Author : Andrew E. Schwartz
Learning to be assertive takes time, courage and the ability to recognize the situation for what is really is.You want to get something done, and you need another's help. You can request it, you can demand it, or you can sit back and hope that it happens. The first behavior is an example of assertion, or standing up for your own rights without violating the rights of others. The second is aggression; you are standing up for your rights, but violating another's right to voluntary action. The third choice is submission, a failure to stand up for your own rights at all.Being assertive is not easy. Like any other expression of emotion, it involves risk-taking, since feelings handled inappropriately in the workplace are a well-known source of anger or conflict. But letting fear of conflict inhibit expression only increases stress and anxiety. Until appropriate expression of feelings is considered possible many people fail to learn which battles to fight. In a conscious effort to avoid confrontation, they give ground on issues of paramount importance or end up taking an aggressive stand on a trivial issue.Remember:• You control your feelings and by being assertive you can change the situation that is creating a problem.• Ask yourself what is being lost, and how difficult it will be to regain if you avoid a situation instead of confronting it.• Learn to be rational. Ask yourself: "Do I know all the facts? Am I overreacting? Am I worrying about nothing? What am I losing by letting the situation continue? Am I the cause of the conflict?• Delay causes damage! The longer you avoid meeting a situation head-on and on resolving issues, the greater the damage that can be done. Pent up resentment leads eventually to explosions at those around you, or to implosions in the form of negative self-image or tension-related physical ailments.By taking things personally, people assume the role of target in situations that are not in fact directed against them. It is safer to assume that almost all problems are professional and to respond to them that way. The minute you start taking things personally, you diminish your ability to be rational and therefore assertive. Be sure the risk of assertiveness is worth taking by determining whether or not you have something to gain. Failing to be assertive in such a situation can set a precedent for others to use or abuse you.Copyright AE Schwartz & Associates All rights reserved. For additional presentation materials and resources: ReadySetPresent and for a Free listing as a Trainer, Consultant, Speaker, Vendor/Organization: TrainingConsortiumCEO, A.E. Schwartz & Associates, Boston, MA., a comprehensive organization which offers over 40 skills based management training programs. Mr. Schwartz conducts over 150 programs annually for clients in industry, research, technology, government, Fortune 100/500 companies, and nonprofit organizations worldwide. He is often found at conferences as a key note presenter and/or facilitator. His style is fast-paced, participatory, practical, and humorous. He has authored over 65 books and products, and taught/lectured at over a dozen colleges and universities throughout the United States.
Keyword : assertiveness,effective management,inter-personal skills,assert yourself,behavior,rational,confront
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 24 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2551
Motor Vehicle Policy and Your Employee Risks
Author : Philip Lye
It is becoming more common for employers to require employees to use their personnel motor vehicles for business use. Reimbursement for business use is commonly by way of a kilometre/mileage allowance or a general motor vehicle allowance for the year.Did you know that you can be found vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of your employees driving while driving a motor vehicle for work related business?Even an innocuous journey to pick up the daily mail can be fraught with risk!I this day and age employees cannot always be relied upon to exercise discretion and common sense. It is therefore important that you take some human resource risk strategies to ensure that any risk is mitigated or at least as much as possible.Normally a business motor vehicle policy should set the boundaries of employee use such as;• Is the employee required to use their personal motor vehicle, when and under what circumstances,• Does the employee have comprehensive and replacement insurance for their and any third party damage,• How is the employee to be reimbursed,• Is the reimbursement subject to state or federal taxes,• Does the employee warrant that they hold a valid drivers license for driving a motor vehicle,• What is your company policy for an employees' loss of drivers' license. This may be due to potential substance abuse, driving under the influence of alcohol or another offence.• Does the employee loosing their license mean termination of employment as driving the motor vehicle is part of their tools of trade?• Is the employee required to advise you of any license restriction and demerit points accrued?• Do you have a company policy that states that no parking fine, infringement, traffic violation or any other impost federal, state or local will be paid by the company?By taking time to develop key human resource policies and procedures and by inducting and training your employees you can reduce the potential business and financial risk to your company.For more helpful articles visit www.biz-momentum.com
It is becoming more common for employers to require employees to use their personnel motor vehicles for business use. Reimbursement for business use is commonly by way of a kilometre/mileage allowance or a general motor vehicle allowance for the year.Did you know that you can be found vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of your employees driving while driving a motor vehicle for work related business?Even an innocuous journey to pick up the daily mail can be fraught with risk!I this day and age employees cannot always be relied upon to exercise discretion and common sense. It is therefore important that you take some human resource risk strategies to ensure that any risk is mitigated or at least as much as possible.Normally a business motor vehicle policy should set the boundaries of employee use such as;• Is the employee required to use their personal motor vehicle, when and under what circumstances,• Does the employee have comprehensive and replacement insurance for their and any third party damage,• How is the employee to be reimbursed,• Is the reimbursement subject to state or federal taxes,• Does the employee warrant that they hold a valid drivers license for driving a motor vehicle,• What is your company policy for an employees' loss of drivers' license. This may be due to potential substance abuse, driving under the influence of alcohol or another offence.• Does the employee loosing their license mean termination of employment as driving the motor vehicle is part of their tools of trade?• Is the employee required to advise you of any license restriction and demerit points accrued?• Do you have a company policy that states that no parking fine, infringement, traffic violation or any other impost federal, state or local will be paid by the company?By taking time to develop key human resource policies and procedures and by inducting and training your employees you can reduce the potential business and financial risk to your company.For more helpful articles visit www.biz-momentum.com
Subscribe to our free monthly newsletter and receive a free template job description or employee performance review.Philip Lye is the Director of Biz Momentum providing strategic human resource management to help your business grow. Philip is also a qualified accountant. Biz Momentum assist small to medium businesses. Visit http://www.biz-momentum.com for other helpful articles and to subscribe to Biz Momentum's free monthly newsletter and receive a free Employee Performance Appraisal.
