One of the most common mistakes I come across in business today is people who try to manage their remote teams using pretty much the same tactics as they use for managing their face-to-face teams.
On the face of it, managing a remote team doesn't sound like it should be that much harder than managing a face-to-face team. After all, we have a whole industry of modern technology to assist us - mobile phones, teleconferencing, videoconferencing and webcams. Yet the very fact that we feel the need to create even more sophisticated technologies such as tele-presence (where you can almost believe you're in the same room as the person you're seeing) should tell us something about how strong our desire is to feel we're in the same vicinity as the other person.
Not surprising, then, that research has found that it takes something like four times as long to communicate a message electronically as it does to communicate it face-to-face. So every time you reach for your email, be prepared to wait a little longer and work a little harder before the message is accurately received the other end. And it's not just communication effectiveness that is impaired by remote working - it also takes a bit longer for us to establish trust with someone we can't see. This is OK in long-term teams, but when quick turn-around is needed in a new team, trust is a tricky issue. Not only does it take us two weeks longer to establish trust with someone we can't see, but that trust is also more fragile - we're more likely to lose our faith in remote team members than people we see in the flesh.
It's not all doom-and-gloom though. There are things that you can do in order to manage your remote team more effectively.
Our five top tips are:
1. Use the 'information-richest' form of media available to communicate - face-to-face where possible, followed by tele-presence or video conference, then telephone. Ideally, email should only be used to convey sizeable amounts of information, specific data, or as a last resort.
2. Encourage spontaneous, informal communication between your team members. The use of tools such as Skype helps people to feel more in touch with their colleagues and makes it easier for them to reach out to each other with quick questions.
3. Make time for socialising during remote discussions. Time for small talk becomes much more important when people don't get to catch up with each simply by wandering past the other person's desk.
4. Overtly discuss the skills a new member of the team is bringing, as well as the latest achievements and successes of current team members. This will help to strengthen trust between remote team members.
5. Avoid 'virtual silence'. Encourage the team to acknowledge messages they have received from one another when they don't have time to deal with it there and then. Misinterpretation of virtual silence can result in people assuming the other person isn't working as hard as they should or that they don't care about the message that has just been sent.
Globalisation. It's hard to pick up any business related-read nowadays
without being told how the workplace is increasingly globalised, how we are facing increased global competition or to read about people banging on about the global war for talent.
In fact, we've been talking about globalisation for some time now. Just flicking through some of the papers in my ever-increasing 'to read' pile, I see references to business globalisation as 21st Century
phenomenon; others describe it as a 20th Century invention; while some
refer to it as being introduced in the 19th Century along with the Gold
Standard.
In fact there are references to globalisation all the way back to
approximately 400 BC when Herodotus recorded the 'strangeness' of doing
business with the ancient Egyptians.
So we may not be able to agree when globalisation started, but started
it has. Yet despite having talked about globalisation for so long, it
seems to me that the vast majority of organisations, including those
that pride themselves on being 'genuinely' multinational and
multicultural, have not yet grappled with what this means for them in
reality.
What is cultural intelligence?
I am struck by how many leaders within multinational organisations are
embarrassed by how little their organisation does to ensure it is
operating with cultural intelligence. People shuffle their feet and talk
about cursory expat training, which might cover how to hand over a
business card without offence, but does little to equip expats with the
skills they genuinely need to work effectively in a different cultural
climate.
How many people in your company, for example, know when 'yes' means
'yes' in a different culture, and when it actually means 'no'? How many
people know in which cultures it is entirely expected to openly voice
either assent or dissent with what is being discussed?
If organisations are genuinely looking to do business in a culturally
intelligent way, then two levels of cultural intelligence need to be
examined. The first level is an individual level of cultural
intelligence. That is, helping the employees, managers and expats who
are at the coalface having to make globalisation work, to demonstrate
cultural intelligence. There are three key elements to individual
cultural intelligence:
1. Knowing the cultural values of the other party.
2. Being mindful of the impact of your own cultural values.
3. Adapting your behavior to demonstrate cultural intelligence.
Cultural faux pas
Sadly, many organisations simply put their employees through cultural
training programmes that are supposed to increase the knowledge element
of cultural intelligence, but instead simply reinforce stereotypes and
assumptions, and can be wildly inaccurate. According to one of these
programmes, for example, men should never wear striped ties to do
business in the UK.
