Páginas

Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta HR. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta HR. Mostrar todas las entradas

domingo, 16 de junio de 2013

ROWE vs Free Range chickens? // gallinas sueltas o por resultados?

(English version below)

Estimados lectores,

Gran parte de mi experiencia industrial ha sido en ambientes ROWE (enfoque a solo resultados, por siglas en ingles) los cuales en definitiva abundan, lo que es lógico y en un momento profundizo en la critica,  pero lo principal es que la visión de corto plazo termina enfocándose en lo urgente y no en lo importante, lo cual termina por convertirse en visión de túnel curvo, finalizando por estrangular la visión de largo plazo.

También trabaje en una pequeña empresa que, vaya, aprendí Todo lo que uno no debe hacer como jefe ni como empresa, entre otras cosas, no teníamos jerarquía, nadie era jefe de nadie y a pesar de que si teníamos tareas claras, eramos 60 individuos cada quien jalando para su santo. Pero si algo bueno aprendí, es que la exigencia puede no ser sobre resultados, pero sobre la actitud.

 "ni tanto que queme al santo, ni tanto que no lo alumbre" - proverbio español

La gente reacciona mal ante cualquier extremo. En el ROWE, la gente acaba quemándose los fusibles. En un caso tuve una muerte por paro cardíaco en la oficina de un compañero. Yo termine en tres ocasiones cuando joven, con ataques de nervios, que me disparo una foliculitis aguda en una ocasión, en otra con un dolor profundo de pecho los cuales no se la deseo a nadie. A ambos se nos estaba exigiendo mas allá de nuestra capacidad humana y nos termino por afectar en la salud porque "se nos quemo el santo."  

Hay múltiples estudios por múltiples instituciones que conectan el indice de stress laboral a problemas cardiacos, obesidad, diabetes, etc. lo cual no solo disminuye la capacidad humana sino la calidad misma del trabajo. En mi caso personal, cuando empece con las afecciones, sin saberlo en aquellos momentos, en una de las temporadas, llegue a trabajar 18 horas diarias por semanas enteras para cumplir las exigencias de mis jefes. Evidentemente mi propia eficiencia se vino abajo, los nervios de cumplir a como diera lugar tomaron posesión de mi y reventé como sapo en las tres ocasiones.

En la otra empresa donde estábamos como gallinas libres, todo lo contrario, lo estresante era que a pesar de tener objetivos, no había una clara estructura de trabajo, no había procedimientos o reglamentos simples y claros a seguir, entonces, vaya, las maquinas o productos que fabricábamos salían de milagro. Yo propuse mas de 30 innovaciones tanto a procedimientos como reglamentos de trabajo durante mis primeros dos meses, pero el dueño de la empresa estaba demasiado distraído jugando golf y abriendo la oficina corporativa en el centro de la ciudad... 6 meses después de que me salí, la empresa cerro sus puertas después de 40 años de existencia. La innovación de los productos fueron los que mantuvieron la empresa a flote por tanto tiempo a pesar de no tener estructura empresarial.

Cuando me tocó a mi ser jefe de mas de 200 gentes, fui muy exigente, pero nunca despiadado. Si teníamos que entregar un pedido, trabajábamos 24 o 36 horas seguidas (bajo convenio con el sindicato), y por lo mismo descansaban 48, el resultado de tener a un cliente contento por un pequeño sacrificio.

Gente trata a gente como quiere ser tratado como gente. No quasirobots tratando de empollar robots siendo... gente. Chistoso como algunos jefes acusan de flojos a sus subordinados siendo ellos demasiado flojos para supervisar y motivar correctamente. Palabra clave> correctamente.

Yo Jamas lleve a una persona al colapso nervioso, a menos que fuera deliberadamente por un bien mayor y solo sobre la negligencia de la misma persona. La clave esta en conocer bien y a profundidad a cada uno de los colaboradores para saber si es negligencia o capacidad. Esto fue una de varias innovaciones de RH que yo implemente. Y durante 8 años de ser jefe, me funciono maravillosamente y siendo también capaz de lanzar mas 50 productos nuevos al mercado, es decir, creando una cultura de innovación interna.