Keyword : motor vehicle, vicarious liability, neglegence, employee motor vehicle
A Management Strategy
Author : Peter Hunter
I witnessed some interesting behaviour from one of our premier management schools this summer. A behaviour that I have since discovered is not uncommon.This summer I met the PA of an emminent professor at a business school.I had met her on several occassions before and knew her to be a bright chatty woman who always enjoyed passing the time of day.On this occassion when I asked her how her week was going she looked at me and I could see that she wanted to smile but the muscles in her face would not work and after a few twitches she gave up trying and looked back at the ground.I asked her what was the matter and she told me that her department was undergoing change.I asked her what that actually meant.She told me that a "Change Manager" had appeared in the department and everybody was waiting to see who got the sack.This was a woman, who is normally a capable and confident administrator, had been reduced to a nervous wreck because she perceived that an anonymous arbiter had been brought in to decide her future.This was her reaction to the presence of a "Change Manager" based on her perception that change meant people being sacked.How close was this perception to reality?I met my PA again a month later and the way that she and her colleagues had been treated made me spit.She had got over her first shock and was now extremely angry with the college authorities.30 senior PA's were now involved.It seems that the chancellor and his senior team had announced the changes then brought in a consultant to ratify them.The situation for the PA's was that they had been told that their fates would be announced in six weeks.They had no idea how many jobs would be left after six weeks but were told that nobody would be made redundant, alternative employment would be found.The perception of the PA's was that their managers had already decided how many would be let go and were only spinning it out under the guise of "Managed Change" because they wanted to pretend that the decision was part of a reasoned process and not the arbitrary wielding of a financial axe by the accountant.It was awful to watch the diabolical way a centre for excellence was treating its own staff, and still had the temerity to continue to hold itself up as an example to whom we should look for learned guidance."What thickness is the ivory on their tower that prevents them seeing the consequences of their actions?"My initial question was whether this girls perception of change was shared by others.It seems that it is.I spoke to my PA friend again last month and they were still telling her to wait while the decision was made about her future.She could not endure the stress any longer and started to look for alternative employment.As she said, she loved the job that she used to have,The authorities had through their actions caused her to lose trust in them and come to hate the job that was now causing her so much stress.She could not consider continuing to work for them even if they announced tomorrow that her job was safe because she could not continue to work for, or trust, people who had caused her so much pain.This behaviour from a respected university that is held up as a centre of management excellence is, in its personal effect on these individuals, appalling.It is interesting to note that the bosses of all the PA's affected had by this time been asked to reapply for their jobs too.The PA that I know told me that her boss has started to look for work elsewhere for the same reasons as she had.Last week I met the PA again and she told me that both she and her boss had found new jobs, still working together, at a neighbouring school.It does not have the same reputation but that is a situation that neither of them thinks will last for very long.Having spent long hours discussing how diabolical the action of the college was the PA's had come to realise that what was apparently just another example of Crass bad management was in actual fact best practice.As a centre of management excellence one of the techniques that was advocated to avoid making redundancy payments when you need to get rid of people is too make the workplace so stressful that they choose to leave.The favourite technique for doing this is to make people reapply for their own jobs.I am happy to report in this instance that the management school were well and truly stuffed.My PA, and a number of others who had all found alternative employment, accidentally neglected to tell the college that they had found alternative employment.The result was that the college, when nobody left voluntarily, were forced to announce the redundancies.
