Miguel Ángel Pla
Presidente y Director General – MPC
direccion@miguelpla.com
Teléfono: (81) 83 78 47 10

La mayoría de personas están dispuestas a realizar una cantidad de esfuerzo razonable, pero en cierto punto, se frenan y buscan maneras de ahorrar energía.

Nuestras limitaciones físicas nos enseñan esta reacción. Tras aguantar la respiración un buen periodo de tiempo, el instinto y el deseo de respirar se hace imperioso. Aunque la mayoría de personas podrían aguantarla más tiempo, el instinto gana.

Cuando nos preguntan si hemos dado todo lo que podíamos, la verdadera respuesta es que no. Hay una gran cantidad de energía retenida en todas las empresas. Fijar objetivos ambiciosos puede hacer emerger una parte de esa energía, aumentando la productividad y el éxito de la empresa.

Algunas personas pueden asumir que todos los miembros de un equipo estarán exultantes al serlos fijado un objetivo que suponga un gran reto. Sin embargo, la experiencia demuestra que no es así. A menudo hay quejas, protestas y críticas hacia el líder.

Sin embargo, si sigue los principios que le brindaremos en este blog, podría darles a sus empleados uno de los mejores recuerdos, algo de lo que sentirse orgullosos y que les dé confianza durante muchos años.

Aquí están los pasos a seguir:

•Revise las tareas asignadas a las personas que trabajan para usted y pregúntese si suponen un reto. Determine entonces cómo podría hacer que esas tareas fueran aún más enriquecedores.

•Crea que su organización es capaz de producir a un nivel más alto del que lo hace en la actualidad. Piense en lo que podría pasar si se produjera una crisis. ¿Qué podría llegar a conseguir un equipo?

•Discuta con su equipo las ideas que tengan para metas atractivas a las que podría aspirar el equipo. Implíquelos en maneras de subir el listón.

•Asegúrese de que su objetivo ambicioso no sea excesivo. ¿Su gente cree que es realista? ¿Qué barreras ve para llegar a él? ¿Cuáles de estas barreras tiene que hacer desaparecer usted?

•No abandone los objetivos hasta que se hayan realizado. Mantenga los compromisos y las expectativas previas vivas y no pierda la perspectiva cuando se añada algo nuevo.

•Compare los parámetros de su organización con otras organizaciones de alta efectividad. Implemente en su empresa lo que funciona bien en otras.

•Identifique a las personas más efectivas de su organización. Alabe su trabajo y convierta en un ejemplo para los demás a los que sean excepcionalmente rápidos o buenos en lo que hacen.

•Utilice dinámicas de equipo para alcanzar los objetivos ambiciosos. Haga que el equipo fije de modo colectivo los objetivos.

•Mejore los procesos y elimine la burocracia. Anime a que las personas y los equipos racionalicen los procesos.

•Celebración y recompensa. Celebre y reconozca el haber conseguido objetivos y metas. Planifique celebraciones frecuentes y recompensas.

Verifique uno por uno e implemente los puntos que le falten en su empresa y verá cómo se amplían los objetivos de su equipo.

Miguel Ángel Pla
Presidente y Director General – MPC
direccion@miguelpla.com
Teléfono: (81) 83 78 47 10

El primer requisito para crear un ambiente de confianza es conectarse con la otra persona al comprenderla. Una persona no confía en nosotros cuando la comprendemos. Confía en nosotros cuando comprende que nosotros la comprendemos a ella.

Esto no significa que nosotros entendamos. Significa que la otra persona sabe que nosotros la entendemos. Para que esto suceda tenemos que escuchar y comprender cuál es realmente su punto de vista e identificarnos en verdad con ella, demostrándole que la comprendemos.

De esta manera nos hemos conectado con ella. Esto exige tiempo y atención.

Es necesario que la otra persona lo sienta.
Requiere que creemos espacio para llegar a conocerla, que hagamos que el ambiente sea tan seguro que le permite ser vulnerable y mostrarnos cómo son realmente y las cosas para ella.

En un equipo, esto significa que dedican tiempo y atención para tratar de comprender a cada persona, su función, lo que la motiva, lo que le crea dificultades y demás.
Tal vez en su empresa tenga que crear un nivel mayor de confianza en dos niveles distintos.

Tienen que ser capaces de confiar en que los demás están diciendo lo que piensan realmente y tienen que confiar en que si lo dicen, será bien recibido aunque no estén de acuerdo.

En primer lugar: ¿Cuáles son los temores de sus empleados en cuando a decirles la verdad a sus compañeros de equipo?

En segundo lugar: Cuáles son sus temores en cuanto a recibir esa clase de verdad o comentario?

Algunas personas están interesadas en los momentos en los cuales un buen comentario hecho con claridad les pudo haber cambiado literalmente la vida por más duro que fuera de escucharlo.

