# data[].attributes.body
Jobs's lack of emotional intelligence will not prevent him from ranking as a top ten CEO in history. Jobs did not have a 50/50 split in Human and Conceptual Skills, also. Jobs's case study was a good way to learn the difference between Human and Conceptual Skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Can Learn From Steve Jobs | Forbes

# data[].attributes.body
Fayol's five general functions: planning, organizing, staffing, leading and controlling. If leaders have good management theories and skills, they can thrive in unfamiliar territories and still end up successful.

# data[].attributes.body
Using Rodney Adkins case study was a great way to learn about the three levels of manager skills. Mr. Adkins used technical skills as a lower-level manager, human skills as a mid-level manager, and conceptual skills as a high-level manager.

# data[].attributes.body
Why is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act law necessary? The first Federal act that outlawed monopolistic business practices was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the Sherman Antitrust Act Matters - @MrBettsClass

# data[].attributes.body
Business ethics is about being transparent and honest to your customers, business associates, and employees. Business ethics should be in writing so anyone can read them.

# data[].attributes.body
Companies are responsible for taking steps to protect and improve the interests of their organization and the well-being of the community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leverage GRC to address the board's challenges. At MEGA, we can help your Board set up and oversee an effective corporate governance policy. We will make sure your company rolls out and explains your code of ethics and other governance rules across the organization, so that governance doesn't remain just a pretty document without much weight behind it.

# data[].attributes.body
When it comes to a management positions, I learned how important it is to Identifying leadership styles, because it can determine how effective or efficient a manager would be in certain situations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world becomes more connected, more transparent, and more diverse, businesses need a new type of leadership. This new leadership requires different skills to lead organizations into the future successfully.

The challenge is that few businesses are offering emerging leadersthe scope of experience they'll soon need. According to a study by the American Management Association, 48% of organizationsbelieve that developing global capabilities in their leaders is a top priority. That being said, only 18% of multinational companies say they have the strong global leadership pipeline necessary to meet their future business challenges.

A new report by Deloitte examines the needs of the future workplace given these changing dynamics. As organizations become social enterprises, they are under increased scrutiny from the public and their stakeholders. Social Enterprises bring meaning back to the workplace and combine generating profits with respect and support for employees, customers, and the communities in which we live. Leadership in these organizations must reflect values of diversity and transparency.

I recently spoke with Deloitte's US Human Capital Leader, Erica Volini, about the changing work environment and the three most important leaderships skills required to manage these future challenges.

Bonnie Marcus: The new report addresses how organizations now need a new type of leadership. What's driving this?

Erica Volini: First, the workforce is radically different. Not only is it diverse in terms of race, ethnicity and age, but there's diversity in how they think about work. The fastest growing segment of the workforce is the alternative workforce, the gig economy. If you're a leader, you have to manage a workforce that is very complex and diverse, and has a lot of different needs and different styles of working.

Secondly, organizations right now are under the spotlight externally and have to listen to and actively manage what's happening in the external environment. Leaders need to play a role in driving that. They need to not only be managing their stakeholders internally but have to be managing their stakeholders externally across the ecosystem, which is a brand new skill for leaders to have.

Finally, the issues facing organizations are more complex than they've ever been. Everything about work is changing; the influx of technology, geographic expansion, an increasingly complex global world, increased regulations from the government.

Marcus: What type of leadership do organizations now need?

Volini: Leaders today need to have an inclusive leadership style. They need to be extremely agile. They need to be able to be fluid and evolve as the market evolves. They need to be externally connected and on top of the trends that are happening. It's not like these attributes are brand new. It's not like managing a complex workforce is new, but it's complexity at a new scale. It not like being externally connected wasn't important before, but it's more important now because there's so much happening in the external environment. So you need to take those variances and shift the expectations and change the competency framework for leadership. You need to make sure those revised competencies are embedded in your performance management system and in your compensation system. And you have to change every process in how you develop leaders.

Marcus: How must leadership programs adapt to teach these new skills?

Volini: A lot of leadership programs today are focused on education. We sit leaders down in a classroom and give them content. Our view is that leadership training needs to be a combination of education, experience, and exposure.

Marcus: How does an organization foster experience and exposure?

Volini: In order to give someone the right exposure, a company may get them into networks or programs outside the company. There are so many different experiences and opportunities that leaders can have externally that they can bring back to the organization. This addresses the point of being more connected with the external environment and leveraging what's out there. But to me the big shift is changing leadership programs from being education focused. This is about a fundamental shift in how we think about these processes. And these leadership programs need to start early in people's careers.

Marcus: What can women do to prepare themselves for this type of leadership?

Volini: Women need sponsors. They need people to champion them, give them exposure, pull them into opportunities where they may not naturally get the opportunity. And the best thing in my mind that any woman can do is develop those sponsors early. Because if you have the true sponsors, they're going to help you get the exposure you need to move up the ladder.

This is really hard because sponsorship can't be driven by a formal program. It has to form naturally and oftentimes there aren't natural opportunities for people to get to know each other. Women have to work very hard to seek out sponsors. But I also think that when organizations know that inclusion and diversity of thought is a high business priority, they have more accessibility to those types of interactions.
Bonnie Marcus, M.Ed. empowers professional women to advance their careers. She is an executive coach, speaker and author of The Politics of Promotion: How High Achieving Women Get Ahead And Stay Ahead (Wiley 2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are The Most Important Leadership Skills For The Future?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world becomes more connected, more transparent, and more diverse, businesses need a new type of leadership. This new leadership requires different skills to lead organizations into the future successfully. The challenge is that few businesses are offering emerging leadersthe scope of experience they'll soon need.

# data[].attributes.body
While promoting diversity, managers should ensure everyone is in compliance with the Equal Opportunity Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Defining Equal Employment Opportunity

The concept of equal employment emerged during the civil rights era to make minorities and women equal to their white-male counterparts. Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act aims to protect employees from discrimination on the basis of skin color, religion, race, sex, and national origin, many felt additional legislation needed to be implemented to further protect individuals. Therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was developed specifically to address issues of discrimination and unequal employment practices.

In addition to the protected classes addressed in Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity law protects discrimination based on sexual orientation, age, individuals with disabilities, marital status, parental/pregnancy status, and military/veteran status.

The Importance of Equal Employment

Equal employment practices are important for both individuals and organizations. On an individual basis, EEO laws accomplish many things. First, EEO helps establish a baseline for acceptable behavior, which is important considering the vast array of lifestyles, values, and attitudes individuals have. Secondly, EEO practices help individuals feel they are being treated fairly and equally, which can increase an individual's level of commitment, satisfaction, and loyalty to their employer. A third reason involves a person's mental mindset and sense of personal worth and well-being. An individual that feels confident in all situations, even ones where he or she is a minority, will help the individual's sense of overall worth and ability to comfortably contribute.

When considering the important of equal employment practices for organizations, it is easy to see the benefits of EEO laws. First, an organization that can confidently state that they practice equal employment has a greater advantage to attracting qualified and dedicated candidates. Secondly, an organization that is EEO compliant decreases the chances of facing a discrimination or wrongful discharge lawsuit. Finally, an organization that ensures equal employment for all increases the chances that it will have a diverse workforce, which has many positive implications for teams, departments, and overall organizational productivity and creativity.

Legal Ramifications of Unequal Employment Practices

There are many legal consequences associated with violating an antidiscrimination law. Companies can experience financial impacts resulting from settlements and court fees. Businesses may also see a decrease in customer and employee loyalty. Furthermore, other companies may tend to avoid doing business with employers who intentionally discriminate against employees.

If an employee feels he or she has been treated unfairly, the individual can file a complaint with the EEOC. The EEOC will then investigate and determine whether a pattern of discrimination is evident. The EEOC protects employees against both types of discrimination, but the consequences of committing disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) are more sever because it involved motive.

If an employment procedure or practice unintentionally discriminates against employees, disparate impact is said to have occurred. When the EEOC investigates claims of disparate impact, the employer is held legally responsible to provide substantial evidence to support the continued use of the employment practice. Such evidence may include the existence of bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs), which are discriminatory qualifications that are legally justified on the basis of business necessity, social appropriateness or propriety, and safe and efficient job performance.

Steps to Ensure Compliance with EEOC Laws

Businesses that evaluate their employment practices according to the following guidelines can ensure they develop and implement legal, ethical, fair, and justified employment standards. This list is not meant to be inclusive, but rather a guideline of areas to evaluate to ensure compliance with EEO laws.

1.

When recruiting applicants for a position, submit advertisements in a variety of sources (web, newspaper, job board, flyers, etc.). The greater number and variety of sources utilized ensures that a broader range of candidates are notified and have the opportunity to apply. If a business focuses on a single method of advertisement, the company is missing a population that might not have access to that particular communication channel.

2. When selecting qualified candidates from a large applicant pool, it is critical to standardize selection processes. The more subjectivity involved in the selection process, the more likely a hiring manager will allow (albeit intentionally or unintentionally) his or her biases to sway selection decisions. Furthermore, a more objective and standardized process helps ensure accuracy of screening results and increases retention.

3. When a position opens up and an employer wants to promote from within, formal steps need to be taken to ensure all qualified candidates have an equal opportunity to be notified and apply for the position. These steps include posting the position for a specified period of time, placing the notice of vacancy in a highly-populated area or in a popular mode of communication, developing standardized screening tests and techniques to promote the most qualified employee, and thoroughly debriefing unselected candidates as to the reasoning and rationale.

4. When implementing a formal grievance process, a company must enforce a strict confidentiality clause. Without trust in anonymity, employees can be intimidated by the thought of retaliation, especially those of protected classes. Furthermore, utilizing a third-party mediator significantly increases the likelihood of positive and fair dispute outcomes.

5. When making compensation decisions, a company must ensure that the compensation strategy is well-documented and there is ample evidence to support the fact that the company is abiding by the written policy. Furthermore, provide employees a copy of the strategy to enable all employees to make the most of opportunities that will yield higher compensation.

6. Implement a formal documentation process for unsatisfactory behavior and formal warnings. Furthermore, businesses should identify standards of behavior and performance expectations that can be used as evidence for temporary suspensions, loss of bonuses, and potential terminations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equal Employment Opportunity: What Does it Mean and Why is it Important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Equal employment opportunity is critical for employees and employers alike. There are many benefits to individuals and companies when effective equal employment opportunities are implemented. This article explores the definition of equal employment opportunity and identifies why equal employment is critical to organizational success.