Every single person made redundant took their payment then walked straight into a new job that they had already accepted.The college still had to make redundancy payments to the people it had always intended laying off but in addition it also had the expense of recruiting new staff to fill all the other posts of the people who had left because of the shoddy way the college had treated their staff.What goes around, comes around.Score one for the good guys.Peter A Hunter
Author of "Breaking the Mould"
http://www.breakingthemould.co.uk
Keyword : management,change,strategy,
I witnessed some interesting behaviour from one of our premier management schools this summer. A behaviour that I have since discovered is not uncommon.This summer I met the PA of an emminent professor at a business school.I had met her on several occassions before and knew her to be a bright chatty woman who always enjoyed passing the time of day.On this occassion when I asked her how her week was going she looked at me and I could see that she wanted to smile but the muscles in her face would not work and after a few twitches she gave up trying and looked back at the ground.I asked her what was the matter and she told me that her department was undergoing change.I asked her what that actually meant.She told me that a "Change Manager" had appeared in the department and everybody was waiting to see who got the sack.This was a woman, who is normally a capable and confident administrator, had been reduced to a nervous wreck because she perceived that an anonymous arbiter had been brought in to decide her future.This was her reaction to the presence of a "Change Manager" based on her perception that change meant people being sacked.How close was this perception to reality?I met my PA again a month later and the way that she and her colleagues had been treated made me spit.She had got over her first shock and was now extremely angry with the college authorities.30 senior PA's were now involved.It seems that the chancellor and his senior team had announced the changes then brought in a consultant to ratify them.The situation for the PA's was that they had been told that their fates would be announced in six weeks.They had no idea how many jobs would be left after six weeks but were told that nobody would be made redundant, alternative employment would be found.The perception of the PA's was that their managers had already decided how many would be let go and were only spinning it out under the guise of "Managed Change" because they wanted to pretend that the decision was part of a reasoned process and not the arbitrary wielding of a financial axe by the accountant.It was awful to watch the diabolical way a centre for excellence was treating its own staff, and still had the temerity to continue to hold itself up as an example to whom we should look for learned guidance."What thickness is the ivory on their tower that prevents them seeing the consequences of their actions?"My initial question was whether this girls perception of change was shared by others.It seems that it is.I spoke to my PA friend again last month and they were still telling her to wait while the decision was made about her future.She could not endure the stress any longer and started to look for alternative employment.As she said, she loved the job that she used to have,The authorities had through their actions caused her to lose trust in them and come to hate the job that was now causing her so much stress.She could not consider continuing to work for them even if they announced tomorrow that her job was safe because she could not continue to work for, or trust, people who had caused her so much pain.This behaviour from a respected university that is held up as a centre of management excellence is, in its personal effect on these individuals, appalling.It is interesting to note that the bosses of all the PA's affected had by this time been asked to reapply for their jobs too.The PA that I know told me that her boss has started to look for work elsewhere for the same reasons as she had.Last week I met the PA again and she told me that both she and her boss had found new jobs, still working together, at a neighbouring school.It does not have the same reputation but that is a situation that neither of them thinks will last for very long.Having spent long hours discussing how diabolical the action of the college was the PA's had come to realise that what was apparently just another example of Crass bad management was in actual fact best practice.As a centre of management excellence one of the techniques that was advocated to avoid making redundancy payments when you need to get rid of people is too make the workplace so stressful that they choose to leave.The favourite technique for doing this is to make people reapply for their own jobs.I am happy to report in this instance that the management school were well and truly stuffed.My PA, and a number of others who had all found alternative employment, accidentally neglected to tell the college that they had found alternative employment.The result was that the college, when nobody left voluntarily, were forced to announce the redundancies.
Every single person made redundant took their payment then walked straight into a new job that they had already accepted.The college still had to make redundancy payments to the people it had always intended laying off but in addition it also had the expense of recruiting new staff to fill all the other posts of the people who had left because of the shoddy way the college had treated their staff.What goes around, comes around.Score one for the good guys.Peter A Hunter
Author of "Breaking the Mould"
http://www.breakingthemould.co.uk
Keyword : management,change,strategy,
How Can A Communications Audit Help You?
