Kamis, 11 Mei 2017
Why I Choose Management as a Major
I choose management as a major because everyone need management in his life, how to manage time, money, health that's mean management is important in our life. in management major we learn how to leading, organizing, make good decision and many more. in my personal life i want to learn about management because i want managed myself better than before like managed my money so i can save the money for my future, or managed my health so i can do whatever i want to do and make better personality and of course, management also has a good chance of a job opportunity because all companies need a good manager. if i graduated i get experience and background in sales management, accounting, marketing, statistics, and project management, this skill must usefull to get a job or to manage my own companies because one of my dream is build my own companies so i don't need work to someone anymore. individual with management degrees have the opportunity to become leaders in the companies. with a lot of skill that i had from management major i have better opportunities to become of leader someday at my work and have great salary. my favorite class is marketing classes because in marketing i have to push my analytical skills, my communication skills, my organizational skills, and my creativity so i like having to solve a problem in a way that others hadn't thought about. in management major i also learn theoritical and practical. management have good graduate prospect so i have pretty good chance of ending up in proffesional jobs within six month of graduating. Especially in Gunadarma University i learn in internasional based class so i can upgrade my english that we'll be usefull for get better job. so thats why i choose management at Gunadarma University. since 2013, i learned a lot about management, marketing, economics, finance, accounting, and many more.
Sabtu, 06 Mei 2017
What Great Manager Do (Article about Management)
he best boss I ever had.” That’s a phrase most of us have said or heard at some point, but what does it mean? What sets the great boss apart from the average boss? The literature is rife with provocative writing about the qualities of managers and leaders and whether the two differ, but little has been said about what happens in the thousands of daily interactions and decisions that allows managers to get the best out of their people and win their devotion. What do great managers actually do?
In my research, beginning with a survey of 80,000 managers conducted by the Gallup Organization and continuing during the past two years with in-depth studies of a few top performers, I’ve found that while there are as many styles of management as there are managers, there is one quality that sets truly great managers apart from the rest: They discover what is unique about each person and then capitalize on it. Average managers play checkers, while great managers play chess. The difference? In checkers, all the pieces are uniform and move in the same way; they are interchangeable. You need to plan and coordinate their movements, certainly, but they all move at the same pace, on parallel paths. In chess, each type of piece moves in a different way, and you can’t play if you don’t know how each piece moves. More important, you won’t win if you don’t think carefully about how you move the pieces. Great managers know and value the unique abilities and even the eccentricities of their employees, and they learn how best to integrate them into a coordinated plan of attack.
This is the exact opposite of what great leaders do. Great leaders discover what is universal and capitalize on it. Their job is to rally people toward a better future. Leaders can succeed in this only when they can cut through differences of race, sex, age, nationality, and personality and, using stories and celebrating heroes, tap into those very few needs we all share. The job of a manager, meanwhile, is to turn one person’s particular talent into performance. Managers will succeed only when they can identify and deploy the differences among people, challenging each employee to excel in his or her own way. This doesn’t mean a leader can’t be a manager or vice versa. But to excel at one or both, you must be aware of the very different skills each role requires.
The Game of Chess
What does the chess game look like in action? When I visited Michelle Miller, the manager who opened Walgreens’ 4,000th store, I found the wall of her back office papered with work schedules. Michelle’s store in Redondo Beach, California, employs people with sharply different skills and potentially disruptive differences in personality. A critical part of her job, therefore, is to put people into roles and shifts that will allow them to shine—and to avoid putting clashing personalities together. At the same time, she needs to find ways for individuals to grow.
There’s Jeffrey, for example, a “goth rocker” whose hair is shaved on one side and long enough on the other side to cover his face. Michelle almost didn’t hire him because he couldn’t quite look her in the eye during his interview, but he wanted the hard-to-cover night shift, so she decided to give him a chance. After a couple of months, she noticed that when she gave Jeffrey a vague assignment, such as “Straighten up the merchandise in every aisle,” what should have been a two-hour job would take him all night—and wouldn’t be done very well. But if she gave him a more specific task, such as “Put up all the risers for Christmas,” all the risers would be symmetrical, with the right merchandise on each one, perfectly priced, labeled, and “faced” (turned toward the customer). Give Jeffrey a generic task, and he would struggle. Give him one that forced him to be accurate and analytical, and he would excel. This, Michelle concluded, was Jeffrey’s forte. So, as any good manager would do, she told him what she had deduced about him and praised him for his good work.
And a good manager would have left it at that. But Michelle knew she could get more out Jeffrey. So she devised a scheme to reassign responsibilities across the entire store to capitalize on his unique strengths. In every Walgreens, there is a responsibility called “resets and revisions.” A reset involves stocking an aisle with new merchandise, a task that usually coincides with a predictable change in customer buying patterns (at the end of summer, for example, the stores will replace sun creams and lip balms with allergy medicines). A revision is a less time-consuming but more frequent version of the same thing: Replace these cartons of toothpaste with this new and improved variety. Display this new line of detergent at this end of the row. Each aisle requires some form of revision at least once a week.
In most Walgreens stores, each employee “owns” one aisle, where she is responsible not only for serving customers but also for facing the merchandise, keeping the aisle clean and orderly, tagging items with a Telxon gun, and conducting all resets and revisions. This arrangement is simple and efficient, and it affords each employee a sense of personal responsibility. But Michelle decided that since Jeffrey was so good at resets and revisions—and didn’t enjoy interacting with customers—this should be his full-time job, in every single aisle.
It was a challenge. One week’s worth of revisions requires a binder three inches thick. But Michelle reasoned that not only would Jeffrey be excited by the challenge and get better and better with practice, but other employees would be freed from what they considered a chore and have more time to greet and serve customers. The store’s performance proved her right. After the reorganization, Michelle saw not only increases in sales and profit but also in that most critical performance metric, customer satisfaction. In the subsequent four months, her store netted perfect scores in Walgreens’ mystery shopper program.
So far, so very good. Sadly, it didn’t last. This “perfect” arrangement depended on Jeffrey remaining content, and he didn’t. With his success at doing resets and revisions, his confidence grew, and six months into the job, he wanted to move into management. Michelle wasn’t disappointed by this, however; she was intrigued. She had watched Jeffrey’s progress closely and had already decided that he might do well as a manager, though he wouldn’t be a particularly emotive one. Besides, like any good chess player, she had been thinking a couple of moves ahead.
Over in the cosmetics aisle worked an employee named Genoa. Michelle saw Genoa as something of a double threat. Not only was she adept at putting customers at ease—she remembered their names, asked good questions, was welcoming yet professional when answering the phone—but she was also a neatnik. The cosmetics department was always perfectly faced, every product remained aligned, and everything was arranged just so. Her aisle was sexy: It made you want to reach out and touch the merchandise.
To capitalize on these twin talents, and to accommodate Jeffrey’s desire for promotion, Michelle shuffled the roles within the store once again. She split Jeffrey’s reset and revision job in two and gave the “revision” part of it to Genoa so that the whole store could now benefit from her ability to arrange merchandise attractively. But Michelle didn’t want the store to miss out on Genoa’s gift for customer service, so Michelle asked her to focus on the revision role only between 8:30 am and 11:30 am, and after that, when the store began to fill with customers on their lunch breaks, Genoa should shift her focus over to them.
She kept the reset role with Jeffrey. Assistant managers don’t usually have an ongoing responsibility in the store, but, Michelle reasoned, he was now so good and so fast at tearing an aisle apart and rebuilding it that he could easily finish a major reset during a five-hour stint, so he could handle resets along with his managerial responsibilities.
By the time you read this, the Jeffrey–Genoa configuration has probably outlived its usefulness, and Michelle has moved on to design other effective and inventive configurations. The ability to keep tweaking roles to capitalize on the uniqueness of each person is the essence of great management.
A manager’s approach to capitalizing on differences can vary tremendously from place to place. Walk into the back office at another Walgreens, this one in San Jose, California, managed by Jim Kawashima, and you won’t see a single work schedule. Instead, the walls are covered with sales figures and statistics, the best of them circled with red felt-tip pen, and dozens of photographs of sales contest winners, most featuring a customer service representative named Manjit.
Manjit outperforms her peers consistently. When I first heard about her, she had just won a competition in Walgreens’ suggestive selling program to sell the most units of Gillette deodorant in a month. The national average was 300; Manjit had sold 1,600. Disposable cameras, toothpaste, batteries—you name it, she could sell it. And Manjit won contest after contest despite working the graveyard shift, from 12:30 am to 8:30 am, during which she met significantly fewer customers than did her peers.
Manjit hadn’t always been such an exceptional performer. She became stunningly successful only when Jim, who has made a habit of resuscitating troubled stores, came on board. What did Jim do to initiate the change in Manjit? He quickly picked up on her idiosyncrasies and figured out how to translate them into outstanding performance. For example, back in India, Manjit was an athlete—a runner and a weight lifter—and had always thrilled to the challenge of measured performance. When I interviewed her, one of the first things out of her mouth was, “On Saturday, I sold 343 low-carb candy bars. On Sunday, I sold 367. Yesterday, 110, and today, 105.” I asked if she always knows how well she’s doing. “Oh yes,” she replied. “Every day I check Mr. K’s charts. Even on my day off, I make a point to come in and check my numbers.”
