo en boga que se encuentra el término,  disruptivo se utiliza como adjetivo para indicar una ruptura brusca, haciendo referencia por lo tanto a algo que ocasiona un cambio determinante… radical… transgresor respecto a los productos, servicios y modelos existentes.

Para provocar un cambio de estas características,  las organizaciones y quienes las lideran deben de  construir ecosistemas en los que se manifiesten una serie de comportamientos… políticamente incorrectos.

Estos son 5 atributos básicos para que una organización lidere e innove generando disrupción…

Curiosidad… estructurada

La clave de bóveda de cualquier proceso de innovación es la curiosidad. Un rasgo innato de todas las personas en su niñez y que qué se va mitigando y apagando con el paso de los años. La curiosidad es la llave de paso de cualquier cambio disruptivo.  

La probabilidad de que una organización encuentre espacios para la disrupción es directamente proporcional al ancho de banda de curiosidad que los líderes de la misma son capaces de fomentar.

Alimentar la curiosidad no es perder foco, sino focalizarse, eso sí, de forma estructurada, en la necesidad de descubrir e investigar.

Honestidad… Radical

La falta de transparencia es uno de los principales enemigos de una cultura abierta al cambio. Cuanto más se oculta o maquilla la realidad más probable es que la organización se convierta en un teatro en el que todos desempeñan un papel. Practicar la honestidad radical implica decir y presentar las cosas tal y como son, sin edulcorar la realidad. No se trata de practicar el “sincericidio” tanto como permitir que los profesionales expresen su percepción de la realidad sin necesidad de embadurnar su discurso con perífrasis y otros recursos de estilo.

Un liderazgo que practica y permite la honestidad radical sin castigarla es capaz de  provocar cambios desde el conocimiento nítido de la realidad.

Desobediencia… Inteligente

Una organización sumisa es una organización inmovilista. Desobedecer inteligentemente no solo implica retar el status quo y la norma existente sino rebelarse contra ellos siempre y cuando esa desobediencia genere un beneficio organizativo en forma de mejora de los procesos, agilidad en la ejecución o mayor reacción ante cualquier elemento nocivo para el ecosistema organizativo.

Practicar la desobediencia inteligente no es practicar el boikot, sino desafiar al sistema para mejorarlo de forma constructiva.

Una cultura es favorable a la innovación disruptiva cuando lo líderes de la organización practican y promueven la desobediencia inteligente.

Irreverencia… Constructiva

La capacidad disruptiva de una organización está reñida con los comportamientos políticamente correctos.

Si no se tolera cierto grado de irreverencia y provocación en los comportamientos de sus profesionales las posibilidades de que una organización genere un caldo de cultivo proclive a la disrupción son muy reducidas.

Muchas organizaciones alimentan el concepto de retar lo pre-establecido, pero son muy pocas las que consiguen que se esa irreverencia  sea constructiva ya que en la mayoría de ocasiones la provocación es sinónimo de penalización, una reacción que supone un claro freno de mano a cualquier proceso de cambio mínimamente transgresivo.

Descontrol… Organizado

 El control y la fiscalización son los principales síntomas de la falta de confianza que existe en una organización.

Cuantos más comportamientos asociados al control se pongan de manifiesto en una organización más agudo será su grado de complacencia.

Y al contrario, erradicar la fiscalización es señal de confianza en el seno de la organización. Las políticas, los procesos y la burocracia asociada a los mismos son mecanismos, que pese a ser necesarios, lapidan la capacidad de una empresa para innovar de forma disruptiva. De esa manera, la capacidad de construir momentos donde cristalice la disrupción es directamente proporcional a la capacidad del liderazgo para provocar el descontrol de forma organizada  en la estructura de poder, y los procedimientos y procesos asociados.

a contracorriente

Los principios del management convencional han conducido a la mayoría de empresas al lugar donde están hoy posicionadas; sin embargo, las circunstancias del contexto han cambiado radicalmente en los últimos años. De esta manera el control y la desconfianza asociada, los comportamientos políticamente correctos pero nada desafiantes, la obediencia ciega incluso hacia las normas más ineficientes, el dañino edulcoramiento de la realidad para no herir sensibilidades y la reducción hasta mínimos insospechados de la curiosidad de los profesionales de la empresa, se han convertido en peligrosos cepos que atrapan las opciones de supervivencia en el mercado.

