Saturday, January 18, 2014

Find the Coaching in Criticism

http://hbr.org/2014/01/find-the-coaching-in-criticism/ar/1
by Sheila Heen and Douglas Stone


Feedback is crucial. That’s obvious: It improves performance, develops talent, aligns expectations, solves problems, guides promotion and pay, and boosts the bottom line.
But it’s equally obvious that in many organizations, feedback doesn’t work. A glance at the stats tells the story: Only 36% of managers complete appraisals thoroughly and on time. In one recent survey, 55% of employees said their most recent performance review had been unfair or inaccurate, and one in four said they dread such evaluations more than anything else in their working lives. When senior HR executives were asked about their biggest performance management challenge, 63% cited managers’ inability or unwillingness to have difficult feedback discussions. Coaching and mentoring? Uneven at best.
Most companies try to address these problems by training leaders to give feedback more effectively and more often. That’s fine as far as it goes; everyone benefits when managers are better communicators. But improving the skills of the feedback giver won’t accomplish much if the receiver isn’t able to absorb what is said. It is the receiver who controls whether feedback is let in or kept out, who has to make sense of what he or she is hearing, and who decides whether or not to change. People need to stop treating feedback only as something that must be pushed and instead improve their ability to pull.
For the past 20 years we’ve coached executives on difficult conversations, and we’ve found that almost everyone, from new hires to C-suite veterans, struggles with receiving feedback. A critical performance review, a well-intended suggestion, or an oblique comment that may or may not even be feedback (“Well, your presentation was certainly interesting”) can spark an emotional reaction, inject tension into the relationship, and bring communication to a halt. But there’s good news, too: The skills needed to receive feedback well are distinct and learnable. They include being able to identify and manage the emotions triggered by the feedback and extract value from criticism even when it’s poorly delivered.
Why Feedback Doesn’t Register
What makes receiving feedback so hard? The process strikes at the tension between two core human needs—the need to learn and grow, and the need to be accepted just the way you are. As a result, even a seemingly benign suggestion can leave you feeling angry, anxious, badly treated, or profoundly threatened. A hedge such as “Don’t take this personally” does nothing to soften the blow.
Getting better at receiving feedback starts with understanding and managing those feelings. You might think there are a thousand ways in which feedback can push your buttons, but in fact there are only three.
Truth triggers are set off by the content of the feedback. When assessments or advice seem off base, unhelpful, or simply untrue, you feel indignant, wronged, and exasperated.
Relationship triggers are tripped by the person providing the feedback. Exchanges are often colored by what you believe about the giver (He’s got no credibility on this topic!) and how you feel about your previous interactions (After all I’ve done for you, I get this petty criticism?). So you might reject coaching that you would accept on its merits if it came from someone else.
Identity triggers are all about your relationship with yourself. Whether the feedback is right or wrong, wise or witless, it can be devastating if it causes your sense of who you are to come undone. In such moments you’ll struggle with feeling overwhelmed, defensive, or off balance.
All these responses are natural and reasonable; in some cases they are unavoidable. The solution isn’t to pretend you don’t have them. It’s to recognize what’s happening and learn how to derive benefit from feedback even when it sets off one or more of your triggers.
Six Steps to Becoming a Better Receiver
Taking feedback well is a process of sorting and filtering. You need to understand the other person’s point of view, try on ideas that may at first seem a poor fit, and experiment with different ways of doing things. You also need to discard or shelve critiques that are genuinely misdirected or are not helpful right away. But it’s nearly impossible to do any of those things from inside a triggered response. Instead of ushering you into a nuanced conversation that will help you learn, your triggers prime you to reject, counterattack, or withdraw.
The six steps below will keep you from throwing valuable feedback onto the discard pile or—just as damaging—accepting and acting on comments that you would be better off disregarding. They are presented as advice to the receiver. But, of course, understanding the challenges of receiving feedback helps the giver to be more effective too.
1. Know your tendenciesYou’ve been getting feedback all your life, so there are no doubt patterns in how you respond. Do you defend yourself on the facts (“This is plain wrong”), argue about the method of delivery (“You’re really doing this by e-mail?”), or strike back (“You, of all people?”)? Do you smile on the outside but seethe on the inside? Do you get teary or filled with righteous indignation? And what role does the passage of time play? Do you tend to reject feedback in the moment and then step back and consider it over time? Do you accept it all immediately but later decide it’s not valid? Do you agree with it intellectually but have trouble changing your behavior?
When Michael, an advertising executive, hears his boss make an offhand joke about his lack of professionalism, it hits him like a sledgehammer. “I’m flooded with shame,” he told us, “and all my failings rush to mind, as if I’m Googling ‘things wrong with me’ and getting 1.2 million hits, with sponsored ads from my father and my ex. In this state it’s hard to see the feedback at ‘actual size.’” But now that Michael understands his standard operating procedure, he’s able to make better choices about where to go from there: “I can reassure myself that I’m exaggerating, and usually after I sleep on it, I’m in a better place to figure out whether there’s something I can learn.”
2. Disentangle the “what” from the “who”If the feedback is on target and the advice is wise, it shouldn’t matter who delivers it. But it does. When a relationship trigger is activated, entwining the content of comments with your feelings about the giver (or about how, when, or where she delivered the comments), learning is short-circuited. To keep that from happening, you have to work to separate the message from the messenger and then consider both.
Janet, a chemist and a team leader at a pharmaceutical company, received glowing comments from her peers and superiors during her 360-degree review but was surprised by the negative feedback she got from her direct reports. She immediately concluded that the problem was theirs: “I have high standards, and some of them can’t handle that,” she remembers thinking. “They aren’t used to someone holding their feet to the fire.” In this way, she changed the subject from her management style to her subordinates’ competence, preventing her from learning something important about the impact she had on others.