Manjit loves to win and revels in public recognition. Hence, Jim’s walls are covered with charts and figures, Manjit’s scores are always highlighted in red, and there are photos documenting her success. Another manager might have asked Manjit to curb her enthusiasm for the limelight and give someone else a chance. Jim found a way to capitalize on it.
But what about Jim’s other staff members? Instead of being resentful of Manjit’s public recognition, the other employees came to understand that Jim took the time to see them as individuals and evaluate them based on their personal strengths. They also knew that Manjit’s success spoke well of the entire store, so her success galvanized the team. In fact, before long, the pictures of Manjit began to include other employees from the store, too. After a few months, the San Jose location was ranked number one out of 4,000 in Walgreens’ suggestive selling program.
Great Managers Are Romantics
Think back to Michelle. Her creative choreography may sound like a last resort, an attempt to make the best of a bad hire. It’s not. Jeffrey and Genoa are not mediocre employees, and capitalizing on each person’s uniqueness is a tremendously powerful tool.
First, identifying and capitalizing on each person’s uniqueness saves time. No employee, however talented, is perfectly well-rounded. Michelle could have spent untold hours coaching Jeffrey and cajoling him into smiling at, making friends with, and remembering the names of customers, but she probably would have seen little result for her efforts. Her time was much better spent carving out a role that took advantage of Jeffrey’s natural abilities.
Second, capitalizing on uniqueness makes each person more accountable. Michelle didn’t just praise Jeffrey for his ability to execute specific assignments. She challenged him to make this ability the cornerstone of his contribution to the store, to take ownership for this ability, to practice it, and to refine it.
Third, capitalizing on what is unique about each person builds a stronger sense of team, because it creates interdependency. It helps people appreciate one anothers’ particular skills and learn that their coworkers can fill in where they are lacking. In short, it makes people need one another. The old cliché is that there’s no “I” in “team.” But as Michael Jordan once said, “There may be no ‘I’ in ‘team,’ but there is in ‘win.’”
Finally, when you capitalize on what is unique about each person, you introduce a healthy degree of disruption into your world. You shuffle existing hierarchies: If Jeffrey is in charge of all resets and revisions in the store, should he now command more or less respect than an assistant manager? You also shuffle existing assumptions about who is allowed to do what: If Jeffrey devises new methods of resetting an aisle, does he have to ask permission to try these out, or can he experiment on his own? And you shuffle existing beliefs about where the true expertise lies: If Genoa comes up with a way of arranging new merchandise that she thinks is more appealing than the method suggested by the “planogram” sent down from Walgreens headquarters, does her expertise trump the planners back at corporate? These questions will challenge Walgreens’ orthodoxies and thus will help the company become more inquisitive, more intelligent, more vital, and, despite its size, more able to duck and weave into the future.
All that said, the reason great managers focus on uniqueness isn’t just because it makes good business sense. They do it because they can’t help it. Like Shelley and Keats, the nineteenth-century Romantic poets, great managers are fascinated with individuality for its own sake. Fine shadings of personality, though they may be invisible to some and frustrating to others, are crystal clear to and highly valued by great managers. They could no more ignore these subtleties than ignore their own needs and desires. Figuring out what makes people tick is simply in their nature.
Fine shadings of personality, though they may be invisible to some and frustrating to others, are crystal clear to and highly valued by great managers.
The Three Levers
Although the Romantics were mesmerized by differences, at some point, managers need to rein in their inquisitiveness, gather up what they know about a person, and put the employee’s idiosyncrasies to use. To that end, there are three things you must know about someone to manage her well: her strengths, the triggers that activate those strengths, and how she learns.
What You Need to Know About Each of Your Direct Reports
Make the most of strengths.
It takes time and effort to gain a full appreciation of an employee’s strengths and weaknesses. The great manager spends a good deal of time outside the office walking around, watching each person’s reactions to events, listening, and taking mental notes about what each individual is drawn to and what each person struggles with. There’s no substitute for this kind of observation, but you can obtain a lot of information about a person by asking a few simple, open-ended questions and listening carefully to the answers. Two queries in particular have proven most revealing when it comes to identifying strengths and weaknesses, and I recommend asking them of all new hires—and revisiting the questions periodically.
To identify a person’s strengths, first ask, “What was the best day at work you’ve had in the past three months?” Find out what the person was doing and why he enjoyed it so much. Remember: A strength is not merely something you are good at. In fact, it might be something you aren’t good at yet. It might be just a predilection, something you find so intrinsically satisfying that you look forward to doing it again and again and getting better at it over time. This question will prompt your employee to start thinking about his interests and abilities from this perspective.
To identify a person’s weaknesses, just invert the question: “What was the worst day you’ve had at work in the past three months?” And then probe for details about what he was doing and why it grated on him so much. As with a strength, a weakness is not merely something you are bad at (in fact, you might be quite competent at it). It is something that drains you of energy, an activity that you never look forward to doing and that when you are doing it, all you can think about is stopping.
Although you’re keeping an eye out for both the strengths and weaknesses of your employees, your focus should be on their strengths. Conventional wisdom holds that self-awareness is a good thing and that it’s the job of the manager to identify weaknesses and create a plan for overcoming them. But research by Albert Bandura, the father of social learning theory, has shown that self-assurance (labeled “self-efficacy” by cognitive psychologists), not self-awareness, is the strongest predictor of a person’s ability to set high goals, to persist in the face of obstacles, to bounce back when reversals occur, and, ultimately, to achieve the goals they set. By contrast, self-awareness has not been shown to be a predictor of any of these outcomes, and in some cases, it appears to retard them.
Great managers seem to understand this instinctively. They know that their job is not to arm each employee with a dispassionately accurate understanding of the limits of her strengths and the liabilities of her weaknesses but to reinforce her self-assurance. That’s why great managers focus on strengths. When a person succeeds, the great manager doesn’t praise her hard work. Even if there’s some exaggeration in the statement, he tells her that she succeeded because she has become so good at deploying her specific strengths. This, the manager knows, will strengthen the employee’s self-assurance and make her more optimistic and more resilient in the face of challenges to come.
The focus-on-strengths approach might create in the employee a modicum of overconfidence, but great managers mitigate this by emphasizing the size and the difficulty of the employee’s goals. They know that their primary objective is to create in each employee a specific state of mind: one that includes a realistic assessment of the difficulty of the obstacle ahead but an unrealistically optimistic belief in her ability to overcome it.
And what if the employee fails? Assuming the failure is not attributable to factors beyond her control, always explain failure as a lack of effort, even if this is only partially accurate. This will obscure self-doubt and give her something to work on as she faces up to the next challenge.
Repeated failure, of course, may indicate weakness where a role requires strength. In such cases, there are four approaches for overcoming weaknesses. If the problem amounts to a lack of skill or knowledge, that’s easy to solve: Simply offer the relevant training, allow some time for the employee to incorporate the new skills, and look for signs of improvement. If her performance doesn’t get better, she'll get fired. You’ll know that the reason she’s struggling is because she is missing certain talents, a deficit no amount of skill or knowledge training is likely to fix. You’ll have to find a way to manage around this weakness and neutralize it.
Which brings us to the second strategy for overcoming an employee weakness. Can you find her a partner, someone whose talents are strong in precisely the areas where hers are weak? Here’s how this strategy can look in action. As vice president of merchandising for the women’s clothing retailer Ann Taylor, Judi Langley found that tensions were rising between her and one of her merchandising managers, Claudia (not her real name), whose analytical mind and intense nature created an overpowering “need to know.” If Claudia learned of something before Judi had a chance to review it with her, she would become deeply frustrated. Given the speed with which decisions were made, and given Judi’s busy schedule, this happened frequently. Judi was concerned that Claudia’s irritation was unsettling the whole product team, not to mention earning the employee a reputation as a malcontent.
An average manager might have identified this behavior as a weakness and lectured Claudia on how to control her need for information. Judi, however, realized that this “weakness” was an aspect of Claudia’s greatest strength: her analytical mind. Claudia would never be able to rein it in, at least not for long. So Judi looked for a strategy that would honor and support Claudia’s need to know, while channeling it more productively. Judi decided to act as Claudia’s information partner, and she committed to leaving Claudia a voice mail at the end of each day with a brief update. To make sure nothing fell through the cracks, they set up two live “touch base” conversations per week. This solution managed Claudia’s expectations and assured her that she would get the information she needed, if not exactly when she wanted it, then at least at frequent and predictable intervals. Giving Claudia a partner neutralized the negative manifestations of her strength, allowing her to focus her analytical mind on her work. (Of course, in most cases, the partner would need to be someone other than a manager.)
Should the perfect partner prove hard to find, try this third strategy: Insert into the employee’s world a technique that helps accomplish through discipline what the person can’t accomplish through instinct. I met one very successful screenwriter and director who had struggled with telling other professionals, such as composers and directors of photography, that their work was not up to snuff. So he devised a mental trick: He now imagines what the “god of art” would want and uses this imaginary entity as a source of strength. In his mind, he no longer imposes his own opinion on his colleagues but rather tells himself (and them) that an authoritative third party has weighed in.
If training produces no improvement, if complementary partnering proves impractical, and if no nifty discipline technique can be found, you are going to have to try the fourth and final strategy, which is to rearrange the employee’s working world to render his weakness irrelevant, as Michelle Miller did with Jeffrey. This strategy will require of you, first, the creativity to envision a more effective arrangement and, second, the courage to make that arrangement work. But as Michelle’s experience revealed, the payoff that may come in the form of increased employee productivity and engagement is well worth it.