¿Como saber si la gente esta sobreexplotada?:
 quiten el café y si parece que todos se murieron, si, la gente esta sobrecargada.
El exprimir a la gente buscando resultados inmediatos tipo ROWE tiene sus ventajas por supuesto, pero tiene un costo. Entre mas fuerte sea la presión, mas alto sera el costo de largo plazo. Hay que innovar en los procesos y recursos humanos para asegurar el largo plazo de las empresas. El sistema ROWE usualmente condena, mucho menos facilita la cultura de innovación, la cual es vital para la supervivencia de las empresas. Google es el maestro de balancear las dos cosas de forma simultanea. Yo lo logre, a mi escala por supuesto, pero antes de saber que Google existiera.

"lo único peor que ser ciego es tener vista pero no visión"


---------------------------------

Dear readers,

Most of my industrial experience was in ROWEs, by logic these is the most abundant environment, and I'll get to criticize in a minute, but the key aspect is that short term vision makes you focus on the urgent and not on the important, which in turn ends up creating a curved tunnel vision, that is at the end of the day, you end up strangling the log term vision.

I also worked in a small factory that, well, I learned everything you must do to screw things up as a boss and as a company. Among other things, we had no hierarchy, no one was a boss of no one and despite we did have clear tasks, we were 60 people each pulling each owns chariot. But I did learn something good, that you can as a boss demand not over results but on attitude.


 " Not too much fire to burn the monk, not to little to not shine on him either" - Spanish Proverb

I learned that people end up reacting very badly on both extremes. In ROWE people burn out their own fuses. In one occasion a coworker dropped dead by a heart attack in his office. I ended three times when younger with severe nervous attacks, one of those with severe chest pains I wish on no one. To both of us we were demanded just too much over our human capacity and ended affecting our health, "our saint was burned down".

There are plenty of studies made by very reputable institutions which connect work environment stress to heart, obesity, diabetes, etc problems. Which in turn not only affects the human capacity but the quality of the work output execution. In my personal case, when I started with my afflictions, I was working myself off 18 hours a day for a long period of time, just to please my bosses. Evidently my own work efficiency came tumbling down, nerves got hold and the best of me and I exploded like a toad on three occasions.

In the free range chicken environment, on the contrary, the stress came out of despite knowing our tasks we had no clear structure to execute, no rulebook or clear and simple procedures to follow, so the machines we produced came out miraculously. I proposed 30 innovation in procedure work rules in my first couple of months on the job, but the owner was preoccupied by his golfing techniques and opening the downtown corporate offices... 6 months after I left, the company shut down their doors for good. Product innovation was their only salvation for 40 years of existence, despite not having any work rules.

When it was my turn to be boss to over 200 people I was very demanding, but never ruthless. If we had to deliver an order to a client, from time to time with the union reps on board we had 24 to 36 hour shifts, but then we rested for 48. The small sacrifice to have a big customer account really happy.

People, please treat people like people to be treated like people. Not quasirobots trying to hatch robots being ...um, people. 
Funny how managers that accuse lazy employees is because they are usually too lazy to supervise  and motivate correctly... keyword> correctly. I never drove someone to a nervous breakdown unless they deserved that out of personal negligence and for the greater good. The key is to know each individual real good to know if its negligence or capacity. This was one innovation I brought and implemented in HR. For 8 years as a boss it worked wonders, and with this I was able to launch 50 new products to market, that is, I created our own Innovation Culture.

To exploit people in order to satisfy the ROWE objectives has its advantages, of course, but as everything, it has a cost. For the greater pressure on people the bigger it will be the cost on the long term.

We must be able to innovate the processes, procedures and human resources in order to insure the company's long term survival. The ROWE System usually condemns much less facilitates the Innovation Culture which is vital for the company's survival. Google is the master in balancing both simultaneously. I did it, at my own scale of course, but before I knew Google even existed.



viernes, 5 de abril de 2013

"Cual es la clave para una estrategia de innovación?" // "Which is the innovation strategy Key?"

Queridos lectores, la reflexión de viernes primaveral:

Hoy un cliente me pregunto: "Cual es la clave de la innovación?" obviamente me dejo con cara de What, pregunta tan lógica de hacerme y nunca me la habían hecho.