# data[].attributes.body
Gender Diversity Makes Firms More Productive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have drawn new attention to the importance of getting more women in leadership, we've also heard others saying, "We get it, some women have suffered horrible experiences in their professional lives. But overall, women are doing fine! Look at all the women who are CEOs and executives now!"

There's no denying that women have made progress. Today, most people can name a handful of female CEOs, and it's no longer a sitcom-style joke for a man to work for a female boss. But these elements of progress may be fooling us into thinking that women are doing better than they really are. Take the results of a 2017 McKinsey and Lean In study, which showed that when only one in ten women in senior leadership is a woman, nearly half of men and a third of women think that's enough to be "gender diverse."

The idea that having a couple of women in leadership equals gender diversity is a problem that goes far beyond social justice. Research has shown over and over again that having more women in leadership has significant business benefits. For example, a study conducted by my company shows that gender-diverse companies are seeing significant business benefits. We found that organizations with women holding at least 30% of leadership roles are 1.4 times more likely to have sustained, profitable growth.

More importantly, our research shows that the reason companies with more women in leadership are doing better isn't related to whether women or men have better leadership skills. Rather, the companies that have more women in leadership tend to have distinct cultures that lead to higher profits.

Here are five ways companies with more women in leadership stand out:
1. They make data-driven hiring and promotion decisions.
Companies that have more women in leadership typically have hiring and promotion practices that make the process more objective and data-driven, rather than dependent on personal impressions about a person. This approach may include incorporating objective assessments about skills and behaviors into decision making and employing an interview process that asks consistent questions of all candidates that are focused on their behavior and competencies.

Both of these methods help companies select leaders based on what they can do rather than making decisions based only on their backgrounds and manager recommendations, which may be biased.
2. They seek out overlooked talent.
Companies with more women in leadership encourage their leaders to look for hidden talent. That may mean looking for leadership capabilities in people who tend to be quieter, approach problems differently, or have a nontraditional pathway for a role, which often describes many women.

Companies that have more gender diversity coach their executives to seek out overlooked leaders and provide incentives for teams that include multiple perspectives to generate new ideas and solve problems.
3. They build knowledge through mentoring.
It's well-documented that women need more mentors to succeed, but organizations that are succeeding with leveraging mentorship to help women aren't doing it one woman at a time. They are doing it across the organization.

Organizations that have a formal mentoring culture on average have 20% lower turnover, 46% higher-quality leaders, and are 1.7 times more capable of capturing organizational knowledge before it's lost with the retiring generation.

This formal culture and mentorship expectation also help to decrease concerns in the wake of the #MeToo movement regarding men mentoring women, as the relationship boundaries are clearer and more standard across the organization for both genders.
4. They offer 'out-of-comfort-zone' opportunities.
Women often hold themselves back due to a phenomenon known as impostor syndrome. It's the fear of being exposed as a "faker" and feeling as though success isn't deserved or they aren't as capable as others. While men can also suffer from impostor syndrome, women are known for being more affected by it.

Companies that do gender diversity right allow their high-performing women to continue building their skills and cross-functional knowledge. These organizations promote a "learn-as-you-go" environment that embraces stumbling occasionally. They know this is what it takes to get women to take on these out-of-comfort-zone opportunities.
5. They seek diverse perspectives to better represent their customers.
Diversity-leading organizations know they need leaders who both understand and reflect the needs of their customers.

Take women's beauty manufacturer L'Oréal. They added two more women to their board of directors in 2016, bringing the percentage of females on their board to 47%. Their 2017 annual report cited a sharp increase in net income - up 15.3% over the previous year. Is this a coincidence?

The clear reality is that getting more women into leadership takes a major culture shift, not just placing a few women in high-profile roles. Achieving this culture change is a marathon, not a sprint, so it will take some time to see the fruit of your labor.

The end results, however, will go far beyond simply increasing the number of women in leadership. Rather, you'll be creating a collaborative, open-minded workplace where men and women can excel to move your business toward greater profitability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Ways Gender-Diverse Companies Stand Out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have drawn new attention to the importance of getting more women in leadership, we've also heard others saying, "We get it, some women have suffered horrible experiences in their professional lives. But overall, women are doing fine! Look at all the women who are CEOs and executives now!"

# data[].attributes.body
International managers must choose the model appropriate to their level of resources, market potential, and experience operating in the international sphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International Management - duties, benefits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd ed. International Management: Int-Jun

# data[].attributes.body
Multinational corporation conducts business in a country or countries other than its home country.

# data[].attributes.body
Managers should continue to evolve with change. Just because managers were successful in the past, it does not mean they will be successful in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world of work continues to change so do the qualities and characteristics of the managers who are going to be leading our companies. Work is not the same as it used to be and we are seeing dramatic changes in both behavior and technology not just in our personal lives but in our professional lives. This means that just because managers were successful in the past doesn't mean they will be successful in the future. When it comes to evolving the way we work managers need to possess five qualities to help their organizations evolve and succeed in the future of work.
Follow from the front
The future management model is all about removing roadblocks from the paths of employees in order to help them succeed. This extends beyond managing people to empowering and engaging people. The traditional idea of management was based on leading by fear and the notion of command and control. Employees used to work hard to allow their managers to succeed and now it's the managers turn to make sure their employees succeed. As I've said many times, employees are the most valuable asset that any organization has. In the past managers said "jump" and the employees said, "how high?" Now, the managers are jumping with employees.

Understand technology

This isn't the same as technical expertise. I'm not saying that it's important for managers to all of a sudden become IT professionals. However, managers do need to understand the overall technology landscape and how it is impacting the way we work. This means having a good pulse of what is happening in the consumer web as well as understanding which social and collaborative technologies are making their way into the enterprise and what the implications of that are. Managers who have a good understanding of what is happening with technology will always be able to adapt and evolve ahead of the competition.
Lead by example
It used to be good enough for managers to say they supported something. A manager would just need to approve the budget and say "go for it." When it comes to collaboration and the future of work that is no longer enough. Managers need to commit to more than just funding collaboration. They need to be the ones on the ground level using the same tools that the rest of the employees are using. There is no way that employees can change and evolve (nor should they) unless they see their managers doing the same.
Embrace vulnerability
This goes hand in hand with being open and transparent. Our organizations were modeled after the military and if there's one thing that a commander wasn't, that was vulnerable. However, times have changed and we aren't running our organizations like the military anymore. We go our whole lives (especially men) learning how to be the opposite of vulnerable and we always have this "shield" up to keep people from seeing us when we are vulnerable. However, Brene Brown, author of "Daring Greatly," says that vulnerability is about having the courage to show up and be seen. According to Brown, "Vulnerability is the absolute heartbeat of innovation and creativity. There can be zero innovation without vulnerability." Being vulnerable isn't about being weak it's about being courageous; a key quality that every manager must have going forward.
Belief in sharing
Traditionally managers sat at the top of the organization and had access to all of the information required to make decisions. Managers would dole out the orders and the employees had to execute on those orders without asking any questions. Today managers cannot believe in hoarding information but in sharing information and collective intelligence. Managers need to make sure that the employees can connect to each other and to the information they need to get their jobs done, anytime, anywhere, and on any device. Managers now rely on employees to help make decisions instead of isolating them from this process.

What other qualities do you think the modern manager should possess?
Jacob Morgan is a keynote speaker, author (most recently of The Future of Work), and futurist. You can get the first 30 pages of his book for free as well as weekly content on the future of work by subscribing to his newsletter .

Jacob is an Author, speaker and futurist. His latest book, The Future of Work: Attract New Talent, Build Better Leaders, and Create a Competitive Organization, explores ...

Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Must-Have Qualities Of The Modern Manager

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world of work continues to change so do the qualities and characteristics of the managers who are going to be leading our companies. Work is not the same as it used to be and we are seeing dramatic changes in both behavior and technology not just in our [...]

# data[].attributes.body
The transnational organizations are also known as multinational organizations, which are international profit-making companies trying to meet demands for a service or product.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is your business experiencing growing pains? If not, I would be worried, because think of the alternative.

Someday, your company will reach the point where it needs to expand, or it will stagnate. And when that time comes, you must be prepared. Some organizations see the greatest opportunities for success by expanding globally. And while that kind of ambition should be applauded, it also can lead to major mistakes that could destroy your business.

Typically, organizations move into the international marketplace first, establishing offices in multiple countries with the world headquarters remaining domestically located. But a company often is not considered completely global until it becomes established as a transnational entity.

As the chart below illustrates, transnational companies operate fluidly yet independently - with all foreign subsidiaries involved in what essentially is a decentralized decision-making process. In other words, no single country is considered the corporate home. This results in the ability to maintain a high degree of responsiveness to local markets, as well as a keen understanding of the local culture's needs, wants and demands.

For proof that decentralization works, look no further than the Honda Motor Co., a powerful transnational that does business as a decentralized operation. "It sets up an autonomous subsidiary operation wherever it goes," financial journalist Jeffrey Rothfeder, author of Driving Honda: Inside the World's Most Innovative Car Company, told The Washington Post in 2014. "So, Honda China, Honda of North America, Honda Europe are each independent. They're run by local people, so Honda China is led by Chinese people. They get input from Japan. Quickly, they're running on their own and developing cars and designs for the local market."

Many companies fail to make the jump from multinational (or even international) to transnational status because of cultural clashes (or fear, or egos) that drive the formerly domestic company to retain control of all operational decisions and maintain separate silos for everything from research and development to production and marketing.

That refusal to foster autonomy can have devastating internal and external effects and lead to disgruntled employees, ineffective management and production miscues.

To succeed in the new global economy, you can't rely on old-school thinking. Professional Passport exists to help companies determine what control to relinquish and when, plus how to do so effectively and positively. We admit the process is not easy. It's like giving your teenage son or daughter the keys to the family vehicle for the first road trip without you; fear of the unknown and the potential dangers that lurk around every corner can generate enough anxiety to make you keep those keys away from your kids forever. But because that option simply isn't feasible, you really have no choice but to put faith in your child (and other drivers on the road) and let him or her go.