Trigger good performance.
A person’s strengths aren’t always on display. Sometimes they require precise triggering to turn them on. Squeeze the right trigger, and a person will push himself harder and persevere in the face of resistance. Squeeze the wrong one, and the person may well shut down. This can be tricky because triggers come in myriad and mysterious forms. One employee’s trigger might be tied to the time of day (he is a night owl, and his strengths only kick in after 3 pm). Another employee’s trigger might be tied to time with you, the boss (even though he’s worked with you for more than five years, he still needs you to check in with him every day, or he feels he’s being ignored). Another worker’s trigger might be just the opposite—independence (she’s only worked for you for six months, but if you check in with her even once a week, she feels micromanaged).
The most powerful trigger by far is recognition, not money. If you’re not convinced of this, start ignoring one of your highly paid stars, and watch what happens. Most managers are aware that employees respond well to recognition. Great managers refine and extend this insight. They realize that each employee plays to a slightly different audience. To excel as a manager, you must be able to match the employee to the audience he values most. One employee’s audience might be his peers; the best way to praise him would be to stand him up in front of his coworkers and publicly celebrate his achievement. Another’s favorite audience might be you; the most powerful recognition would be a one-on-one conversation where you tell him quietly but vividly why he is such a valuable member of the team. Still another employee might define himself by his expertise; his most prized form of recognition would be some type of professional or technical award. Yet another might value feedback only from customers, in which case a picture of the employee with her best customer or a letter to her from the customer would be the best form of recognition.
Given how much personal attention it requires, tailoring praise to fit the person is mostly a manager’s responsibility. But organizations can take a cue from this, too. There’s no reason why a large company can’t take this individualized approach to recognition and apply it to every employee. Of all the companies I’ve encountered, the North American division of HSBC, a London-based bank, has done the best job of this. Each year it presents its top individual consumer-lending performers with its Dream Awards. Each winner receives a unique prize. During the year, managers ask employees to identify what they would like to receive should they win. The prize value is capped at $10,000, and it cannot be redeemed as cash, but beyond those two restrictions, each employee is free to pick the prize he wants. At the end of the year, the company holds a Dream Awards gala, during which it shows a video about the winning employee and why he selected his particular prize.
You can imagine the impact these personalized prizes have on HSBC employees. It’s one thing to be brought up on stage and given yet another plaque. It’s another thing when, in addition to public recognition of your performance, you receive a college tuition fund for your child, or the Harley-Davidson motorcycle you’ve always dreamed of, or—the prize everyone at the company still talks about—the airline tickets to fly you and your family back to Mexico to visit the grandmother you haven’t seen in ten years.
Tailor to learning styles.
Although there are many learning styles, a careful review of adult learning theory reveals that three styles predominate. These three are not mutually exclusive; certain employees may rely on a combination of two or perhaps all three. Nonetheless, staying attuned to each employee’s style or styles will help focus your coaching.
First, there’s analyzing. Claudia from Ann Taylor is an analyzer. She understands a task by taking it apart, examining its elements, and reconstructing it piece by piece. Because every single component of a task is important in her eyes, she craves information. She needs to absorb all there is to know about a subject before she can begin to feel comfortable with it. If she doesn’t feel she has enough information, she will dig and push until she gets it. She will read the assigned reading. She will attend the required classes. She will take good notes. She will study. And she will still want more.
The best way to teach an analyzer is to give her ample time in the classroom. Role-play with her. Do postmortem exercises with her. Break her performance down into its component parts so she can carefully build it back up. Always allow her time to prepare. The analyzer hates mistakes. A commonly held view is that mistakes fuel learning, but for the analyzer, this just isn’t true. In fact, the reason she prepares so diligently is to minimize the possibility of mistakes. So don’t expect to teach her much by throwing her into a new situation and telling her to wing it.
The opposite is true for the second dominant learning style, doing. While the most powerful learning moments for the analyzer occur prior to the performance, the doer’s most powerful moments occur during the performance. Trial and error are integral to this learning process. Jeffrey, from Michelle Miller’s store, is a doer. He learns the most while he’s in the act of figuring things out for himself. For him, preparation is a dry, uninspiring activity. So rather than role-play with someone like Jeffrey, pick a specific task within his role that is simple but real, give him a brief overview of the outcomes you want, and get out of his way. Then gradually increase the degree of each task’s complexity until he has mastered every aspect of his role. He may make a few mistakes along the way, but for the doer, mistakes are the raw material for learning.
Finally, there’s watching. Watchers won’t learn much through role-playing. They won’t learn by doing, either. Since most formal training programs incorporate both of these elements, watchers are often viewed as rather poor students. That may be true, but they aren’t necessarily poor learners.
Watchers can learn a great deal when they are given the chance to see the total performance. Studying the individual parts of a task is about as meaningful for them as studying the individual pixels of a digital photograph. What’s important for this type of learner is the content of each pixel, its position relative to all the others. Watchers are only able to see this when they view the complete picture.
As it happens, this is the way I learn. Years ago, when I first began interviewing, I struggled to learn the skill of creating a report on a person after I had interviewed him. I understood all the required steps, but I couldn’t seem to put them together. Some of my colleagues could knock out a report in an hour; for me, it would take the better part of a day. Then one afternoon, as I was staring morosely into my Dictaphone, I overheard the voice of the analyst next door. He was talking so rapidly that I initially thought he was on the phone. Only after a few minutes did I realize that he was dictating a report. This was the first time I had heard someone “in the act.” I’d seen the finished results countless times, since reading the reports of others was the way we were supposed to learn, but I’d never actually heard another analyst in the act of creation. It was a revelation. I finally saw how everything should come together into a coherent whole. I remember picking up my Dictaphone, mimicking the cadence and even the accent of my neighbor, and feeling the words begin to flow.
We’ve seen, in the stories of great managers like Michelle Miller and Judi Langley, that at the very heart of their success lies an appreciation for individuality. This is not to say that managers don’t need other skills. They need to be able to hire well, to set expectations, and to interact productively with their own bosses, just to name a few. But what they do—instinctively—is play chess. Mediocre managers assume (or hope) that their employees will all be motivated by the same things and driven by the same goals, that they will desire the same kinds of relationships and learn in roughly the same way. They define the behaviors they expect from people and tell them to work on behaviors that don’t come naturally. They praise those who can overcome their natural styles to conform to preset ideas. In short, they believe the manager’s job is to mold, or transform, each employee into the perfect version of the role.
Great managers don’t try to change a person’s style. They never try to push a knight to move in the same way as a bishop. They know that their employees will differ in how they think, how they build relationships, how altruistic they are, how patient they can be, how much of an expert they need to be, how prepared they need to feel, what drives them, what challenges them, and what their goals are. These differences of trait and talent are like blood types: They cut across the superficial variations of race, sex, and age and capture the essential uniqueness of each individual.
Differences of trait and talent are like blood types: They cut across the superficial variations of race, sex, and age and capture each person’s uniqueness.
Like blood types, the majority of these differences are enduring and resistant to change. A manager’s most precious resource is time, and great managers know that the most effective way to invest their time is to identify exactly how each employee is different and then to figure out how best to incorporate those enduring idiosyncrasies into the overall plan.
To excel at managing others, you must bring that insight to your actions and interactions. Always remember that great managing is about release, not transformation. It’s about constantly tweaking your environment so that the unique contribution, the unique needs, and the unique style of each employee can be given free rein. Your success as a manager will depend almost entirely on your ability to do this.
Article Source: https://hbr.org/2005/03/what-great-managers-do
In my research, beginning with a survey of 80,000 managers conducted by the Gallup Organization and continuing during the past two years with in-depth studies of a few top performers, I’ve found that while there are as many styles of management as there are managers, there is one quality that sets truly great managers apart from the rest: They discover what is unique about each person and then capitalize on it. Average managers play checkers, while great managers play chess. The difference? In checkers, all the pieces are uniform and move in the same way; they are interchangeable. You need to plan and coordinate their movements, certainly, but they all move at the same pace, on parallel paths. In chess, each type of piece moves in a different way, and you can’t play if you don’t know how each piece moves. More important, you won’t win if you don’t think carefully about how you move the pieces. Great managers know and value the unique abilities and even the eccentricities of their employees, and they learn how best to integrate them into a coordinated plan of attack.
This is the exact opposite of what great leaders do. Great leaders discover what is universal and capitalize on it. Their job is to rally people toward a better future. Leaders can succeed in this only when they can cut through differences of race, sex, age, nationality, and personality and, using stories and celebrating heroes, tap into those very few needs we all share. The job of a manager, meanwhile, is to turn one person’s particular talent into performance. Managers will succeed only when they can identify and deploy the differences among people, challenging each employee to excel in his or her own way. This doesn’t mean a leader can’t be a manager or vice versa. But to excel at one or both, you must be aware of the very different skills each role requires.
The Game of Chess
What does the chess game look like in action? When I visited Michelle Miller, the manager who opened Walgreens’ 4,000th store, I found the wall of her back office papered with work schedules. Michelle’s store in Redondo Beach, California, employs people with sharply different skills and potentially disruptive differences in personality. A critical part of her job, therefore, is to put people into roles and shifts that will allow them to shine—and to avoid putting clashing personalities together. At the same time, she needs to find ways for individuals to grow.
