The young boy asked the old man, “why a fast running horse is better than the slow running horse”? The old man said, “it has developed the habit to produce more power so that it can run up to ten times faster than the slow horse” The youngster said, “and what if the horse is running in the wrong direction”? The old man smiled and said, “then definitely it has the proportionate factor for wasting the efforts ten times quicker than the slower horse” The young man said, ” and what if other horses are following him too” The older man said, “off course it will mislead all those horses too!” “Then why all other horses follow the faster horse” “Because that attracts them but all that glitters is not gold sometimes”.
This post describes key qualities needed for an effective project manager. It discusses the differences between leading and managing a project, explains the importance of managing stakeholders, describes how to gain influence by reciprocity, stresses on the significance of leading by example and managing by wandering around (MBWA), explores how to deal with the contradictory nature of work, and finally depicts how to acquire high Emotional Intelligence (EQ).
It is clear that the adaptability nature of agile practices has changed the face of project management today. The adoption of agile systems development has been increasing lately in the industry due to reported benefits from increased productivity, learning, and business satisfaction, and due to the need for flexibility and innovation in responding to change (Fernandez and Fernandez 2008). However, some adopters have posited that agile might not be adequate for all types of projects and should only be applied to those where it would add value, which means that other traditional non-agile methodologies are still in need for coexistence. This creates the necessity to properly match the project management approach to the project in hand to achieve success (Fernandez and Fernandez 2008).
The idea of “managing your boss” may sound quite unusual for some managers, considering the widespread adoption of the traditional top down management approach in most organizations. Even though talented and aggressive managers nowadays carefully control and administer their subordinates, services, and products, they might reveal, on the other hand, a passive stand with their bosses (Gabarro and Kotter 1993). Bob Mezoff considers the boss management process to be comprised of four main components: understanding yourself, understanding your boss, managing the relationship between you and your boss, and using your skills to mutually satisfy win-win outcomes (Denys 1993).
The purpose and usage of a performance appraisal have considerably expanded over the last years. Before 1960, a performance appraisal was used solely for administrative reasons (salary, promotion, and placement type decisions) (David and James 1993). Later, the view of a performance appraisal as a counseling/development tool and the provision and design of several conceptual frameworks for understanding this new vital role have dramatically proliferated. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the importance of this new role by first describing the performance appraisal system of Organization “A”, its training and development planning system, and the intended links between these two systems. The essay then critically analyzes these links and provides suggestions on strengthening them based on the nature of Organization “A” culture and environment for the sake of improving the developmental functionalities of Organization “A” performance appraisal system.
This essay critically analyzes the need and the linkage between the Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) practice and the HR functions of both BANK X and Organization Y, an independent organization and currently the sole IT service provider for BANK X. The essay pinpoints the issues that are hindering BANK X and Organization Y HR from aligning their services with the corporate strategic goals and provides insights and solutions for the sake of realizing SHRM practices in terms of achieving integrative linkage with the bank strategy and goals, following a proper Human Resource Planning (HRP) process, linking individual/group/organizational activities with the corporate goals for the purpose of measuring, managing, and realizing better performance, adopting a Strategic Human Resource Development (SHRD) process, utilizing Electronic HRM systems (E-HRM), and enhancing Employee Relations (ER).
The responsibilities of risk managers have developed considerably in the last few years to the extent that they are now moving beyond operational and hazard risks to nonoperational, financial, and strategic risks, spawning the evolution of the so-called integrated or enterprise risk management (ERM) (Colquitt, Hoyt et al. 1999).
There exist several mitigation strategies that help managers in understanding risks and their impact on the business and on the organizational objectives. These treatment strategies are mainly branched into four common categories; risk avoidance or elimination, risk transference or share, risk mitigation, and risk acceptance. The choice of which of these methods to implement depends on the kind of the adopted decision-making model and on certain weighted, influential, organizational factors that should be taken into consideration in prioritizing, evaluating, and resolving risks. Since elimination of risk is unrealizable or almost impossible (Cervone 2006), managers should utilize the least cost methodology and the most appropriate control to lessen risks to a level corresponding to minimal impact. Besides, priority should be given to mitigating severe or high-impact risks since it would be impractical to address all recognized risks (Stoneburner, Goguen et al. 2002).
Several great thinkers defined risk in different ways and laid the foundation of our understanding of the meaning of risk and its corresponding relationship with uncertainty and knowledge. The most influential in this domain, Frank Knight, had devised an analytical framework to clarify an important distinction among risk, uncertainty, and full knowledge (Langlois and Cosgel 1993). He based his categorization on the fact that it is ultimately based on whether the classification of states (or instances) of a particular uncertain event is exhaustive, and not on the assigned subjective probabilities of these states (Langlois and Cosgel 1993). This classification scheme is based on three types of probabilities, a priori probability (the universe of outcomes is known and thus can be mathematically determined), statistical probability (lack of homogeneity, empirical determination of the universe of outcomes), and estimated probability (universe of outcomes can not be defined) (Jarvis 2011). Based on these types of probabilities, Knight associated risk with a lack-of-knowledge situation or state where outcomes are either known (a priori probability) or probable (statistical probability), meaning that the list of outcomes with their frequencies of occurrence and their impacts can be assessed objectively. On the other hand, he associated uncertainty with a black vacuum (knowledge vaccum) characterized by the inability to exhaustively classify all of its ‘unique’ outcomes, yet the latter can be judged through qualitative and estimated probabilities (Jarvis 2011). Recent interpretations have associated uncertainty with the inability to make predictions due to discontinuities, complexities, and heterogeneity of environments (Richard and Susan 2010).
This essay presents three different diagnostic models that serve as a change management guidance for organizations by helping them in considering what factors are important for this change and how these factors are interrelated together (Nadler and Tushman 1980). The main purpose of these models is to help in reducing the complexity of the change situation by identifying what change variables require attention by the organization, what sequence of activities to adopt in dealing with the change situation, and how the various organizational properties are interconnected (Ian Palmer 2009). The essay compares and contrasts Burke-Litwin, Six-Box Weisbord, and Congruence models, pinpoints their strengths and weaknesses, and then applies one of these models to the case study “Jamie’s Food Revolution”.
Lentil As Anything, an outcome of a so-called social experiment conducted by a charismatic rare pioneer, Shanaka Fernando (Visser 2010). Born in Sri Lanka, he dropped out of Law School to start a restaurant where catering is exclusively organic vegan fare (Pounder 2006) but with no menu prices, no cash registers, and no rules (SBS 2009). Based on a pay-what-you-can nonprofit model, Naked Lentil strives to help socially isolated migrants by offering training, Immigration Support, and encouraging multicultural communication and community growth (MuslimVillage 2010). With over 9 years of catering service, Lentil has been accepting more than 1500 customers a day (CharityFocus 2010), and has not been relying on any governmental funding (LentilAsAnything) but instead on generosity of its volunteers and patrons to pay all its liabilities (Rachel 2010). The restaurant currently has 4 branches in St. Kilda, Abbotsford Convent, Collingwood College, and recently in Footscray (Wikipedia 2011). Despite all the trust, openness, and generosity in Lentil’s philosophy, it suffered from several changes over the past few years, the crippling rise in debt (SBS 2009), the turbulence among managers, the unethical conduct of not paying their suppliers, the poor decision making and organization, and the lack of having an adequate business and human resource management model.