Similarly, a company seeking to become transnational has no choice but to begin transforming its structure so that it no longer resembles the diagram below.

Three Ways to Handle Growing Pains
Here are three ways to begin that process:
1. Plan the transformation.
"Transformation is perhaps the most overused term in business," according to a McKinsey Quarterly piece that emphasizes "transformation with a capital T, which we define as an intense, organization-wide program to enhance performance and to boost organizational health."

That's the kind of transformation that must take place when evolving from multinational to transnational status. Effective change does not happen by default; it must be triggered, and that requires time, energy and a willingness to plan for eliciting the changes required.

Without that essential component, transformation will lead to stagnation - or worse. Employees of successful transnational companies have faith in each other that they will embrace their decision-making privileges responsibly. Professional Passport's training programs help colleagues build the kind of trust that allows businesses to function at a much higher level than its employees ever thought possible.
3. Take care of your employees.
Become global, not greedy. A global company is not a vampire that sucks money out of everything it can - including its workforce, by outsourcing cheaper labor to other countries. True transnational companies recognize the value their employees bring to the operation and treat them accordingly, giving them the autonomy they need to help everyone succeed. Achieving transnational status is impossible without buy-in, and going global means taking care of everyone within your organization.

Remember, growing pains are inevitable. But finding ways to ease those pains and embrace change could take your domestic, international or multinational business to the next level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International, Multinational or Transnational? The Choice Is Yours

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is your business experiencing growing pains? If not, I would be worried, because think of the alternative. Someday, your company will reach the point where it needs to expand, or it will stagnate. And when that time comes, you must be prepared. Some organizations see the greatest opportunities for success by expanding globally.

# data[].attributes.body
Principles of Planning is fundamental. Not long ago, megatrends like the cloud, e-commerce, big data, or mobile changed how people did business and dominated most decision making. The trends have become commonplace, replaced by artificial intelligence, blockchain, robotics, and other technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Businesses today operate in a world of unprecedented technological disruption. Not long ago megatrends like mobile, e-commerce, cloud and big data were slated to change the world and dominated all decision making. Today, these so-called megatrends are commonplace, replaced by new behemoths like blockchain, artificial intelligence, robotics and Internet of Things (IoT) technology. These technologies are top of mind in discussions focused on product planning/development and future investment decisions. Given the velocity of change in the last 10 years, however, even these seemingly cutting-edge technologies could soon be replaced.

Faced with constant disruption, businesses now operate in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment, which has implications across industries.

1. Customer behaviors are changing. With the shift to digital, customers have access to greater pricing transparency and choice -- allowing them to be more selective and demanding than ever before. This translates into a tighter squeeze on margins for many businesses.

2. Industry structures are being disrupted. Successful companies, sitting at the top of their industry and enjoying robust margins, now face steep competition. New players from a variety of backgrounds are infiltrating traditional industries with innovative business models. Giants like Uber and Airbnb have disrupted the status quo and created totally new industries.

3. Business cycles are shrinking. Entrepreneurs looking to disrupt stagnant markets have forced businesses to shorten product and business cycles to remain competitive. It does not take much for the hunter to become the hunted in the VUCA environment, so technology companies must adjust their business models to keep pace with newer and quicker competitors. If they can't, they'll be forced out.

While the threat of disruption is real, it also presents a massive opportunity for growth. Those who can evolve stand to win big but this cannot happen if they play by yesterday's rules. Management must consider these six rules in order to succeed in this time of disruption.
Innovate And Take Charge Of The Future
The VUCA environment makes predicting market evolution nearly impossible. Past trends and successes are no longer the North Star acting as an indication of what's to come. By relying on innovation, companies can be in the driver's seat and shape the market the way they want to play. As they explore new ideas, companies must take risks and shouldn't be afraid to cannibalize themselves in the process.
Consider Yourself A Technology Company
Traditionally companies have focused on the core functional capabilities of their industry and seen technology as a support function. Irrespective of the industry, technology must now be built into the foundation of every business -- transitioning from an enabler to a core source of ideation. Incorporating this mindset into the DNA of a company is one of the most important steps to future-proof the business, but it's not an easy task. It's not enough to just expand capabilities -- a focus on technology must penetrate deep into company culture for true success.
Strategy Is Important But Execution Is Critical
While it is important to have clarity on purpose and identify long-term bets as a path to success, the strategy for getting there cannot be cast in stone in an uncertain environment. Instead, focus on execution - adding wins to the scoreboard and quickly pivoting following failure. Execution and real-time evaluation can help discover and shape strategy -- connecting the dots between what works and what does not. The traditional strategy-to-execution cycle has been flipped on its head and strategy is now built by looking back from execution.
Customer Collaboration Is The Secret Sauce -- Use it
Every company claims a "customer-first" approach, but few are able to deliver as they struggle to balance what's right for the customer and what makes business sense. With new competitors around every turn, there is no time for long feedback loops so companies must now co-create with their customers. The working relationship dynamics have changed. Now, customers are partners instead of clients. As a result, the company-customer relationship will become iterative, with multiple checkpoints and points of interaction.

The explosion of technology has allowed for deeper market penetration and the ability to reach customers first-hand. As touch points with the customer increase, companies must manage the huge quantity of data that is generated and develop sharp insights. Realizing the power of that data will likely be the difference between delivering joint value and a successful product/service or eventual abandonment.
Rethink Structure And Process To Embrace Simplicity
To manage constant change and uncertainty, management must reenvision the company from top to bottom, starting with organizational structure and processes. Established businesses that have achieved past success tend to favor structure and processes focused on managing risk and maintaining the status quo. This leads to excessive internal controls and slows the speed of execution. This runs counter to the requirements of competing with the most innovative companies. These players are nimble and with a healthy appreciation for risk, they are willing to take small losses in favor of great innovation.

The key for traditional companies is to redesign the organization, keeping in mind speed over risk management, simplicity over perfection and empowerment over controls. Consider a flatter organization and a shift from vertical to more horizontal structures. That combined with simplified controls and processes should make the path forward much smoother.
Foster The Entrepreneurial Spirit
The rise of new technology has thrown the old rules of management out the window. Under VUCA, expectations from talent are also shifting and companies need more leaders, not managers. This is forcing executives to think outside of the box and change their approach -- a major challenge for successful managers who are set in their ways.

If companies want to uncover the next Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, they must foster an environment that rewards the entrepreneurial spirit. Managers must execute important changes, including developing a higher tolerance for chaos and failure and instilling a culture of learning that embraces honesty and humility over hubris. They must also manage the duality of business -- simultaneously balancing conflicting objectives like short-term and long-term goals, speed and thoughtfulness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guiding Principles For Management In The Age Of Technological Disruption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Businesses today operate in a world of unprecedented technological disruption. Not long ago megatrends like mobile, e-commerce, cloud and big data were slated to change the world and dominated all decision making. Today, these so-called megatrends are commonplace, replaced by new behemoths like blockchain, artificial intelligence, robotics and Internet of Things (IoT) technology.

# data[].attributes.body
Decision-making skills can be effective and efficient for managers and leaders. For example, soft skills are the new hard skills that thelp women lead the way in business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US Congress' Joint Economic Committee reported that companies with a significant bloc of women on their boards of directors tend to outperform those with few women at the helm, boasting 65% higher returns on invested capital.

The 25 Fortune 500 companies with the best records for promoting women to senior positions have 69% higher returns than the Fortune 500 median for their industry.

The results of a McKinsey Global Survey in 2010 found 72% of executives believe there is a direct connection between a company's gender diversity and its financial success. The study showed that the companies that had the highest levels of gender diversity also had higher returns on equity, operating results and growth in market valuation than the averages in their respective sectors.

Research work from other organizations, such as Catalyst, support these findings.

So what exactly do women bring to the table that makes such a difference? Recent research on collective intelligence sheds some light on the issue.

Social scientists, such as Christopher Chabris at MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence, and Anita Williams Woolley at Carnegie Mellon University, have recently begun to systematically examine what they call the "collective intelligence" of groups. Collective intelligence is a measure of how smart the group is, as a whole. Chabris and Woolley's paper, "Evidence for Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups", was reported in the journal Science in October 2010.

What they discovered in their research completely surprised them; it was not something they expected or were looking for. They learned that collective intelligence is not tied to either the smartest person on the team nor to the average intelligence of the members of the team.

Rather it is something that is greater than any individual contribution or the sum of contributions. It is an emergent property that results from the interactions among the people in the group. What emerges is almost magical: something greater than the sum of its parts. You can call it evolved thinking.

Complexity science shows us that in complex systems, which groups are, for a positive emergence to occur there must be conditions of mutuality and a level playing field, diversity, and trust. If not, the potential for collective intelligence can easily devolve into group think, where everyone dumbly follows the boss's lead.

The current research on collective intelligence gives us two key results. The first is that the phenomenon is real, that groups can indeed perform at a higher level of creativity than any single individual. We knew this intuitively, of course.

It is the second result that is the surprise, and this has to do with the one single predictor that a particular group will have high collective intelligence: at least half the chairs around the table should be occupied by women.

What do women bring to the table that catalyzes evolved thinking? According to Chabris and Woolley it is a superior social sensitivity in reading non-verbal cues and other people's emotions, and a fairness in turn taking.

From my research on women in business, I would characterize their "secret" as the possession and use of what may fairly be called feminine skills. By this I mean relational intelligence, emotional intelligence, holistic perspective, inclusion, empathy and intuition.

All those skills that have been largely marginalized or dismissed as "soft" in the business world are really powerful for facilitating the emergence of collective intelligence. Such skills are not exclusively held by women, of course. But on average they are more developed in women, and women are generally more willing to use them.

The complex problems that companies face today require wisdom coming from many rather than a few. To facilitate the emergence of that wisdom, we need the power of all those "soft" skills. In reality, those soft skills are anything but soft; they are very complex and require a great deal of skill to master.

Soft is the new hard. And women lead the way.

Birute Regine, Ed.D., a developmental psychologist, works as an executive coach, speaker and author. She previously co-authored the critically acclaimed The Soul at Work: Embracing Complexity Science For Business Success. Her new book, Iron Butterflies: Women Transforming Themselves and the World captures a powerful time of transition in our society, led primarily by women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Soft Is The New Hard (As In Skills), And Women Lead The Way

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US Congress' Joint Economic Committee reported that companies with a significant bloc of women on their boards of directors tend to outperform those with few women at the helm, boasting 65% higher returns on invested capital.

