Recently I've been thinking about the whole topic of interviews, skills, competencies etc and have had to explain to a few people what it is that people look for when recruiting someone. Of course every job is different, but I do want to discuss a couple of key concepts.
It is not what you know that matters that much. It is what you are capable of doing and what you want to do. If you have the capability and the ideas of how to direct that capability to achieve the results, then that is wonderful.
It is not what you achieve, but how you achieve it. Sounds contrary to my previous statement; but in my point of view this is crucial for modern organisations. It is not just about issues like corruption or management, it is related to an organisation's culture. Will you be someone who is inspired to achieve a numerical result or inspired to achieve the result of that result? Will you be content with reaching a goal or want to go further? Are you motivated by the number or the consequence? Do you have a plan or a vision? First you need to have a vision or a dream of where that plan leads to, then you create the plan. You have to be inspired by the vision primarily, not just the plan.
The how matters, because when you join an organisation you do just that -join an organisation. This requires communication, teamwork, motivation and so on. When you work with someone who challenges you, inspires you, provides ideas, helps you generate ideas then you are very lucky! But that is what makes an organisation a success and that is what makes an individual a success: even if a job does just require you sitting by a computer and a phone, there are still people around you to talk to, to eat lunch with and at the other end of the email or phone!
Real teamwork cannot be measured. It is not just having team meetings; it is about helping others to achieve and helping others to help you achieve.
Now, all this said, having these qualities (or an organisation that allows these qualities to develop and exist) is not easy. I'm yet to find either a person or an organisation that is perfect -but still, when you are interviewing someone you want to try to find that perfect person, and you want to try to develop that perfect organisation.
And if you don't, then you need to! Which comes to the final quality: Perfectionism is not an optional trait. Everyone needs to aim to be perfect, to achieve perfection somehow -when you define perfection aim high (and realistically) -and yes perfectionism requires persistence. The problem is, how many leaders know any of this, let alone try to make it happen? I hear about some organisations where all this is true.. let it be known that I hope to create an organsiation like this some day!
Sunday, December 17, 2006
partnerships
Reflecting back on a 'Strategic Marketing' course at University reminds me that I did learn something.. and indeed, still remember something of use from University. Namely that though partnerships tend to be seen as a end in themselves, and a very popular concept nowadays, partnerships to really be a mean to an end.. and once the end is achieved (or as close as can be), the partnership should be dissolved (therefore when it is created, such a dissolution point should be planned for).
I also remember that the professor's definition of strategic partnership made for interesting thinking: combining different strengths of organisations together for example, or that a partner often enters a partnership hoping to actually beat its partner -partnerships are rarely equal and partner's unstated goals rarely the same. Of course there was much more to the course, such as the difficulties of creating and integrating joint activities, managing them and so on.
In my work I look at strategic benefits in a philanthropy way: between organisations of different sectors, which explicitly have different objectives from partnerships: a company might hope to improve its reputation whereas a charity might want to help poor people. However these partnerships are often fairly successful.
What about partnerships where all partners' over-riding goal is a philanthropic one? This strikes me as interesting because everything in 'business' is about motivation: if the motivation is so strong and commitment so great, might success be achieved? So the recent trend for all kinds of people to start joining coalitions or partnerships to fight some aspect of poverty. Many are not real partnerships; indeed a coalition is often just a membership of a club where you contribute something and a central secretariat actually does something with it. But for actual partnerships; with each partner contributing something, doing something, having a direct stake in the outcome etc -then are these partnerships more successful (the typical MBA textbook will state how often mergers fail to add value, or how often partnerships do not bring much benefit to either partner!) than traditional business partnerships (which my professor was talking about)?
I hope to find out more over the course of my career; one thing is sure, is that these new partnerships (Cross Sector Partnerships, Corporate Community Engagement and so on) are rarely assessed adequately in the context of how successful the partnership is (if it is actually a partnership, rather than just a 'sponsorship'); and only the outcome of the partnership is assessed (and often badly).
I also remember that the professor's definition of strategic partnership made for interesting thinking: combining different strengths of organisations together for example, or that a partner often enters a partnership hoping to actually beat its partner -partnerships are rarely equal and partner's unstated goals rarely the same. Of course there was much more to the course, such as the difficulties of creating and integrating joint activities, managing them and so on.
In my work I look at strategic benefits in a philanthropy way: between organisations of different sectors, which explicitly have different objectives from partnerships: a company might hope to improve its reputation whereas a charity might want to help poor people. However these partnerships are often fairly successful.