Author : Brenda Townsend Hall
Organizations communicate in two directions: internally to staff and externally to clients, customers, shareholders, stakeholders, the media. Faulty internal communications can lead to mistakes, discouraged and unhappy staff, employees leaving the company. Poor external communications can jeopardize image and sales. It really is that simple. Any overall management strategy needs a communications plan or the whole operation might fail.A communications audit analyzes an organization's practices to reveal how effective they are—throughout a whole company or in specified parts of the organization. It can pinpoint problem areas such as frequent misunderstandings, information blocks, information lacks, information duplication, misrepresentation. An audit could be part of a periodic health check but it is especially helpful at a time of change: a merger or acquisition, launch of a new product or service, entry into new markets, for example.The exact nature of the audit will depend on the type of organization and its particular needs and problems. But it will certainly aim to identify target audiences: the external audience will have different needs from an internal one. It will need to identify the key messages that need to be communicated and the channels that exist for conveying them. It will look not only at the communications that the organization makes but also how it receives them.But what might be going wrong, with external communications, say? Let me give an example here. My husband is a shareholder in a building company. Every year it produces a glossy Annual Report that it sends to shareholders. The report is extremely detailed and full of lavish photographs. It clearly costs a lot to produce and distribute. This makes my husband very angry. He doesn't want to read the full report and resents the money that is wasted on producing and sending a document that goes straight in the bin. What he would like is a leaflet summarizing the salient points about the company's performance and changes. Does the company realize that some shareholders feel this way? It is important to bear in mind that most shareholders are not able to attend shareholder meetings and may not know how to make their views known. This company has a two-way problem. The communications it sends out are wrong for some shareholders but it has not thought about a way of creating a channel for the shareholders to give their feedback. It is thus breaking a fundamental rule of effective communications: you must have feedback.Or take an internal issue. The HR department of a company gives out a detailed instruction manual to new employees. Yet many of the newly hired people seem completely lost during their first weeks. Why might this be? Well, in the first place, the employees are mostly involved in manual work. They are not used to reading chunks of written material. Most of the manuals lie unopened in their lockers. A buddy scheme of some kind would probably be a much better way of easing the new people through the first weeks.Another example comes from a small company in which everybody was under pressure to meet deadlines. The director of the company made a habit of telephoning staff for briefings at lunchtime because he knew they 'weren't busy' then. But that was the point. They were having lunch. The amount of resentment he caused by this policy of disturbing people during the precious few minutes they had to relax was enormous.Communicating is a complex process with potential pitfalls at each stage. Is the message clear? Is the medium for transmitting it appropriate? Has the recipient actually received it? If so, has it been understood? Has it had the desired effect? Does the recipient have a channel for feedback? Can the recipient understand how to provide the feedback? The old metaphor of the Chinese whisper holds true. You thought you said one thing but when you check you find that a totally different message was actually received.The audit is a systematic approach that forces an organization to look at what it is really doing as opposed to what it believes it is doing. The audit will look at the people who send and receive messages; the means of communicating—which extend beyond the obvious use of the telephone, meetings, conferences, e-mail etc. to encompass dress code, office layouts, desk-tidy policies—in order to build up a comprehensive picture of what is happening. Every aspect of communication provides another piece of the jigsaw and, once this is complete, you have the basis for an evaluation.The evaluation report will consider attitudes towards the communications (do people look forward to meetings or consider them a waste of time?); it will look at the needs of different groups (the most appropriate way to deliver training, for example) and it will provide evidence of any problems that need to be addressed.However, it is important to evaluate the audit within a relevant framework. For this reason, key people will have to clarify the purpose for the organization's existence, its cultural values and its identity. For example, the communications strategy for a budget airline will be very different from one which targets business executives. The two companies will have different purposes, values and identities. They will know exactly who uses their service and why. They will also understand the key frustrations of their customers and must ensure they can use communications to deal with those frustrations effectively.The audit is thus a valuable tool for enhancing internal motivation, loyalty and efficiency and for beefing up market position. It can be handled internally but there are also benefits from using an external consultant. Employees might feel inhibited about expressing their real view to another company member, whereas an outsider, who guarantees their anonymity, will be less of a threat.Brenda Townsend Hall is a writer and trainer in the fields of communications and cross-cultural awareness. She is an associate member of the ITAP International Alliance: http://www.itapintl.com/
Keyword : communications, audit, internal communications, external communications, strategy
Organizations communicate in two directions: internally to staff and externally to clients, customers, shareholders, stakeholders, the media. Faulty internal communications can lead to mistakes, discouraged and unhappy staff, employees leaving the company. Poor external communications can jeopardize image and sales. It really is that simple. Any overall management strategy needs a communications plan or the whole operation might fail.A communications audit analyzes an organization's practices to reveal how effective they are—throughout a whole company or in specified parts of the organization. It can pinpoint problem areas such as frequent misunderstandings, information blocks, information lacks, information duplication, misrepresentation. An audit could be part of a periodic health check but it is especially helpful at a time of change: a merger or acquisition, launch of a new product or service, entry into new markets, for example.The exact nature of the audit will depend on the type of organization and its particular needs and problems. But it will certainly aim to identify target audiences: the external audience will have different needs from an internal one. It will need to identify the key messages that need to be communicated and the channels that exist for conveying them. It will look not only at the communications that the organization makes but also how it receives them.But what might