# data[].attributes.body
What I took away from this assignment is how managers manage in a Global organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategic Management in a Global Context

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you find yourself looking for a balance between planning for the future and navigating the ever-changing environment? This video will give you an opportunity to learn different strategies for decision-making and tools for assessing your organization's external and internal environments.

# data[].attributes.body
More than ever, businesses need Strategic Planning. The needs of customers and employees are forever changing at the speed of technology and improved diversity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Strategic planning is the process of setting a vision for a company and then realizing that vision through small, achievable goals. People who work in strategic planning help set goals, decide what actions need to be taken by employees, and help employees achieve those goals.

Strategic planning is an important skill for a number of jobs. While some people hold the specific job title of "strategic planner" (or "strategic planning associate" or "strategic planning manager"), there are other jobs that require strategic planning skills. For example, employees who need strategic planning skills include management consultants, business developers, corporate developers, strategic cost analysts, and operations analysts.

You can use the skills lists below throughout your job search process in various ways. First, you can use these skill words in your resume by dropping these keywords when describing your work history.

Second, you can use these words/terms in your cover letter. In the body of your cover letter, you try to mention one or two of these skills and give specific examples of how you have demonstrated those skills in the workplace.

Last but not least, you can use these skill words in an interview. Make sure you have at least one example of a time you demonstrated each of the top five skills listed here.

Of course, each job will require different skills and experiences, so make sure you read the job description carefully and focus on the skills listed by the employer.

Strategic planners need to be the following:

1. Analytical: People working in strategic planning need to be able to analyze and evaluate a company's business plan. They have to be skilled in market analysis, feasibility analysis, and more. Only through an analytical eye can strategic planners decide what steps need to be taken by a company.

Attention to detail

Calculating costs for implementation

Critical thinking

Defining mechanisms for input for various levels of participants

Defining strategies for reaching goals

Defining the purpose of the strategic planning process

Developing a plan for implementing strategies

Logical thinking

Questioning the connection between new initiatives and the strategic plan

Setting meeting agendas

Systematic thinking

2. Communicative: A large part of a strategic planner's job is communicating a business plan to employers and employees. They have to explain (by both speaking and writing) the steps employees need to take to achieve company goals. Strategic planners also need to be active listeners. They have to listen to the needs of the employers before devising a plan of action. They also need to listen to the concerns and ideas of the employees.

3. Decisive: Strategic planning involves lots of quick decision making. Strategic planners must select a course of action to help a company achieve its goals without waffling. They need to be able to examine all of the information available to them and then decisively make a thoughtful decision.

Designating the participants in the process

Drawing consensus around goals and strategies

Establishing measurable objectives for each goal

Organizing a timeline for the planning process

Prioritizing

Setting goals

4. Strong Leaders: A strategic planner has to lead employees towards a common goal. This takes strong leadership skills. He or she has to inspire, motivate, and ensure all employees remain accountable.

Energetic

Establishing incentives for implementation

Charisma

Flexibility

Interpersonal skills

Management skills

Motivational skills

Recognizing the contributions of key players

Resourcefulness

5. Problem Solvers: Often, strategic planners are there to solve a problem. Perhaps a company is not meeting its financial goals, or its processes are running inefficiently. A strategic planner analyzes data related to the problem and then offers a solution.

Aligning business practices with emerging strategy

Assessing the impact of strategies after implementation

Brainstorming

Creativity

Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the organization

Identifying obstacles to implementation

Identifying threats to an organization

Multitasking

Revising the mission statement for the organization

Securing release time for participants to engage in the process

Learn how to solve a Rubik's Cube with the easiest method, memorizing just a few tricks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here Are the Strategic Planning Skills to Include in Resumes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Strategic planning is the process of setting a vision for a company and then realizing that vision through small, achievable goals. People who work in strategic planning help set goals, decide what actions need to be taken by employees, and help employees achieve those goals.

# data[].attributes.body
How to prioritize when everything is a priority? The person has to focus on assignments he/she is committed to finishing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Prioritize Work and Meet Deadlines When Everything Is #1 | LiquidPlanner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the biggest challenges for project managers is accurately prioritizing the work that matters on a daily basis. Learn ways to prioritize tasks and meet deadlines successfully.

# data[].attributes.body
Managers should create a culture of accountability to generate trust and build their own credibility. Employees need to be held accountable, also.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a culture of accountability at every level of your organization, with these leadership tips from executive coach Mike Figliuolo.

# data[].attributes.body
Vertical Structure Vs. Horizontal Structure: How businesses manage their organization and interact with clients will have a huge effect on future growth and the overall culture of the company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Small businesses usually implement horizontal structure.

organizer image by Anton Gvozdikov from Fotolia.com

How you organize the management of your small business has a tremendous effect on future growth, how you interact with your customers and the overall culture of your small business. Most small businesses start off with a horizontal structure, but they should consider implementing vertical structure if they hope to compete on the global market, according to LearnManagement2.com.

Identification

Vertically structured, or "tall" companies have a chain of management, usually with a CEO at the top making decisions and then delegating authority to lower-level managers, according to AllBusiness.com.

Horizontal, also called flat, companies have almost no middle managers--meaning that high-level managers handle day-to-day tasks and usually interact with customers and front-line employees personally.

Significance

Most new companies and small businesses opt for a horizontally arranged company because they have a limited amount of employees, according to Purdue University Department of Agricultural Economics. Small businesses tend to be more intimate, and the lack of a large workforce means management styles are more informal than formal. In addition, small businesses may not even have the resources to hire any middle management.

Benefits

Companies with a tall organizational structure are better at designating tasks to employees or departments within the company, have well-defined responsibilities for employees, and are generally easier to manage, according to Practical Management.

Horizontally structured businesses tend to have the best employee morale because there is less red tape when dealing with problems. Also, it costs less to run a horizontal company because managers cost more than rank-and-file employees.

Disadvantages

Vertical companies are dependent on a strong leader at the top. Weak upper management means that each successive hierarchical structure will get frustrated by poor decision making by the superior. In addition, tall companies lack the transparency of a horizontal company because each layer muddles information more and more.

Horizontal companies are much harder to implement than vertical companies, especially as the business grows, because the business must foster a culture of teamwork. Employees may be less sure about their roles and responsibilities within the company, and project managers can be frustrated by their lack of authority.

Potential

Frank Ostroff, author of "The Horizontal Organization," believes that companies will become more horizontal than vertical as the world globalizes, because customers will demand fast response times and better service--two things at which horizontal companies excel. No business, however, should have a strictly horizontal or vertical structure, but rather should implement the best of both worlds.

About the Author

Russell Huebsch has written freelance articles covering a range of topics from basketball to politics in print and online publications. He graduated from Baylor University in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Vertical Structure Vs. the Horizontal Structure in an Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How you organize the management of your small business has a tremendous effect on future growth, how you interact with your customers and the overall culture of your small business. Most small businesses start off with a horizontal structure, but they should consider implementing vertical structure if they hope to ...

# data[].attributes.body
The Importance of Building Culture in an Organization: Leaving culture to chance will end up doing more harm than good for companies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Companies often take a passive approach to culture. They figure it's not something they can control - or that they need to control. If they leave it alone, it'll all work itself out.

In her presentation, "The Best Things About Culture Are Free ," at Culture Summit 2016 , Katie Burke , chief people officer at Hubspot, says, "When it comes to culture, most companies have a can't-do attitude."

But leaving culture to chance does more harm than good for your organization.

Culture has always been important, but today, it's becoming more than just a buzzword. Culture is an important differentiator to set your company apart from the competition. It's also what attracts the right talent and brings in the right customers.

Plus, with more than 30% of the workforce now made up of Millennials, according to Pew Research Center , culture is more important than ever. Millennials want to work for companies that share their same values. They want to feel like their work has a purpose and makes a difference. In short, they want a good culture fit.

Still not convinced that you should put a bigger focus on culture? Here are four reasons why building culture is essential to the success of your organization.

1. Culture builds brand identity

Another way to characterize culture is to think of it as your brand's personality. Culture is what makes your brand unique and gives it that special edge. It puts your company's soul on display and tells the world who you are as a brand.

The more your audience understands and identifies with your brand, the more they'll want to buy from you. Your customers want to feel a connection with your brand, and it's your culture that will forge this bond.

When you define culture, you're also defining your company's values and goals. These will contribute to your company's mission and show your employees and the public what is most important to the brand.

2. Culture increases loyalty among employees

Your employees shouldn't dread coming to work. They should enjoy coming to the office and value the work that they do. Companies with a strong culture have employees who like the challenges of their job, get along well with their co-workers and enjoy the atmosphere of the workplace.

Culture gives employees a driving goal and purpose for what they do. It connects your leadership team with the rest of the employees and binds them with a set of shared beliefs. Your employees want to feel like they are contributing to something larger than themselves.

Jim Goodnight , CEO and co-founder of SAS, believes every company should set the bar high for culture. On the SAS website , he says, "Treat employees like they make a difference and they will."

Plus, employees who are more enthusiastic about the companies they work for tend to be more productive. That means more work and more business being done. Your employees' enthusiasm will also be apparent to your customers and be an attractive selling point for them.

3. Culture attracts and retains talent

While skillsets and experience are important when hiring new members for your organization, you also need to hire for culture fit. An employee's skills may get them in the door, but your culture is what will keep them there.

Hiring an employee is an investment, and you want to make sure you invest in the right people. By ensuring each individual you hire fits well with the company culture, you make it more likely they will stay with your company long term and contribute more to the success of the organization.

4. Culture makes advocates out of employees

So how do you find the right people to hire ? Start by leveraging those engaged employees already working for you. LinkedIn finds companies can expand their talent pool by 10 times by recruiting through their employees' networks.

It's true that good talent knows other good talent. And when your employees are happy with their work, they are more likely to share with others. They'll spread the word about their positive experience with your company, and you'll soon gain a strong reputation.

Encourage and motivate your employees to speak positively on your brand's behalf. Not only will they help you find the right people to hire, but they can also help you bring in more customers.