Eventually the penny dropped, Janet says. “I came to see that whether it was their performance problem or my leadership problem, those were not mutually exclusive issues, and both were worth solving.” She was able to disentangle the issues and talk to her team about both. Wisely, she began the conversation with their feedback to her, asking, “What am I doing that’s making things tough? What would improve the situation?”
3. Sort toward coachingSome feedback is evaluative (“Your rating is a 4”); some is coaching (“Here’s how you can improve”). Everyone needs both. Evaluations tell you where you stand, what to expect, and what is expected of you. Coaching allows you to learn and improve and helps you play at a higher level.
It’s not always easy to distinguish one from the other. When a board member phoned James to suggest that he start the next quarter’s CFO presentation with analyst predictions rather than internal projections, was that intended as a helpful suggestion, or was it a veiled criticism of his usual approach? When in doubt, people tend to assume the worst and to put even well-intentioned coaching into the evaluation bin. Feeling judged is likely to set off your identity triggers, and the resulting anxiety can drown out the opportunity to learn. So whenever possible, sort toward coaching. Work to hear feedback as potentially valuable advice from a fresh perspective rather than as an indictment of how you’ve done things in the past. When James took that approach, “the suggestion became less emotionally loaded,” he says. “I decided to hear it as simply an indication of how that board member might more easily digest quarterly information.”
4. Unpack the feedbackOften it’s not immediately clear whether feedback is valid and useful. So before you accept or reject it, do some analysis to better understand it.
Here’s a hypothetical example. Kara, who’s in sales, is told by Johann, an experienced colleague, that she needs to “be more assertive.” Her reaction might be to reject his advice (“I think I’m pretty assertive already”). Or she might acquiesce (“I really do need to step it up”). But before she decides what to do, she needs to understand what he really means. Does he think she should speak up more often, or just with greater conviction? Should she smile more, or less? Have the confidence to admit she doesn’t know something, or the confidence to pretend she does?
Even the simple advice to “be more assertive” comes from a complex set of observations and judgments that Johann has made while watching Kara in meetings and with customers. Kara needs to dig into the general suggestion and find out what in particular prompted it. What did Johann see her do or fail to do? What did he expect, and what is he worried about? In other words, where is the feedback coming from?
Kara also needs to know where the feedback is going—exactly what Johann wants her to do differently and why. After a clarifying discussion, she might agree that she is less assertive than others on the sales floor but disagree with the idea that she should change. If all her sales heroes are quiet, humble, and deeply curious about customers’ needs, Kara’s view of what it means to be good at sales might look and sound very different from Johann’s Glengarry Glen Ross ideal.
When you set aside snap judgments and take time to explore where feedback is coming from and where it’s going, you can enter into a rich, informative conversation about perceived best practices—whether you decide to take the advice or not.
5. Ask for just one thingFeedback is less likely to set off your emotional triggers if you request it and direct it. So don’t wait until your annual performance review. Find opportunities to get bite-size pieces of coaching from a variety of people throughout the year. Don’t invite criticism with a big, unfocused question like “Do you have any feedback for me?” Make the process more manageable by asking a colleague, a boss, or a direct report, “What’s one thing you see me doing (or failing to do) that holds me back?” That person may name the first behavior that comes to mind or the most important one on his or her list. Either way, you’ll get concrete information and can tease out more specifics at your own pace.
Roberto, a fund manager at a financial services firm, found his 360-degree review process overwhelming and confusing. “Eighteen pages of charts and graphs and no ability to have follow-up conversations to clarify the feedback was frustrating,” he says, adding that it also left him feeling awkward around his colleagues.
Now Roberto taps two or three people each quarter to ask for one thing he might work on. “They don’t offer the same things, but over time I hear themes, and that gives me a good sense of where my growth edge lies,” he says. “And I have really good conversations—with my boss, with my team, even with peers where there’s some friction in the relationship. They’re happy to tell me one thing to change, and often they’re right. It does help us work more smoothly together.”
Research has shown that those who explicitly seek critical feedback (that is, who are not just fishing for praise) tend to get higher performance ratings. Why? Mainly, we think, because someone who’s asking for coaching is more likely to take what is said to heart and genuinely improve. But also because when you ask for feedback, you not only find out how others see you, you also influencehow they see you. Soliciting constructive criticism communicates humility, respect, passion for excellence, and confidence, all in one go.
6. Engage in small experimentsAfter you’ve worked to solicit and understand feedback, it may still be hard to discern which bits of advice will help you and which ones won’t. We suggest designing small experiments to find out. Even though you may doubt that a suggestion will be useful, if the downside risk is small and the upside potential is large, it’s worth a try. James, the CFO we discussed earlier, decided to take the board member’s advice for the next presentation and see what happened. Some directors were pleased with the change, but the shift in format prompted others to offer suggestions of their own. Today James reverse-engineers his presentations to meet board members’ current top-of-mind concerns. He sends out an e-mail a week beforehand asking for any burning questions, and either front-loads his talk with answers to them or signals at the start that he will get to them later on. “It’s a little more challenging to prepare for but actually much easier to give,” he says. “I spend less time fielding unexpected questions, which was the hardest part of the job.”
That’s an example worth following. When someone gives you advice, test it out. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, you can try again, tweak your approach, or decide to end the experiment.
Criticism is never easy to take. Even when you know that it’s essential to your development and you trust that the person delivering it wants you to succeed, it can activate psychological triggers. You might feel misjudged, ill-used, and sometimes threatened to your very core.
Your growth depends on your ability to pull value from criticism in spite of your natural responses and on your willingness to seek out even more advice and coaching from bosses, peers, and subordinates. They may be good or bad at providing it, or they may have little time for it—but you are the most important factor in your own development. If you’re determined to learn from whatever feedback you get, no one can stop you.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

