I have seen this throughout my career. As it has been stated, smaller companies tend to pursue this area of incompetence to keep the majority from an uprising so to speak, as when not bringing in someone of a higher skill level it can stifle the growth of any organization. However, it does not necessarily just happen in small companies. I've worked for larger organizations and simply because people are in the in crowd so to speak they simply move into positions where they might have been top notch in their current position but their skill sets changes and they assume they know what to do and because they don't and they've not been trained in that hierarchy position they create ambiguity, discontent, and uneasiness amongst team players and/or associates.
Clearly, we have all seen this happen where John/Jane Doe obtains their position not by what they know but whom they knew. Incapable of handling the position in areas of communication, direction, strategies, improvements, growth to name a few. You realize there is no way someone in the path that has been obtained can clearly work through that particular position.
I think it goes along with the adage of if you want to get rid of someone you either promote them or fire them.
This affects many areas of business. It creates dismay across the spectrum of people this person has power over. It is not fair to the people that strive to get to certain levels but never see it. This person has no outlook or foresight for what the position encompasses… They may be able to learn certain aspects, but they tend to have to lean on the person who got them to the point where they are. It is like carrying a broken ladder everywhere you go, hoping you can get to the top without anyone noticing you are climbing up a faulty tool to perform the job.
Incompetence in the workplace is what stifles growth, challenges, and creativity. If you do not understand what the skills sets are in the position you have been given how can you lead and expect any type of success. Eventually you lose as a whole. Your good people will leave or seek different avenues not to be judged or associated with the downfall of the incompetent. The only ones left to follow is those that won't create any ripple effect and those that are following along the same lines as the one put into the position that is incompetent. Eventually your whole hierarchy has become incompetent and yet management wonders why things are occurring the way they are and obtaining the results they did not want to obtain. Clearly, at some point, the incompetence comes to a head and the person them self has realized they have come to the end of the road and no further progress can occur.
One example I can remember is seeing a floor supervisor clearly express his views to his superior about a friend the superior had hired on and how the superior wanted to get the friend promoted. The supervisor stated his reasoning that there were others more qualified and deserving and who had been striving for such a position. The supervisor clearly refused to sign off on it and without his signature, it could not be done. The supervisor was eventually moved out of the department eventually laid off and the friend was put in place. Here is the clincher. The superior who got the friend promoted found out down the road that although the friend whom he promoted continuously played his cards up the ladder he eventually got the superior (his friend who got him the job) laid off and obtained the superiors job. In turn the friend started promoting his own friends and acquaintances to hierarchy positions where it was clearly noted even the most ignorant can obtain a position despite what they knew. Could they actually perform in the position, sure, as long as they had the friend to lean on. The Peter Principal works great within the buddy system.
If noted, you one can see that the Parkinson law will at times follow suit with the Peter Principal. You see some incompetent get into a position they cannot handle or perform so the easiest way to make the job tolerable is to add to the bureaucracy despite the amount of work that is to be done, there is always someone to shoulder the skill sets so the incompetent will not fall from power.
Our government clearly fits the Peter Principal and the Parkinson Law. You put people into positions they are unqualified for and they will A. Fill it with for example five people to do a one persons job. B. Fill your task with bogus issues that would typically be performed in 1 day, it now takes a week.
You have to fill all the people you hired to perform your job with idiotic task to justify their need for you to appear you are accomplishing the task that you are not qualified to do.
You may also want to read about the Dunning-Kruger effect whereas someone who is incompetent chooses to put other incompetence’s in place and may not know that they are doing it because of their own in competences. It also goes into talking about how incompetent people will unjustly rate themselves higher in all aspects of competence as compared to how their peers rate them.
Interesting topic- this is the kind of discussion I really appreciate. Thanks for asking.
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/parkinsl.html
http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Are Entrepreneurs Executives
Although a difference in definition between an entrepreneur and an executive both must be considered for the roles that they play and each must be familiar with these roles.
“The myth: entrepreneurs are great for getting a company started, but not so great when Wall Street is looking over their shoulder. Part of this thinking is that founders of companies are mavericks, passionate doers with a vision, nontraditional in their approach to management and outspoken - the kind of rabble rousing that makes investors uneasy.” (Brad Szollose) Source attached- and a very good read.
As Brad indicates, a true executive is one who has passion for their role. He gives many examples from Steve Jobs to Harley Davidson from their time based successes to the falling of the company to the success it took by bringing back the entrepreneur to reestablish the successes of these companies.