No matter which way you slice it, employees want to feel that they belong. You need to build a community within your organization that people want to be a part of. Make your culture the foundation of that community.
How have you fostered a strong culture within your organization? What initiatives have you launched? Share your strategies in the comments below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance of Building Culture in Your Organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Companies often take a passive approach to culture. They figure it's not something they can control - or that they need to control. If they leave it alone, it'll all work itself out.

# data[].attributes.body
Emotional intelligence and interpersonal communications are extremely important in businesses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Communication is a core leadership skill, and there is a deep connection between one's ability to successfully communicate and one's ability to successfully lead. It's not surprising, then, that emotional intelligence, often referred to as EI or EQ, is a hot topic these days. Emotional intelligence impacts an executive's ability to present key corporate issues with integrity and authenticity. It is about being able to listen well, to motivate and inspire others, to control your reactions, and to build strong relationships. Whether you are a new manager or a senior executive, developing your communication skills is essential, and one effective way to improve your communication skills is to strengthen emotional intelligence.
What Is Emotional Intelligence?
Daniel Goleman revolutionized our thinking in regards to leadership and intelligence in the 90s when he presented his ideas on emotional intelligence in his book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Emotional intelligence, he says, is "the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and our relationships." Emotional intelligence is comprised of four attributes: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Managing your emotions - knowing and understanding your emotions, overcoming stress, increasing your ability to read social cues, understanding what triggers you emotionally, and controlling your reactions - are all measures of emotional intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence and Communication
Learning more about how to manage your emotions is a very effective way of improving your communication skills, whether you're speaking with your employees in a town hall presentation or responding to tough questions during a media interview. When a business leader lacks emotional intelligence, he or she becomes more easily flustered by unexpected questions, and more likely to say something that they cannot retract, thus finding themselves on the front page of The Wall Street Journal for all the wrong reasons. The problem is certainly not limited to media interviews. Leaders who have yet to develop sufficient emotional intelligence tend to react to situations without filtering their responses verbally and tonally; as well, they may exhibit inappropriate body language. Each of these responses can jeopardize relationships with employees, investors, and strategic business partners.
Strengthen Emotional Intelligence to Communicate and Lead Better
As you begin to understand how an increased awareness of emotional response impacts the way in which you communicate verbally and non-verbally, you will be better equipped to moderate how you respond in a variety of business situations. For example, you may recognize a tendency to speak faster when anxious during a last-minute meeting, you'll become more able to control your volume when you are angry with a co-worker, or you may learn that you scowl subconsciously when a certain topic is repeatedly raised by employees.

Since many emotional reactions happen subconsciously, you may think that they cannot be controlled. Not true. Through training and coaching, you can begin to recognize how to control - and better yet, leverage your emotions - to be more effective with your business and personal communication. Ultimately, improving your emotional intelligence will allow you to be heard more accurately, inspire and motivate others, and augment your overall leadership presence.

Franchetti Communications delivers accelerated results by designing power-packed media interview and presentation training sessions around your unique goals, in person and via teleconference. Franchetti Communications works with corporations and business leaders to develop communication strategy, messaging, and PR strategy. Follow Franchetti Communications on LinkedIn, and be sure to download our special report: 6 Ways to Guarantee Your Message Cuts Through the Clutter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
suzanne franchetti - president + lead trainer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Intelligence and Its Impact on Communication in the Workplace * Franchetti Communications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Communication is a core leadership skill, and there is a deep connection between one's ability to successfully communicate and one's ability to successfully lead. It's not surprising, then, that emotional intelligence, often referred to as EI or EQ, is a hot topic these days.

# data[].attributes.body
The Importance of Effective Communication in the Workplace: When managers communicate transparently and effectively with their staff, it allows them to learn what their desire or needs are, and what effectively motivates them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Communication is key in any relationship. Whether that relationship is with your spouse, your peers, your children, or your employees, it always comes back to a transfer of information, honesty, and respect.

What separates good teams from great ones isn't talent or skill, but the ability to work together towards a common goal. As a leader or manager of a group, it's your responsibility to ensure that everyone tracks toward the same purpose through open lines of communication. Below are three benefits of strengthening communication to keep your team on the same page.
Encourages Collaboration
Sometimes the best work comes out of a collaborative discussion between team members, where ideas can be bounced off of one another until the right one is uncovered. Fostering an environment where members of the team are able to voice their ideas and understand that their ideas will be taken into consideration, will create a stronger, more positive work environment. It's easy to get sucked down in the day-to-day client work, but be sure to set aside time for creative brainstorms about prospecting strategies or growing the business.
Allows for Proper Motivation
Communicating effectively and transparently with your team allows you to understand their needs and desires. In order to lead effectively, you have to know what motivates those under you. While Gen Xers may be motivated by money and Millennials seek positive affirmation and the feeling of being a valued team member, each person is motivated for different reasons. Schedule one-on-one meetings with each team member and dig deep to understand what drives them. As a manager, this will help you manage each team member effectively, and also provide the appropriate feedback and rewards. For example, some team members would prefer a bonus, while others would prefer additional vacation days. Your team will appreciate the effort you put forth and the transparent line of communication will allow for motivated and loyal team members.
Enhances Problem Solving Possibilities
The most essential benefit of good communication is its ability to resolve issues before they snowball into major problems. Incorporating yourself in the conversation as your team brainstorms solutions helps establish a productive method of problem-solving. However, let your team identify a solution first before you chime in and make a recommendation. It helps to oversee the conversation or brainstorm so you can participate if necessary, but allow your team to do the heavy lifting. This gives your team the opportunity to think strategically on their own and work together to come across the appropriate solution.

Communication is essential for effective teams and creates efficiencies by; motivating employees, encouraging open dialogues, and fostering an environment of collaborative problem-solving. It's not always easy to engage with your team members, but the rewards are well worth it. If you don't have a culture of communication among your team, establish one today to ensure for a positive future for your business.
To learn more, check out the five mistakes to avoid when coaching salespeople!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance of Communication Between Managers and Their Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Communication is key in any relationship. Whether that relationship is with your spouse, your peers, your children, or your employees, it always comes back to a transfer of information, honesty, and respect. What separates good teams from great ones isn't talent or skill, but the ability to work together towards a common goal.

# data[].attributes.body
The Morgan Samuels Perspective article about Retained Executive Search vs. In-House Recruiting helped to explain the difference between the two methods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek is creating quite a buzz around the human capital industry. The piece, "Executive Headhunters Squeezed by In-House Recruiters," uses a patchwork of anecdotes and piecemeal data to make the case that retained search firms are facing new difficulties.

With all due respect to Bloomberg, the realities they outline are neither new, nor are they really difficulties in providing value added retained executive search services.

First, let's briefly discuss the problems with their data, which the Association of Executive Search Consultants already questioned. Businessweek appears to have chosen arbitrary data points which happen to paint a picture that retained executive search firms are suffering. Sure, a 33 percent decline in industry revenue in 2009 looks ominous; if you omit that the decline was from an all-time high; and if you omit that revenue is already re-approaching that all-time high. (There was also a minor world-wide economic event in 2008 that Businessweek may recall.)

As the AESC states:
"Although in-house search is inevitably eating into the lower end of the market by taking work that previously might have gone to some executive search firms, nevertheless, the overall market for executive search services is holding firm. Once global economic conditions stabilize, we expect to see even greater demand in response to the worldwide talent shortage-a shortage being driven by underlying demographic shifts in the developed economies and huge potential demand for executive talent from the emerging markets."
Or, in summary, "The impression given in the article that the retained executive search profession is in decline is not substantiated by the facts."

Businessweek seems mostly concerned with the impact of in-housing on the short-term bottom lines of both hiring companies and retained search firms. To evaluate the merits of retained search services, and not just the costs, one would have to complete a true return on investment calculation, which includes critical factors such as the impact on bringing the best talent in the market to the organization in the shortest time period possible, while minimizing the time and energy of key existing client executives. In addition, the extent by which true executive recruiting is done in-house is not put into context. There has been and always will be organizations which maintain and build internal executive recruiting teams. However, most of these limited numbers of organizations also continue to use some level of external support.

If they had contacted us and asked the right questions - or had done the same with any of our brethren in the retained search industry - they would have heard a polite and convincing case for hiring an executive search firm and not diverting internal resources.

A key point of added value we bring to executive search over in-house recruiters is, simply, that we're not in-house. We're impartial and data-driven. We come to the hiring process with fresh eyes and perspective.

Secondly, this is what we do. This is all we do and we're focused on it. We have in-depth research capabilities and access to a wealth of human capital across dozens of industries. We have a broader view of the marketplace and a wide reach. The Businessweek article says that Coca-Cola does 95 percent of their searches in-house. We're willing to bet the other 5 percent are their high-level and/or most specific searches. They're not going to try to find their own CEO for the same reason we don't try to make our own Diet Coke - the result would leave a bad taste.

After all, when it comes to something vital, you want to hire an expert.

In a similar vein, the article also states that GE's in-house executive search team was able to beat the retained search industry standard of 170 days to staff positions in 73 days. That's impressive. That's also about our average here at Morgan Samuels.

And conceptually, the article seems to argue against itself. It's difficult to make the case that the services provided by firms like Morgan Samuels are superfluous in an article that outlines how major corporations are hiring away our very-talented professionals in an effort to improve their performance and bottom line. That is, after all, our specialty. It's the whole idea. And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Lastly, a firm such as Morgan Samuels that truly provides highly differentiated services within the retained search category is facing a robust market. There will always be a market for a firm that can be a strategic partner to clients, without being an insider, appropriately assesses leadership acumen and cultural fit, all the while scouring the marketplace for the best talent to meet our client's key business objectives. All of this is done with an average cycle time of 76 days, a 34% diversity placement ratio, and an average candidate review before offer of four. Oh, and by the way, of the 4, 20% of our clients will try to hire two of the four. So value like this is hard to duplicate and, frankly, from an economic standpoint, why would you?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retained Executive Search vs. In-House Recruiting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek is creating quite a buzz around the human capital industry. The piece, "Executive Headhunters Squeezed by In-House Recruiters," uses a patchwork of anecdotes and piecemeal data to make the case that retained search firms are facing new difficulties.

# data[].attributes.body
New insight was developed:
Micro communication Vs. Macro communication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Is the Difference Between a Macro & Micro Perspective on an Organization?