6 retirement myths you need to ignore

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101268639
| Strategic Content & News Partnerships, Segment Producer

Ever find yourself around the watercooler discussing with co-workers how your 401(k) is performing—likely leading to the increasingly popular "I'll never be able to retire" discussion? It's becoming a bit of a modern-day lament, begging the question: Why do Americans have this doom-and-gloom attitude about their golden years' financial situation?

Academic, institutional and media reports tend to serve up workers with warnings—often wrapping up with a "save now and save more" silver lining. It doesn't seem to be inspiring the masses. According to a Wells Fargo study, 37 percent of Americans expect to work until they are too sick to work or die.

Given the current state of America's retirement, it's worth taking a look at how we have arrived at this point--and, in particular, the retirement myths that have persisted for decades but aren't doing current savers as much good as they (and you) probably think. We asked retirement experts to weigh in.
Let's start with the biggest retirement myth of all....
Getty Images
Myth # 1: The 401(k) was created to boost your retirement dollars.
Not really. You might not have given it a second thought as to why you have a 401(k), the retirement savings standard, but the truth is, it happened by chance—not by some deliberate congressional plan.

It all started with the Revenue Act of 1978, spearheaded by Rep. Al Ullman, D-Ore., a staunch believer in tax cuts. In the 184-page bill was a rather simple and short provision called 401(k). It was essentially buried in the report and overlooked by nearly everyone. That is, until a Pennsylvania benefits consultant named Ted Benna noticed that the provision—established for such things as deferred-stock bonus plans—could be applied to joint tax-differed employee and company accounts. By 1982 companies such as Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, J.C. Penney and Hughes Aircraft Company were using 401(k) plans.