I agree that it my be a stereotype version of what an executive is or required to do, but with all entrepreneurs they have passion and to mix the two together as a relationship means you have an executive who has passion for what they do, and achieve. I do not particularly agree that you have to have all these special skills to be an executive. A good executive will have vision. An entrepreneur will have vision toward his success in achieving a small business. In time, yes, it grows with successes, but although it can fail, many large corporations fail with so-called stereotypical titles of an executive. Both have to have the inert recipe toward success and the will and knowledge to grow.
“Entrepreneurs must understand that their business(es) should run without them. Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds. He created tight methods for creating every product on the menu. In a business where profit margins are very tight, Kroc showed investors that his structure assured profits, whether he was there or not. Look at Lee Iacocca, former President Bill Clinton, John Johnson, Mary Kay-Ash, Donald Trump, Malcolm Forbes, Warren Buffet, Tony Robbins, Hilary Clinton, HP's former CEO Carly Fiorina, etc. All are reflections of balance between an entrepreneur's spirit and a corporate executive's strategy. The balance between passion and discipline is what drives all of them.”
(Brad Szollose)
As Brad defines both, he clearly makes the paradigm that it is a matter of right brain thinking and left-brain thinking and learning to make both work together.
I think most small businesses are executive leaders although they might not view themselves as such since their main objective is to role up their sleeves, work hard, succeed and profit. Nevertheless, in reality, their status although that is really all it is, is a status quo, they do reflect on the executive analogy with the entrepreneur thinking.
The main difference as stated in the document provided is the entrepreneur works for himself, the executive works for others. One earns his way whereas the other is paid in salary, bonuses and perks. One might be rough around the edges, but they both have vision, they both have passion and they both aim to succeed!
“The myth: entrepreneurs are great for getting a company started, but not so great when Wall Street is looking over their shoulder. Part of this thinking is that founders of companies are mavericks, passionate doers with a vision, nontraditional in their approach to management and outspoken - the kind of rabble rousing that makes investors uneasy.” (Brad Szollose) Source attached- and a very good read.
As Brad indicates, a true executive is one who has passion for their role. He gives many examples from Steve Jobs to Harley Davidson from their time based successes to the falling of the company to the success it took by bringing back the entrepreneur to reestablish the successes of these companies.
I agree that it my be a stereotype version of what an executive is or required to do, but with all entrepreneurs they have passion and to mix the two together as a relationship means you have an executive who has passion for what they do, and achieve. I do not particularly agree that you have to have all these special skills to be an executive. A good executive will have vision. An entrepreneur will have vision toward his success in achieving a small business. In time, yes, it grows with successes, but although it can fail, many large corporations fail with so-called stereotypical titles of an executive. Both have to have the inert recipe toward success and the will and knowledge to grow.
“Entrepreneurs must understand that their business(es) should run without them. Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds. He created tight methods for creating every product on the menu. In a business where profit margins are very tight, Kroc showed investors that his structure assured profits, whether he was there or not. Look at Lee Iacocca, former President Bill Clinton, John Johnson, Mary Kay-Ash, Donald Trump, Malcolm Forbes, Warren Buffet, Tony Robbins, Hilary Clinton, HP's former CEO Carly Fiorina, etc. All are reflections of balance between an entrepreneur's spirit and a corporate executive's strategy. The balance between passion and discipline is what drives all of them.”
(Brad Szollose)
As Brad defines both, he clearly makes the paradigm that it is a matter of right brain thinking and left-brain thinking and learning to make both work together.
I think most small businesses are executive leaders although they might not view themselves as such since their main objective is to role up their sleeves, work hard, succeed and profit. Nevertheless, in reality, their status although that is really all it is, is a status quo, they do reflect on the executive analogy with the entrepreneur thinking.
The main difference as stated in the document provided is the entrepreneur works for himself, the executive works for others. One earns his way whereas the other is paid in salary, bonuses and perks. One might be rough around the edges, but they both have vision, they both have passion and they both aim to succeed!
Selling Yourself
During a Discussion I was having the conversation tip toward interviewing, here's what I said.
