29 settembre 2014 § Lascia un commento
Rossocorsa e Lean Discovery c organizzano un appuntamento dedicato a:
“MASERATI GHIBLI Dall’idea al Prodotto finito”.
Dopo i saluti di rito del Direttore Marketing Rossocorsa Dott. Lorenzo Carraro un Ingegnere Maserati sarà intervistato dal Dott. Giuseppe Ravazzolo (A.D. Lean Discovery) fresco di un importante intervento a Varsavia sulla Lean all’evento Velocity organizzato dalla Harvard Business Review. Durante l’intervista sarà presentato il processo di nascita e produzione dell’ultima arrivata in casa Maserati in ottica Lean.
L’evento si svolgerà Lunedì 6 ottobre 2014 ore 11 presso la sede di Rossocorsa, via caselle 35, San Zeno Naviglio (BS). Partecipazione gratuita previa iscrizione: per info
Segreteria LEANDISCOVERY (+39) 030 381275 – email@example.com
16 settembre 2014 § Lascia un commento
NON E’ MAI TROPPO TARDI PER CAMBIARE
questo potrebbe essere la corretta introduzione all’articolo che vi proponiamo
UN LEADER DEVE ESSERE IN GRADO DI METTERSI IN GIOCO, CAPIRE QUALE E’ IL MOMENTO DI CAMBIARE E COME SI POSSONO SVILUPPARE LE ATTIVITA’ IN FUNZIONE DEL MONDO.
by Joseph Grenny
When leaders want to create an open culture where people are willing to speak up and challenge one another, they often start by listening. This is a good instinct. But listening with your ears will only take you so far. You also need to demonstrate with words that you truly want people to raise risky issues.
Take the former president of a major defense company, whom I will call Phil. No one at the 13,000-employee firm believed Phil when he announced that he was going to create a culture of candor and openness. And why should they? He already had three strikes against him: his workforce, his past performance, and his manner.
First, Phil’s workforce had successfully repelled every attempt at culture change in previous decades. Well-intended change efforts had continually failed. Why would this time be different? Second, his own leadership history was not exactly one of give-and-take. He had a command and control style and the closest he got to dialogue was one-way “management briefings” he held monthly with his “chain of command.” And finally, he was imposingly large, his face was one of studied expressionlessness, and his voice had an involuntary imperiousness even when asking you to pass the salt.
And yet, Phil needed to dramatically improve quality and costs at the 60-year-old tactical aircraft designer and manufacturer — and he knew that the stifling culture was suppressing the very ideas he needed. Once he set out to better engage his employees, however, within a matter of months he succeeded at transforming the company culture.
Like many leaders, Phil’s first attempt at fostering candor was by using his ears. And it immediately fell flat. At the end of a highly scripted management briefing he announced, “I will now take questions. You may ask anything you wish.” He scanned the audience for raised hands. None. Thirty painful seconds later he would have been happy for even a twitch to indicate engagement. Crickets.
While some executives would have blamed the audience for its timidity, Phil understood the problem was a lack of safety. He reasoned that the behavior he was trying to encourage was so counter-cultural that any rational person would be terrified to try it.
With the studied intensity of a good engineer, he decided to demonstrate that this defense company was a safe place to talk about anything. Employees had decades of data from their own painful experiences that told them taking a risk to raise controversial questions was quickly punished. Phil and his senior team needed to produce enough disconfirming data to call these fears into question.
Phil did four things that went beyond listening:
Praise publicly. He created a safe forum for people to raise questions—then spoke publicly about those who asked them in laudatory ways. It may sound like small potatoes, but simply adding a column called “Ask the President” to the weekly internal newsletter was a daring move. He instructed his communication team to forward him the most universally asked and highly sensitive questions. He personally penned every response. He was careful to sympathize with the questioners and to validate their concerns. The workforce took note—seeing evidence that disagreement would no longer be treated as insubordination. Questions could be asked anonymously or not, and over time more and more of the questioners identified themselves — which gave Phil a chance to commend them in the newsletter for their candor. Public praise is more about influencing those who hear it than those who receive it.