Resulta que toda investigación hecha por expertos dice que la innovación esta infestada de paradigmas.

Dicen los expertos que una de las principales barreras para la innovación son los mismos expertos, pues dicen ellos mismos que el saber demasiado justamente entorpece pues, quien sabe mucho llega a creer saberlo todo: dicen que "no hay nada nuevo bajo el sol", y es así que muestran que han perdido la capacidad de asombro.. Esos tienen respuestas preparadas a todo, usualmente negativas.
- Warren Buffett, experto en inversiones, en 1979 no invirtió en Microsoft....
- Bill Gates dijo en 1995 que el internet no servia mas que para las universidades y el ejercito....

Vaya, es importante saber y mucho, claro, pero es más importante estar abierto a las posibilidades, a intentarlo, a experimentar, no importando que haya pasado antes. Thomas A  Edison decía que ya sabia 10000 formas de como su invento no funcionaria....

Dicen que todos los métodos tradicionales, ortogonales y ortodoxos son convergentes, cuando los innovadores tienen que ser lo opuesto, divergentes, lo cual pone a mucha gente de cabeza, incluyendo expertos. Se utilizan herramientas, de análisis, síntesis, exploratorios y creativos. Todos a la vez.
- Steve Jobs jamás hizo un solo estudio de mercado, brincándose toda la métrica y ortodoxia....

En la innovación real, y disruptiva, entre mas disruptiva menos información hay. Hay innovaciones donde no hay mapa de exploración.
- Cristobal Colón sabia que habría mar, por lo que se subió a un barco...
- Edmund Hillary sabia que haría frío, pero nada mas...Entonces empacó ropita para frío...

Curioso como algunas industrias de las grandes que incluso dicen ser innovadoras cuando lo único que hacen es perfeccionar lo ya inventado... Pasitos seguros sobre terreno conocido...A veces, demasiado seguros.  Hace décadas que la industria de la aviación no innova de forma disruptiva... estoy de acuerdo que por mucho que yo quisiera subirme a un avión experimental  a mi esposa como a gran parte de la humanidad no, nada.
En la industria automotriz pasaron décadas sin innovación disruptiva, ahora parece que hay ruido con las celdas de hidrógeno, una que otra tecnología adaptada, algunas definitivamente maravillosas, pero lo ultimo realmente disruptivo y como que ya parece que se desvaneció, fueron los motores híbridos... Los eléctricos fueron inventados antes que los de gasolina, así que...
-Decía Henry Ford que si él hubiese tomado la ruta segura, solo hubiese tratado de inventar caballos mas rápidos.

Como empresarios sufrimos de dos paradigmas importantes que nos impiden innovar, una es la llamada "ceguera de taller", es decir, estamos tan enfrascados en la rutina diaria que solo le dedicamos nuestro tiempo a lo urgente y no suficiente a lo importante. Yo creo que algo muy importante para cualquier negocio es la supervivencia y el crecimiento ergo innovación.... El segundo paradigma es que siendo nuestro "bebe" lo que menos queremos es arriesgar nada, "que nadie lo toque" y "nadie sabe mas que yo"... Yo, siendo papa de gemelos de 9 se lo que es tener hijos y no querer que nada les pase. También soy empresario y fui industrial por tanto se que el paralelismo rima demasiado.

Pero no querer que tu hijo camine o corra porque no se vaya a tropezar, o no le voy a enseñar a nadar porque... blah. correr, nadar, etc. son cosas nuevas... Yo si quisiera un hijo olímpico, pero si no le enseño a nadar, eso se convierte de pocas a absolutamente nulas posibilidades de pasar... Uf, jabalina  bala, remo, caballos, arco, gimnasia... cualquiera tiene riesgos... reconozco que aunque se nadar bien, mejor los llevaré a clases...  Porque hacer lo mismo para nuestros "otros hijos" Aka, negocios?? Porqué nos empeñamos en querer hacerlo todo nosotros sin ayuda o riesgo alguno?? ...

Estos principales paradigmas tienen fondo y por mi experiencia puedo asegurar que son la razón de que según estadísticas, 70% de que las iniciativas de innovación fallan. Porque por inercia humana hay 70% de posibilidades que uno de estos paradigmas contra-intuitivos estorbe y asesine la iniciativa, mas aparte los factores de falla que ya escribí algo al respecto y seguramente me faltan, así que estense pendientes.