Generar descontrol de forma consciente, mostrar cierto grado de irreverencia de forma constructiva, desobedecer las normas existentes cuando estás generan ineficiencia y burocracia, presentar la realidad organizativa desde la honestidad – aunque esta duela – y poner el foco en la necesidad de investigar y descubrir son rasgos y características políticamente incorrectos notablemente alejados de los cánones empresarialmente aceptados.

Características, y por lo tanto, comportamientos que hoy en día se convierten paradójicamente en elementos esenciales para construir ecosistemas organizativos donde tengan lugar innovaciones transgresoras y diferenciales,  a partir, como era de esperar, de un liderazgo desafiante, rebelde, provocador… pero con una clara causa… generar la disrupción que permita la supervivencia de la organización.

El cualitativo valor del Liderazgo

20160330194041-lider-indispensable1Corren buenos tiempos para la lírica del Big Data y la digitalización. Las organizaciones y sus directivos han comenzado a abrazar definitivamente la cultura de la innovación y la colaboración. No proclamarse en proceso de transformación digital o repudiar la cultura de la innovación ahora es causa de estigma empresarial, no abanderar la relevancia del “Big Data”, nos condena a ser “small”…

Muchas organizaciones, sobre todo las que trabajan por ser percibidas como las primeras de la clase en sus respectivos sectores, se han lanzado a la cruzada por conseguir los santos griales de la digitalización, la innovación y la colaboración, razones no les faltan, porque esa cruzada les permitirá seguir a flote en un mundo literalmente “vucalizado”…

Resulta imperativo calcular el retorno de la inversión en innovación, alcanzar el algoritmo prometido que nos permita  minimizar el margen de error en nuestras decisiones aplicadas a la gestión de personas, calcular el porcentaje de ideas que se pueden extraer de las interacciones presenciales y virtuales entre los profesionales de la organización. Cuantificar el impacto de las decisiones en materia de gestión de personas siempre fue crucial, pero ahora, con los avances tecnológicos de nuestro lado, se ha convertido en una cuestión capital, y no precisamente humano.

Y sin embargo, mientras más se consolida la cuantificación de la gestión de personas a golpe de ingentes cantidades de datos y mientras se condena al ostracismo a quien no se transforme digitalmente más se debería poner en valor el cualitativo arte de liderar personas.

En tiempos de cuantificación y ciencia aplicada a la gestión de personas, debemos hacer un esfuerzo por entender el descomunal impacto que el liderazgo tiene y seguirá teniendo de manera directa en la cuenta de resultados:

La cantidad y calidad de ideas que un grupo de profesionales puede generar es directamente proporcional a la capacidad que tiene un líder para provocar su capacidad de reflexionar…

La capacidad de colaborar está íntimamente relacionada con la habilidad de un líder para hacer entender que uno más uno es mucho más que dos…

Que la perdida de talento y con este su conocimiento y el tiempo invertido en él, es, en la mayoría de ocasiones, la consecuencia de que un líder no sepa ni quiera escuchar.…

Que la mejora de la productividad está asociada a la habilidad que tiene una persona para conseguir que otros pongan foco en lo esencial…

Que la decisión de un profesional para ir un paso más, se explica en la mayoría de ocasiones por la habilidad que tiene quien le lidera para entender e interpretar sus emociones y motivaciones…

Que la energía destinada a aprender por un grupo de profesionales, es infinitamente mayor cuando se cuenta con el apoyo de un líder que invita a probar y experimentar…