The kicker is that Benna has been critical of 401(k)s over the years, implying that he helped create a monster. He envisioned the plans to be simple plans on par with pensions, but more recently Benna has said he would "blow up the system" and start over again with something new.
Getty Images
Myth # 2: You need 80 percent of your current income level in retirement.
The idea that you need 80 percent of your current salary in retirement might be wildly exaggerated. This "rule of thumb" is taken to task in a new report by David Blanchett, Morningstar's head of retirement research: "When we modeled actual spending patterns over a couple's life expectancy ... the data shows that many retirees may need approximately 20 percent less in savings."

The report concluded that while the 80 percent rule is a decent number, the actual replacement goal varies depending on pre- and post-retirement lifestyles. Which means you may have more money than you think to invest today in additional (and critical) elder needs, including ... (cue the next retirement myth, please)
Getty Images
Myth # 3: You're too young to start paying for long-term care.
Long-term care could be the next major retirement crisis in America. The Department of Health and Human Services expects that some 70 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will need it at some point. Currently, only about 8 million Americans have long-term care coverage.

The topic has been getting more attention over the last few years as rates have been skyrocketing. The reason is that insurers didn't count on the fact that so few people would drop their coverage—about 1 percent—and that care costs would rise so much. It's forced many insurers to get out of the game. For policyholders, rates are rapidly rising an average of 40 percent.

The best move to make is to grab a long-term care policy while you are still working. "If you want long-term care insurance to pay some of the cost, you'll need to health qualify, and that starts to get tricky after age 65," said Jesse Slome, executive director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance.
When is the best age to start putting your dollars in these policies? "The sweet spot is mid–50s to mid–60s," Slome said.
Getty Images
Myth # 4: Don't ever touch your principal.
The 4 percenters—those who tout the idea that you never withdraw more than that from your portfolio annually—might be too dogmatic in their belief. The rule is meant to establish a withdrawal rate that pulls out dollars earned from interest and investment gains, allowing your principal to remain intact. However, touching your principal is not out of the question.

"It really is okay to spend your capital. That's what it is there for," said Dr. Tony Webb, senior research economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

Not touching your capital really applies to wealthy individuals who generate high returns and want to pass their capital onto heirs. For those individuals with $150,000 to $1 million in retirement savings, Webb said they should consider using some of the principal to supplement their income.
The myth and mantra of "Never touch it" starts in a worker's retirement-saving days. According to Webb, many individuals carry over that mentality into retirement and are afraid to touch their nest egg. "The idea is to spend down in retirement; that's why you save. Saving is not a goal in itself."
Anthony Bradshaw | Getty Images
Myth # 5: You can bank on your annuity.
Annuities have always been considered an option for extra retirement savings after maxing out your 401(k), IRAs and making your pension contributions. There is a perception that annuities are a source of guaranteed income. Well, think again: They aren't. According to Mercer Bullard, a law professor at the University of Mississippi and former assistant chief counsel in the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Investment Management, an annuity "won't be there if the insurance company fails and the resolution of that failure does not include full coverage of annuity payouts."

Bullard said that as regulators continue to allow insurance companies to take on more risk, the risk of your annuity taking a bath is increasing. The International Monetary Fund warned in its Global Financial Stability report earlier this year that life insurers were amassing positions in risky investments that could threaten their solvency—risky bets they were taking to make up for a shortfall in future obligations.
Myth # 6: Retirement shortfall warning bells are waking up Americans.
Studies and reports regarding doomsday scenarios for Americans in retirement abound, most warning that we are not saving enough and need to make up for lost time. According to the Plan Sponsor Council of America, the country as a whole saved more in their 401(k)s last year—6.8 percent of their salary vs. 6.4 percent in 2011. Yet according to Wells Fargo, only 52 percent of Americans are confident they will have enough saved to retire.

More and more workers are aware of the grim outlook when it comes to actually attaining the "American retirement dream" of golfing in Florida and finally taking those once-in-a-lifetime trips abroad. So how come more Americans are not stepping up their game?

For one, the country is still emerging from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. But there is a psychological factor that plays a big part in retirement-saving complacency.

"The present feels much more real and important than projecting a potential problem in an uncertain future." said Dr. Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Research Center. The repeated phrase of "not saving enough" has little effect, because it does not translate into something that has been experienced, Rutledge said.
Take the antismoking campaign that began in the early '80s. The ads and commercial spots had little effect. It wasn't until smoking-related deaths became more prevalent that folks began to take action.