Por cierto que lo que le conteste fue: "La clave esta en la exploración, en el aventurarse a territorios desconocidos, a veces sin mapa pues la innovación es en ocasiones incluso Crear el mapa. Y eso espanta a muchos. La superficie de nuestro planeta ya fue completamente explorada por el humano, y aun así se siguen descubriendo animales terrestres nunca antes estudiados... La innovación esta en la capacidad de asombro, en la capacidad de saber observar, en la humildad para decir 'eso no lo había pensado' junto con 'porque no...'. Esta en la gente que cuestiona todo, en la gente que piensa y diferente aun mejor, en salirnos de la zona conocida y de confort. Y para que esto se convierta en estrategia y luego cultura tiene que ser un proceso continuo con un objetivo, una razón de ser y por supuesto un como y un con qué. Es un compromiso, pues como puedes ver en mis y muchas otras publicaciones, el No hacerlo trae consecuencias graves de supervivencia del negocio y demás. ... Y pues yo, yo siempre busco el 'Como Si..."

--------------------------------------------------

My dear Reades, here´s my spring Friday's reflection:

today one client asked me: "Which is the key to innovation?" obviously he made my face go What, logical question to make though, and never before asked.

It so happens that all the research done so far by experts say that innovation is infested with paradoxes.

The experts so say that one of the barriers for innovation is the experts themselves, because knowing too much rightly so impede innovation, and this is because most experts start to believe they know everything there is under the sun, so the lose their amazement capacity, so every question has an answer, usually negative.
-Warren Buffet investment expert did not invest in 1979's Microsoft...
-Bill Gates said in 1995 that the internet was worthless...

The point is, yes it is very important to know and learn, but it is as much important to be open to possibilities, to try, to experiment enough. Thomas Edison said that he already knew 10000 ways of how that wouldn't work, and still he tried again.

They say that most traditional orthogonal and orthodox methods are convergent, when the innovators are divergents, which put most people head over heels, including experts. Analysis, sinthesis, exploratory and creative tools are used, all at once.
-Steve Jobs not even once used a traditional market research, skipping every method and metric...

In real disruptive innovation, for more disruption, less data. There are innovations where there is simply no exploration map.
-Cristopher Columbis knew there would be sea, so he jumped on a boat...
-Edmund Hillary knew it would be chilly, so he packed his sweater...

Funny how some of the big industries say they are innovative when everything they do is perfect the well known... Safe baby steps, sometimes Too safe. Air transport has been decades since their last disruptive innovation. I do agree that, as much as I'd like to fly in an experimental vessel, my wife as well as most of humanity wouldn't like that.
Automotive industry has also been decades since their last disruption, now aparently there's healthy noise with the Hidrogen Cells, a few here and there as addoptation of other technologies, some are wonderful, dont get me wrong, but the last piece of real disruption and has since faded away was the Hibrid motors.. The electric motors are well over 100 years old, so...
- Henry Ford said that if he'd taken the safe route, he'd just tried to invent a faster horse.

As business people we suffer two paradoxes which impede innovation, one is called Shop Blindness, that is, we are so bottled up in our daily routine that we only pay attention to what is urgent and not so to what is needed and important. I do believe that something very important ofr business survival is growth, ergo innovation... The second paradox is that we take such good care of our "babies" that we don't want to ris anything, "nothing shall touch it", and "nobody knows mre than I do" ... Me being father of 9 year old twin boys I know how to desire nothing touches them.I am also an entrepreneur and businessman so I do know that which rhymes to closely together.

but to not want your child to walk or run in fear of him falling, or I will not teach him how to swim in fear of... blah, run, swim, eat are new things... I do want my boys to go to the olympic games, but if  I don't teach him how to swim or something then it becomes an absolute impossibility. Wow, javeline, rowing, wresling, horses, archery, gym... any and all have risks. ... I do know how to swim and pretty well, but I'd rather get them a good teacher... So why impair our Other child, that is, our own businesses?? Why do we stubbornly clash with our own limits without getting some help or any risks??...