There’s Jeffrey, for example, a “goth rocker” whose hair is shaved on one side and long enough on the other side to cover his face. Michelle almost didn’t hire him because he couldn’t quite look her in the eye during his interview, but he wanted the hard-to-cover night shift, so she decided to give him a chance. After a couple of months, she noticed that when she gave Jeffrey a vague assignment, such as “Straighten up the merchandise in every aisle,” what should have been a two-hour job would take him all night—and wouldn’t be done very well. But if she gave him a more specific task, such as “Put up all the risers for Christmas,” all the risers would be symmetrical, with the right merchandise on each one, perfectly priced, labeled, and “faced” (turned toward the customer). Give Jeffrey a generic task, and he would struggle. Give him one that forced him to be accurate and analytical, and he would excel. This, Michelle concluded, was Jeffrey’s forte. So, as any good manager would do, she told him what she had deduced about him and praised him for his good work.
And a good manager would have left it at that. But Michelle knew she could get more out Jeffrey. So she devised a scheme to reassign responsibilities across the entire store to capitalize on his unique strengths. In every Walgreens, there is a responsibility called “resets and revisions.” A reset involves stocking an aisle with new merchandise, a task that usually coincides with a predictable change in customer buying patterns (at the end of summer, for example, the stores will replace sun creams and lip balms with allergy medicines). A revision is a less time-consuming but more frequent version of the same thing: Replace these cartons of toothpaste with this new and improved variety. Display this new line of detergent at this end of the row. Each aisle requires some form of revision at least once a week.
In most Walgreens stores, each employee “owns” one aisle, where she is responsible not only for serving customers but also for facing the merchandise, keeping the aisle clean and orderly, tagging items with a Telxon gun, and conducting all resets and revisions. This arrangement is simple and efficient, and it affords each employee a sense of personal responsibility. But Michelle decided that since Jeffrey was so good at resets and revisions—and didn’t enjoy interacting with customers—this should be his full-time job, in every single aisle.
It was a challenge. One week’s worth of revisions requires a binder three inches thick. But Michelle reasoned that not only would Jeffrey be excited by the challenge and get better and better with practice, but other employees would be freed from what they considered a chore and have more time to greet and serve customers. The store’s performance proved her right. After the reorganization, Michelle saw not only increases in sales and profit but also in that most critical performance metric, customer satisfaction. In the subsequent four months, her store netted perfect scores in Walgreens’ mystery shopper program.
So far, so very good. Sadly, it didn’t last. This “perfect” arrangement depended on Jeffrey remaining content, and he didn’t. With his success at doing resets and revisions, his confidence grew, and six months into the job, he wanted to move into management. Michelle wasn’t disappointed by this, however; she was intrigued. She had watched Jeffrey’s progress closely and had already decided that he might do well as a manager, though he wouldn’t be a particularly emotive one. Besides, like any good chess player, she had been thinking a couple of moves ahead.
Over in the cosmetics aisle worked an employee named Genoa. Michelle saw Genoa as something of a double threat. Not only was she adept at putting customers at ease—she remembered their names, asked good questions, was welcoming yet professional when answering the phone—but she was also a neatnik. The cosmetics department was always perfectly faced, every product remained aligned, and everything was arranged just so. Her aisle was sexy: It made you want to reach out and touch the merchandise.
To capitalize on these twin talents, and to accommodate Jeffrey’s desire for promotion, Michelle shuffled the roles within the store once again. She split Jeffrey’s reset and revision job in two and gave the “revision” part of it to Genoa so that the whole store could now benefit from her ability to arrange merchandise attractively. But Michelle didn’t want the store to miss out on Genoa’s gift for customer service, so Michelle asked her to focus on the revision role only between 8:30 am and 11:30 am, and after that, when the store began to fill with customers on their lunch breaks, Genoa should shift her focus over to them.
She kept the reset role with Jeffrey. Assistant managers don’t usually have an ongoing responsibility in the store, but, Michelle reasoned, he was now so good and so fast at tearing an aisle apart and rebuilding it that he could easily finish a major reset during a five-hour stint, so he could handle resets along with his managerial responsibilities.
By the time you read this, the Jeffrey–Genoa configuration has probably outlived its usefulness, and Michelle has moved on to design other effective and inventive configurations. The ability to keep tweaking roles to capitalize on the uniqueness of each person is the essence of great management.
A manager’s approach to capitalizing on differences can vary tremendously from place to place. Walk into the back office at another Walgreens, this one in San Jose, California, managed by Jim Kawashima, and you won’t see a single work schedule. Instead, the walls are covered with sales figures and statistics, the best of them circled with red felt-tip pen, and dozens of photographs of sales contest winners, most featuring a customer service representative named Manjit.
Manjit outperforms her peers consistently. When I first heard about her, she had just won a competition in Walgreens’ suggestive selling program to sell the most units of Gillette deodorant in a month. The national average was 300; Manjit had sold 1,600. Disposable cameras, toothpaste, batteries—you name it, she could sell it. And Manjit won contest after contest despite working the graveyard shift, from 12:30 am to 8:30 am, during which she met significantly fewer customers than did her peers.
Manjit hadn’t always been such an exceptional performer. She became stunningly successful only when Jim, who has made a habit of resuscitating troubled stores, came on board. What did Jim do to initiate the change in Manjit? He quickly picked up on her idiosyncrasies and figured out how to translate them into outstanding performance. For example, back in India, Manjit was an athlete—a runner and a weight lifter—and had always thrilled to the challenge of measured performance. When I interviewed her, one of the first things out of her mouth was, “On Saturday, I sold 343 low-carb candy bars. On Sunday, I sold 367. Yesterday, 110, and today, 105.” I asked if she always knows how well she’s doing. “Oh yes,” she replied. “Every day I check Mr. K’s charts. Even on my day off, I make a point to come in and check my numbers.”
Manjit loves to win and revels in public recognition. Hence, Jim’s walls are covered with charts and figures, Manjit’s scores are always highlighted in red, and there are photos documenting her success. Another manager might have asked Manjit to curb her enthusiasm for the limelight and give someone else a chance. Jim found a way to capitalize on it.
But what about Jim’s other staff members? Instead of being resentful of Manjit’s public recognition, the other employees came to understand that Jim took the time to see them as individuals and evaluate them based on their personal strengths. They also knew that Manjit’s success spoke well of the entire store, so her success galvanized the team. In fact, before long, the pictures of Manjit began to include other employees from the store, too. After a few months, the San Jose location was ranked number one out of 4,000 in Walgreens’ suggestive selling program.
Great Managers Are Romantics
Think back to Michelle. Her creative choreography may sound like a last resort, an attempt to make the best of a bad hire. It’s not. Jeffrey and Genoa are not mediocre employees, and capitalizing on each person’s uniqueness is a tremendously powerful tool.
First, identifying and capitalizing on each person’s uniqueness saves time. No employee, however talented, is perfectly well-rounded. Michelle could have spent untold hours coaching Jeffrey and cajoling him into smiling at, making friends with, and remembering the names of customers, but she probably would have seen little result for her efforts. Her time was much better spent carving out a role that took advantage of Jeffrey’s natural abilities.
Second, capitalizing on uniqueness makes each person more accountable. Michelle didn’t just praise Jeffrey for his ability to execute specific assignments. She challenged him to make this ability the cornerstone of his contribution to the store, to take ownership for this ability, to practice it, and to refine it.
Third, capitalizing on what is unique about each person builds a stronger sense of team, because it creates interdependency. It helps people appreciate one anothers’ particular skills and learn that their coworkers can fill in where they are lacking. In short, it makes people need one another. The old cliché is that there’s no “I” in “team.” But as Michael Jordan once said, “There may be no ‘I’ in ‘team,’ but there is in ‘win.’”
Finally, when you capitalize on what is unique about each person, you introduce a healthy degree of disruption into your world. You shuffle existing hierarchies: If Jeffrey is in charge of all resets and revisions in the store, should he now command more or less respect than an assistant manager? You also shuffle existing assumptions about who is allowed to do what: If Jeffrey devises new methods of resetting an aisle, does he have to ask permission to try these out, or can he experiment on his own? And you shuffle existing beliefs about where the true expertise lies: If Genoa comes up with a way of arranging new merchandise that she thinks is more appealing than the method suggested by the “planogram” sent down from Walgreens headquarters, does her expertise trump the planners back at corporate? These questions will challenge Walgreens’ orthodoxies and thus will help the company become more inquisitive, more intelligent, more vital, and, despite its size, more able to duck and weave into the future.
All that said, the reason great managers focus on uniqueness isn’t just because it makes good business sense. They do it because they can’t help it. Like Shelley and Keats, the nineteenth-century Romantic poets, great managers are fascinated with individuality for its own sake. Fine shadings of personality, though they may be invisible to some and frustrating to others, are crystal clear to and highly valued by great managers. They could no more ignore these subtleties than ignore their own needs and desires. Figuring out what makes people tick is simply in their nature.
Fine shadings of personality, though they may be invisible to some and frustrating to others, are crystal clear to and highly valued by great managers.