Prime the pump. Phil began meeting regularly with groups of opinion leaders from throughout the organization — encouraging them to bring their toughest questions. One topic that never came up was criticism of a major reorganization Phil imposed two years previously. So he primed the pump. In one of these sessions he said, “How are you feeling about the IPT/Team structure we started two years ago? I’m sure there are frustrations with this one. What barriers are you facing? What isn’t working?” When people don’t feel safe speaking up, leaders can show that it is safe by saying the hard things themselves. By saying the unsayable, and doing so with a tone of voice that suggested respect for this view, Phil created a little more safety. And the dam burst. For the next 90 minutes the group poured out their views on the inadequacies of the new structure. Phil acknowledged their concerns and invited them to discuss modifications to the model. Most importantly, this influential group began spreading the word that Phil was sincere about being open to criticism.
Lead by teaching. Phil went beyond encouraging openness to teaching it. He and his senior team taught hour-long sessions on how to have what my colleagues and I call “crucial conversations” — how to diffuse strong emotions, how to speak candidly without provoking resistance, how to quickly build rapport, and so on. As people acquired these new skills, their confidence in speaking up increased. The fact that Phil personally taught the skills showed how invested he was in having open conversations.
Sacrifice ego. On one memorable occasion Phil said in front of a group of middle managers: “I’ve been told I am unapproachable. I don’t know what that means. I would appreciate any specific feedback any of you would be willing to offer me.” The rest of the group looked on in awe as one brave soul, a manager named Terry, raised his hand. “I would be happy to, Phil.” Terry met later with Phil and gave a couple of suggestions – which Phil then shared publicly. Phil sacrificed his ego to show how much he valued candor and openness and that people were safe with him.
For two years my colleagues and I measured the frequency of people raising risky issues with peers, subordinates, as well as with senior managers at this defense company. Within the first few months of Phil’s campaign, these measures shot up by double digits, and continued to increase during the rest of this period. For example, employees were 15% more likely to report that they were comfortable sharing bad news up the chain of command—a remarkable change from the past.
Listening matters. But sometimes you’ve got to open your mouth too and make positive statements to generate the safety people need.
12 settembre 2014 § Lascia un commento
innovare cambiando le parole del vocabolario..pensate che in inglese oggi per cercare una persona si dice che si “I GOOGLE IT”; questo significa cambiare la visione, creare innovazione.
L’articolo di Michael Schrage vi presenta alcuni esempi molto conosciuti vi permette di vedere cosa è cambiato e come.
Innovare, molti ne parlano ma pochi realmente riescono ad essere dei veri e propri innovatori; tanti sono i metodi da poter utilizzare, cercate chiedete e provate
Who doesn’t Google or Bing? People unhesitatingly Skype, tweet and Instagram worldwide. Occasionally, they Kindle essential reading to friends and colleagues. Folks of a certain age even remember Xeroxing.
There’s lots to be said for naming an innovation. Clearly communicating customer value and benefits matters enormously; what matters more is the ability to design and implement innovation as a verb. Features and functionality have largely become legacy vocabulary for innovation. They’re necessary but not sufficient. Products and services are nouns — but what they empower, enable, and enact are verbs; you want your innovation to be one.
This imperative is less about trademark than linking language to thought leadership. Being innovative can be wonderful; defining the frameworks and metadata that effectively shape how those innovations are perceived is even better. Innovation-as-a-verb means that your offer describes both the desired experience and outcome for its beneficiaries. The innovation isn’t the “thing;” it’s the actions. Netflix’s streaming; Walmart’s “savings catcher,” for example. Simply put, your innovation needs to do more than merely add measurable value, it needs to measurably change behavior. It needs to be a verb.
Under the leadership of Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove, Intel crafted the silicon lexicon of Moore’s Law, microprocessors, and megahertz that made digital innovation exponential. Steve Jobs, of course, learned to become a master not just of branding and promotion but of the “design language” that animated user experience in music, movies, mobile computing and telephony. Jeff Bezos has made Amazon as much an innovation verb as an innovative company. Kurt Semm’s medical and instrumental innovations literally wrote the medical manual on minimally-invasive laparoscopic surgery.
In other words, they came up with “the other words” that transformed the innovation vocabulary. Note: this is fundamentally different than branding. It’s about innovators seeking to conceptually “own” what a novel behavior—or set of behaviors—means. If your innovators aren’t prototyping and testing verbs, they’re building customer artifacts, not experiences. That’s not good.