These are the basic paradoxes but with some depth and I can assure you that these are the reasons most, some say 70% of strategic and innovation initiatives fail. Because by human inertia there is a 70% chance that these counterintuitive paradoxes will impair and kill the initiative, plus the failure factors by themselves, out of which I have also written some stuff about it, and very likely I'm missing some, so keep posted.

By the way,the answer I gave my client was: "The key is in the exploration, in venturing into unknown territories, sometimes without a map beacuse innovation itself is sometimes creating the map. That is scary to many. Our Earth's surface is all mapped out and we still are finding new earthbound creatures never studied before... Innovation is in the observation and amazement capacity, in being humble enough to say: 'nevery thought of that' along 'why not'... It is in the people who ask everything, and thinks different even better, in stepping out of the comfort zone. Adn for this to become a strategy, and after that a culture it has to be a continuous process with one objective, a reason of being and of course a How and With what. It is a commitment, because as you can see in my other posts, the Not doing brings dire survival consequences, aka business death... and me, I alway look for the "Where's the Yes?"....







domingo, 24 de marzo de 2013

el enorme valor de vivir el error o sobrevivir una tragedia

Una corta reflexión dominguera:

Porque si todos sabemos que las siguientes premisas son verdad:

"nadie aprende en zapato ajeno" - Proverbio

"los aciertos otorgan curriculum, los errores otorgan aprendizaje y experiencia" - Proverbio

"aciertos así como errores pasados no son garantía de aciertos o errores futuros" -Henry Ford

"todos los grandes guerreros tienen grandes cicatrices, han perdido alguna vez algo menos la vida, porque así saben a lo que sabe y vale la sangre propia" - General McArthur

"Enséñame alguien que no ha cometido algún error y yo te enseñare a alguien que no ha vivido" - proverbio

"Quien no haya creado enemigos, quemado puentes significa que no ha defendido nada en la vida" - Winston Churchill

"Nunca he fallado, solo he aprendido 10000 formas de que esto no funciona" - Thomas A Edison

"Nadie puede saber realmente cuanto valen las cosas mientras no haya perdido todo" - proverbio

"interesante como la honestidad es considerado una virtud, pero nadie quiere escuchar la verdad" - Doctor House

"soberbia es señal inequívoca de ignorancia" - Buda

"las cicatrices no arruinan la belleza ni a las personas, sino agregan rayas, medallas al tigre que traemos dentro" - proverbio hindi

Entonces ¿Porqué como sociedad seguimos con el tabú, la horrible costumbre de ostracisar a la gente que evidentemente por el conocimiento colectivo, vale tanto, justamente porque tiene la enorme experiencia y aprendizaje de haber cometido, vivido o sobrevivido errores u horrores?
La evidencia ineludible que efectivamente, como sociedad exiliamos u ostracisamos o subvaluamos o simplemente les hacemos "fuchi", yucky a esa gente tan valiosa por semejante conocimiento del cual en realidad tendríamos que estar terriblemente celosos... vaya, igual que a la gente de cierta edad... 
¿Porqué entonces es una de las primeras razones por las cuales, esas personas tan valiosas no encuentran empleo?
Mi única conclusión, tratando de encontrar algún argumento racional dentro de la irracionalidad  que tratase de defenderse versus mi pregunta dominguera es: miedo, soberbia... o simplemente vil discriminación....
Solución: reforma en su cultura de innovación para aplicación en la gente. Aprendamos del error en el cual RH entre otros, están viviendo hoy, y cambiemos lo que se tiene que cambiar, desde nuestra conciencia.

"el valor de las personas no es en nunca haber errado o caído  sino en como se levantan después" - proverbio

"Nadie que conozcas va a saber lo mismo que tu, así que aprende de todos los demás" - Bill nye 





PD: hay un libro hermoso que habla de una odisea  que me inspiro a escribir este post, lo encuentran en: http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B00BM9EKSG

domingo, 17 de marzo de 2013

Would HR hire by today's standards either Lincoln or Churchill?