There is also a habit-changing component to saving. "Change is hard. Saving money, when you haven't been saving means making a change," Rutledge said. Saving more requires you to break a habit, which is an upset to your normal flow, and making even small changes—like upping your contributions by a small percentage—can be a challenge for some.

Yet it's not a myth that if you make little changes, the rewards could end up being great. Changes often lead to positive results and reinforcement. "In behavior change, small changes create small victories that lead to larger and more frequent changes," Rutledge said.
—By Anthony Volastro, Segment Producer, CNBC

Lima Cara Mengomunikasikan Positioning

http://the-marketeers.com/archives/lima-cara-mengkomunikasikan-positioning.html#.UrCrxNIW0Xk
 Sigit Kurniawan



Pada tulisan "Cara Bangun Positioning Merek yang Kuat" dijelaskan empat hal terkait dengan cara membangun positioning yang kuat, yakni customer, company, competitor, dan change. Tulisan berikut adalah lima cara bagaimana mengkomunikasikan positioning itu agar sampai dan mudah dipahami oleh konsumen.

1. Be Creative
Kreativitas dalam mendesain positioning mutlak diperlukan. Alasannya, desain positioning bukan standar-standar saja dan tidak memiliki daya tarik. Kreativitas ini diperlukan untuk merebut perhatian konsumen. Harapannya, positioning yang kreatif ini dengan gampang tertanam di benak para pelanggannya secara positif.

2. Simplicity
Agar gampang dipahami dan diterima oleh pelanggan, positioning harus bisa disampaikan sesederhana mungkin. Dengan penyampaian yang sederhana, pelanggan tidak usah berpikir keras untuk memahaminya.

3. Flexible
Positioning yang baik harus dinamis. Positioning ini harus dikontekstualkan dengan tren perubahan yang ada, baik tren pasar maupun tren perilaku pelannggan. Sebab itu, repositioning secara kontinu itu diperlukan.

4. Own, Dominate, Protect
Positioning yang kuat harus tersusun dari kata-kata pilihan yang ampuh merebut atensi pelanggan. Positioning juga sebisanya mendominasi kategori yang akan dimasuki. Secara kontinu, posisi dominan tersebut dipertahankan dari positioning pesaing/

5. Use Their Language
Bahasa sangat menentukan dalam penyampaian positioning. Gunakan komunikasi dengan bahasa yang digunakan oleh target pasar agar mudah dipahami dan membangun kedekatan dengan pengalaman mereka.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

When talking with patients, sometimes we skip steps

ON COMMUNICATIONS
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/11/talking-patients-skip-steps.html