The Three Levers
Although the Romantics were mesmerized by differences, at some point, managers need to rein in their inquisitiveness, gather up what they know about a person, and put the employee’s idiosyncrasies to use. To that end, there are three things you must know about someone to manage her well: her strengths, the triggers that activate those strengths, and how she learns.
What You Need to Know About Each of Your Direct Reports
Make the most of strengths.
It takes time and effort to gain a full appreciation of an employee’s strengths and weaknesses. The great manager spends a good deal of time outside the office walking around, watching each person’s reactions to events, listening, and taking mental notes about what each individual is drawn to and what each person struggles with. There’s no substitute for this kind of observation, but you can obtain a lot of information about a person by asking a few simple, open-ended questions and listening carefully to the answers. Two queries in particular have proven most revealing when it comes to identifying strengths and weaknesses, and I recommend asking them of all new hires—and revisiting the questions periodically.
To identify a person’s strengths, first ask, “What was the best day at work you’ve had in the past three months?” Find out what the person was doing and why he enjoyed it so much. Remember: A strength is not merely something you are good at. In fact, it might be something you aren’t good at yet. It might be just a predilection, something you find so intrinsically satisfying that you look forward to doing it again and again and getting better at it over time. This question will prompt your employee to start thinking about his interests and abilities from this perspective.
To identify a person’s weaknesses, just invert the question: “What was the worst day you’ve had at work in the past three months?” And then probe for details about what he was doing and why it grated on him so much. As with a strength, a weakness is not merely something you are bad at (in fact, you might be quite competent at it). It is something that drains you of energy, an activity that you never look forward to doing and that when you are doing it, all you can think about is stopping.
Although you’re keeping an eye out for both the strengths and weaknesses of your employees, your focus should be on their strengths. Conventional wisdom holds that self-awareness is a good thing and that it’s the job of the manager to identify weaknesses and create a plan for overcoming them. But research by Albert Bandura, the father of social learning theory, has shown that self-assurance (labeled “self-efficacy” by cognitive psychologists), not self-awareness, is the strongest predictor of a person’s ability to set high goals, to persist in the face of obstacles, to bounce back when reversals occur, and, ultimately, to achieve the goals they set. By contrast, self-awareness has not been shown to be a predictor of any of these outcomes, and in some cases, it appears to retard them.
Great managers seem to understand this instinctively. They know that their job is not to arm each employee with a dispassionately accurate understanding of the limits of her strengths and the liabilities of her weaknesses but to reinforce her self-assurance. That’s why great managers focus on strengths. When a person succeeds, the great manager doesn’t praise her hard work. Even if there’s some exaggeration in the statement, he tells her that she succeeded because she has become so good at deploying her specific strengths. This, the manager knows, will strengthen the employee’s self-assurance and make her more optimistic and more resilient in the face of challenges to come.
The focus-on-strengths approach might create in the employee a modicum of overconfidence, but great managers mitigate this by emphasizing the size and the difficulty of the employee’s goals. They know that their primary objective is to create in each employee a specific state of mind: one that includes a realistic assessment of the difficulty of the obstacle ahead but an unrealistically optimistic belief in her ability to overcome it.
And what if the employee fails? Assuming the failure is not attributable to factors beyond her control, always explain failure as a lack of effort, even if this is only partially accurate. This will obscure self-doubt and give her something to work on as she faces up to the next challenge.
Repeated failure, of course, may indicate weakness where a role requires strength. In such cases, there are four approaches for overcoming weaknesses. If the problem amounts to a lack of skill or knowledge, that’s easy to solve: Simply offer the relevant training, allow some time for the employee to incorporate the new skills, and look for signs of improvement. If her performance doesn’t get better, she'll get fired. You’ll know that the reason she’s struggling is because she is missing certain talents, a deficit no amount of skill or knowledge training is likely to fix. You’ll have to find a way to manage around this weakness and neutralize it.
Which brings us to the second strategy for overcoming an employee weakness. Can you find her a partner, someone whose talents are strong in precisely the areas where hers are weak? Here’s how this strategy can look in action. As vice president of merchandising for the women’s clothing retailer Ann Taylor, Judi Langley found that tensions were rising between her and one of her merchandising managers, Claudia (not her real name), whose analytical mind and intense nature created an overpowering “need to know.” If Claudia learned of something before Judi had a chance to review it with her, she would become deeply frustrated. Given the speed with which decisions were made, and given Judi’s busy schedule, this happened frequently. Judi was concerned that Claudia’s irritation was unsettling the whole product team, not to mention earning the employee a reputation as a malcontent.
An average manager might have identified this behavior as a weakness and lectured Claudia on how to control her need for information. Judi, however, realized that this “weakness” was an aspect of Claudia’s greatest strength: her analytical mind. Claudia would never be able to rein it in, at least not for long. So Judi looked for a strategy that would honor and support Claudia’s need to know, while channeling it more productively. Judi decided to act as Claudia’s information partner, and she committed to leaving Claudia a voice mail at the end of each day with a brief update. To make sure nothing fell through the cracks, they set up two live “touch base” conversations per week. This solution managed Claudia’s expectations and assured her that she would get the information she needed, if not exactly when she wanted it, then at least at frequent and predictable intervals. Giving Claudia a partner neutralized the negative manifestations of her strength, allowing her to focus her analytical mind on her work. (Of course, in most cases, the partner would need to be someone other than a manager.)
Should the perfect partner prove hard to find, try this third strategy: Insert into the employee’s world a technique that helps accomplish through discipline what the person can’t accomplish through instinct. I met one very successful screenwriter and director who had struggled with telling other professionals, such as composers and directors of photography, that their work was not up to snuff. So he devised a mental trick: He now imagines what the “god of art” would want and uses this imaginary entity as a source of strength. In his mind, he no longer imposes his own opinion on his colleagues but rather tells himself (and them) that an authoritative third party has weighed in.
If training produces no improvement, if complementary partnering proves impractical, and if no nifty discipline technique can be found, you are going to have to try the fourth and final strategy, which is to rearrange the employee’s working world to render his weakness irrelevant, as Michelle Miller did with Jeffrey. This strategy will require of you, first, the creativity to envision a more effective arrangement and, second, the courage to make that arrangement work. But as Michelle’s experience revealed, the payoff that may come in the form of increased employee productivity and engagement is well worth it.
Trigger good performance.
A person’s strengths aren’t always on display. Sometimes they require precise triggering to turn them on. Squeeze the right trigger, and a person will push himself harder and persevere in the face of resistance. Squeeze the wrong one, and the person may well shut down. This can be tricky because triggers come in myriad and mysterious forms. One employee’s trigger might be tied to the time of day (he is a night owl, and his strengths only kick in after 3 pm). Another employee’s trigger might be tied to time with you, the boss (even though he’s worked with you for more than five years, he still needs you to check in with him every day, or he feels he’s being ignored). Another worker’s trigger might be just the opposite—independence (she’s only worked for you for six months, but if you check in with her even once a week, she feels micromanaged).
The most powerful trigger by far is recognition, not money. If you’re not convinced of this, start ignoring one of your highly paid stars, and watch what happens. Most managers are aware that employees respond well to recognition. Great managers refine and extend this insight. They realize that each employee plays to a slightly different audience. To excel as a manager, you must be able to match the employee to the audience he values most. One employee’s audience might be his peers; the best way to praise him would be to stand him up in front of his coworkers and publicly celebrate his achievement. Another’s favorite audience might be you; the most powerful recognition would be a one-on-one conversation where you tell him quietly but vividly why he is such a valuable member of the team. Still another employee might define himself by his expertise; his most prized form of recognition would be some type of professional or technical award. Yet another might value feedback only from customers, in which case a picture of the employee with her best customer or a letter to her from the customer would be the best form of recognition.
Given how much personal attention it requires, tailoring praise to fit the person is mostly a manager’s responsibility. But organizations can take a cue from this, too. There’s no reason why a large company can’t take this individualized approach to recognition and apply it to every employee. Of all the companies I’ve encountered, the North American division of HSBC, a London-based bank, has done the best job of this. Each year it presents its top individual consumer-lending performers with its Dream Awards. Each winner receives a unique prize. During the year, managers ask employees to identify what they would like to receive should they win. The prize value is capped at $10,000, and it cannot be redeemed as cash, but beyond those two restrictions, each employee is free to pick the prize he wants. At the end of the year, the company holds a Dream Awards gala, during which it shows a video about the winning employee and why he selected his particular prize.
You can imagine the impact these personalized prizes have on HSBC employees. It’s one thing to be brought up on stage and given yet another plaque. It’s another thing when, in addition to public recognition of your performance, you receive a college tuition fund for your child, or the Harley-Davidson motorcycle you’ve always dreamed of, or—the prize everyone at the company still talks about—the airline tickets to fly you and your family back to Mexico to visit the grandmother you haven’t seen in ten years.
Tailor to learning styles.
Although there are many learning styles, a careful review of adult learning theory reveals that three styles predominate. These three are not mutually exclusive; certain employees may rely on a combination of two or perhaps all three. Nonetheless, staying attuned to each employee’s style or styles will help focus your coaching.
First, there’s analyzing. Claudia from Ann Taylor is an analyzer. She understands a task by taking it apart, examining its elements, and reconstructing it piece by piece. Because every single component of a task is important in her eyes, she craves information. She needs to absorb all there is to know about a subject before she can begin to feel comfortable with it. If she doesn’t feel she has enough information, she will dig and push until she gets it. She will read the assigned reading. She will attend the required classes. She will take good notes. She will study. And she will still want more.