be going wrong, with external communications, say? Let me give an example here. My husband is a shareholder in a building company. Every year it produces a glossy Annual Report that it sends to shareholders. The report is extremely detailed and full of lavish photographs. It clearly costs a lot to produce and distribute. This makes my husband very angry. He doesn't want to read the full report and resents the money that is wasted on producing and sending a document that goes straight in the bin. What he would like is a leaflet summarizing the salient points about the company's performance and changes. Does the company realize that some shareholders feel this way? It is important to bear in mind that most shareholders are not able to attend shareholder meetings and may not know how to make their views known. This company has a two-way problem. The communications it sends out are wrong for some shareholders but it has not thought about a way of creating a channel for the shareholders to give their feedback. It is thus breaking a fundamental rule of effective communications: you must have feedback.Or take an internal issue. The HR department of a company gives out a detailed instruction manual to new employees. Yet many of the newly hired people seem completely lost during their first weeks. Why might this be? Well, in the first place, the employees are mostly involved in manual work. They are not used to reading chunks of written material. Most of the manuals lie unopened in their lockers. A buddy scheme of some kind would probably be a much better way of easing the new people through the first weeks.Another example comes from a small company in which everybody was under pressure to meet deadlines. The director of the company made a habit of telephoning staff for briefings at lunchtime because he knew they 'weren't busy' then. But that was the point. They were having lunch. The amount of resentment he caused by this policy of disturbing people during the precious few minutes they had to relax was enormous.Communicating is a complex process with potential pitfalls at each stage. Is the message clear? Is the medium for transmitting it appropriate? Has the recipient actually received it? If so, has it been understood? Has it had the desired effect? Does the recipient have a channel for feedback? Can the recipient understand how to provide the feedback? The old metaphor of the Chinese whisper holds true. You thought you said one thing but when you check you find that a totally different message was actually received.The audit is a systematic approach that forces an organization to look at what it is really doing as opposed to what it believes it is doing. The audit will look at the people who send and receive messages; the means of communicating—which extend beyond the obvious use of the telephone, meetings, conferences, e-mail etc. to encompass dress code, office layouts, desk-tidy policies—in order to build up a comprehensive picture of what is happening. Every aspect of communication provides another piece of the jigsaw and, once this is complete, you have the basis for an evaluation.The evaluation report will consider attitudes towards the communications (do people look forward to meetings or consider them a waste of time?); it will look at the needs of different groups (the most appropriate way to deliver training, for example) and it will provide evidence of any problems that need to be addressed.However, it is important to evaluate the audit within a relevant framework. For this reason, key people will have to clarify the purpose for the organization's existence, its cultural values and its identity. For example, the communications strategy for a budget airline will be very different from one which targets business executives. The two companies will have different purposes, values and identities. They will know exactly who uses their service and why. They will also understand the key frustrations of their customers and must ensure they can use communications to deal with those frustrations effectively.The audit is thus a valuable tool for enhancing internal motivation, loyalty and efficiency and for beefing up market position. It can be handled internally but there are also benefits from using an external consultant. Employees might feel inhibited about expressing their real view to another company member, whereas an outsider, who guarantees their anonymity, will be less of a threat.Brenda Townsend Hall is a writer and trainer in the fields of communications and cross-cultural awareness. She is an associate member of the ITAP International Alliance: http://www.itapintl.com/
Keyword : communications, audit, internal communications, external communications, strategy
Which ITIL Process Should We Implement First?
Author : Arno Esterhuizen
The following question is usually debated a lot amongst IT managers. "With which process should we start when implementing ITIL?" Everybody has their own views, but here are my takes on it.Some consultants sat that one must start with Service Level Management. Theoretically, it would be the perfect option, but how are you going to negotiate SLA's on your MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) if you are not measuring your MTTR through Incident management. This way you will get an idea of your capabilities and of what a realistic MTTR would be for your support teams. It may however be a good idea to start with a Service Catalogue, but that is only one aspect of Service Level Management and not a process.A lot of people state that one must start with Configuration management. Again, I think that it would be perfect in theory, but in practice it is a different story. How will you keep your CMDB up to date, if you do not have a mature enough Change management process to keep the data up to date? A discovery tool will help, but there is still information that may need manual updates via Change management, e.g. costs, locations, user's asset tag nr's etc. Configuration management is also one of the most difficult processes in to implement and show immediate benefits for. It is usually better to start with something easier and something that will show immediate benefit with minimum effort.The best place to start in my opinion is with Change Management. Gartner reports that 80% of infrastructure failures are caused by changes. So, if you can have ALL your changes under control as soon as possible, a lot of these failures will be prevented. That is definitely a quick win and quick wins is what you want to keep the motivation of support teams up and keep upper management committed to your project. It may be a while to realize the benefits of Service Level Management or Configuration Management.A good one would also be Incident Management, it is a fairly easy process and you should also be able to gain early benefits.When Change and Incident management are well on their ways you can start to look at the other processes, especially on the Service Support side.Oh yes and obviously you will need a Service Desk right from the start...My take on where NOT to start...Problem Management - Can't have it without Incident ManagementConfiguration Management - CMDB will be out of date in no time without Change Management.Service Level Management - Can start certain aspects, but no baseline without Incident and Change Management to negotiate SLA's with the customer.IT Service Continuity Management - Difficult and expensive, no quick wins, good to have the CMDB first... Don't get me wrong, it IS important, but not my suggested place to start.Release Management - You preferably need Change Management first.Available & Capacity management - Possible to start with, but no real quick wins and more difficult...the ITIL books really get theoretical on these processes.These are only my views and every IT department will have to look at what's best for them.Arno Esterhuizen