“Ms. M,” the resident says, “I saw in your chart that the last time you had surgery you had a pulmonary embolism.” She nods with recognition: “I felt like I couldn’t breathe. It was really scary.” Then: “I sure don’t want that again.” The resident lifts up the covers and sees that the patient’s calves don compression boots. “Make sure you keep the boots on,” he says, pointing.
What do boots have to do with breathing? The full story of what the resident meant was this: a pulmonary embolism, or blockage of a lung artery, is most commonly caused by a blood clot formed in the leg that breaks off and travels up to the lungs. Wearing compression boots increases blood flow in the calves, helping to prevent those clots.
Perhaps Ms. M. was aware of that. But there was a mental leap involved in that conversation. By bypassing the more thorough explanation and instead jumping from the topic of lungs to legs, the resident made an implicit assumption that the patient was following his train of thought.
It’s just one example of a more widespread lapse in communication with patients: sometimes, we skip steps. We assume understanding of intervening explanations that may be missing from the words we actually say aloud.
In some ways, medical training is like learning to speak a foreign language. We spend our first two years of medical school in classrooms, trying to absorb terminology and draw conceptual connections as quickly and as comprehensively as possible. Then in our third year, we enter the hospitals and actually get to speak it. On a daily basis, we converse with words we hadn’t known two years ago and link them in ways that were not intuitively obvious. As we use that language more and more, we get better with it. The more fluent we get, however, the more terse we can become too.
I worked with one doctor who explained that style in front of patients as “talking shop.” We do it frequently on rounds. We ask one another questions and answer them with relevant physical exam findings, lab values, and imaging results – often without explaining how those findings help answer the question, as it’s taken for granted we know what they imply. She’s complaining of post-op abdominal pain, I might say, and my chief resident asks could she have an abscess? And I mention her high white cell count (implying she might). Are we worried about cholangitis? asks the attending, and I state his liver function tests within the normal range (implying it’s less likely).
It’s reflected in our questioning at the bedside, too. A man comes to the emergency room with back pain, and we might ask about urinary incontinence. A woman presents with loss of menstrual periods, and we might ask about changes in vision. To the untrained eye, some (or much) of what we ask might seem unrelated. I remember a patient presenting with abdominal pain once tried to redirect me when I asked about back pain, thinking my question was a misunderstanding: “no, no — it’s my stomach that’s hurting!”
I understand the temptation; skipping words saves times. Extra explanations may be redundant among certain crowds. And there’s something satisfying about the universal nature of the medical language, such that even if you meet healthcare workers whom you’ve never met before, you can launch into shop talk and appreciate that they’ll get it. There’s satisfaction in the fact that the same concepts will trigger similar understanding, with similar follow-up thoughts, questions, and concerns.
The glitch, however, occurs when we take those mental frameworks and communicate them to patients with similar scaffolding. We forget who speaks what.
The problem is that less than complete explanations translate to less that complete understanding — which translates to less than complete ability to follow recommendations. I’m less likely to take a daily walk, wear uncomfortable boots around my calves, or exhale into my incentive spirometer multiple times a day if I don’t know why I should. But I’m much more likely to do those things if I can connect them to the last time I was post-op and came down with trouble breathing. I’m less likely to continue my medications at home if I cannot connect them with the consequences of not taking them.
Moreover, if we don’t complete our explanations, patients may fill in the gaps themselves in ways that might not be accurate. It’s certainly not their fault. It’s human nature. Our brains try to make sense of the information we gather, accumulating bits and pieces and trying to form a coherent story out of them. Once I launched into questions about family history — including family history of cancer — and the patient, relating that with the questions I had just asked her symptoms, suddenly looked stricken: “what I have isn’t considered cancer, is it?” I had left a break in the transition, and she had filled it in with a more malignant scenario.
Granted, there’s a range of complexity involved in medical lingo, along with widely varying levels of health literacy, and the goal should not in any way resemble condescension to patients. However, we also should not presume a grasp of medical topics that require multistep reasoning. Some connections only seem intuitive because we’ve seen and said them time and time again, but are actually quite complex — just as they were to us — when heard for the first them. It’s possible to strike a balance; I’ve seen a handful of wonderful doctors, true models for excellent communication, who manage to tailor their explanations so that all their patients leave the doctor’s visit neither insulted nor confused.
I’d rather err on the side of clearer explanations. I’d rather err away from potential unexplained gaps and unanswered questions. If patients do not follow up, I hope we don’t automatically wonder where they went wrong. I hope we can instead reflect carefully on what we said — or, more likely, what we did not say.
Ilana Yurkiewicz is a medical student who blogs at Unofficial Prognosis.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Simplicity Is Key to Both Managing People and Building Products

http://hbr.org/tip/2013/12/06/simplicity-is-key-to-both-managing-people-and-building-products

The technology industry was built on amazing products, but many principles of product development correlate to smart management principles. Successful product managers know that customers respond best to simplicity, when the only features available are ones they want. Otherwise, complexity will creep in and cloud your offering. For example, between 1984 and 2003, Microsoft Word went from 40 features to more than 1,500—and many overwhelmed users turned to simpler alternatives. Simplicity is also a feature of great management. Employees in flat organizations are empowered to gather insights and pursue ideas, but they’re also overwhelmed by choices: how to prioritize their days, whether to go to a particular meeting, which emails to read. To be a superior manager, simplify. Draw a clear mission for your team, articulate group goals, and get out of the way to enable your people to make day-to-day decisions.

Diplomasi Makan Siang Jokowi, "Menang Tanpa Ngasorake"

ON HOW TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE ---
http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2013/12/05/1607234/Diplomasi.Makan.Siang.Jokowi.Menang.Tanpa.Ngasaroke.
Oleh Robert Adhi KSP


Gubernur DKI Jakarta Joko Widodo menggunakan diplomasi makan siang bersama untuk menyelesaikan berbagai persoalan. Dalam diplomasi makan siang bersama, Jokowi mempraktikkan filosofi Jawa, "menang tanpa ngasorake" (menang tanpa perlu mengalahkan dan mempermalukan). | KOMPAS/WISNU WIDIANTORO