At one global industrial engineering firm, an apps team was charged with coming up with innovative apps that its customers could use to get more value out of their products. The initiative was as much self-serving and self-promotional opportunism as value-added insight. The innovation conversation changed when the design focus shifted to what behavior—what verbs— the company wanted to own in the hearts, mind and operational vocabularies of its users. The team almost immediately settled on a special protocol of diagnostics and tests that went beyond their product line—but that the company’s offerings were inextricably connected to. There were already a couple of instruments and apps addressing slices of those systems issues but nothing with the integrated perspective the company’s top-tier engineering talent possessed. The design goal, in fact, became making the company’s mobile testing platform protocol a standard behavior — a verb — at customer sites.
At first and superficial glance, this looks suspiciously like solving a customer problem. The deeper truth is that the team “verb-ified” an innovation alignment between what the company could uniquely do with behaviors they thought their customers needed.
A good example of an innovation-as-verb opportunity missed is Ford’s clever “hands-free, kick under” technology that opens the SUV’s rear liftgate for easy stowage. It’s a novel interface with potential to reframe expectations around how families and professionals interact with their vehicles. But what is Ford’s “Skype” or “tweet” or language describing the new verb its innovation enables? There isn’t one.
If your innovation isn’t creating a new verb for a customer or client segment that matters to your organization, your UX and/or your brand, you’re commoditizing your value vocabulary. It’s tough to command an innovation premium or be a thought leader if you “own” the same verbs as everybody else. Tell your innovators they need to verbalize their design thinking inside the organization and out.
8 settembre 2014 § Lascia un commento
Quanti di voi hanno trovato il perfetto bilanciamento tra lavoro e vita personale? quanto può influire la vita personale nel lavoro?
E’ veramente difficile riuscire a separare le due cose, personalmente è un continuo allenamento verso questo obiettivo, ma spesso sei costretto a fare scelte difficili, e più delle volte non soddisfano le aspettative personali.
Come fare? di seguito potete trovare uno studio interessante a riguardo; per quanto riguarda la mia esperienza, serve lavorare su se stessi, misurarsi costantemente in modo da comprendere quando si sta andando oltre, e poi coinvolgere le persone che ti stanno accanto, questa è la mia personale visione
Seven out of ten American workers struggle to achieve an acceptable balance between work and family life, reports a new study published in American Sociological Review, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That number has been climbing over time, to a point where employees — especially parents — feel stressed, overwhelmed, and maxed out. In “Changing Work and Work-Family Conflict: Evidence from the Work, Family, and Health Network,” researchers asked what can be changed in the workplace to address this growing health and productivity problem. They conducted a large-scale experiment in a Fortune 500 company and found that work-family conflicts don’t need to be solely employees’ individual, private troubles, but can be resolved systemically with a little management leadership.
Nearly 700 employees from an information technology department participated in the experiment. These were highly skilled, middle-aged workers with professional and technical degrees. They worked long hours, with over 25 percent logging more than 50 hours per week. Some worked remotely but reported pressure to be visible at the office to demonstrate work and team commitment. The research team randomly assigned these employees to two groups. Those in the “treatment” group were then given greater control over when and where they worked, and more supervisor support for their family and personal lives. The control group’s working conditions remained unchanged.
Over a six-month period, the people in the treatment group experienced a significant reduction in work-family conflict — that chronic sense of being pulled in two different directions. Crucially, employees who were more likely to be vulnerable to work-family conflicts (parents and people with less supportive supervisors initially) benefitted most from the intervention. Parents reported working one hour less per week than non-parents, but others did not have to increase their workloads to accommodate parents. People in the treatment group also reported that they felt they now had adequate time to spend with their families while managing their workloads. Overall, they felt more in-control and less overwhelmed.
For people working every day to balance complicated lives, this might not sound like news — but here’s why it is. This is the first study to offer evidence based on a randomized trial that workplace interventions, such as increased schedule control and supervisor support, can reduce employee work-life conflict. The randomized, experimental method allowed researchers to eliminate competing explanations for their findings — explanations, for example, like lower initial stress or the possibility that some workers quit to take less stressful jobs elsewhere. The study is also the first experiment to change the way people and supervisors work to benefit employees’ work-family balance. By altering factors in entire workplace groups or departments, the research shows that there is a way to move away from “Mother may I?” workplace flexibility — individual accommodations that a person negotiates with his or her boss — and toward systemic change in an organization that benefits all.