Y, pese a todo, muchas empresas, obnubiladas por la necesidad de no quedarse relegadas en la aplicación de las últimas tendencias de turno, siguen tropezando en las mismas piedras: otorgando el liderazgo a profesionales que no son capaces de entender más puntos de vista que el suyo propio; promocionando el conocimiento técnico y ninguneando la capacidad de comprender las emociones; dando la responsabilidad de gestionar personas a quienes carecen de la autocrítica suficiente para liderarse a sí mismos; anteponiendo la relevancia de alimentar los egos frente a la imperiosa necesidad de hacer crecer el nosotros…

En un contexto económico y empresarial dominado por la digitalización y la consolidación de los algoritmos… se antoja más necesario que nunca reivindicar el cualitativo valor del liderazgo, un valor expresado en energía, en ideas inverosímiles hechas realidad, en ayudas desinteresadas, en deseo de ser, estar y aportar, en plurales, en entusiasmo y en aprendizajes que aceleran la consecución de resultados cuantitativamente extraordinarios…

El genuino valor del liderazgo solo se obtiene cuando se tiene el valor de liderar…

9 Dimensions for measuring the Culture of Innovation

medicionInnovation is more than a management buzzword and cool trend. Understood as the ability of a company (or a professional) to do things differently (either in a disruptive or continued manner) and thereby obtain better results is definitely one of the keys for an organizationto achieve its business objectives, differentiating clearly from the competition in the context of the 21st century organization.

Fashions and trends aside, the key is not to innovate, but do it before others…

Nevertheless, even though it is undeniably crucial to drive innovation, few companies have embraced the development of a culture of innovation as a source of value creation for the business.

Indeed, although they are aware of the importance of fostering a culture of innovation for the business, many companies are deeply unaware of what level of innovation their culture offers.

If we accept the relevance of developing a culture of innovation in business terms, then it is not unreasonable to think that the first thing we should do in HR is to start measuring it.

If we do not know the true degree of innovation our culture has, then it’s difficult for us to develop it from within HR.

Beyond the benefits that reflect corporate presentations and manifestos of values, it will be difficult for us to rigorously promote a culture of innovation if we don’t start to measure it objectively.

Coming this far begs the next question. What parameters must be analyzed to determine the degree of innovation of an organizational culture? 

9 essential dimensions

Although there are very valid models already developed for this, in my opinion there are at least nine mandatory dimensions we should use to build questions that (assuming objectivity and honesty in the responses…) enable us to identify the true degree of innovation of our organizational culture.

1. Openness to knowledge 

The way a company opens up to knowledge is a crucial element for building a culture of innovation model.

Opening up processes to access knowledge and the extent to which professionals are allowed to distribute and connect it among themselves are insightful indicators on the innovative capacity of the organization. There is a directly correlation between the capacity to open up to knowledge and the degree of innovation in the culture.

2. Orientation to self-learning

The ability to foster a culture of innovation necessarily involves turning the conventional training and learning model upside down. In a hyper-dynamic organizational context, self-responsibility in terms of learning is a determining factor for building a culture of innovation. Organizations that facilitate self learning models are setting down the grounds for a culture of innovation.

3. Degree of connectivity

To assess the extent to which connectivity is promoted or limited provides key information for a factor that is clearly critical for determining to what extent a culture is innovative or not. How liberal are both the internal and external socialization processes? Are there business objectives related to building relationships? Or how easy is it to connect to other areas, projects or stakeholders? Such basic questions will shed light for this dimension.

4. Communication (Degree of freedom)

In fact this has nothing to do with the typical and over-popularized barometer predictable in any model measuring “climate”. Communication and the conversation ethos are inherent in a culture of innovation. This dimension should be developed to measure the degree of fluidity of communication, the frequency of conversations, the platforms on which this occurs, and the degree of freedom with which they develop and happen. Opening up conversations is a key mechanism to accelerate the processes of a culture of innovation themselves.