What about partnerships where all partners' over-riding goal is a philanthropic one? This strikes me as interesting because everything in 'business' is about motivation: if the motivation is so strong and commitment so great, might success be achieved? So the recent trend for all kinds of people to start joining coalitions or partnerships to fight some aspect of poverty. Many are not real partnerships; indeed a coalition is often just a membership of a club where you contribute something and a central secretariat actually does something with it. But for actual partnerships; with each partner contributing something, doing something, having a direct stake in the outcome etc -then are these partnerships more successful (the typical MBA textbook will state how often mergers fail to add value, or how often partnerships do not bring much benefit to either partner!) than traditional business partnerships (which my professor was talking about)?
I hope to find out more over the course of my career; one thing is sure, is that these new partnerships (Cross Sector Partnerships, Corporate Community Engagement and so on) are rarely assessed adequately in the context of how successful the partnership is (if it is actually a partnership, rather than just a 'sponsorship'); and only the outcome of the partnership is assessed (and often badly).
Friday, December 15, 2006
prioritising
In business it is tough to prioritise. Can you really choose what is more important to your business -your employees or your customers? You obviously need both; and this is just a very simple example. There are many situations where prioritising is difficult and complex.
Leading CSR thought is along the lines of integrating CSR and responsibility into management decisions. In this way the impact of decisions can be viewed through a 'responsibility lens'' thus if there are guidelines within a company for how to select priorities, the litmus test is where is sustainability or responsibility in these guidelines.
I write about the difficulties of prioritisation because we, as human beings face similar problems daily. The world, it seems, is now moving climate change up the ladder of priorities, but at what cost? Will the environment (in a traditional sense) or poverty reduction drop down a few rungs to compensate?
It is clear we cannot focus on all issues; and all have their merit. It is also clear that all issues are inter-related. Yes you cannot generate economic growth if the people who generate wealth are dying from HIV/AIDs, and their future successors are not being educated or looked after. But at the same time, you cannot generate wealth, if there is no water for growing crops or cooling factories, or for drinking. Another simple example, but this I believe is an issue we are struggling to deal with.
There are too many issues with complicated solutions and not enough will power or resources to solve them all. The Copenhagen Consensus was an interesting concept, when it started in 2003 -and its great to discover it is still going. The Copenhagen Consensus process aims to establish a framework in which solutions to problems are prioritized based upon the best information possible. The idea is a great one, and they have wonderful educational resources which I think every institution should use to stimulate debate and ideas.
Their founding conference in 2004 came up with these top 4 priorities: HIV/AIDs, Nutrition (Micronutrients), Trade liberalisation, Malaria. (Interestingly the youth conference came up with Malnutrition/Hunger, Communicable Disease, Governance/Corruption and Education). Now they are updating their framework and preparing for a similar conference in 2008. What will the priorities they come up with be then? Will Climate Change still take 3 of the bottom 4 places?
Thankfully there is some follow-up, including an interesting book (a rich set of arguments and data for prioritising our response most effectively).
On a personal level, as much as we may all care about helping others, there is the question that we hate to ask ourselves.. Is watching a 2 hour movie going to really make much difference to the World? Is our job really what we want? This discussion shall be had another time!
Leading CSR thought is along the lines of integrating CSR and responsibility into management decisions. In this way the impact of decisions can be viewed through a 'responsibility lens'' thus if there are guidelines within a company for how to select priorities, the litmus test is where is sustainability or responsibility in these guidelines.
I write about the difficulties of prioritisation because we, as human beings face similar problems daily. The world, it seems, is now moving climate change up the ladder of priorities, but at what cost? Will the environment (in a traditional sense) or poverty reduction drop down a few rungs to compensate?
It is clear we cannot focus on all issues; and all have their merit. It is also clear that all issues are inter-related. Yes you cannot generate economic growth if the people who generate wealth are dying from HIV/AIDs, and their future successors are not being educated or looked after. But at the same time, you cannot generate wealth, if there is no water for growing crops or cooling factories, or for drinking. Another simple example, but this I believe is an issue we are struggling to deal with.
There are too many issues with complicated solutions and not enough will power or resources to solve them all. The Copenhagen Consensus was an interesting concept, when it started in 2003 -and its great to discover it is still going. The Copenhagen Consensus process aims to establish a framework in which solutions to problems are prioritized based upon the best information possible. The idea is a great one, and they have wonderful educational resources which I think every institution should use to stimulate debate and ideas.
Their founding conference in 2004 came up with these top 4 priorities: HIV/AIDs, Nutrition (Micronutrients), Trade liberalisation, Malaria. (Interestingly the youth conference came up with Malnutrition/Hunger, Communicable Disease, Governance/Corruption and Education). Now they are updating their framework and preparing for a similar conference in 2008. What will the priorities they come up with be then? Will Climate Change still take 3 of the bottom 4 places?
Thankfully there is some follow-up, including an interesting book (a rich set of arguments and data for prioritising our response most effectively).