ADA yang menarik dari gaya kepemimpinan Gubernur DKI Jakarta Joko Widodo. Gubernur kelahiran Solo yang akrab dengan panggilan Jokowi ini mengedepankan jalan musyawarah untuk menyelesaikan berbagai persoalan yang dihadapi Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta.
Jokowi menyelesaikan banyak persoalan dengan mengajak warga duduk bersama sambil menikmati makan siang. Cara ini belum pernah dilakukan para pemimpin Jakarta sebelumnya.
Salah satu contoh diplomasi makan siang yang berakhir dengan baik adalah ketika orang nomor satu di DKI Jakarta ini mengajak makan bareng warga Petukangan Selatan, Kecamatan Pesanggrahan, Jakarta Selatan. Setelah itu, sengketa panjang terkait dengan ganti rugi lahan untuk proyek Jakarta Outer Ring Road West 2 (JORR W2) berakhir happy ending. (Kompas, 3 Desember 2013).
Padahal, sejak 2010, warga menolak nilai ganti rugi Rp 3,5 juta-Rp 8 juta per meter persegi yang ditetapkan pemerintah. Setelah warga diajak makan siang bersama Jokowi, mereka merasa diwongke atau dimanusiakan pemimpinnya. Nilai ganti rugi diberikan tanpa perubahan apa pun. Rakyat bahagia, pemimpin senang. JORR W2 pun akhirnya dapat dikerjakan.
Jokowi juga pernah mengundang warga di sekitar Waduk Pluit dan Waduk Ria Rio serta pengusaha pemotongan unggas. Jokowi paham, berbagai persoalan tidak akan dapat diselesaikan bila tak ada komunikasi intens antara pemimpin dan rakyatnya.
Belum lama ini Jokowi bersama wakilnya, Basuki T Purnama, menggelar makan siang bersama dengan DPRD DKI Jakarta di rumah dinas Gubernur DKI. Ketua DPRD DKI Jakarta Ferrial Sofyan menyambut baik ajakan Gubernur Jokowi.
Diplomasi makan siang ini merupakan bentuk komunikasi politik yang bagus antara eksekutif dan legislatif. Sebelumnya banyak anggota DPRD DKI berkomentar melalui media. Pertemuan yang direncanakan digelar dua bulan sekali itu akan mendekatkan komunikasi Gubernur DKI dan jajarannya dengan DPRD DKI Jakarta. Yang pasti, hal itu akan dapat menghindari kesalahpahaman.
Dalam falsafah Jawa, ada peribahasa "nglurug tanpa bala, menang tanpa ngasorake", yang artinya "menyerbu tanpa perlu mengerahkan pasukan, menang tanpa mempermalukan".
Jokowi percaya, ia dapat menyelesaikan persoalan tanpa melalui cara-cara kekerasan. Ia mengedepankan sikap merendahkan hati tanpa perlu mempermalukan. Kalau kita bandingkan dengan cara-cara rezim sebelumnya, pendekatan Jokowi kali ini lebih manusiawi.
Pada prinsipnya, orang Jawa memiliki sikap andhap asor (rendah hati) dan tidak suka mempermalukan orang lain. Dalam setiap persoalan, diupayakan agar kita mencapai keinginan tanpa harus membuat orang lain merasa dikuasai atau dikalahkan.
Jokowi percaya ada sewu dalan (seribu jalan) untuk mencapai tujuan tanpa harus menempatkan orang lain sebagai lawan. Ungkapan menang tanpa ngasorake sangat tepat untuk menciptakan harmoni dalam masyarakat. Semua diarahkan untuk menghindari timbulnya konflik. Ini berkaitan erat dengan ungkapan wani ngalah luhur wekasane (berani mengalah luhur pada akhirnya).
Jokowi paham betul falsafah Jawa menang tanpa ngasorake harus dipraktikkan dalam kepemimpinannya. Dalam menyelesaikan persoalan, Jokowi tidak ingin rakyatnya merasa kalah atau dipermalukan. Bila rakyatdiwongke, dimanusiakan, persoalan lebih mudah diselesaikan. Itulah makna diplomasi makan siang yang dilakukan Jokowi.