The best way to teach an analyzer is to give her ample time in the classroom. Role-play with her. Do postmortem exercises with her. Break her performance down into its component parts so she can carefully build it back up. Always allow her time to prepare. The analyzer hates mistakes. A commonly held view is that mistakes fuel learning, but for the analyzer, this just isn’t true. In fact, the reason she prepares so diligently is to minimize the possibility of mistakes. So don’t expect to teach her much by throwing her into a new situation and telling her to wing it.
The opposite is true for the second dominant learning style, doing. While the most powerful learning moments for the analyzer occur prior to the performance, the doer’s most powerful moments occur during the performance. Trial and error are integral to this learning process. Jeffrey, from Michelle Miller’s store, is a doer. He learns the most while he’s in the act of figuring things out for himself. For him, preparation is a dry, uninspiring activity. So rather than role-play with someone like Jeffrey, pick a specific task within his role that is simple but real, give him a brief overview of the outcomes you want, and get out of his way. Then gradually increase the degree of each task’s complexity until he has mastered every aspect of his role. He may make a few mistakes along the way, but for the doer, mistakes are the raw material for learning.
Finally, there’s watching. Watchers won’t learn much through role-playing. They won’t learn by doing, either. Since most formal training programs incorporate both of these elements, watchers are often viewed as rather poor students. That may be true, but they aren’t necessarily poor learners.
Watchers can learn a great deal when they are given the chance to see the total performance. Studying the individual parts of a task is about as meaningful for them as studying the individual pixels of a digital photograph. What’s important for this type of learner is the content of each pixel, its position relative to all the others. Watchers are only able to see this when they view the complete picture.
As it happens, this is the way I learn. Years ago, when I first began interviewing, I struggled to learn the skill of creating a report on a person after I had interviewed him. I understood all the required steps, but I couldn’t seem to put them together. Some of my colleagues could knock out a report in an hour; for me, it would take the better part of a day. Then one afternoon, as I was staring morosely into my Dictaphone, I overheard the voice of the analyst next door. He was talking so rapidly that I initially thought he was on the phone. Only after a few minutes did I realize that he was dictating a report. This was the first time I had heard someone “in the act.” I’d seen the finished results countless times, since reading the reports of others was the way we were supposed to learn, but I’d never actually heard another analyst in the act of creation. It was a revelation. I finally saw how everything should come together into a coherent whole. I remember picking up my Dictaphone, mimicking the cadence and even the accent of my neighbor, and feeling the words begin to flow.
We’ve seen, in the stories of great managers like Michelle Miller and Judi Langley, that at the very heart of their success lies an appreciation for individuality. This is not to say that managers don’t need other skills. They need to be able to hire well, to set expectations, and to interact productively with their own bosses, just to name a few. But what they do—instinctively—is play chess. Mediocre managers assume (or hope) that their employees will all be motivated by the same things and driven by the same goals, that they will desire the same kinds of relationships and learn in roughly the same way. They define the behaviors they expect from people and tell them to work on behaviors that don’t come naturally. They praise those who can overcome their natural styles to conform to preset ideas. In short, they believe the manager’s job is to mold, or transform, each employee into the perfect version of the role.
Great managers don’t try to change a person’s style. They never try to push a knight to move in the same way as a bishop. They know that their employees will differ in how they think, how they build relationships, how altruistic they are, how patient they can be, how much of an expert they need to be, how prepared they need to feel, what drives them, what challenges them, and what their goals are. These differences of trait and talent are like blood types: They cut across the superficial variations of race, sex, and age and capture the essential uniqueness of each individual.
Differences of trait and talent are like blood types: They cut across the superficial variations of race, sex, and age and capture each person’s uniqueness.
Like blood types, the majority of these differences are enduring and resistant to change. A manager’s most precious resource is time, and great managers know that the most effective way to invest their time is to identify exactly how each employee is different and then to figure out how best to incorporate those enduring idiosyncrasies into the overall plan.
To excel at managing others, you must bring that insight to your actions and interactions. Always remember that great managing is about release, not transformation. It’s about constantly tweaking your environment so that the unique contribution, the unique needs, and the unique style of each employee can be given free rein. Your success as a manager will depend almost entirely on your ability to do this.
Article Source: https://hbr.org/2005/03/what-great-managers-do
Kamis, 27 April 2017
IF CLAUSE tugas bahasa inggris bisnis 2 (2)
- Kalau sekarang hujan, maka motor saya basah
- Jika Azmi dulu tidak mendaftar di Gunadarma, maka Azmi tidak mengenal Monica
- Jika saya makan sebuah pisang, maka saya sehat
- Kalau saya sedari dulu saya belajar rajin maka 6 bulan lagi saya di wisuda
- Seandainya saya daun kamu batangnya
- Kalau saja nanti saya lulus cumlaude, saya akan menjadi manajer
- Kalau saja tadi pagihujan deras, mobil saya basah
- Seandainya nanti pulang cepat kita nonton bersama
- Kalau saja sekarang Indonesia dapat membasmi para koruptor, maka Indonesia akan maju
- Kalau saya adalah anda, saya akan merasa bahagia
Translate
- if it was raining, my motorcycle would be wet (Type 1)
- If Azmi hadn't registered in Gunadarma, Azmi wouldn't known Monica (Type 3)
- If i eat banana before going to sleep, my body healthy (Type 0)
- If i had studied hard,i might have graduated in 6 month (Type 3)
- If i were a leaf, you would be the branch (Type 0)
- If i graduate cumlaude, i will be a manager (Type 1)
- If it had been raining so hard this morning,my car would have been wet (Type 3)
- If i were going home early, we would watch together (Type 2)
- If Indonesia can exterminate the corruptors, Indonesia will go forward (Type 2)
- If i were you, i would be happy (Type 0)
Sabtu, 18 Maret 2017
Subject Verb Agreement
SUBJECT VERB AGREEMENT
Subject-verb agreement ialah persesuaian antara verb dengan subject dalam number, yakni: singular (tunggal) atau plural (jamak). Secara umum, singular subject menggunakan singular verb, sedangkan plural subject menggunakan plural verb.
10 SOAL MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Whether to buy or rent a house ..... an important financial question
a. Is
b. Are
c. Were
d. Was
2. ..... Grace or her co-worker sleeps at work
a. Does
b. Do
c. Did
d. Are
3. Physics ..... been my favorite subject since i was 15 years old
a. Have
b. Has
c. Had
d. Is
4. Septina and i ..... baking sponge cakes at this time yesterday
a. Were
b. Was
c. Are
d. Is
5. Mumps Usually ..... through saliva
a. Spread
b. Spreads
c. Spreading
d. Spread
6. The Central Office Manajer, along with his two assistant, ..... left the room
a. Have
b. Has
c. Has been
d. Is being
7. There ..... many ways to say “Thank you”
a. Is
b. Are
c. Were
d. Was
8. The police ..... work hard to investigate the case
a. Has to
b. Have to
c. Has
d. Have
9. The participant attending the seminar in the room ..... from european countries
a. Coming
b. Come
c. Comes
d. Will comes
10. The population of jakarta ..... very rapicly for the last 10 years
a. Have growing
b. Has been grown
c. Has grown
d. Has growing
KUNCI JAWABAN MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Is
2. Does
3. Has
4. Were
5. Spreads
6. Has
7. Are
8. Have to
9. Come
10. Has Grown
15 SOAL ERROR ANALISYS
Subject-verb agreement ialah persesuaian antara verb dengan subject dalam number, yakni: singular (tunggal) atau plural (jamak). Secara umum, singular subject menggunakan singular verb, sedangkan plural subject menggunakan plural verb.
10 SOAL MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Whether to buy or rent a house ..... an important financial question
a. Is
b. Are
c. Were
d. Was
2. ..... Grace or her co-worker sleeps at work
a. Does
b. Do
c. Did
d. Are
3. Physics ..... been my favorite subject since i was 15 years old
a. Have
b. Has
c. Had
d. Is
4. Septina and i ..... baking sponge cakes at this time yesterday
a. Were
b. Was
c. Are
d. Is
5. Mumps Usually ..... through saliva
a. Spread
b. Spreads
c. Spreading
d. Spread
6. The Central Office Manajer, along with his two assistant, ..... left the room
a. Have
b. Has
c. Has been
d. Is being
7. There ..... many ways to say “Thank you”
a. Is
b. Are
c. Were
d. Was
8. The police ..... work hard to investigate the case
a. Has to
b. Have to
c. Has
d. Have
9. The participant attending the seminar in the room ..... from european countries
a. Coming
b. Come
c. Comes
d. Will comes
10. The population of jakarta ..... very rapicly for the last 10 years
a. Have growing
b. Has been grown
c. Has grown
d. Has growing
KUNCI JAWABAN MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Is
2. Does
3. Has
4. Were
5. Spreads
6. Has
7. Are
8. Have to
9. Come
10. Has Grown
15 SOAL ERROR ANALISYS
1. My mother and father is arriving today.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Analisys: two or more subjects connected by “and” use a plural verb.
2. One of my sister like to reading book.
A B C
Answer : B (likes)
Analysis: subject in plural verb, then used the singular verb.
3. The boys walks to school.
A B C
Answer : B (walk)
Analysis: subject in singular verb, then used the plural verb.
