Программа по формированию навыков безопасного поведения на дорогах и улицах «Добрая дорога детства» 2
Скачать 395.71 Kb.
|
LONG HOURS, INSECURITY AND LOW MORALE By Andrew Bolger Managers are unhappy about continued change and restructuring in British organizations, which is leading to long working hours, job insecurity and low morale. That is one of the main findings of a survey published today by the Institute of Management and the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. It aims to follow changes in the quality of working life in corporate Britain over the next five years. This first annual survey found that 82 per cent of UK managers regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. Thirty-eight per cent worked more than 50 hours a week and 41 per cent said they regularly took work home at weekends. Workplaces in the 1990s are in a state of constant change. Sixty-one per cent of managers said their organizations carried out a change programme in the past 12 months. The most common forms of change were: cost reductions, redundancies, culture change and performance improvement. Sixty-five per cent of respondents felt that employee morale and job security had decreased, while 50 per cent agreed that motivation and loyalty had been negatively affected. However, reactions varied according to management level: 79 per cent of junior and 74 per cent of middle managers thought morale in particular had suffered, compared with 60 per cent of senior managers and only 21 per cent of chief executives and managing directors. Poor internal communication was one of the key reasons for managers’ insecurity. Sixty per cent of junior and middle managers felt they were not kept informed about future strategies in their organizations. Moreover, 40 per cent of junior managers said senior executives were poor communicators. When asked to indicate how satisfied they were with aspects of their job, managers rated the relationship with their other managers and their boss highest (80 per cent and 64 per cent were satisfied). Workload and recognition for performance were the two aspects causing most dissatisfaction: 36 per cent of managers thought their workload was too heavy and 33 per cent did not think their work was recognized. Managers at all levels were concerned about not having sufficient time to get work done (64 per cent), lack of resources to do the job effectively (45 per cent), and information overload (42 per cent). Sixty-three per cent said they felt guilty about taking time off when sick. Another significant finding was that restructuring had left organizations with a mix of skills that were badly suited to their needs. The survey concluded: ‘Change management has not generally had its intended consequences, while headcount reductions have negatively affected morale and feelings about job security’. From the Financial Times Change Japan must reward bright sparks By Michiyo Nakamoto Japanese industry shows strong resistance to the idea of rewarding merit. This was highlighted last month when the Tokyo District Court ruled that Nichia, a mid-sized chemical company, should pay Shuji Nakamura, its former employee, ¥20bn ($189m) for an invention he developed while at the company: a way to manufacture blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The blue LED has revolutionized areas from the recorded sound and film industries to traffic-signaling systems. It vastly increases the capacity of compact discs and DVDs and is likely to replace traditional light bulbs. Mr. Nakamura’s invention transformed Nichia from an obscure, rural chemicals maker with annual sales of ¥20bn into a global group with annual revenues of ¥180bn. The court’s decisions, that Mr. Nakamura’s contribution was worth 50 percent of the profits Nichia could make before its parents on blue LEDs expire in 2010, was widely condemned in Japan. While the criticism focused on the size of the payments to Mr. Nakamura, the ruling caused deeper worries about Japan’s future. Business leaders warned that corporations, worried that they would face similar payments to successful researchers, would move their research and development operations offshore. Some characterized it as a sigh of the collapse of Japanese social values, and some media commentators questioned the justice of rewarding an individual for his invention. According to old-style Japanese corporate values, Mr. Nakamura, nicknamed ‘the slave’ by his western friends for his low pay at Nichia, should have been pleased with his modest rewards. Yet, while his blue LED helped new industries to start up, and was widely praised as one of the top inventions of the decade, no Japanese academic institution offered him a job when left Nichia. With US universities competing to hire him, it is not surprising that he moved – with his bright ideas – to the University of California. In Japanese schools, there are no winners on sports days. Apart from the relatively brief periods of innovation by companies such as Sony, Japan’s high-technology industry has largely competed to offer similar products with little regard for their own specific skills. Now these companies are undergoing painful adjustment as they struggle to identify their individual strengths and make some money. Until Japan can offer both financial and social recognition for individual achievement, it is unlikely to produce its own Microsofts or Dells or for that matter, a better-performing Sony. From the Financial Times Strategy Scenarios By Tony Jackson Making up stories about