On a personal level, as much as we may all care about helping others, there is the question that we hate to ask ourselves.. Is watching a 2 hour movie going to really make much difference to the World? Is our job really what we want? This discussion shall be had another time!
Saturday, December 02, 2006
HIV/AIDs as a reflection of our society
just watched a movie called A closer walk which I encourage everyone to watch; one of the many very good points is that HIV/AIDs and our failure to stop it spreading reflects about our society in general. Of course every society is different between regions, countries, cities etc; but there are some interesting thoughts that came into my mind.
First I started thinking about social stigmas -related to sex, related to old or disabled people, related to people of other races and sexes. And the obvious truth that we start with a negative stigma of almost anything different or anything we do not understand, but once we come into close contact with it and reach across the divide to make a personal connection, then we can lose the stigma. But the problem is if we think this way then we start with holding stigmas towards so many people and have to work to overcome them -rather than the opposite. I understand the evolutionary perspective of having to earn trust and fear people or things that are different or we do not understand for own survival; but today we come into contqact with so many people and things that are different: much more than in the past; and we effect so many more people that are so different to us, without even knowing it!
How can we change these stigmas? Are we as humans, humane people? It seems not. Despite knowledge and awareness we often do nothing, for so many reasons -some simple and some complex. The more reasons there are, the more solutions there are -which makes it harder to solve on one hand, but also offers more opportunities for us to do something -just pick one small solution that fits our personal situation. Despite evident visibility on our own streets of people less fortunate, we as humans don't seem to do anything about it. It's not often about desire, or about means, or ability (though all often are missing); but more generally about behaviour.
What does it take for society to change? To take responsibility for itself? I mean, our society is killing itself in so many ways... Yes, there are 'bigger picture' ideas: of there being more people creating more diseases killing more people, of poverty being inevitable no matter what and so on.. but what strikes me, is that we COULD actually do something about it.. it is not just out of our hands!
Now for a problem I do not have an answer for- if in some countries 40% people have HIV/AIDs and whole families and friendship networks are dying from it; why is HIV/AIDs becoming a bigger problem? Surely everyone is affected by it; surely they can see it, see the effects and will want to stop it -for their own, selfish sake -but this is not happening. If there are cultural reasons for this (man involving the role of women in society) then how come the culture does not change? Yes, we need to understand different cultures, respect them etc. But there is no point in preserving a culture if it is not fit for the modern society.. if by preserving a culture it wipes its own people out. They need to change their culture to survive (and not necessarily change to a certain or specific culture; but make some kind of change)!
Finally a point was made by the Director of the movie, that there are somethings that are fundamental rights and others that are a privilege: The rich may have more priviledges than the poor, but we should not have more rights.
First I started thinking about social stigmas -related to sex, related to old or disabled people, related to people of other races and sexes. And the obvious truth that we start with a negative stigma of almost anything different or anything we do not understand, but once we come into close contact with it and reach across the divide to make a personal connection, then we can lose the stigma. But the problem is if we think this way then we start with holding stigmas towards so many people and have to work to overcome them -rather than the opposite. I understand the evolutionary perspective of having to earn trust and fear people or things that are different or we do not understand for own survival; but today we come into contqact with so many people and things that are different: much more than in the past; and we effect so many more people that are so different to us, without even knowing it!
How can we change these stigmas? Are we as humans, humane people? It seems not. Despite knowledge and awareness we often do nothing, for so many reasons -some simple and some complex. The more reasons there are, the more solutions there are -which makes it harder to solve on one hand, but also offers more opportunities for us to do something -just pick one small solution that fits our personal situation. Despite evident visibility on our own streets of people less fortunate, we as humans don't seem to do anything about it. It's not often about desire, or about means, or ability (though all often are missing); but more generally about behaviour.
What does it take for society to change? To take responsibility for itself? I mean, our society is killing itself in so many ways... Yes, there are 'bigger picture' ideas: of there being more people creating more diseases killing more people, of poverty being inevitable no matter what and so on.. but what strikes me, is that we COULD actually do something about it.. it is not just out of our hands!
Now for a problem I do not have an answer for- if in some countries 40% people have HIV/AIDs and whole families and friendship networks are dying from it; why is HIV/AIDs becoming a bigger problem? Surely everyone is affected by it; surely they can see it, see the effects and will want to stop it -for their own, selfish sake -but this is not happening. If there are cultural reasons for this (man involving the role of women in society) then how come the culture does not change? Yes, we need to understand different cultures, respect them etc. But there is no point in preserving a culture if it is not fit for the modern society.. if by preserving a culture it wipes its own people out. They need to change their culture to survive (and not necessarily change to a certain or specific culture; but make some kind of change)!
Finally a point was made by the Director of the movie, that there are somethings that are fundamental rights and others that are a privilege: The rich may have more priviledges than the poor, but we should not have more rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)