When you're trying to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your small business, you can adopt a macro perspective or a micro perspective. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to which you should orientation you should choose. However, understanding how these perspectives yield different results can help you make a more informed decision about which path to use to improve your business activities.

Tip

With a macro perspective, you take a long-term view of your company's strategies. With a micro perspective, you focus on all the details in how you are implementing your existing strategies.

Macro Means the Big Picture

When you adopt a macro perspective, you are analyzing how your business is performing using big-picture concepts such as sales growth, number of new customers, and number of products or services sold. You are also looking at your company's position in the marketplace relative to your competition, how the economy and other external influences are affecting your business, employee diversity, and employee satisfaction.

Micro Gives a Deep Dive

With a micro perspective, you are taking a deep dive into every detail that underlies your daily activities and processes. The goal is to find out how things are working on a level that can be measured, as opposed to stepping back and looking at the big picture.

For example, let's say that you want to learn more about your sales operations. On a macro level, you know that your sales numbers have gone down over the past six months, but you're not sure why. You can delve deeper into the problem by listening on 50 calls that your salespeople make, and you can find out what they're saying to prospective customers, and how many of those calls convert prospects into customers.

Differences Between Macro and Micro

The main difference between a macro perspective and a micro perspective is that in a macro view you are always stepping back for a big-picture view. You're not concerned with the details of how things are being done, but instead, you're trying to figure out how your company is working in major areas that determine success or failure. For example, a macro perspective could tell you that your profit margin has shrunk over the past six months, but a micro perspective would then tell you the reasons why this has happened when you dive into a detailed view of your sales and marketing operations.

In contrast, a micro view is always going to be focused on the small details that can give you answers about the big picture. In a micro perspective, details are essential, and the ability to measure performance through the use of metrics is the hallmark of this perspective. Put simply, a macro perspective tells you where your business is at any given time, and a micro perspective tells you why your business is in that position. For true success, you should try to adopt a balance that utilizes both perspectives.

About the Author

Sampson Quain is an experienced content writer with a wide range of expertise in small business, digital marketing, SEO marketing, SEM marketing, and social media outreach. He has written primarily for the EHow brand of Demand Studios as well as business strategy sites such as Digital Authority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the Difference Between a Macro & Micro Perspective on an Organization?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When analyzing your business, you can take a macro or micro perspective. A macro perspective is a big-picture view of your company, such as how you are positioned in the market relative to your competition. A micro perspective is a deeper dive into the details of your company's daily activities.

# data[].attributes.body
Hewlett-Packard CEO, Leo Apotheker case study was useful showing what a leader can do to be called a 'poor' leader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Commentary
(MoneyWatch) Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ) has been blaming one thing after another for its poor performance. It hired director Meg Whitman as a CEO replacement for fired Leo Apotheker, a main scapegoat originally hired to replace fired Mark Hurd who was hired to replace fired Carly Fiorina. Corporate politics can be so complicated.

Apotheker, in particular, was tagged as a ruinous influence responsible for things like wanting to break HP up into multiple parts. And now, ironically, the company's board is apparently studying whether to break up the company into parts, reports news outlet Quartz.

According to the report, a possible break-up is one option HP's board is considering as a way to "obtain maximum value for shareholders," which is generally corporate-speak for "our stock is in the dumps and we need investors to think we're worth owning again." Supposedly, if the company's fortunes can revive in the near term, the break-up will be put on ice.

HP alluded to the possible break-up in the company's annual report, filed with the SEC on December 27, 2012, citing it as a risk factor: "We also continue to evaluate the potential disposition of assets and businesses that may no longer help us meet our objectives."
A feeling of deja vu
Such declarations are not uncommon in the corporate world. But in this case it comes after HP's previous announcement that it would spin off the PC division -- a decision that was made by Apotheker and the board -- more than a year ago. The idea was to emulate IBM ( IBM), which in the 1990s famously moved into services and software and then rid itself of its PC division, which was weighing down Big Blue's profits as the price of computers plunged.

Turns out Apotheker was right. But while margins have continued to drop on HP's PC business, partly because desktops and laptops became bargaining chips for salespeople who wanted ways to sweeten deals for servers and services, the company has yet to cut ties with the unit. Meanwhile, the server market has continued to be highly competitive, with Dell (which is about to go private in a bid to get strategic decisions out of the public eye) coming on strong and IBM still a powerhouse.
Writedowns for big mistakes
And that service business? HP had to write down much of what it paid for the former EDS, with the 2008 acquisition failing to spark growth in its own consulting business. And the attempt to get deeper into business of selling software to big companies ended badly with the acquisition of U.K. software vendor Autonomy -- an acquisition that Whitman would eventually say she was sorry she voted for, even though the company should have had all the resources necessary to do a reasonably valuation and fiscal analysis.

HP, which bought Autonomy for $10 billion in 2011, last year had to take an $8.8 billion charge on the company, with roughly $5 billion of that related to what HP says was improper accounting at the unit.

HP's board claimed to turn from a spin-off of a division because it was sure Whitman could pull things together into a common strategy to harness and leverage the company's resources ... or whatever "in" wording a corporate communications department might use. The real reason for the about-face was the scathing reaction of investors who could only see all those revenue dollars sail out the door and customers and business partners who didn't want to be left high and dry.

Now there's an about-about-face because reality has set in. There was no magical solution -- no apparently " rebirth" that Whitman and the board promised. And this after Whitman won bonuses and options worth $15.4 million even while the company missed its financial targets, according to Bloomberg.

The world has not changed that much in the last year, and HP has not done anything so extraordinary on the product, innovation or marketing front that it changed the rules of the game. The sad thing is that what seemed to be a desperate but necessary move then is likely still needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why HP may owe an apology to ex-CEO Leo Apotheker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Commentary (MoneyWatch) Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ) has been blaming one thing after another for its poor performance. It hired director Meg Whitman as a CEO replacement for fired Leo Apotheker, a main scapegoat originally hired to replace fired Mark Hurd who was hired to replace fired Carly Fiorina. Corporate politics can be so complicated.

# data[].attributes.body
Paul Hersen and Ken Blanchard's Life-cycle Model of Leadership are useful frameworks for explaining managerial effectiveness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The situational leadership (SL) theory, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, is one of the most widely known frameworks for explaining managerial effectiveness. Although the framework is particularly popular among practicing managers and professional trainers, it has not enjoyed comparable attention from the academic community of industrial/organizational researchers. Nonetheless, the theory is recognized among researchers for its intuitive appeal, though it is not considered a clearly valid or robust framework for the prescription of leader behavior.

Since its earliest origins, when it was known as the life-cycle theory of leadership, SL theory has undergone a variety of changes. Some of these changes have been relatively cosmetic-for example, relabeling follower maturity as developmental level and then readiness, relabeling willingness as commitment, relabeling ability as competence, relabeling leader task behavior as directive behavior, relabeling leader relationship behavior as supportive behavior, relabeling the prescriptive curve as the performance curve and then the leadership style curve, and finally, relabeling telling-selling-participating-delegating as directing-coaching-supporting-delegating. Other changes- reflected in the most recent version of the model, termed situational leadership II-such as suggesting that low employee development or maturity involves differing dynamics, are arguably problematic and even suggest that increased maturity may result in decreased motivation. Despite these changes, the core concepts of SL remain largely intact, even if they have not been adequately validated.

Situational leadership theory continues to tie in with other contemporary views of what makes for effective supervision. For example, three contemporary workplace perspectives are completely in accord with SL's essential principles: (1) Self-directed work teams (a popular performance-enhancement technique) advocates that supervision should be minimal when employees are sufficiently capable of being self-directed; (2) employee competence and dedication or professionalism can be viewed as potent substitutes for leadership; and (3) leaders need to be both socially intelligent and flexible in their behavior.

In relation to other perspectives on leadership, SL theory is often viewed as one of several situational models that arose during the 1960s and 1970s. As part of a trend toward incorporating situational elements into explanations of leader effectiveness, the theory's appeal was driven by dissatisfaction with earlier paradigmatic approaches that emphasized leader traits and leader behaviors to the exclusion of situational attributes. This theory also builds on earlier behavioral (or stylistic) approaches in that it includes a prevalent perspective wherein leadership is conceptualized along two independent dimensions: leader consideration and leader initiation of structure. The theory is novel, however, in its attempt to specify which combination of leader behaviors along these two dimensions is optimal in light of follower maturity. Within this theory, follower maturity is most often defined as a combination of the ability to perform a task and the willingness (or commitment and motivation) to accomplish a task.

The key principle underlying SL theory's most essential social dynamic is that as follower maturity increases, optimal leader behavior should involve less structuring and less consideration. Although the decline in the need for structuring is straightforward, the relationship to leader supportiveness is less so. Specifically, followers who are comparatively low on maturity should benefit from high structuring combined with low consideration. As the follower gains maturity, the need for leader structuring declines, but the need for supervisory supportiveness actually increases. At the highest levels of follower maturity, the need for both leader structuring and social supportiveness declines further, such that at the highest levels of follower maturity, leader structuring and consideration are irrelevant to follower performance. This transitioning of prescribed leader style can be summarized as moving from telling to selling to participating and, ultimately, to delegating (along a prescriptive curve).

The theory's intuitive appeal lies in its simplicity, as well as the self-evident correctness that is attendant to human (especially child) development. Consider that one would not attempt to handle a class of first graders in the same fashion as one would attempt to handle eighth graders, high school students, or college students. Clearly, one would be engaging in more telling at the lowest level of maturity and, ideally, far more delegating at the college (especially the graduate) level. The model is also appealing to military leadership training because raw recruits undergo a transformation as they gain ability and commitment. Because we all vary our own behaviors based on circumstances and expect to be treated differentially based on self-perceived efficacy, the model's proposed dynamic is inherently enticing. The model is broadly attractive because it focuses on managerial dynamics rather than true leadership, which can be vested in any group member and typically refers to some form of incremental influence beyond one's nominal position or headship. Hence, the model offers practical guidance to people who find themselves in positions of responsibility (who may have little interest in the subtleties of a variety of alternative models of leadership that are long on evidence of aggregate correlational associations but short on specific advice as to how to relate to individual employees).