the future might seem a curious occupation for grown-up executives. But there was a time, s in the 1970s and early 1980s, when scenarios were a familiar part of the planning process. They then fell out of fashion for a while, as did strategic planning overall. Now that strategy is making a comeback, so are scenarios. In essence, the scenario technique consists of describing a range of possible futures. Let us suppose that the Chinese economy collapses, or that it flourishes: that the Internet enriches the telephone companies, or drives them out of business. What then? The aim is not to make predictions, but to provide a framework into which subsequent events can be fitted. If executives have thought out the possible outcomes, they should be quicker to react when one of them arrives. As Arie de Geus, former head of planning at Shell, puts it, they can remember the future. Since the oil industry undertakes vast single invest ments such as refineries or petrochemical complexes, scenarios appealed as a form of risk analysis. What would happen if the oil price soared or plummeted? What was the probability of a given host government collapsing, or nationalizing the industry? Then came the reaction. In a recent book, The Living Company, Mr. de Geus describes how in the 1980s, Shell's senior executives became skeptical. Making up stories, they said, was great fun and good public relations. But how many decisions could be attributed directly to the scenario process? Over the last 10 years, says Roger Rainbow, Shell's present head of planning, there has been more emphasis on getting the managers involved. The trend has been to get them to bring scenarios into their decision processes,' he says. 'We need to help people make decisions on quite specific issues, down to the level of a specific strategy in a given country, or a specific project.' At the same time, he reports, there is a rising level of interest outside. 'We get one or two companies a week calling us up to ask our advice on scenarios. If we were a consultancy, we'd be making a lot of money.' There are a number of consultancies doing just that. Northeast Consulting, of Boston, was founded by a group of consultants who had previously done scenario work for IBM. According to Keith Anderson, senior associate for Northeast Consulting Resources in Europe, the difference in origins is fundamental. Where Shell began with geopolitical change, the computer industry was more concerned with detailed developments in technology. As Mr. Anderson puts it, the task is not merely to describe possible futures, but to identify the preferred one and work to bring it about. Microsoft, he observes, was dismissive about the Internet at the outset. When it perceived its mistake, it set out not merely to catch up, but to take a lead in determining how the Internet developed. From the Financial Times Culture CORPORATE ROAD WARRIORS The characteristic that most distinguishes today`s executives is not their technological sophistication but the amount of the time they spend on the move. To observe the real impact of globalization, you only have to walk around an international airport. Among the crowds of tourists, an army of road warriors and corporate executives march red-eyed across the world`s time zones. Global markets mean constant global travel. Management consultants are among the most frenetic frequent fliers. They routinely cross continents for a face-to-face meeting and then return home. They point to the importance of personal contact. For a profession built on rational analysis, it seems illogical. Face-to-face meeting when one of the parties is exhausted and jet-lagged seem unlikely to benefit anyone. But most consultants act as if e-mail and satellite links had never been invented. For the masters of logic, only the face-to-face experience will do. The question is why all the technological gadgetry has failed make a dent in the amount of business travel? The answer seems to lie with a simple statistic. More than 90 percent of human communication is non-verbal (some studies put it as high as 93 percent). Facial expressions, body language, eye contact – these are all key conduits. Without them you can`t get past first base. It`s tough to bond over the Internet/ “Most of us still want face-to-face contact”, says Cary Cooper, professor of organizational psychology and health at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST). “A lot of people rely on their personalities to persuade others”, he says. “That doesn`t come out in e-mails, and video conferencing is limiting. They may also want to influence people outside of meeting. That`s why eyeball-to-eyeball is so important. We still don`t fully trust the technology even though it`s been around for a while. We prefer to talk behind closed doors”. We also read body language to pick up the atmosphere, he says, “We walk into a meeting and pick up the feel of what the other people are thinking. We watch how Y reacts to what X is saying. You can`t do that by videoconference. Most of us don`t have the self-confidence to believe we can built the sorts of relationships we need with clients and suppliers down the wire. Business travel won`t decrease for that reason. It`s a shame because at the moment we`re burning out an awful lot of people”. Culture FUNNY THING ABOUT JOKES: THE USES AND DANGERS OF HUMOUR Different cultures have different beliefs about when humor is appropriate, what can be joked about, and even who can be joked with. Attitudes to uncertainty, status and the importance