http://www.itilforums.com
Keyword : IT Consulting, ERP Consulting, Microsoft Business Solutions, Microsoft Great Plains,ITIL,project man
The following question is usually debated a lot amongst IT managers. "With which process should we start when implementing ITIL?" Everybody has their own views, but here are my takes on it.Some consultants sat that one must start with Service Level Management. Theoretically, it would be the perfect option, but how are you going to negotiate SLA's on your MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) if you are not measuring your MTTR through Incident management. This way you will get an idea of your capabilities and of what a realistic MTTR would be for your support teams. It may however be a good idea to start with a Service Catalogue, but that is only one aspect of Service Level Management and not a process.A lot of people state that one must start with Configuration management. Again, I think that it would be perfect in theory, but in practice it is a different story. How will you keep your CMDB up to date, if you do not have a mature enough Change management process to keep the data up to date? A discovery tool will help, but there is still information that may need manual updates via Change management, e.g. costs, locations, user's asset tag nr's etc. Configuration management is also one of the most difficult processes in to implement and show immediate benefits for. It is usually better to start with something easier and something that will show immediate benefit with minimum effort.The best place to start in my opinion is with Change Management. Gartner reports that 80% of infrastructure failures are caused by changes. So, if you can have ALL your changes under control as soon as possible, a lot of these failures will be prevented. That is definitely a quick win and quick wins is what you want to keep the motivation of support teams up and keep upper management committed to your project. It may be a while to realize the benefits of Service Level Management or Configuration Management.A good one would also be Incident Management, it is a fairly easy process and you should also be able to gain early benefits.When Change and Incident management are well on their ways you can start to look at the other processes, especially on the Service Support side.Oh yes and obviously you will need a Service Desk right from the start...My take on where NOT to start...Problem Management - Can't have it without Incident ManagementConfiguration Management - CMDB will be out of date in no time without Change Management.Service Level Management - Can start certain aspects, but no baseline without Incident and Change Management to negotiate SLA's with the customer.IT Service Continuity Management - Difficult and expensive, no quick wins, good to have the CMDB first... Don't get me wrong, it IS important, but not my suggested place to start.Release Management - You preferably need Change Management first.Available & Capacity management - Possible to start with, but no real quick wins and more difficult...the ITIL books really get theoretical on these processes.These are only my views and every IT department will have to look at what's best for them.Arno Esterhuizen
http://www.itilforums.com
Keyword : IT Consulting, ERP Consulting, Microsoft Business Solutions, Microsoft Great Plains,ITIL,project man
Management Coaching to Improve Relationships with Work Associates
Author : Stephanie Tuia
As a recent employee to your job, you are becoming familiar with the work environment and your work associates. You have met the boss on two occasions; your interview and one time when he or she demanded that you finish a client's report. Your boss's unapproachable nature makes you feel uneasy if not a bit fearful.As the boss, you don't have a clue that your workers are intimidated by you. You are basically just concerned that they do their jobs well and produce profit for the company. Your impression of your co-workers is that if they don't confront you about a problem, then everything is right on target.Work associates are people that have come together for one common purpose; work. These working relationships are more surfaced than relationships with relatives or close friends; and the levels of authority and status found in business can inhibit communications and relationships. When the boss doesn't make time to communicate with workers, employees can misinterpret actions or lack of actions as negative feedback. They can become afraid to communicate with their boss. However, with the right management coaching beneficial communication lines can be established between the manager and his or her co-workers. The following problems discuss potential management issues in the workplace and offer coaching recommendations in more detail.Workers think the best way to build strong relationships with their managers is by keeping quiet and looking the other way, even when there is a problem.Management coaching suggestion 1Although it may be the easy way out to avoid confrontation, you may never get to the bottom of a disagreement if you don't address your arguments. Continuing to look the other way will only cause you to build resentment towards the manager. You don't have to go to the extreme and boldly confront the manager. Just make sure that you have presented the issue to your manager so that he or she is aware of the problem. After you and the manager understand the issue from the other's perspective, you can come to a fair resolution. Conversely, you will have better respect for each other because you shared a concern.Some managers find opportunities to coach but they put it low on priority.Management coaching suggestion 2A manager who gives feedback a backseat will never have the chance to communicate with employees. By nature, we procrastinate because of the complexity of or fear to deal with a sticky issue. Instead, we will fill up our time with other tasks to help justify our delays. A manager may feel uncomfortable to confront, or inadequate to advise employees, but the ability to use management coaching with co-workers will produce a healthy, open communication network in the workplace.Managers are blind to their own faults while seeing imperfections of others.Management coaching suggestion 3Managers are expected to be experts in the work place. They have the authority to rectify a situation if change or improvement is needed. Yet, because they are so focused on the issues, managers may favor their judgment due to a broader knowledge or longer experience than the workers under them. This nature of self-bias is not limited to managers but to all people in general. People are naturally inclined to prefer their own judgment over those of others. They are quick to point out faults in others but fail to see the same faults in themselves. Constructive criticism is a popular, professional approach to correct employees. Yet, mutual feedback given in an objective and honest manner that doesn't attack, improves character and respect between both parties.Stephanie Tuia is an internet marketer for CMOEIf you would like to learn more about CMOE's 27 years of management coaching research and experience, please contact a Regional Manager at (888)262-2499.