4. Each book and magazine are listed in the database.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Analisys: “each” is always in the singular noun, although a noun are connected there are two or more subjects.
5. My friends lives in Yogyakarta.
A B C
Answer : C (live)
Analysis: subject in plural verb, then used the singular verb.
6. Wether to buy or rent a car are an important financial question.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Analysis: two or more subjects connected by “or” use a singular verb.
7. All part of the cake have been eaten by my sister.
A B C
Answer : B (has)
Analysis: the object of the prosisi is plural, then use a plural verb.
8. A number of kids comes to my shop and buy chocolate.
A B C
Answer : B (come)
the phrase the number means the number, followed by a singular verb. While a number, followed by a plural verb.
9. Either of us are able to speak English.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Anaysis: either the subject of the sentence, then use the singular verb.
10. Either sarah or susan have been ready to go.
A B C
Answer : B (has)
Analysis:two singular subjects connected by either/or requires a singular verb.
11. Either my father or I will going to the market.
A B C
Answer : A (am)
when “I” was one of the subjects are connected by either/or, as well as the “I” placed on the second, then follow the subject with the verb am.
12. Rani is talking to the kid who buy my cake.
A B C
Answer : B (kids)
Analysis: the verb after “who” is plural, then use a plural verb.
13. These trousers is made of wool.
A B C
Answer : B (are)
noun “trousers” should be followed by a plural verb.
14. There is many questions.
A B C
Answer : B (are)
the subject comes after the verb, but still used to define single or plural.
15. My family have a long history.
A B C
Answer : B (has)
Analysis: collective nouns are words that imply more than one person but that are considered singular and take a singular verb.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Analisys: two or more subjects connected by “and” use a plural verb.
2. One of my sister like to reading book.
A B C
Answer : B (likes)
Analysis: subject in plural verb, then used the singular verb.
3. The boys walks to school.
A B C
Answer : B (walk)
Analysis: subject in singular verb, then used the plural verb.
4. Each book and magazine are listed in the database.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Analisys: “each” is always in the singular noun, although a noun are connected there are two or more subjects.
5. My friends lives in Yogyakarta.
A B C
Answer : C (live)
Analysis: subject in plural verb, then used the singular verb.
6. Wether to buy or rent a car are an important financial question.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Analysis: two or more subjects connected by “or” use a singular verb.
7. All part of the cake have been eaten by my sister.
A B C
Answer : B (has)
Analysis: the object of the prosisi is plural, then use a plural verb.
8. A number of kids comes to my shop and buy chocolate.
A B C
Answer : B (come)
the phrase the number means the number, followed by a singular verb. While a number, followed by a plural verb.
9. Either of us are able to speak English.
A B C
Answer : B (is)
Anaysis: either the subject of the sentence, then use the singular verb.
10. Either sarah or susan have been ready to go.
A B C
Answer : B (has)
Analysis:two singular subjects connected by either/or requires a singular verb.
11. Either my father or I will going to the market.
A B C
Answer : A (am)
when “I” was one of the subjects are connected by either/or, as well as the “I” placed on the second, then follow the subject with the verb am.
12. Rani is talking to the kid who buy my cake.
A B C
Answer : B (kids)
Analysis: the verb after “who” is plural, then use a plural verb.
13. These trousers is made of wool.
A B C
Answer : B (are)
noun “trousers” should be followed by a plural verb.
14. There is many questions.
A B C
Answer : B (are)
the subject comes after the verb, but still used to define single or plural.
15. My family have a long history.
A B C
Answer : B (has)
Analysis: collective nouns are words that imply more than one person but that are considered singular and take a singular verb.
Jumat, 04 November 2016
KASUS ROYAL AHOLD, RANGKUMAN, FRAUD, DAN ANALISIS COSO FRAMEWORK
THE
CASE OF ROYAL AHOLD
- 1. Rangkuman Jurnal
Royal
ahold adalah salah satu kisah sukses pada tahun1990 dan merupakan salah satu
kegagalan utama, menderita krisis pada tahun 2003. Diselidiki bahwa strategi,
hubungan investor, transparansi akuntansi dan tata kelola perusahaan dari Ahold
ini bersama-sama mendorong kinerja perusahaan selama masa dasawarsa lalu.
hubungan investor dan implikasinya sangat penting, tetapi setelah diteliti aspek
proses pembentukan perusahaan adalah keyakinan pasar. Untuk Ahold, hubungan
investor adalah komponen penting dari ikatan reputasi, pengaruh klinis dokumen
studi antara hubungan investor kami dengan ekspektasi investor. Kami memberikan
analisis mendalam tentang strategi, akuntansi transparansi dan tata kelola
perusahaan yang menyebabkan kejatuhan Ahold. Kami memberikan wawasan dan
implikasi dalam hubungan ini bahwa teori ini dan studi empiris belum sepenuhnya
ditangani.
Kejayaan
dan kejatuhan ahold merupakan kejadian penting. Dengan pusat di netherland,
Ahold adalah salah satu perusahaan retail grocery dan food service terbaik di
dunia. Dimana pada tahun 2001 tercatat penjualan sebesar €66.6 milyar dan
keuntungan sebesar €1.1 milyar dimana keuntungan tersebut hasil dari 5155 toko
di 27 negara yang beroperasi dengan milyaran pegawai.
pada
tahun 2003, ahold menderita krisis sehingga para pemegang saham kehilangan
modal yang di tanamkan sejak tahun 1989. Strategi yang gagal, skandal akunting,
pemecatan manajemen profesional dan keboborokan lainnya merupakan kekacauan pada
perusahaan ahold.
Kami
menginvestigasi bahwa hubungan investor, tranparasi akuntansi, dan tata kelola
perusahaan merupakan faktor yang mengatur dan menjalankan performa perusahaan
pada dekade terakhir.
Kita
mulai dengan menganalisis strategi pertumbuhan Ahold melalui akuisisi dan konsekuensinya.
Moeller et al. (2005) menjelaskan merger dan akuisisi konsekuensi untuk
akuisisi US oleh emiten perusahaan AS selama 1980-2001 periode. Mereka
menemukan pengelompokan sejumlah kecil perusahaan dengan kerugian besar pada
periode 1998-2001. Profil dari perusahaan-perusahaan ini cocok dengan Ahold,
karena mereka nilai perusahaan tinggi, mereka pengakuisisi serial perusahaan,
dan telah sukses sebelum 1998. Moeller et al. (2005) berspekulasi bahwa hasil
mereka konsisten dengan ketidak mampuan untuk mempertahankan strategi
perusahaan pertumbuhan melalui akuisisi atau dengan strategi yang tidak
menguntungkan seperti yang diharapkan. argumen mereka konsisten dengan
pandangan Jensen (2005) nilai-nilai ekuitas yang tinggi karena awalnya pertumbuhan
yang sukses melalui akuisisi memberikan tekanan pada manajemen untuk mempertahankan
tingkat pertumbuhan serta memberikan manajemen yang lebih kebijaksanaan untuk
membuat akuisisi miskin yang menghargai ilusi pertumbuhan lebih dari nilai
pemegang saham.
Untuk
mencapai tujuannya pertumbuhan 15% dalam pendapatan, Ahold mengandalkan
sebagian besar pada akuisisi. Sebagai hasil dari strategi ini dan perbedaan akuntansi
goodwill antara Belanda dan US GAAP (berlaku umum prinsip akuntansi), laba
pelaporan Belanda US dan mulai melebar pada tahun 1997. Sementara perbedaan
antara Belanda dan AS melaporkan laba meningkat, pengungkapan Ahold untuk efek
pro forma dari akuisisi yang dan efek ini di bawah Belanda dan US GAAP sama
sekali tidak transparan.
Ahold
memberikan wawasan ke dalam implementasi dan mekanisme peran tata kelola
perusahaan dalam memulai dan mempertahankan apa yang akhirnya menjadi sebuah strategi
berhasil. Sebelum manajemen yang profesional, keluarga Heijn menggunakan hukum
perusahaan Belanda dan blockholding kecil untuk mengontrol Ahold, yang memiliki
struktur kepemilikan tersebar. Transisi ke manajemen profesional di 1989
meninggalkan Ahold dengan pemegang saham tersebar tapi tidak ada blockholder
besar.
Growth
strategy, investor relations and implementation1
Growth
strategy
Lebih dari tiga
generasi keluarga Heijn, Ahold berevolusi dari toko kelontong tunggal pada
tahun 1887 menjadi perusahaan makanan dengan posisi dominan di Belanda. Pada
tahun 1989, ketika manajemen keluarga digantikan oleh profesional manajemen,
Ahold adalah pengecer makanan terbesar, termasuk Albert Heijn rantai
supermarket dan waralaba, Schuitema, memasok independen bahan makanan.
toko-toko khusus termasuk Etos, rantai toko obat, dan Alberto, rantai minuman
keras dan anggur toko. Menggabungkan kelontong dan khusus rantai, Kuasai
memiliki pangsa pasar total sekitar 45% di Belanda Mulai tahun 1989, ambisi
Ahold di bawah manajemen yang profesional adalah untuk berada di posisi yang
sama seperti Wal-Mart dan Carrefour, nomor satu dan dua internasional peringkat
perusahaan ritel. Ahold direncanakan untuk mencapai ambisi ini dengan
mempertahankan posisinya yang dominan di Belanda, mengembangkan massa kritis di AS dalam rangka
membangun sinergi di tingkat seluas mungkin dalam Ahold USA, dan mempertimbangkan
Kesempatan internasional lainnya (Rabattu et al., 1997). Secara khusus,
strategi Ahold adalah pertumbuhan melalui akuisisi toko rantai dan kemudian
melanjutkan untuk mengoperasikan rantai ini di bawah nama mereka sendiri,
manajemen lokal dan identitas lokal.