of business influence how much humor can be used. For example, in cultures where the desire to avoid uncertainly is high, as in Germany, humor will be welcomed when it contributes to the working environment and supports the highly task-oriented German company. But German managers are less likely to use humor tactically, as a means of dealing with criticism, challenging authority, or reducing tension between people. International managers communicating in Germany should be direct. Status is another important consideration. In some countries people may loosen up as they get promoted. But in more hierarchical cultures, such as France, the opposite is more likely to be the case. Seniority is largely determined by intellectual achievement and academic qualifications. Consequently, French executives are keen to avoid being seen as lightweight. So, while clever and sophisticated humor is acceptable, the risk of appearing foolish, with the accompanying loss of credibility and intellectual status, tends to limit other forms of humor. Self-mocking humor may be completely misunderstood. In many western business cultures, teasing is routinely used as a means of social control. Typically, it serves to criticize a late-comer to a meeting or to show mild displeasure, while avoiding confrontation. But in certain Asian cultures, making fun of someone may leave managers feeling uncomfortable. In Japan managers use after-hours drinking as functional equivalent to criticizing with humor. American managers often use jokes to warm up speeches and presentations, but once the real business starts, attempts at humor may met with silence. Americans have invested heavily in a set of political and economic values based on individual liberty and economic opportunity. It follows that business is taken more seriously than in other Anglo-Saxon cultures, such as Britain. International managers have to proceed carefully, but humor remains a vital means of bridging cultural differences. Shared laughter is particularly important within cross-cultural teams, where it helps to bring differences to the surface and bring to team together. As the international comic Victor Borge once put it, humor remains ‘the shortest distance between two people’. Culture GOOD MANNERS, GOOD BUSINESS Nobody actually wants to cause offence but, as business becomes ever more international, it is increasingly easy to get it wrong. There may be a single European market but it does not mean that managers behave the same in Greece as they do in Denmark. In many European countries handshaking is an automatic gesture. In France good manners require on arriving at a business meeting a manager shakes hands with everyone present, this can be a demanding task and, in a crowded room, may require gymnastic ability if the farthest hand is to be reached. Handshaking is almost as popular in other countries – including Germany, Belgium and Italy. But Northern Europeans, such as the British and Scandinavians, are not quite so fond of physical demonstrations of friendliness. In Europe the most common challenge is not the content of the food, but the way you behave as you eat. Some things are just not done. In France it is not good manners to raise tricky questions of business over the main course. Business has its place: after the cheese course. Unless you are prepared to eat in silence you have to talk about something – something, that is, other than the business deal which you are continually chewing over in your head. Italians give similar importance to the whole process of business entertaining. In fact, in Italy the biggest fear, as course after course appears, is that you entirely forget you are there on business. If you have the energy, you can always do the polite thing when the meal finally ends, and offer to pay. Then, after a lively discussion, you must remember the next polite thing to do – let your host pick up the bill. In Germany, as you walk sadly back to your hotel room, you may wonder why your apparently hosts have not invited you out for the evening. Don`t worry, it is probably nothing personal. Germans do not entertain business people with quite the same enthusiasm as some of their European counterparts. The Germans are also notable for the amount of formality they bring to business. As an outsider, it is often difficult to know whether colleagues have been working together for 30 years of have just met in the lift. If you are used to calling people by their first names this can be a little strange. To the Germans, titles are important. Forgetting that someone should be called Herr Doctor or Frau Direktorin might cause serious offence. It is equally offensive to call them by a title they do not possess. In Italy the question of title is further confused by the act that everyone with a university degree can be called Dottore – and engineers, lawyers and architects may also expect to be called by their professional titles. These cultural challenges exist side by side with the problems of doing business in a foreign language. Language, of course, is full of difficulties – disaster may be only a syllable away. But the more you know of the culture of the country you are dealing with, the less likely you are to get into difficulties. It is worth the effort. It might be rather hard to explain that the reason you lost the contract was not the product or the price, but the fact that you offended your hosts in light-hearted comment over an aperitif. Good manners are admired: they can also make or break the deal. Culture |