Karyawan “Berkicau” di Jejaring Sosial, Ancaman atau Peluang?

http://www.marketing.co.id/karyawan-%E2%80%9Cberkicau%E2%80%9D-di-jejaring-sosial-ancaman-atau-peluang/



www.marketing.co.id – Twitter diblokir di Mesir gara-gara dikhawatirkan situs jejaring sosial tersebut dipergunakan para demonstran untuk menggalang dukungan. Menurut petinggi negara Mesir, Twitter dianggap ancaman bagi keamanan negara.
Tidak hanya level negara, ternyata masih banyak perusahaan di Indonesia yang merasa terancam dengan “kicauan” karyawan mereka di jejaring sosial. Apakah benar demikian? Ataukah hal ini bisa dijadikan peluang?
Jejaring sosial di Indonesia sudah merupakan bagian dari kehidupan masyarakat yang terkoneksi secara online. Bahkan Indonesia sudah menempati urutan kedua negara pengguna Facebook terbesar di dunia. Jakarta juga dinobatkan sebagai ibukota Twitter Asia.
Kenyataan ini sering kali membuat korporat ngeri, jika dikaitkan dengan keterlibatan para karyawan mereka di jejaring sosial. Sebagian korporasi malah memblokir layanan jejaring sosial dengan berbagai alasan, seperti ketidakefektifan kerja, karyawan makin malas, dan lain sebagainya. “Karyawan saya jadi tidak optimal kerja, sibuk nge-Tweet melulu…,” kata seorang kepala divisi sebuah perusahaan jasa. “Lha…, kalau mereka bocorin isu yang enggak benar tentang perusahaan, bagaimana?” kata salah satu pemilik perusahaan.
Sebenarnya tidak perlu merasa panik dan antijejaring sosial seperti itu. Jika jejaring sosial di kantor diblokir, apakah bisa menjamin karyawan tidak mengakses situs jejaring sosial melalui komputer rumah mereka, melalui mobile devices, atau online devices yang lainnya?
Alih-alih kita repot membatasi kebebasan berekspresi para karyawan melalui jejaring sosial, lebih baik kalau kita memberdayakan karyawan di jejaring sosial untuk membangun kredibilitas korporat di jejaring sosial dengan langkah-langkah sebagai berikut:
Create SocMed Blueprint
Sebuah social media blueprint dapat menjadi petunjuk pelaksanaan kebijakan perusahaan seputar aktivitas media sosial karyawannya. Dalam social media blueprint dijabarkan aksi dan reaksi korporat menanggapi semua hal berkaitan dengan jejaring sosial.
Create Employee SocMed Guidelines
Beri aturan yang jelas tentang penggunaan jejaring sosial, hal-hal yang dibolehkan dan hal-hal yang tidak diperkenankan untuk di-share. Biasanya kebijakan ini hampir sama dengan kebijakan korporat dalam berkomunikasi kepada media.
Speak with Their Language
Buatlah representasi resmi korporat di jejaring sosial sebagai media komunikasi karyawan dan perusahaan. Jika memungkinkan, libatkan para pimpinan perusahaan di dalam percakapan yang terjadi. “The Good CEOs is the one who can speak the language of the people.” Ketika banyak karyawan mereka aktif di jejaring sosial, si pemimpin juga harus ikut nimbrung ngobrol di sana, biar “nyambung”.
Create a Routine SocMed Monitoring
Tunjukkan kepada karyawan kalau korporat selalu memonitor hal yang menjadi percakapan di jejaring sosial, terutama yang mengusung bahan perbincangan seputar perusahaan. Dan kebijakan tertentu akan dilakukan terhadap pelanggaran atas socmed employee guidelines. Hal ini akan membuat karyawan lebih bijak dalam memilih kalimat dan perkataan mereka di situs jejaring sosial.
Makin erat employee engagement (offline dan online), akan berpengaruh pada meningkatnya produktivitas karyawan, motivasi karyawan, dan retensi karyawan. Sedari dini, korporat harus mampu memanfaatkan basis karyawan yang loyal sebagai salah satu kekuatan yang efektif untuk meningkatkan kredibilitas perusahaan di jejaring sosial. “Every good conversation starts with a good listening.”
Dengan rutin mendengar atau memonitor percakapan dalam jejaring sosial, hal tersebut akan memberikan kontribusi yang besar dalam pemahaman kita untuk deteksi dini mengenai permasalahan internal perusahaan yang ada. Sehingga selanjutnya, perusahaan dapat meninjau kebijakan dan menetapkan action selanjutnya untuk perkembangan perusahaan ke arah yang lebih baik.
Jadi, apakah perusahaan Anda masih menganggap “kicauan” karyawan sebagai ancaman? (Catur PW)