My dear readers,
Due to popular demand, I have translated my own blog post into English. Please feel free to share.
Just imagine what might have been the world if Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill had not reached their Presidencies? What might have been the world without the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Steve Jobs, Walt Disney or Oprah Winfrey? What have all these historical characters in common?
Steve Jobs was exiled from his own company for “lack of leadership and vision …”
The Beatles, as well as Elvis Presley were ignored for years by the major record labels saying they were “a bunch of crazy rhythmless boys without any musical sense, zero chance of success …”
Walt Disney was fired from a newspaper “for lack of creativity …” and in their first incursions in order to raise funds to create the “amusement park”, was crossed out as “deluded”…
Oprah Winfrey, as far as I know is the richest women of the world that left the poorest district of Chicago, once was dismissed off the local newscast since she had “no television presence …”
Sir Richard Branson is the owner of one of the few airlines (one of 2 in the US) without losses, owner of the only private space agency of the world … Know that he had to leave school by dyslexia and learning problems!
Lincoln, a mostly self-taught lawyer, virtually without prior experience of public positions, becomes president of the United States almost by a miracle, abolishes slavery with no precedents, in a country divided … Today, with all the statistical methods, background, political means, etc. … any of you think that he would have come to the presidency? AND stating that it is not due to a lack of merit or talent…
By the standards of Human Resources Departments today, Lincoln would be 100% unhireable: self-taught, zero credentials, fewer certificates, almost zero political experience and much less prior military background…
Churchill on the other hand, military first, then a journalist and then many political posts, many of these serious problems, practically never managed to be re-elected, bounding from stall to stall and wrapped up in scandals, the largest being the massacre of Gallipoli in the first world war, the scandalous opposition against Gandhi and the independence of India and the support in favor of the abdication of King Edward VIII caused serious discontent and “exile” of the parliament.
By the standards of Human Resources Departments today, Churchill would be 100% unhireable pretty much for anything, much less as prime minister of all positions … hoping  never holding onto anything, noisy, contrarian, with all his prior history somewhat questionable …
Personally I thank you, thank you to all the opponents of all the great minds and personalities, because without all of you, great minds would have never found their own sense of persistence, had they not found their way, their destination to finally change the course of mankind … All the great innovations are born of the opposition, so thank you.
It is my observation that the great common factor of all the visionaries is that are terrible opposition of minds beached in the comfort zone, or founded in inertia. fears, panics, terrors, pride, and of course with a strong chance that they are almost all of human resources or recruitment areas …
In my personal experience, in my small corner of the world I have achieved and broken paradigms, displayed the talent behind the credentials and experience and got to hire those who turned out to be, in their great majority great people. Many a times without the specific experience but with great and more than enough desire, vision and talent … just what Lincoln, Churchill and all the fore mentioned did have.
So it’s not important previous experience or credentials or certificates? I am not stupid, of course these are important, but it is far from everything. Is talent measurable? If you are clear, yes it's measurable. The zeal or the desire? Certainly! But, still not by machines! RH complains that does not have the time, and that it is more efficient to machines to select the candidates only on the basis of their credentials and experience … efficient? Yes, of course.
On the other hand, there are studies of Stanford, Oxford and Harvard where they say that 80% of the time of the departments of human resources is wasted by correcting their own errors of recruitment … 80% According to Alan Weiss, a highly respected colleague said that, he would disappear all HR departments off the planet … I have not reached these radical ends with my clients, yet... But why does nobody else do anything about??? If you are still questioning if what I say may be exaggerated, just check Harvard's post here: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/02/your_job_ads_are_driving_talen.html
Answer as to why HR has allowed their own system to get broken: Fear & power. most destructive of combinations.


“Idiot is the one who repeats actions expecting different results” – Albert Einstein

And you may be wondering dear reader, what does all this have to do with innovation? Well, the innovation lies in doing new things, or old things in a different manner, and it is my belief that it is time, well overdue, there is an urgent need to make sweeping changes to the system, go, if you want to recruit and retain the best talent, that today, they are going between the fingers and neither account have been given … so seen too few in HR even strive to find it and accept that the system is broken…. I know.
Corollary to my original post: Why if we are certain that HR Would never hire the best minds on the planet, game changers, breakthrough talent, as I've shown before, Why do we have them choosing and hiring for our own companies?

Is this problem fixable? yes. Call me and we'll discuss.
just a though...