Keyword : management coaching
As a recent employee to your job, you are becoming familiar with the work environment and your work associates. You have met the boss on two occasions; your interview and one time when he or she demanded that you finish a client's report. Your boss's unapproachable nature makes you feel uneasy if not a bit fearful.As the boss, you don't have a clue that your workers are intimidated by you. You are basically just concerned that they do their jobs well and produce profit for the company. Your impression of your co-workers is that if they don't confront you about a problem, then everything is right on target.Work associates are people that have come together for one common purpose; work. These working relationships are more surfaced than relationships with relatives or close friends; and the levels of authority and status found in business can inhibit communications and relationships. When the boss doesn't make time to communicate with workers, employees can misinterpret actions or lack of actions as negative feedback. They can become afraid to communicate with their boss. However, with the right management coaching beneficial communication lines can be established between the manager and his or her co-workers. The following problems discuss potential management issues in the workplace and offer coaching recommendations in more detail.Workers think the best way to build strong relationships with their managers is by keeping quiet and looking the other way, even when there is a problem.Management coaching suggestion 1Although it may be the easy way out to avoid confrontation, you may never get to the bottom of a disagreement if you don't address your arguments. Continuing to look the other way will only cause you to build resentment towards the manager. You don't have to go to the extreme and boldly confront the manager. Just make sure that you have presented the issue to your manager so that he or she is aware of the problem. After you and the manager understand the issue from the other's perspective, you can come to a fair resolution. Conversely, you will have better respect for each other because you shared a concern.Some managers find opportunities to coach but they put it low on priority.Management coaching suggestion 2A manager who gives feedback a backseat will never have the chance to communicate with employees. By nature, we procrastinate because of the complexity of or fear to deal with a sticky issue. Instead, we will fill up our time with other tasks to help justify our delays. A manager may feel uncomfortable to confront, or inadequate to advise employees, but the ability to use management coaching with co-workers will produce a healthy, open communication network in the workplace.Managers are blind to their own faults while seeing imperfections of others.Management coaching suggestion 3Managers are expected to be experts in the work place. They have the authority to rectify a situation if change or improvement is needed. Yet, because they are so focused on the issues, managers may favor their judgment due to a broader knowledge or longer experience than the workers under them. This nature of self-bias is not limited to managers but to all people in general. People are naturally inclined to prefer their own judgment over those of others. They are quick to point out faults in others but fail to see the same faults in themselves. Constructive criticism is a popular, professional approach to correct employees. Yet, mutual feedback given in an objective and honest manner that doesn't attack, improves character and respect between both parties.Stephanie Tuia is an internet marketer for CMOEIf you would like to learn more about CMOE's 27 years of management coaching research and experience, please contact a Regional Manager at (888)262-2499.
