Voir le texte source

Traditional control Conventional management styles from the 19th and 20th Centuries tended to include rigid hierarchies, brilliance, winners and losers. People felt the necessity to prove they're much better than everybody else, to cause. Control was about power and its abuse, isolation and affectations. In the latter part of the 20th-century, there was a gradual decline in hierarchies which will be evermore the situation in the first decade of the 21st Century.  [http://members.tripod.com/c_yadav/mediawiki/index.php?title=Skills_for_Youth_Activities sponsors]  So just how does this impact business? What does it suggest about achievement and control in the twenty first Century? Facets of control in the 21st Century. From our experience, successful businesses (be they top quality start-ups o-r businesses seeking rapid growth), understand new values essential to their success. It is out with the old and in with: Level structures;  [http://ardour.tv/catholic-youth-group-activities/ Catholic Youth Group Activities - Ardour.tv | Ardour.tv]  inclusive management style that involves everyone within the company, not just senior management; openness and transparency; genuinely equal opportunities, no matter race, racial roots, faith, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities etc.; empowering i.e. focused on empowering each and every member of the group. Educated control 21st Century leadership isn't about bullying and high-handedness or even intellectual or economic virtue. It's about enjoying to strengths, working around or minimising weaknesses, reliability and perhaps not being fazed by challenges. Above all, it is about being right in communications both internally and externally.  [http://www.upenn.edu/computing/chs/knowledge_base/doku.php?id=Can_Leadership_support_Your_Career? understandable]  Strong language The new design is about avoiding disempowering language and about can-do mentality. Terms such as Ill attempt to o-r I want you to... and other indirect language undermine the communication: trying to do anything is preparing for failure, not taking personal responsibility for causing something to occur. Using language that indicates there's another basis for why someone should do something in the place of just that you want them to do it creates people look vulnerable therefore, requiring someone to do something is in fact seldom reliable and should generally be replaced by I want you to complete X please or some equivalent direct interaction. Walking the talk  [http://homepage.univie.ac.at/erich.neuwirth/php/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=summer-youth-activities-796 summer-youth-activities-796 &middot; Erich Neuwirth]  Last but maybe not least, authority in the 21st Century is approximately walking the talk of the operation. Nevertheless, the organisation first needs to be clear about what it is talking about before it could walk it and then it needs to ensure that it is consistent in anything it does: this is something from inner relations (with peers) right through to external relations with customers, suppliers and people at law. Making it real We believe that law will be the stuff of society, the framework behind relationships that sometimes has them work or not. A leader needs to ensure that every one of his/her relationships work. Where the relationships are accepted as being important to the organisation (and we can't conceive of an organisation where they're not), special attention needs to be paid to making sure that all recorded relationships are in line with the values of the organisation and the model of management. Are your communications straight, available, honest and reasonable? When did you last look at your work contracts, shareholders agreements, terms of business, website terms, integrating agreements and purchase contracts? Are they consistent with who you say you're?