Es importante el cuestionar y acercarse a cada integrante de la empresa y preguntar ejemplos de algún momento en el cual las cosas no habían marchado bien y como les gustaría que les dijeran la verdad y les hicieran comentarios.

Tal vez les sorprenda oír los pensamientos y las experiencias tan disímiles que los ayude inmensamente conocerse unos a otros a este nivel con respecto a algo tan importante. Después de esto lo más probable es que comiencen a apreciar el estilo de comunicación y la vulnerabilidad de los demás.

Les permitirá saber lo que cada uno de ellos necesita en cuanto a los comentarios y verdades difíciles de escuchar, lo cual evitó una serie de pequeñas dificultades en el futuro.

Aquí es cuando esto los ayudará a alcanzar un valor operativo para el equipo construido alrededor de la confianza.

Recordemos que la intención es clave para la confianza. Si sabemos que alguien tiene la intención de ayudarnos, que está a nuestro favor somos francos con él, le damos lo que necesite y colaboramos con él. Sin embargo si no está a nuestro favor solo hay otras 2 posibilidades. O está a favor de sí mismos y es neutral con respecto a nosotros, o realmente está en contra de nosotros.

Decida lo que quiera tener dentro de su empresa.

Mayor Información : Lic. Roalía EScandon Tel ( 81 ) 8378 4710 o Cel 811 277 0969

Here’s a paradox. The need to build and foster collaborative teams has become a kind of organizational holy grail. And yet the mania for seeing organizational leaders as either all-conquering heroes or unabashed villains continues unabated.
Our celebrity-obsessed popular culture is partially to blame. But the persistence of the hero-CEO meme in both business journalism and scholarship owes its staying power to a distinctive tradition. For decades, experts have viewed leaders and managers as fundamentally different breeds, with leaders being the clear alphas.
In a recent Financial Times column, Herminia Ibarra traces the leader– manager divide back to Abraham Zaleznik, an influential Harvard Business School professor who was also a psychoanalyst. In the 1970s, Zaleznik proposed that leaders and managers were different sorts of people. Leaders thrive on risk, think long term, dislike structure, and inspire either fierce devotion or profound loathing. By contrast, mild-mannered managers seek order, value process and efficiency, and emphasize planning.
John Kotter gave flesh to these contrasting types in his 1980 HBS case study of two Xerox managers, “Fred” and “Renn.” Kotter’s vividly detailed day-in-the-life scenario cast these archetypes in stone, while also making clear that being a leader was preferable to being a manager. The former were simply bolder, braver, and more influential. The typology is so entrenched that there are few more cutting comments one can make about someone’s leadership style than to say he or she is “just a manager.”
In the 1990s, endless business magazine cover stories exalted the CEO/leader as a risk-tasking visionary upon whose personal qualities and mystique the whole success or failure of an enterprise entirely depended: “Jack Welch’s GE” or “Andy Grove’s Intel.” And today, there is a great tendency to lionize the business executives whose organizations are enjoying extraordinary success (such as Elon Musk of Tesla or Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook) and to vilify those whose organizations have run into trouble (such as Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos). Our wildly ambivalent attitude toward Steve Jobs –– Is he a hero or a villain? Should we hate him for his troubling personal qualities or worship him as a genius? –– is emblematic of our need to separate the black hats from the white hats while identifying one person as the embodiment of an entire organization.
In fact, an organization’s ability to thrive depends more on its culture than on any single leader. And culture is shaped by people at every level, as well as by traditions, history, processes and, yes, by how it is managed. What’s more, cultures are increasingly shaped by the teams that develop and market products and make the continual, often process-based incremental improvements that offer an advantage in a fiercely competitive global marketplace.
An organization’s ability to thrive depends more on its culture than on any single leader.
In the mid-1990s, when Andy-Grove-Is-Intel cover stories blanketed the newsstands, I was working on a study of Intel Inside, a marketing innovation that transformed the company’s customer base. Previously, individuals and businesses buying PCs purchased a Compaq, Dell, or Gateway without being aware of the origin of the microprocessor that comprised its essence. As competitors began reverse engineering chips, Intel faced a need to de- commodify its key product. Working together, a trademark legal team and a marketing team came up with the notion of developing a campaign to raise customer awareness regarding the manufacturer of “the brains of the computer.” Doing so, they reasoned, would create direct demand for Intel products.
The Intel Inside campaign changed the way people buy computers and transformed the company’s strategic position. But it didn’t begin as a bolt of inspirational C-suite leadership. Rather, it stemmed from a collaborative managerial effort between two relatively obscure internal teams who were seeking a solution to a persistent marketplace challenge.
Such unsung collaborative efforts often form the basis for incremental or process improvements that create success over time. Think of Lockheed Martin’s classic Skunk Works team, which developed some of the company’s most successful and innovative aircraft, or the IBM team at Boca Raton that figured out how to build a personal computer while the company’s leadership was focusing on the mainframe.
To be sure, such initiatives would have floundered without top-level support. But a leader’s ultimate success depends on groups of people at many different levels bringing their specific expertise on products, processes, and customers to bear in the service of continual improvements and innovations that can be tested.
When Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, applied the company’s algorithmic skill to understanding its own talent, he found that those who flourish at Google have collaborative skills, work well in teams, and are adaptable, able to step forward and take leadership when the situation calls for it and step back and follow when appropriate. Such qualities were far more predictive of success at Google than prior academic achievement or having held positional leadership roles.
Bock noted that Google’s strategic dependence on continual innovation put a premium on the need for collaboration and teamwork rather than traditional hotshot criteria. And his observation makes clear why our continued faith in the leader–manager distinction is so retrograde. The confluence of globalized markets and digital technology has created an organizational environment in which continual innovation is the chief prerequisite for survival. And collaborative teams in which people use their diverse perspectives and kinds of expertise to solve specific problems have emerged as the most fruitful instruments for organizing ongoing innovation.
It is noteworthy that Abraham Zaleznik, the progenitor of the leader–manager distinction, saw leaders as a more lofty species of being in part because mere managers facilitated collaboration. As Herminia Ibarra notes, Zaleznik viewed collaboration as stifling “the aggressiveness and initiative that fuel leadership.” Collaborative teams, in his hyperindividualistic formulation, were a symptom of softness and mediocrity. That bit of 1970s-vintage management thinking is as dated as bell-bottomed jeans.