An empirical demonstration of the validity of the model's core tenet (the value of leader adaptability) is desirable. However, a variety of obstacles have impeded progress in studying the model in a rigorous fashion. First, the model is embedded in a training package that includes (along with training videos, worksheets, puzzles, games, and practice activities) a preferred instrument for assessing leader style. Although theoretical ties to the Ohio State University measures of consideration and initiating structure are evident, the instruments that are recommended for assessing a leader's personal style may not possess comparable psychometric merit. Additionally, the definition and measurement of employee maturity, a key construct, requires further development.

Despite these problems, empirical studies of SL theory have been attempted, yielding a mixed pattern of results. One study of 303 teachers in 14 high schools found support for the model's predictions for low-maturity subordinates (i.e., followers who were low in competence and commitment performed better with supervisors who were high on structuring but low on consideration) and for moderate-maturity subordinates (i.e., moderate structuring combined with higher considerateness was optimal). However, no support was found for high-maturity subordinates. In a replication of this study with a sample of nurses, similar directional (but nonsignificant) support was found for the earlier findings. In a further replication and extension of this line of research, 332 university employees and 32 supervisors were studied. The authors tested the suggestion that the model may be valid from an across-jobs perspective (in which norms govern how subordinates expect to be treated by a supervisor based on their competency and commitment) rather than a within-jobs perspective. Yet the results continue to suggest that the original model has limited descriptive utility. However, further analyses have indicated that supervisory monitoring and consideration interact with job level such that monitoring has a positive impact for lower-level employees, whereas considerateness has a more positive impact for higher-level employees. This suggests that the model's most central and intuitively appealing aspect may be correct, whereas specific predictions based on follower maturity may be incorrect. In a related study of 1,137 employees across three organizations, it was found that employees with higher levels of education and greater levels of job tenure express less preference for supervisory structuring. This suggests that an understanding of employee expectations of supervisor behavior may be valuable in optimizing the level and nature of supervisory involvement with subordinates.

Beyond the aforementioned problem of deciding how best to operationalize key constructs, tests of the model have been limited because of the relatively low frequency of "matches" (relative to "mismatches"), wherein the ideal circumstances or combinations specified by the model are obtained. Furthermore, studies of the developmental dynamic proposed by the model (wherein followers gain or even regress in ability and willingness) are virtually nonexistent. Despite these problems, a sufficient number of SL-related studies have been conducted (many of them doctoral dissertations that rely on leader self-assessments) that a meta-analysis was recently conducted. Based on 35 studies, the results were judged to be generally supportive of the relationship between leader adaptability and effectiveness, with an overall corrected effect size of .31 and an estimated 95% confidence interval of the true correlation of .19 to .41. Hence, the authors concluded that the ability to appropriately adapt one's leadership style to the developmental level of a follower is related to overall leader effectiveness. Judged in their totality, the results of this meta-analysis, as well as other more rigorous studies, suggest that SL theory continues to be a promising approach to understanding leadership.

References:

1. Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. B. (1993). Situational leadership after 23 years: A retrospective. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 22-36.

2. Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 67-84.

3. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23, 26-34.

4. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. E. (2001).

5. Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

6. Norris, W. R., & Vecchio, R. P. (1992). Situational leadership theory: A replication. Group and Organization Management, 17, 331-342.

7. Shilobod, T. L., McMullen, L. J., & Raymark, P. H. (2004, April 1-4). Situational leadership theory: A meta-analysis of the adaptability hypothesis. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.

8. Vecchio, R. P., & Boatwright, K. J. (2002). Preferences for idealized styles of supervision. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 327-342.

See also:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The situational leadership (SL) theory, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, is one of the most widely known frameworks for explaining managerial effectiveness. Although the framework is particularly popular among practicing managers and professional trainers, it has not enjoyed comparable attention from the academic community of industrial/organizational researchers.

# data[].attributes.body
Employees often and incorrectly believe the Human Resources Department is on their side or an advocate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to human resources and recruiting, some companies have best practices they don't necessarily want to bring to your attention. But as a professional, you should probably know these secrets about HR.

1. They have a 90-day new hire rule.

Years ago, when I first got into HR I was told, "Whatever behavior you see in someone's first 90 days on the job, multiply it by 10 and that's what the employee will be like in a year." New employees try to stay on their best behavior, but it wears off over time. That's why so many companies now have a "90-day clause" in the hiring contract, enabling them to fire you without explanation. It's so they can let you go if they see any behavior they don't like. Employers estimate losing millions of dollars annually on bad hires. The clause lets them cut losses faster.

2. They do "backdoor" reference checks.

Before hiring you, HR will check references. You may think you can control the process by giving names of only people who will provide glowing recommendations, but some HR folks also do "backdoor" reference checks. They tap into their own network of contacts and find someone who worked with you to get an unbiased viewpoint. In particular, this technique is used if it seems like you left your last employer under suspicious circumstances, e.g., you say you were laid off, but it sounds like you got fired.

3. They aren't afraid to go candidate phishing.

Ever had a recruiter contact you about a job and ask you a bunch of questions about who you worked with at a particular employer? You think the interview went great, but you never hear from the recruiter again. What happened? He or she was candidate phishing--aka getting names of people currently working at the company so they can recruit them out. Sadly, this happens more frequently to the unemployed. Why? Studies show employers prefer to hire people who are currently working.

4. You get labeled "high-maintenance" for being a policy enforcer.

Yes, the HR handbook was designed so you could reference it and stay in compliance, but it doesn't mean you should run to HR every time a co-worker isn't playing by the rules. Pick your battles. If an employee is doing something that could hurt the company badly, you should say something. But too many visits to HR about your peers and suddenly you'll be labeled as the one to keep an eye on.

5. They do whatever it takes to get you off worker's compensation.

Studies show the longer someone is out on worker's compensation, the less likely he or she is to return to work. People get disengaged and depressed when out on extended sick leave. They adapt to the lower disability pay rate and often never return to work. To keep this from happening, HR works with the employee's doctor and pushes to get the person released to do some kind of work--any kind of work, to make them come back to the office. Usually, they're given mind-numbing, boring jobs as a way to make them want to get better faster. They don't want you home on the couch feeling sorry for yourself. They want you at your desk.

6. They don't give references to avoid slander lawsuits.

The reason many companies have a policy against giving references is to avoid any slander lawsuits--especially in situations where the employee didn't leave on good terms. These days, companies are required only to provide dates of employment and pay rate. They can refuse to comment on an employee's performance. However, if asked if the employee is eligible for rehire, they can legally say "yes" or "no" and not be at risk of being sued. This is important, because if they say "no," then it tells the potential employer something went wrong. Thus, if you haven't explained honestly why you left your last job, it could be seen as suspect and you may not get a job offer.

7. Performance plans are HR's way of saying, "Start looking for a new job."

When HR puts you on a formal performance plan, don't expect to turn things around and become a star employee. What they're really saying is, "Get your resume out there and start looking ASAP." If you find a job sooner, they won't have to fire you and you won't go on unemployment. It's better for both sides because being unemployed makes it harder to get a job, which means you'll be on unemployment longer.

8. When it comes to layoffs, personality matters to HR.

When HR is told to complete a restructuring and cut a percentage of the work force, they consult with managers to choose who stays. While skills and productivity matter, personality is at the top of the list. Why? Layoffs create a stressful work environment. HR looks for employees who they feel will rally and do their best to stay positive. Those who have a history of being critical of the company and vocal about their frustrations to management often get let go.

9. A good performance track record won't save you from getting fired or laid off.

Don't assume that great annual reviews year after year equals job security. Those are just recognition for what you've been paid to do. On any given day, the rules can change and the company can decide they don't want to keep you. Past performance is not an insurance policy. HR is always thinking, "What are you doing for us now that saves or makes us enough money to justify the cost of keeping you?"

10. Online background checks are standard practice.

While some companies pay for formal background checks and are required to ask for your permission, the rest are (without telling you) doing free internet searches instead. If you have anything in your past that can make you a risky hire, HR will find it online.

Understanding the above can help you think through your own actions when working with HR and recruiting. Being prepared is the key. Also, it doesn't hurt to seek outside coaching from an expert to ensure you are making smart career moves. Knowing HR's agenda can help you navigate your interactions with them more effectively.

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Things HR Doesn't Want You to Know (but I'll Tell You)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to human resources and recruiting, some companies have best practices they don't necessarily want to bring to your attention. But as a professional, you should probably know these secrets about HR. 1. They have a 90-day new hire rule.

# data[].attributes.body
Relationship between leading and managing: Leaders have others follow them, whereas managers have others work for them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leaders influence. Managers direct. While it may not be that black and white, leaders generally do focus on what matters and why as managers focus on how. Both use different forms of influence and direction at different times. But leaders have a bias to influencing by inspiring and enabling through advice and counsel and co-creation, while managers have a bias to command and control, organizing, coordinating and telling.

Coca-Cola's Doug Ivester was crystal clear on the difference. Sometimes he'd come to us and say,

This is your decision to make. I'd like to give you my thoughts as input.

Since he was the CEO, we always considered his thoughts. Most of the time we did things the way he suggested. Sometimes we disagreed. We quickly learned that going back to the CEO and telling him that we decided he didn't know what he was talking about did not make for pleasant meetings. But it did work when we went back to him and said,

Wanted to follow up on the decision we made on this subject. After we talked to you, we did some more digging and uncovered five things that you could not have known about. Given those new findings, we decided to go a different direction than what you had suggested.

He was fine with that.

Other times he'd say,

See these stripes. I am the CEO of this company. I'm going to give you some direction which you will follow.

It was extraordinarily helpful to know when he was giving us input for us to consider in our decision and when he was giving us no choice but to follow his direction.
Decision versus input
The more companies I help with their executive onboarding and team onboarding, the more I'm becoming convinced that clarifying decisions versus input solves a whole host of other problems.

The most important thing for any two people to clarify as they are working together is which of them is going to make which decisions at any point in time so they know when they should be deciding and when they should be providing input into the others' decision.
Decision versus input for CEOs and Boards
CEOs and boards are a case in point. It's important for all the players to be clear on when the board is deciding versus advising and when the CEO is deciding and informing versus recommending.

At the risk of being overly simplistic, in general, for issues of:

Governance: the board should decide and the CEO should recommend and implement.

Strategy and long-term and annual plans including P&L, cash flows and balance sheets: the board should decide and the CEO should recommend and implement.