5. Level of intra-entrepreneurship

 There is a close relationship between intra-entrepreneurship and orientation towards innovation in an organization. For that reason, this dimension is absolutely mandatory in any model for measuring innovative culture. The degree of intra-entrepreneurship reflects the ability of an organization to open up and deliver proactivity among their talent beyond the set structures, hierarchies and limits.

termómetro-calor6. The watchdog paradigm

What is the degree of supervisory control over tasks and responsibilities? To what extent are there processes that cannibalize or, on the contrary, facilitate decision-making? To what extent does monitoring come close to facilitating or penalizing error? These are uncomfortable but necessary questions to reveal the extent to which the company is holding on to the watchdog paradigm and the autocratic management style. The capacity for innovation of an organization increases the further it is from the watchdog paradigm and the closer it is to a model of collaboration and cooperation.

7. Level of development of social technology

Based on the factors described so far, it is obvious that a culture will not be innovative only through high penetration of social technology (and usability logically). But it is also true that high levels of innovation can hardly be achieved in terms of culture, if social technology and the processes built around this do not permeate every corner of the organization.

Social technology does not guarantee a culture of innovation, but in the age of connectivity, it is hard to imagine a culture of innovation that does not capitalize on digitalizing their processes and knowledge flow.

8. Rigidity-flexibility of the organizational structure

Just as it came about with the dimension of social technology, organizational structure and its flexibility or rigidity do not guarantee the development of a culture of innovation. But in light of the above factors and relationships between them, it is logical to think that a flatter and less pyramidal organizational structure with looser and less canned descriptions of job-responsibilities should make it easier to strengthen many of the above factors and dimensions.

Consequently, measuring the degree of rigidity or flexibility that the organizational structure has is crucial to determine the suitability of the architecture for fostering a culture of innovation.

9. Transformational Leadership

As to be expected, to assess the degree of innovation in the corporate culture inevitably requires another specific dimension that measures the degree of transgression and disruption of the dominant leadership style in the organization. The way in which leaders and line managers lead, their emotions, their capacity to create collaborative environments and conversation spaces, their capacity to drive change from and through change, and even bring more change—these are items that are absolutely critical for evaluating the level of transformation of the leadership style simply because in the 21st century world of business, leadership is about stimulating cultures of innovation.

HR professionals should understand that promoting and developing a culture of innovation is a key factor to creating value in the organization.

Perhaps it is time to understand that besides the required indicators for organizational engagement, it is becoming indispensable to measure the degree of innovation in the organizational culture, as survival in the market is increasingly subject to the development of models for cultures of innovation.  Without innovative behaviours, the risk of business obsolescence is higher.

Measuring the culture of innovation is something too serious to be trivialized, as it has often occurred with assessing organization engagement.

HR again has an opportunity, but also the responsibility to take leadership of a process that undoubtedly will be one of the keys to generating value in the 21st century company: measuring the culture of innovation and nurturing it.

 

This post was originally written for Meta4 Glocal Thinking Blog

10 Powerful Questions for Leading People

Kid_superhero_muscleAs each day passes more and more companies uphold the belief that people are the real key to achieving results. A belief which corroborates the decisive role that leadership plays in the achievement of business success.

If we get down to the truth of the matter, people have always been the focus of leadership…but that leadership has been one impervious to new approaches, a leadership designed to protect the modus operandi and the established status quo, where the centralisation of information has reigned, sustained by strict procedures that ultimately constrict decision making… and still…results were obtained ‘from people’

But now, getting results from people is not enough. The changes that we have experienced in the business world in the last few years clearly demonstrate that we are living in times of growing complexity, with a high component of uncertainty which demands management skills capable of dealing with many more variables than ever before.  In short, now is the moment to consider a leadership model where results are not obtained ‘from’ people but ‘through’ people – the use of the different preposition is significant.

As we face market conditions that demand more and better involvement, collaboration, agility, creativity, self-leadership, flexibility and adaptability, it is imperative that we reflect on what exactly a leader can do to improve business results not from, but through people.

