Why Extraversion May Not Matter Recent research evidence suggests that while extraversion is predictive of many positive social outcomes, it may not be extraversion itself that matters. Instead, it may be possession of social skills or competencies that are better predictors of social outcomes than personality constructs such as extraversion. Let me explain. Extraversion is a core personality trait that is associated with high levels of energy, expressing emotions, and seeking the company of others. Extraverts seek out social situations. However, social skills come into play. In a very recent study, we found, consistent with previous research, that extraversion was related to both the attainment of leadership positions and a self-rated measure of leader effectiveness. This makes sense. Think about some of the extraverted folks in entertainment—the Robin Williams, or Jim Carrey types. So, personality matters, but skills and competencies may matter more when it comes to complex social behaviors such as leadership.
Articles - Leadership (Listed Alphabetically) The 10 Greatest CEOs of All Time What these extraordinary leaders can teach today's troubled executives. And the Walls Came Tumbling Down Leading Beyond the Walls, a book edited and produced by the Peter F. The most productive relationships are partnerships rooted in a freedom of choice vested in both parties to participate only in that which is mutually beneficial and uplifting. Building Companies to Last Inc. In a world of constant change, the fundamentals are more important than ever. Building Your Company's Vision (not available online) Harvard Business Review (with Jerry I. This HBR cover story explains how companies that enjoy enduring success have core values and a core purpose that remain fixed, while their business strategies and practices endlessly adapt to a changing world. Change Is Good—But First, Know What Should Never Change Companies Need Not Hire Outside CEOs to Stimulate Fundamental Change Directorship (with Jerry I. Inc. This article is part of Inc.'
Un nuevo modelo de Comunicación y sustentabilidad en las empresas En las dos últimas décadas, las empresas han sido interpeladas por el desafío de la sustentabilidad. La Responsabilidad Social (RS), en estricto sentido histórico, es la actualización en las empresas de la exigencia social de sustentabilidad. Hoy son inviables las empresas que no asuman una manera sustentable de actuar en lo ambiental y de relacionarse respetuosamente con las comunidades (reputación y licencia social para operar). Esto conlleva desafíos para sus comunicaciones. Las Comunicaciones y la RS se intersectan estrategicamente porque la triada emergente opera así: (una) comunicación (poner en común en) transparencia (coherencia entre el decir y el hacer, es condición de la) sustentabilidad de las (empresas y de las comunidades). Nuestra propuesta es un modelo de Comunicación integral para la sustentabilidad, que opera en dos grandes dominios interrelacionados: la sustentabilidad socio-ambiental y la sustentabilidad emocional. Introducción 4) De brechas e incoherencias
Articles - The Death of the Charismatic Leader Inc. Almost by definition, an enduring great company has to be built not to depend on an individual leader, because individuals die or retire or move on. What's more, when a company's identity can't be separated from the identity of its leader, it can't be known for what it stand for. Which means it sacrifices the potency of being guided by its core purpose. So the charismatic-leader model has to die. What do you replace it with? Building mechanisms is one of the CEO's most powerful but least understood and most rarely employed tools. The old role is still seductive, though. However hard the transition to architect might be, there are three issues, affecting every CEO, that encourage it—and eventually may even force it. First, let's discuss creativity. The second concern is time span. The last concern, scale, is the most crucial. Copyright © 1997 Jim Collins, All rights reserved.
¿Cómo hacer un análisis FODA? ¿Qué hombre de negocios nunca ha realizado un análisis de Fortalezas, Oportunidades, Debilidades y Amenazas? Sin embargo, con frecuencia esta herramienta se aplica incorrectamente. A continuación, una visión estratégica, sistémica y cognitiva del célebre diagnóstico FODA... Por Alberto Levy Pocas herramientas son tan conocidas en el mundo de la empresa como el célebre análisis FODA (Fortalezas, Oportunidades, Debilidades y Amenazas). FODA, ¿qué, quién, cómo? Antes de embarcarnos en el análisis propiamente dicho, debemos mencionar algunas consideraciones preliminares. En primer lugar, un FODA no puede ser hecho "en el vacío". En segundo lugar, después del FODA, ¿qué? El "cómo", tiene un solo comentario: ¡GRUPALMENTE! En resumen, el FODA es un análisis valioso sólo si se consideran la estrategia, la cultura, los recursos, los mercados, y la administración. El FODA y la estrategia Ahora concentrémonos en la estrategia. Fortalezas y debilidades En este punto, son necesarias dos aclaraciones:
Great Ideas! Peter Drucker's "The Five Most Important Questions Yo... Starting From Scratch: Make Over Your Business (and Your Self) | Input/Output What's the Big Idea? For corporations, growth is a quarterly concern -- a hope maybe, but not a necessity. For small businesses and nonprofits, stagnation isn't an option: it's grow or die. But as businesses transition from startup to established company, the bootstrapped mentality is hard to maintain. Often, the drive and excitement that came from making your first sale or surpassing your earliest goals get lost when you're no longer out of your element, forced to run lean. If you're an entrepreneur, perhaps you started out with a handful of people, working together relentlessly on laptops out of someone's spare bedroom. What's the Significance? Leadership expert Robert S. But by 2006, the business was experiencing strain. Kaplan advised them to step back and examine the crucial question of whether the design of a company was aligned with its vision and priorities. All of us have blind spots, says Kaplan. Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
Leader 101 Is Your Team Too Big? Too Small? What's the Right Number? When it comes to athletics, sports teams have a specific number of team players: A basketball team needs five, baseball nine, and soccer 11. But when it comes to the workplace, where teamwork is increasingly widespread throughout complex and expanding organizations, there is no hard-and-fast rule to determine the optimal number to have on each team. Should the most productive team have 4.6 team members, as suggested in a recent article on “How to Build a Great Team” in Fortune magazine? What about naming five or six individuals to each team, which is the number of MBA students chosen each year by Wharton for its 144 separate learning teams? Is it true that larger teams simply break down, reflecting a tendency towards “social loafing” and loss of coordination? “The size question has been asked since the dawn of social psychology,” says Wharton management professor Jennifer S. Each Person Counts “First, it’s important to ask what type of task the team will engage in,” Mueller says.