El poder para Cambiar – Empowering the Leadership en Cd de México, Querétaro y Cancún
Mayor Información : Lic Rosalía Escandón Tel ( 81 ) 8378 4710 o Cel: 811 277 099 rosalia@miguelpla.com

Failure is never a positive feeling. Nevertheless, constantly trying to avoid failure is just as bad because it means you are unlikely to take the risks necessary to achieve success.
Failure is never a positive feeling. Nevertheless, constantly trying to avoid failure is just as bad because it means you are unlikely to take the risks necessary to achieve success. Failure is not something to purposely seek out, but it’s certainly not something to fear if and when it does happen.
The statistics say that 90% of new businesses fail in the first five years. However, the studies say that focusing on statistics like this only makes it more likely you will become a failure. Fail in the right areas and don’t obsess over setbacks.
The reality is failure does make better leaders, and here’s why.
Failure Shapes Leaders
Someone who never fails either never takes risks or constantly finds a way to weasel out of responsibility. The greatest leaders in the world are shaped by failure. Take a look at tech executives, such as the co-founders of Google. They dropped out of college. Most would see that as a failure, and yet they created one of the historic companies.
The most rewarding decisions of your life will be shaped by how you react to failure.
Resilience to Run a Business
Resilience is how people react under pressure and how they bounce back from disappointment. The only way to gain this resilience is to dare to fail. There are no leaders who are born to be leaders. This is a disservice to the men and women who are good leaders as it simply dismisses their achievements as genetics, God, or some other force out of our control.
Failure will teach you resilience and how not to buckle when you experience difficult times.
Learn What Works
The only way to achieve the success you crave is to think outside the box. Copying what someone else has done will not make your business into the organization you want. It will only take you part of the way, as all innovators have realized.
To learn what works and what doesn’t you have to test. This is the number one rule of marketing, and it’s what crucial A/B testing is based around.
If you are unwilling to fail, you will never go through this process and you will never achieve the things you want to achieve, as a result. Accepting failure will push you to try things you have never tried before and potentially win big.
Better Employee Morale
There’s nothing worse than working for someone who believes they can do no wrong. Executives like these tend to always shift the blame to a lower manager, or to simply pretend a setback never happened. It’s not a good trait to have.
Employees who see that you as a leader can fail won’t look down upon you because of it. They will see it as a positive trait. It will encourage them to try new things because they know that if it goes wrong they aren’t going to lose their jobs over it.
Some of the best corporate ideas around have come not from leaders but from the people working under them.
Of course, this is no reason to actively seek out failure. Someone who fails repeatedly without success is simply a bad leader.
Who has Your Back?
Take a startup company as an example for this section. Everyone starts working in good faith. They all love the product and they all believe they can succeed. Then a major setback happens, such as having a poor first release.
There are two sets of people at this point. One set will continue to work with the company and figure out where they went wrong. The other set will either walk out of the company or become snarky and unmotivated.
Failure has taught you who REALLY believes in what you are doing and who is going to bail when the going gets tough. You wouldn’t have known that unless something had gone wrong.
Conclusion
To become a great leader in 2016 you have to be comfortable with things going wrong. Great leaders see them as learning opportunities, rather than setbacks. As long as you learn from the mistakes you make, failure is a worthwhile endeavor.
It will help you make the tough decisions and better appreciate your responsibilities as a leader. Countless organizations have turned themselves around simply because a big failure made them change their way of thinking.
In 2016, embrace failure. It could be the point where your company makes a change for the better.
How will you learn from your failures during this coming year?