And so, perhaps the time has come for us to abandon our predilection for offering ‘correct’ answers, and to instead, strengthen our capacity to formulate appropriate questions within the context of conducting conversations of real value.

Asking vs Answering…  Listen vs Monopolising the conversation.  A major challenge for the large majority of directors, managers and professionals in general… who have it in their power to adjust their leadership style by developing the art of conversation and, of course, the art of asking questions…

1.- What can I do for you?

To lead is to put oneself at the service of another. Apart from some exceptions, this has  never been an habitual practice for many leaders, but right now, one of the key principles for leading, is to ask what our team requires of us and how we can help them, as opposed to only imagining what our team requires of us,

2.- What objectives do you want to achieve?

In contrast to the traditional model in which the leader decides what should be achieved, asking what objectives and challenges the other wishes to set him/herself is a valuable practice if we want to encourage total involvement. Real commitment is born when we ourselves decide what we want to achieve, rather than being forced to achieve something that has been decided by another.

3.- Why are you doing that?

In other words, invite the other to reflect on the purpose of the work they are about to do… Obtaining results through people requires that these people are aware of the rationale behind what they are about to do, that they search for the sense and logic of their actions, tasks and responsibilities

4.- What resources do you have and what do you need to achieve your objective?

Asking about where we are now and what is lacking  allows us to identify those resources that are readily available to us and those that we require to be able to achieve our objectives. How many times have we been unable to complete something simply because we have been unaware of what is needed for its completion?

5.- How would you do it differently? incognita

In short, allowing our colleagues to outline and reflect on alternative ways of completing a task demonstrates an intelligent approach; telling them how they should do it, to some extent merely satisfies our ego.

6.- What can you gain and what can you lose?

Asking about the benefits and costs associated with any decision or action allows us to see the related risks of doing or not doing it… Identifying pros and cons is an essential exercise if we wish to develop our muscles of autonomy and the ability to make decisons. Self leadership develops as we become accostomed to thinking in terms of costs and benefits.

7.- Who do you know in your network that can help us?

As connected professionals we provide value to our network via the knowledge that we contribute to that network. Leading is not about encouraging one to aspire to impossible missions, it is about exploring our network and the possibilities therein contained for the attainment of results.

8.- In which areas do you complement others and how do they complement you?

Asking about how we impact our environment helps us to develop our self knowledge… asking about how others complement others sets downs the foundations of a model based on collaboration… a crucial element for achieving results through people in complex, uncertain and volatile settings.

9.- What do you need to do to get there?

Knowing what we want to achieve, for what reason, which resources we currently have at our disposal, and the support that we need, allows us to get at the information that is necessary to devise a plan of action… let’s not forget, leading is above all, about having conversations which strengthen the propensity to act.

10.- How do you feel?

People are emotions and emotions are the fuel that gets us moving. To lead therefore is to manage emotions and to allow those emotions to transform themselves into action, given that the only possible means of attaining results is through people… and logically through their emotions.

 ______________________________________________________________________

Purpose, benefits, support, costs, emotions, self-leadership, alternatives, innovation, resources… and of course action are only some of the ingredients that allow us to attain and improve results through people (and not from them) in a context that urgently requires that each and everyone in the organisation discovers and deploys to the máximum  their capabilities and potential for action.

On the other hand, we should not forget that in many instances leading also involves giving answers and offering advice, as people do at times need guidance and orientation in order to improve their performance.

Our current environment is asking us to readdress the prevailing leadership model; it is an environment that necessitates the development of professionals with honed decision making and evaluation skills, who can operate with greater autonomy and flexibility, who are oriented towards collaboration and who successfully manage their commitments… behavioural characteristics that appear and flourish, obviously when we lead by building conversations that are of value and naturally, when we work on and practice the art of asking powerful, appropriate questions…

Photo Credit: Google

Pagina 2 de 2

Funciona con WordPress & Tema de Anders Norén