Operations: the CEO should decide and lead and the board should advise and be kept informed.

Organization: the CEO should decide and lead and the board should advise and be kept informed.
Decision versus input for partners
In any organization, there are natural (and unnatural) partners. It's helpful for these partners to be clear on which of them is deciding and which of them is influencing which decisions.

Take the case of a magazine publisher and editor-in-chief. They must work together as partners and communicate all the time. In general, it seems to work best if the editor-in-chief advises on marketing and pricing while the publisher makes those decisions. Conversely, the publisher should advise on content while the editor-in-chief makes those decisions.
RACI
Many have found the RACI framework helpful:

Accountable: Answerable for correct and thorough completion of deliverable or task.

Responsible: Does work defined and delegated by accountable person.

Consulted: Provides input and advice (Two-way communication)

Informed: Kept up-to-date (One-way communication)

Note the accountable person may answer to a higher approving or commissioning authority that delegates the task or project to that accountable person. RACI applies within the task or project.
Implications for you
Think input versus decide. For each important decision, clarify who makes the decision and who is providing input to the person making the decision and be explicit about which you are doing at any point in time.
Click here for a list of my Forbes articles and a summary of my book on executive onboarding: The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fundamental Difference Between Leading And Managing: Influence Versus Direction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders influence. Managers direct. While it may not be that black and white, leaders generally do focus on what matters and why as managers focus on how. Both use different forms of influence and direction at different times.

# data[].attributes.body
Motivating employees are vital to the success of a company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you noticed how increasing percentages of television commercials and print ads seem to have a digital component as part of the product pitch? Whether it's apps, websites, artificial intelligence or even virtual reality, it's time to take a deep dive into what your customers' digital experience means for your business.

IBM Institute for Business Value has been studying this digital landscape. They recently surveyed 600 C-Suite and line-of-business executives at companies that are pursuing a "reinvention" of the customer experience with a digital approach. Surveyed companies from multiple industries and regions that are implementing their digital customer strategies, showed distinct differences in their approach to organizational culture and their employee experiences.

IBM separated "Outperformers", which represented 25% of those companies surveyed, from the rest of the pack to identify effective practices, as Outperformers beat their competition in revenue and profit. Importantly, Outperformers showed a particular regard to how their employees and their organization's culture fared in this time of transformational change.

Companies are in a race to deploy technology in order to serve increasingly demanding customers. Customers expect more and are prepared to leave behind companies that do not measure up. They want an easy, streamlined interface with technology, and can be finicky about adopting digital approaches. Moreover, inter-generational differences can be challenging, as different demographics have varying needs and levels of digital savvy. IBM's research shows that companies must not just digitize customer transactions. They must empathetically understand the customers' point of view, and remove the pain points. Surprisingly, digital interaction with a company can be more important than the product the company offers.

Your employees are on the front lines in transforming the customer experience and actually play the most significant role. Outperforming companies comprehend this better than the others. They are data-driven, measuring the correlation between their employees' positive experience and customer satisfaction. They make sure that reinventing the customer digital experience will also be positive for their employees. 74% of the Outperformers from IBMs report see that when their customers are not satisfied, employee morale suffers, and they know that their employees are invested in making sure customers are happy. Only 45% of the companies that did not outperform, felt that degree of linkage between customer and employee satisfaction.

Engaged and satisfied employees result in satisfied customers. This is important to remember as you compete to recruit and retain the talent required to address this new digital world. To further this point, 62% of the Outperformers surveyed in the IBM study are re-allocating budgets to prioritize their employees' experience. They are investing in them to assure that they have the learning, skills, work environments, systems, and communication to support them in serving the customer.

The smartest companies are creating and maintaining a culture of learning that will effectively support employees impacted by the changes that digital innovation brings. Employees need to prepare for new management structures, different additional responsibilities and step up to learn new processes. A healthy culture with first-rate employee communication can help employees understand how they fit into the overall picture of change, and how that picture aligns with the company's vision and mission.

Talent is usually the gating factor in digital transformation. The best performing companies see accessing talent and innovation as a higher priority than cost reduction. Using the lens of digital change to re-examine their talent recruitment and retention strategies, Outperforming companies rethink traditional employee performance metrics, and consider alternative promotion programs. They invest to create and maintain a customer-focused culture in which their teams push to innovate quickly to create a seamless, frictionless customers experience.

Just as outperforming leaders are more willing to reach outside of their organizations for technical expertise, they also are willing to engage outside specialists to help with the heavy lifting of strategy development and implementation. These experts help companies to "get it right", by bringing a deep perspective on the direction of the business from a high level. Organizations can use all the support possible in aligning the employee experience, organizational culture and the customer experience. Moreover, when outside experts interface with leaders and managers on the strategy implementation, executives have greater capacity to focus on their own core responsibilities.

As a case in point, I have worked with a major healthcare provider for years helping the leadership guide its teams through transitions in integrated care delivery approaches, including the use of technologies that make the experience for employees and customers easy and convenient. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) came into effect, alignment of leadership and their teams around achieving desired outcomes for accountable care meant taking employee engagement to a new level. Dedicated employees made sure they understood the complexity of emerging models in patient customer service, and the leaders made sure the training and tools were available for the employees to be successful in delivering an experience that would encourage patients to actively refer others to the health system. As the client's contact center asset grew in scope and scale of customer service options offered, employee engagement, satisfaction and alignment with the patient/consumer needs were essential to ensure positive health outcomes.

My client understands that today it is vital to have a reputation as a technologically advanced healthcare organization that delivers a higher level of quality care in a convenient, empathetic and patient centered way. The healthcare provider who I work with fully appreciates that their reputation depends on the engagement and satisfaction of their employees and employee management as part of a digitally enhanced ecosystem. Their platform currently includes a state of the art contact center that is staffed with dedicated customer service liaisons who are equipped with expert algorithms to ensure patients get the right appointments with the right providers at the right time. Their service model is enhanced by self-service tools and online and mobile platforms that make access to care convenient and readily available on the patient's terms. The client's digital and mobile platforms allow patients as "healthcare consumers" to manage numerous aspects of care including: scheduling, health system navigation, bill payment, and access to personal health information (e.g., insurance, lab results, health records). The system will continue to be cutting edge with the future unveiling of eVisits and video appointments. This eco-system of engaged employees, external technology providers, and trusted advisors means state-of-the-art convenience and quality that position the health system to care for patients and their families for life. The result is better health outcomes and improved financial performance.

For the champions in the customer digital experience, employees are the most valuable players, and teamwork is the secret sauce. Teamwork means collaboration within your organization and across the ecosystem. The same discipline driving delivery of a superb digital customer experience pays off in delivering a superb experience to your employees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Motivated Employees Are Key To Your Company's Success In The Digital Age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you noticed how increasing percentages of television commercials and print ads seem to have a digital component as part of the product pitch? Whether it's apps, websites, artificial intelligence or even virtual reality, it's time to take a deep dive into what your customers' digital experience means for your business.

# data[].attributes.body
The relationship and difference between power and control:
Power is the possession of authority, whereas control is influencing the actions of others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Power and authority are separate but related concepts. A manager in an organization has authority if he or she has the right to direct the activities of others and expect them to respond with appropriate actions to attain organizational purposes. A uthority most often comes from the duties and responsibilities delegated to a position holder in a bureaucratic structure. A company president can order a product design change, for instance, or a police officer has the authority to arrest an offender of the law.

Power is the possession of authority, control, or influence by which a person influences the actions of others, either by direct authority or by some other, more intangible means. A prime source of power is the possession of knowledge. A person with knowledge is oftentimes able to use that knowledge to directly or indirectly influence the actions of others. The authority of knowledge is often independent of levels or positions. Power can reinforce authority, and authority is one of the primary sources of power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the difference between power and authority in an organization? - eXtension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Power and authority are separate but related concepts. A manager in an organization has authority if he or she has the right to direct the activities of others and expect them to respond with appropriate actions to attain organizational purposes. A uthority most often comes from the duties and responsibilities delegated to a position holder in a bureaucratic structure.

# data[].attributes.body
After watching "The Humor of W. Edwards Deming" video, it is hard to believe Deming was not a stand-up comedian. But, as he says, "our goal should be to have fun, so it's fun to envision him as a comedian."

# data[].attributes.body
Enterprise Rent-A-Car case study helped with learning steps companies take to cultivate diversity in its employees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction - Recruitment and selection at Enterprise Rent-A-Car - Enterprise Rent-A-Car | Enterprise Rent-A-Car case studies, videos, social media and information | Business Case Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The car rental market is increasingly competitive. Enterprise continues to expand its range of services to meet customers' needs. In addition to business rentals at airport and city locations, it also provides replacement cars for accident repairs, courtesy cars for garages and short-term holiday rentals for breaks or special occasions.

# data[].attributes.body
Toyota's article was useful by showing how the company deals with quality control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Toyota has announced a global recall of 6.5 million cars to fix power window switches that can short circuit and catch fire.

The driver's side switches on some models have been found to malfunction if they did not receive enough grease during the manufacturing process, Toyota said.

In some cases, the lack of grease allows debris to accumulate at the electrical contact points, causing the switch to short circuit, overheat and melt. The automaker said it had received 11 reports of burnt door trim, and one report from the U.S. of a customer who suffered a burn on their hand.

The recall includes 2.7 million cars in North America, 1.2 million in Europe and 600,000 in Japan.

The affected cars were produced between 2005 and 2010, and include Toyota's Yaris, Corolla, Matrix, Camry, RAV4, Highlander, Tundra, and Sequoia models, among others. Scion xB and Scion xD models are also included in the recall.

Toyota dealers will inspect the switch and apply heat-resistant grease in order to fix the problem. An internal circuit board may also need to be replaced.

Toyota said it is not aware of any crashes caused by the problem.

Volkswagen in crisis: Complete coverage

Related: What recalls really say about car safety

Airbag maker Takata announces largest auto recall ever

CNNMoney (New Delhi) First published October 21, 2015: 4:18 AM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Toyota issues global recall of 6.5 million cars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The driver's side switches on some models have been found to malfunction if they did not receive enough grease during the manufacturing process, Toyota said. In some cases, the lack of grease allows debris to accumulate at the electrical contact points, causing the switch to short circuit, overheat and melt.