A sharing moment- As George said we are all salesperson. Most people IMHO do not know how to sell anything let alone selling themselves. Why would they. If all you have ever done were work a lathe 20 years, how would you even begin to sell something you know nothing about? Ever looked at a site where they have a title called "About Me"? What I have seen in those sections is, "I have a hard time talking about myself so if you want to know something just ask". Clear indication they do not even know about their own product "themselves". In my opinion, you can have the best-looking resume, but if you cannot tell someone about you, yourself, your resume is a waste of time. It is just pretty words you cannot backup. All throughout my career, I have been told I need public speaking classes to help me relax when I speak. I have gotten a zillion times better over time because like anything else you have to practice and familiarize yourself with what you are speaking or selling. In my case, it helped me when I was tied to sales. Although my experience has always been in management, sales was a new area to tackle. However, once you are forced to talk to clients and you do not want to screw it up you learn real quick what you say can win the client or lose them. As someone told me not to long ago, think about your interview as a sales call and think of it as you have a resource you are selling to a client that has a need and you have the resolution to that need.
In Mark D's mantra response to himself, one thing I always think of is the little train that could. I think I can I think I can I think I can and eventually you'll say I know I can I know I can.
As in sales, I have made myself numerous study sheets for my product "ME". I have my elevator pitch that I study constantly so it does not come off as just something I memorized. I want it to be as natural as if I did it today, yesterday or tomorrow. I've reviewed my resume in and out and anything that sparks a potential tell me about a time... or tell me about.... I have a list of the words, I know what I did, but I also know the definition to those words so I know if I'm thrown a curve ball I am still able to reference my answers in my mind as to what is it they're really wanting to know. 2ndly, I also have a list of questions that I am familiar with that most of the time you are asked during an interview. I have studied these in and out with not just an answer but with live examples when things happen to me. I cannot tell you how many times I interviewed someone and when asking a question the response is, “um I can’t think of anything”. I have fallen short to that myself on occasions, which is why I came up with my own study guide. I carry it with me everywhere I go and when I have down time I study, study study.
Here are a couple of other things that might help someone. Others may say different or similar, but do you know a couple of things that will hamper an interview? The word "UM" or using the word "uh". Use it throughout your conversation as in every other word because yes they know you are nervous but it shows you are not sure of what you are saying. In addition, do you know why speakers will use the phrase "that's a very good question"? Typically because they don't have an answer to what is being asked so this gives the person just enough time so to speak for the mind to sort through all this information and come up with the answer to what is being asked.
Lastly, when your interviewer ask you tell me about yourself. In my experience and all the seminars and on behavioral interviewing I have always been taught do not tell them about your kids in little league, you wife how you love her apple pie, and how you just love sitting around watching football or NASCAR. This is not what they are asking. What they want to know is “tell me about you, professionally” not personally. These are tips I have learned over time that has worked for me. I am not a recruiter and play a terrible one online, but you would be surprised how simple little tips can make or break an interview. Although, I am clearly not a pro at this and I still stumble more so than most, I am still learning.
Bottom line is study, prepare, study, prepare.
A sharing moment- As George said we are all salesperson. Most people IMHO do not know how to sell anything let alone selling themselves. Why would they. If all you have ever done were work a lathe 20 years, how would you even begin to sell something you know nothing about? Ever looked at a site where they have a title called "About Me"? What I have seen in those sections is, "I have a hard time talking about myself so if you want to know something just ask". Clear indication they do not even know about their own product "themselves". In my opinion, you can have the best-looking resume, but if you cannot tell someone about you, yourself, your resume is a waste of time. It is just pretty words you cannot backup. All throughout my career, I have been told I need public speaking classes to help me relax when I speak. I have gotten a zillion times better over time because like anything else you have to practice and familiarize yourself with what you are speaking or selling. In my case, it helped me when I was tied to sales. Although my experience has always been in management, sales was a new area to tackle. However, once you are forced to talk to clients and you do not want to screw it up you learn real quick what you say can win the client or lose them. As someone told me not to long ago, think about your interview as a sales call and think of it as you have a resource you are selling to a client that has a need and you have the resolution to that need.
In Mark D's mantra response to himself, one thing I always think of is the little train that could. I think I can I think I can I think I can and eventually you'll say I know I can I know I can.