Keyword : management coaching
Top 7 Reasons New Hires Resign
Author : Rick Weaver
You spent time combing through hundreds of resumes. You selected the three best candidates and had a team of people interview them. After collecting their opinions and performing background checks and references, the employee started. One month later they quit.Unfortunately this scenarios happens far too often, costing organizations anywhere from $25,000 to an amount equal to the annual salary plus benefits of the position now vacated. Instead of working on employee development, the HR Department must shift to the task of finding a replacement.In 2004, there were 7 predominant reasons for this quick turnaround, according to a survey conducted by Amacon. Here are the reasons they found:1. The job or workplace was not as expected.2. There was a mismatch between the job and the employee.3. The employee was receiving too little feedback or coaching.4. The employee discovered too few growth opportunities.5. The employee felt devalued and unrecognized.6. The employee was stressed by overtime.7. The employee loses trust in senior leadership.Each one of these reasons is a result of false impressions on the part of the applicant and / or the employer, the corporate culture, or the candidate's personality.Oddly, the first six reasons are easily detectable and redictable with the use of online assessments such as the Step One Survey and Profiles XT. These assessments measure the applicant's integrity, reliability, work ethic, personality, job fit, culture fit, and other key factors to ensure they are a match to the job, their co-workers and supervisors, and the work environment.If the employer is honest with themselves about the true advancement opportunities (#4 above), they can compare that to the ambition and drive of the candidate. If the candidate will be overly aggressive and competitive for growth, yet promotions will be sparse, the candidate may not be the best for the position. Likewise, if the employee has high initiative entering an environment where supervisors are too busy to give individual feedback, the candidate's success is better.Of course a key element in the success of the assessments is the recruiter's ability to take an honest look at the position and it's requirements. Assessment organizations, such as Max Impact, work with employers to get an accurate, fact-based gauge of the employer's culture and the job requirements. Top performers can also be bench-marked for the best results.Assessments have been extremely helpful in reducing turnover and the subsequent costs associated with recruiting and training.If you would like to speak to an assessment professional, call 248-802-6138 or send an email to info@getmaximpact.com.Rick Weaver is an accomplished business executive with a wealth of experience in retail, market analysis, supply chain enhancement, project management, team building, and process improvement. Building on a strong retail background, Rick moved to full supply-chain involvement, working with hundreds of companies to improve sales, processes, and bottom-line results.As Rick's interaction in varied industries expanded, he became troubled as he increasingly noticed that people and companies had untapped or unfocused talent.Coupled with Rick's passion for training and development, popular style of interactive workshops and seminars, and strong desire for continuous improvement, he founded Max Impact Corporation to be singularly focused on helping individuals and organizations achieve high performance. Rick is a popular speaker at seminars, workshops, and conferences. He has spoken in 43 states, including Alaska and Hawaii, and in Canada and Puerto Rico. He is available to speak at groups of all sizes.Contact Rick at 248-802-6138 or rick@getmaximpact.com.
Keyword : turnover,new,hire,assessment,fire,retain,retention,employee,recruit,recruiting,maximpact,interview
You spent time combing through hundreds of resumes. You selected the three best candidates and had a team of people interview them. After collecting their opinions and performing background checks and references, the employee started. One month later they quit.Unfortunately this scenarios happens far too often, costing organizations anywhere from $25,000 to an amount equal to the annual salary plus benefits of the position now vacated. Instead of working on employee development, the HR Department must shift to the task of finding a replacement.In 2004, there were 7 predominant reasons for this quick turnaround, according to a survey conducted by Amacon. Here are the reasons they found:1. The job or workplace was not as expected.2. There was a mismatch between the job and the employee.3. The employee was receiving too little feedback or coaching.4. The employee discovered too few growth opportunities.5. The employee felt devalued and unrecognized.6. The employee was stressed by overtime.7. The employee loses trust in senior leadership.Each one of these reasons is a result of false impressions on the part of the applicant and / or the employer, the corporate culture, or the candidate's personality.Oddly, the first six reasons are easily detectable and redictable with the use of online assessments such as the Step One Survey and Profiles XT. These assessments measure the applicant's integrity, reliability, work ethic, personality, job fit, culture fit, and other key factors to ensure they are a match to the job, their co-workers and supervisors, and the work environment.If the employer is honest with themselves about the true advancement opportunities (#4 above), they can compare that to the ambition and drive of the candidate. If the candidate will be overly aggressive and competitive for growth, yet promotions will be sparse, the candidate may not be the best for the position. Likewise, if the employee has high initiative entering an environment where supervisors are too busy to give individual feedback, the candidate's success is better.Of course a key element in the success of the assessments is the recruiter's ability to take an honest look at the position and it's requirements. Assessment organizations, such as Max Impact, work with employers to get an accurate, fact-based gauge of the employer's culture and the job requirements. Top performers can also be bench-marked for the best results.Assessments have been extremely helpful in reducing turnover and the subsequent costs associated with recruiting and training.If you would like to speak to an assessment professional, call 248-802-6138 or send an email to info@getmaximpact.com.Rick Weaver is an accomplished business executive with a wealth of experience in retail, market analysis, supply chain enhancement, project management, team building, and process improvement. Building on a strong retail background, Rick moved to full supply-chain involvement, working with hundreds of companies to improve sales, processes, and bottom-line results.As Rick's interaction in varied industries expanded, he became troubled as he increasingly noticed that people and companies had untapped or unfocused talent.Coupled with Rick's passion for training and development, popular style of interactive workshops and seminars, and strong desire for continuous improvement, he founded Max Impact Corporation to be singularly focused on helping individuals and organizations achieve high performance. Rick is a popular speaker at seminars, workshops, and conferences. He has spoken in 43 states, including Alaska and Hawaii, and in Canada and Puerto Rico. He is available to speak at groups of all sizes.Contact Rick at 248-802-6138 or rick@getmaximpact.com.
Keyword : turnover,new,hire,assessment,fire,retain,retention,employee,recruit,recruiting,maximpact,interview
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)