Numerous benefits of lowering work-life stress have been documented, in physical health and mental health (including reduced hypertension, better sleep, and lower consumption of alcohol and tobacco), as well as decreased marital tension and better parent-child relationships. So it’s surprising that two other new studies report weakened company commitment to employees working flexibly. While more than 8 in 10 employees in new survey from the Flex+Strategy Group cited negative impacts on worker loyalty, health, and performance when a company does not permit work-life flexibility, almost half of the respondents sensed ambivalence and declining commitment to it from their employers. Further, a Boston College study found that, while telecommuting and flexible hours are often negotiated between individual employees and their supervisors on an as-needed basis, companies have cut back on some critical work-life balance options like reduced hours, part-time work, job sharing, and paid family leave.
What employees sense about their managers’ and companies’ commitment to work-family-life balance reflects the organizational culture and its leadership. Returning to the American Sociological Review study, the people in the experimental group who were given more control over when and where they worked, almost doubled their average hours of work at home (from 10 to almost 20 per week). These technology workers had the tools to telecommute prior to the workplace experiment, but they either had not been given discretion to do so or had not felt comfortable doing so. The “permission” granted by the experiment freed workers to think about new ways of working, and many did so. The experiment also “unfroze” managers from old ways of doing things.
In the end, adjustments in management thinking about when and where work gets done, and about support for employees’ lives outside work, led to the work-life holy grail: design of system-wide flexibility (to relieve pressure for people who need it), without burdening those working conventionally, and without requiring individual workers to figure out alone how to balance everything.
by Nanette Fondas
4 settembre 2014 § Lascia un commento
Ne parliamo spesso con i vari Manager di tutti i livelli che incontriamo, e possiamo vedere che sta avvenendo un importante e significativo cambiamento nella gestione delle relazioni in attivitá di cambiamento e miglioramento aziendale.
Come gestire “il cambiamento”? domande e azione!
Vi sottoponiamo un articolo di da Douglas A. Wilson
The higher up you go in an organization, the harder it is to stay in touch with what’s really happening on the front lines. And the bad news—if you hear it at all—is presented only in the best possible light. How do you get the real truth about what’s happening out in the field? How do you stay connected to all corners of your organization? I have found that three simple questions, asked with the intent to learn, can help you stay in touch with reality and be a better leader:
Get out of your office and ask, “How can I help you?”
Doug Conant, while he was CEO of Campbell Soup Company, knew that if he was going to transform the company culture, he had to ask the simple question, “How can I help you?” He asked it continually of his employees, his suppliers, and his customers—and he demanded that each of his managers do the same too. Conant knew that as a leader he needed to show he cared about the employees’ and customers’ agendas if he wanted them to care about the company’s agenda. With this one question, people knew that Conant cared, had high expectations, and was committed to solving problems, adding resources, and removing barriers. Through literally thousands of these connections with people, Conant was able to stay in touch, build confidence, motivate, and create urgency for transforming Campbell Soup. He reversed precipitous declines in market value, employee engagement, financial results, and corporate responsibility.
Get out on the front lines and ask, “Why are we doing it this way?”
Mark McKenzie, the CEO of Senior Care Centers, a large skilled nursing company in Texas, often asks, “Why are we doing it this way?” He asks to learn, not to criticize. He knows that as the company grows, which it is doing rapidly, it will need new systems and new structures, and all of these need to be aligned with delivering outstanding patient care. McKenzie is building a culture of asking “why” and getting everyone engaged in the joy of being heard, seeing things change, and measuring progress.
Get out to your farthest perimeters and ask the question, “How are we doing in living out our values?”
Stanley Bergman, the CEO of Henry Schein, a $10 billion global medical supply company, visits each company office at least once per year in every part of the globe. He meets with the country leaders and the product teams. Yes, he has great financial controls and excellent budget targets for each country and each product line but, as he says, the most important reason to visit is connecting with the people. In each office he visits, he makes sure he and his top people reach out to every person in the building. No one is left out. The questions he asks them are about values and how they are being demonstrated. He might ask a salesperson, “Are we living into our values as a company in ways that support you?” He wants the truth and he has established a reputation as someone who listens—and takes action based on what he hears. He continually relates the story of what Henry Schein is doing and will do, and he’s tireless in his commitment to show that each individual is a valued contributor to “Team Schein.” His entire message is, “I want to be certain you are getting everything you need to do your job well, and that we show you respect all along the way.”
Three questions, three stories. Each one puts you in closer touch with reality, builds trust, and inspires high performance. Each time you ask these questions, you’re also acting as a role model for others in your organization. Being present, asking the right questions, and listening to what your customers, employees, suppliers, and investors have to tell you creates an invaluable feedback loop for your performance as a leader and for the organization as a whole. Do it consistently and others will follow with astounding results.