As in sales, I have made myself numerous study sheets for my product "ME". I have my elevator pitch that I study constantly so it does not come off as just something I memorized. I want it to be as natural as if I did it today, yesterday or tomorrow. I've reviewed my resume in and out and anything that sparks a potential tell me about a time... or tell me about.... I have a list of the words, I know what I did, but I also know the definition to those words so I know if I'm thrown a curve ball I am still able to reference my answers in my mind as to what is it they're really wanting to know. 2ndly, I also have a list of questions that I am familiar with that most of the time you are asked during an interview. I have studied these in and out with not just an answer but with live examples when things happen to me. I cannot tell you how many times I interviewed someone and when asking a question the response is, “um I can’t think of anything”. I have fallen short to that myself on occasions, which is why I came up with my own study guide. I carry it with me everywhere I go and when I have down time I study, study study.
Here are a couple of other things that might help someone. Others may say different or similar, but do you know a couple of things that will hamper an interview? The word "UM" or using the word "uh". Use it throughout your conversation as in every other word because yes they know you are nervous but it shows you are not sure of what you are saying. In addition, do you know why speakers will use the phrase "that's a very good question"? Typically because they don't have an answer to what is being asked so this gives the person just enough time so to speak for the mind to sort through all this information and come up with the answer to what is being asked.
Lastly, when your interviewer ask you tell me about yourself. In my experience and all the seminars and on behavioral interviewing I have always been taught do not tell them about your kids in little league, you wife how you love her apple pie, and how you just love sitting around watching football or NASCAR. This is not what they are asking. What they want to know is “tell me about you, professionally” not personally. These are tips I have learned over time that has worked for me. I am not a recruiter and play a terrible one online, but you would be surprised how simple little tips can make or break an interview. Although, I am clearly not a pro at this and I still stumble more so than most, I am still learning.
Bottom line is study, prepare, study, prepare.
What Actual Does Service Mean
Servant’s attitude. Doing something for the benefit of others. Not thinking of your bottom-line. Thinking of caring, understanding and meeting the dilemma of your client, internal and external. Knowing that with proper service engaged that your windfall would come back 10fold. Service is paying forward. Accepting and acknowledging being the best at what you offer, what you stand for and what you represent. Service is like faith or for some karma. Doing what is right without question, without expectations of receipt.
Supply Chain Management vs Logistics, Aren't They the Same
SCM is the management of material and information flow in a supply chain to provide the highest degree of customer satisfaction at the lowest possible cost. SCM requires commitment of supply chain partners to work closely to coordinate order generation, order taking, and order fulfillment thus, creating an 'extended enterprise' spreading far beyond the producer's location.
Logistics is the management of the flow of goods, information and other resources in a repair cycle between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet the requirements of customers. Logistics involves the integration of information, transportation, inventory, warehousing, material handling, and packaging, and occasionally security. Logistics is a channel of the supply chain which adds the value of time and place utility. Today the complexity of production logistics can be modeled, analyzed, visualized and optimized by plant simulation software.
Logistics is an entity of the SCM system. Supply chain is anything from cradle to grave. Logistics is an interim factor within the chain. Your SCM can entail the beginning of actual purchases, vendors, material, manufacturing, waste, completion, inventory, storage, etc., whereas Logistics is just as Marissa indicated, the movement and tracking of the end product where it gets stored before it gets delivered and the shape it is received in.
Everything you can imagine has some sort of SCM working in place. Even such things as a blog have an SCM. But not everything has logistics. Although they sound familiar and seemingly paths may cross but there is a clear distinction.
Logistics is the management of the flow of goods, information and other resources in a repair cycle between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet the requirements of customers. Logistics involves the integration of information, transportation, inventory, warehousing, material handling, and packaging, and occasionally security. Logistics is a channel of the supply chain which adds the value of time and place utility. Today the complexity of production logistics can be modeled, analyzed, visualized and optimized by plant simulation software.
Logistics is an entity of the SCM system. Supply chain is anything from cradle to grave. Logistics is an interim factor within the chain. Your SCM can entail the beginning of actual purchases, vendors, material, manufacturing, waste, completion, inventory, storage, etc., whereas Logistics is just as Marissa indicated, the movement and tracking of the end product where it gets stored before it gets delivered and the shape it is received in.
Everything you can imagine has some sort of SCM working in place. Even such things as a blog have an SCM. But not everything has logistics. Although they sound familiar and seemingly paths may cross but there is a clear distinction.
What is Your Management Style
To define a management style or your management style you need to know the role. Typically the main focus is on managing people and their activities. It differs and sometimes out of the realm of people management, such as process management.