The second level of cultural intelligence concerns the amount of
cultural intelligence embedded within the organisational processes
themselves. For example, expatriate failure rates vary between 20 and
75% yet organisations often do very little to select the right people
for an expatriate role or provide the appropriate support when people
are in these roles. Or think about those organisations that only equip
their teams with basic communication media - and then wonder why their
global teams seem to experience communication and trust issues.
So, the question is, how culturally intelligent is your organisation?
How many cultural faux pas are committed each day in your offices? The
conclusion that I have come to is that while our economies may be in a
state of globalisation, all too often, our businesses and people are
not. What do you think?
For the last eight weeks - and come to think of it, for the last several years - I have been watching the Apprentice and getting increasingly irritated with the prevailing view amongst the potential apprentices that it is "OK to be a git/b*****d/asshole...it's only business". Why?! Why is it seemingly acceptable to step on the throat of those around you as long as it is in the name of business success (and by "business success", read "making a quick profit")?
Well, paradoxically it seems as though we like them. Despite being self absorbed, arrogant, manipulative and having a grandiose sense of entitlement, we seem programmed to find such people fascinating - but only for a short time. Even though we know that they are self-centred, excessively dominant and potentially hostile, we are drawn to them like moths to a flame.
Psychological research in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Jan 2010) backs this up with some interesting findings. It seems as though those individuals with narcissistic traits (ego, vanity, conceit and selfishness - i.e. your archetypal apprentice wannabe) make excellent first impressions. Their sense of entitlement is admired and their charm, confidence, verbal fluency and ruthlessness win people over.
However, such traits will eventually be uncovered for what they are - style over substance. The power to influence, inspire and motivate others to follow your lead is a far more powerful trait and one that leads to lasting success. Consider the new slant to The Apprentice this year in which Lord Sugar is seeking a partner to start up a new business venture. Being nasty, selfish and manipulative may be the norm in larger corporations but they will certainly not help smaller businesses to grow. In fact, building close, caring relationships with your colleagues and customer base can be the deciding factor between long-term success and failure.
Lord Sugar would do well to consider whether he is in it for the 'quick buck' - in which case his narcissistic cronies will probably be ideal; or whether he wants to employ a leader who can win the hearts and minds of customers and staff alike. Time will tell, I guess.
Click here to read the original blog in full on the Management Today website - Psychology at Work Blog, a blog page about the psychology of business,management and leadership written by Pearn Kandola.
En disant aux Roms de France de retourner « chez eux », la France a certainement durci sa politique d'accueil vis-à-vis des Roms dénoués de leur pays.
Le point le plus sensible dans le débat entre Bruxelles et Paris est bien sur le fait de cibler une population ethnique pour la renvoyer de France alors que les frontières des pays de l'Union sont censées être ouvertes pour les différents états membres. Et ne pas le faire pour les autres sans papiers de France apparait comme du racisme (en témoigne le nombre d'articles parus dans la presse française, posant la question : « La France ; est-elle raciste ?»).
Pour Nicolas Sarkozy, il est clair qu'avec son niveau de popularité plus bas que jamais et la menace de Strauss-Kahn, cette démarche fait partie de sa tentative d'accumuler plus de voix avant l'élection de 2012 parmi l'électorat des plus à droites et des malcontents d'une gauche plus 'laissez faire'. Dans un état de crise cette tactique est bien conseillée.
Pourquoi ? Une crise économique créée de l'anxiété parmi les gens. Un sentiment d'insécurité s'installe provoquant chez les gens le besoin de protéger leurs intérêts personnels. Et ce, au détriment de la défense des gens qui sont censés être à l'extérieur d'un cercle de connexions relativement intime.
Pour l'homme cela se traduit par ses propres intérêts, sa famille, ses proches... finalement son « tribe » - les gens avec qui nous partageons des liens ou des caractéristiques.
Comme Tajfel nous l'a expliqué il y a très longtemps (e.g. 1971), il est très facile de créer des démarcations d'un tribe. C'est apparemment un besoin humain assez fondamental.
Peut être alors, y a-t-il un lien, entre la décision de l'UMP de lancer des politiques qui s'appuient sur la peur et le manque de confiance ou tout au moins sur le désintérêt (voir le commentaire de CNN la semaine dernière sur le peu de gens descendu dans la rue pour protester contre l'abus potentiel d'un droit de l'homme) de la populace pour les peuples considérés comme étant à l'extérieur de leur groupe et une période où le français(e) moyen(ne) se retrouve confronté à la baisse du pouvoir d'achat, à l'augmentation du chômage et au besoin de soutenir de sa famille.
Dans une telle conjoncture, quelle distance sépare l'égalité de la fraternité ?
Feed
Time for a rant...