Managers ensure things get done, focusing on daily task by managing the activities of others. Managers often times have a directive approach utilizing prescribe agendas to fulfill their roles and capabilities more so in an organizational style approach. This doesn’t mean they can direct people because they’re process oriented. Managers are usually just high performers of what they may have done in previous roles.
There are distinctions in leaders and managers, whereas leaders are more strategically sound and inspire people to get the task done. This is simply an inert ability from within that gives leaders the stamina to push people and get the objective accomplished. They use whatever works in their arsenal of skills to motivate their people and get the work out of them. Leadership skills are really more behavioral than management skills. Leaders are change oriented knowing that changes will better the successes.
Both skill sets have to be able to work together when one is given the role to manage/ lead. Not everyone is a good manager and not everyone is a good leader. However there are those that can do both and compliment each skill set with the other.
So for me to say what kind of Manager I am, I am process driven. I am organized and detail oriented despite what I have to do to get it done. Whether it’s delegate, or manage step by step I am processed oriented toward continuous improvements and best practices.
As a leader I am more inspiring although wanting to get it done from my management strengths, I believe by empowering the employees to be creative and offer openness and think outside the box will give them a since of ownership and contribution toward the success and when you have a successful project stimulated by successful employees that have a buy in as being part of the process instead of being nothing more than a machine the overall outcome is win/win.
Managers ensure things get done, focusing on daily task by managing the activities of others. Managers often times have a directive approach utilizing prescribe agendas to fulfill their roles and capabilities more so in an organizational style approach. This doesn’t mean they can direct people because they’re process oriented. Managers are usually just high performers of what they may have done in previous roles.
There are distinctions in leaders and managers, whereas leaders are more strategically sound and inspire people to get the task done. This is simply an inert ability from within that gives leaders the stamina to push people and get the objective accomplished. They use whatever works in their arsenal of skills to motivate their people and get the work out of them. Leadership skills are really more behavioral than management skills. Leaders are change oriented knowing that changes will better the successes.
Both skill sets have to be able to work together when one is given the role to manage/ lead. Not everyone is a good manager and not everyone is a good leader. However there are those that can do both and compliment each skill set with the other.
So for me to say what kind of Manager I am, I am process driven. I am organized and detail oriented despite what I have to do to get it done. Whether it’s delegate, or manage step by step I am processed oriented toward continuous improvements and best practices.
As a leader I am more inspiring although wanting to get it done from my management strengths, I believe by empowering the employees to be creative and offer openness and think outside the box will give them a since of ownership and contribution toward the success and when you have a successful project stimulated by successful employees that have a buy in as being part of the process instead of being nothing more than a machine the overall outcome is win/win.
Catching the Problems Before the Infection Takes Hold
I think both Tom and David are correct. I also feel this will be the next big blow in the main stream as we move out of this economic downfall whereas many companies are hiring not based on experience levels but rather recreating the wheel so to speak as they hire for the low end dollar effect thinking they want everything but not willing to pay the piper. So they hire someone in that may have book knowledge but actual physical experience is costly so they choose the lesser of two evils only in belief that they will make it through the “Perfect Storm.”
In a collaborative agreement I feel Tom makes good points on catching the problems before the infection takes hold., whereas David indicates whether before, during or after it can still be corrected. First off I feel you have know there’s a hole in the ship in order to patch it or you’ll slowly sink despite what your plans maybe. Knowing ahead of time to bring supplies on board for the “what if” scenario will definitely give you the band-aid effect should something happen, you’ll be prepared.
The significance of having the right tools in place will definitely by you time, but once you’re there you definitely have to have a buy-in by all parties, from the ground floor upwards, or you’re spinning your wheels. Financial planning through five key elements, process, organization, knowledge management, technology, and performance management can give leaders the necessary tools to react promptly and come out even stronger.
In a collaborative agreement I feel Tom makes good points on catching the problems before the infection takes hold., whereas David indicates whether before, during or after it can still be corrected. First off I feel you have know there’s a hole in the ship in order to patch it or you’ll slowly sink despite what your plans maybe. Knowing ahead of time to bring supplies on board for the “what if” scenario will definitely give you the band-aid effect should something happen, you’ll be prepared.
The significance of having the right tools in place will definitely by you time, but once you’re there you definitely have to have a buy-in by all parties, from the ground floor upwards, or you’re spinning your wheels. Financial planning through five key elements, process, organization, knowledge management, technology, and performance management can give leaders the necessary tools to react promptly and come out even stronger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)