The
successful growth strategy: become the largest chain on the US East
Coast
Dengan dominasi di pasar
domestik, Ahold mengejar strategi pertumbuhan dengan berfokus terutama pada
Amerika Serikat dengan tujuan menjadi rantai
supermarket terbesar di Pantai Timur. Pada tahun 1977 Ahold membuat akuisisi pertamanya
di US, rantai BI-LO dengan toko-toko di Georgia dan Carolina, diikuti oleh
akuisisi besar kedua pada tahun 1981, Toko Raksasa Makanan di daerah Pennsylvania,
dan yang ketiga pada tahun 1988, Supermarket Nasional Pertama dengan operasi di
New England. Pada tahun 1989, total penjualan €7747000000 dengan 50% dari mereka penjualan di AS, . Pada
tahun 1991, Ahold membeli Buffalo, New York Tops Markets. Pasar saham itu bereaksi
positif terhadap akuisisi tabel 4 menunjukkan bahwa harga saham meningkat 3,29%
(t-statistik = 3,9). Pada tahun 1994, Toko Red Food, yang berbasis di Chattanooga,
Tennessee dibeli, dan pada tahun 1995 Ahold mengambil alih Supermarket Mayfair,
yang berbasis di New Jersey. Ahold membuat akuisisi terbesarnya sampai saat ini
pada tahun 1996, Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., rantai terbesar di New
England. Dengan Stop & Shop Acquisition, Ahold adalah yang terbesar kelima rantai
supermarket di AS dan dekat dengan tujuannya menjadi rantai terbesar di Pantai
Timur.
Global
expansion and its difficulties
Ahold mulai Kuasai
Eropa dengan membeli 50% saham di ICA, Norwegia dan Swedia, pada tahun 1999 dan
100% saham di Superdiplo, Spanyol di 2000. Pasar tidak senang dengan harga yang
dibayarkan untuk akuisisi atau pembiayaan mereka, yang terdiri dari ekuitas
baru dan utang konversi
Dimulai pada tahun 1996, Ahold diperluas di luar AS dan
Eropa Ahold memasuki Amerika Latin untuk pertama kalinya melalui usaha joint
venture di Brasil. Ahold juga memasuki Asia untuk pertama kalinya, China,
Malaysia dan Singapura pada tahun 1996, dan Thailand dan Indonesia pada tahun
1997. Asia adalah pasar internasional terbesar dan paling terfragmentasi,
dengan kebanyakan penjualan makanan terjadi supermarket di luar. Tidak jelas
apa yang menjadi strategi ahold untuk asia. Carrefour adalah puncak peringkat
rantai supermarket di Asia. Carrefour adalah satu-satunya perusahaan yang
menguntungkan di wilayah ini antara nya internasional peer group (Wal-Mart,
Ahold dan Carrefour), yang bersaing dengan Ahold di masing-masing negara Ahold
berada (Coriolis Penelitian, 2001). strategi pertumbuhan Ahold ini di Asia
gagal, karena fokus jangka pendek pada pendapatan bertentangan dengan horizon
yang panjang diperlukan untuk berhasil memasuki bagian dari dunia. Ahold
menarik diri dari China dan Singapura hanya tiga tahun setelah memasuki pasar
ini pada tahun 1996, karena tidak mengantisipasi pengembalian tersisa operasi Asia Ahold ini menderita
setelah guncangan krisis keuangan Asia. Singkatnya, sebagian besar ekspansi
kelontong ritel global Ahold tidak
berhasil kecuali ekspansi di AS.
Corporate
governance
Code
of corporate governance
Pada bagian ini, kita
menganalisis struktur tata kelola perusahaan Ahold dan melihat apa yang salah
Ownership
and control structure
Peran
pemegang saham dalam Ahold tergantung pada struktur kepemilikan, yaitu distribusi
kepemilikan dan konstruksi hukum yang membatasi pengaruh pemegang saham. Dimulai
pada tahun 1948 dengan keluarga tahun 2001 dengan manajemen yang profesional, keluarga
dan manajemen mengadopsi semua pertahanan tersedia untuk perusahaan untuk mendapatkan dan
mempertahankan kontrol penuh dari Ahold: Pendiri / prioritas saham, saham
preferen dengan opsi untuk mencairkan 100% dalam kasus pengambilalihan
bermusuhan, rezim terstruktur, mengikat nominasi dan sertifikat pertahanan ini
meniadakan kemampuan pemegang saham untuk memonitor manajemen pada hari ke hari
dengan mencabut hak suara mereka dan kemampuan dari pasar untuk kontrol
perusahaan untuk manajemen disiplin melalui pengambilalihan. Dengan ini kita
akan mengetahui kepemilikan Ahold ini struktur dan obstruksi pengaruh pemegang
saham, yang berdiri kontras dengan citra hubungan investor nya.
Management
board
Transisi ke
manajemen profesional dipercepat oleh penculikan dan pembunuhan Gerrit Jan
Heijn di akhir 1987 dan awal 1988. Selama periode empat tahun, 1998-2002, ada
omset 50% dalam manajemen naik. Van der Hoeven
(sekarang hanya CEO), Andreae (Albert Heijn) dan Meurs (CFO) masih di papan.
anggota baru de Raad (sebelumnya dari SHV dan pengecer Jerman Metro), Grize (manajemen
dari Stop & Shop), dan Miller (manajemen dari US Food Service). Selain itu,
Noddle, manajemen dari Toko Makanan raksasa, datang dan pergi dari papan selama
periode. Kehadiran mantan pengelolaan akuisisi baru, Grize, Miller dan Noddle,
dipromosikan karena manajer ini dipromosikan untuk dewan perusahaan yang jauh
lebih besar dalam situasi yang sangat tidak pasti. Selanjutnya, anggota dewan
memantau anak mereka yang berhasil sebelumnya. Meskipun konsisten dengan
strategi Ahold untuk menjaga manajemen yang diperoleh, itu merupakan
pengendalian internal lemah terhadap manajemen
Supervisory
board
Dewan pengawas
gagal beradaptasi dengan sebuah perusahaan yang dikelola secara profesional
dengan struktur kepemilikan tersebar. Struktur OECD dan tanggung jawab untuk dewan
pengawas menyiratkan bahwa masalah didokumentasikan untuk Ahold terutama tanggung
jawab dewan. Kebebasan dari dewan manajemen terbatas ketika mantan manajer
menjadi supervisor. manajemen dasarnya menjual saham yang diperoleh dari
rencana ini, yang menempatkan tekanan tambahan pada manajemen untuk menjaga
likuiditas dan mendukung harga saham melalui Hubungan Investor nya.
- Fraud/kesalahan dalam perusahaan
Pada tahun 2002 dan 2003, perusahaan menghadapi tiga pelanggaran
peraturan akuntansi: tersembunyi kewajiban kontrak, manipulasi melalui
konsolidasi usaha patungan dan penipuan dengan vendor rabat. Pada tahun 2002,
Ahold mengakui bahwa perusahaan tidak diungkapkan beberapa bahan off yang menyeimbangkan
kewajiban sheet yang berkaitan dengan usaha patungan. Partner joint venture di
Disco, keluarga Peirano, sedang mengalami masalah keuangan. Ahold diperlukan
untuk membeli saham keluarga dalam usaha patungan pada harga yang melambung
jika keluarga Peirano tidak bisa membayar utangnya (Het Financieele Dagblad, 3
Juli 2002). Abnormal return on 13% (t-statistik = 7.7). Di 2002, ketua ICA Ahold
go public dengan perjanjian pemegang saham yang menunjukkan Ahold berkewajiban
untuk membeli dia dan ICA dan lain partner, pada bulan April 2004 untuk perkiraan
harga € 2,5 miliar. Tahunan Laporan tahun 2001 tidak menyebutkan kewajiban ini (Het
Financieele Dagblad, 8 Oktober, 2002). Abnormal return on 11,1% (T-statistik =
4.3). Dalam panggilan konferensi meliputi 2.002 hasil kuartal pertama
(Pengungkapan Adil Jaringan keuangan, 6 Juni 2002), van der Hoeven dilaporkan
dan diperkirakan '' Pro forma '' pertumbuhan pendapatan 22% dan pro forma
pertumbuhan laba per saham dari 10% untuk tahun ini. Pada kuartal kedua (Adil Pengungkapan
Jaringan Keuangan, 29 Agustus 2002), van der Hoeven melaporkan kerugian
kuartalan pertama Ahold di 29 tahun dan menegaskan Juli keuntungan pendapatan
yang diharapkan per saham Pertumbuhan akan menjadi antara 5% dan 8%. Akhirnya,
untuk kuartal ketiga (Pengungkapan Adil Jaringan keuangan, 19 November, 2002),
van der Hoeven mengumumkan kerugian lain triwulan dan kegagalan tingkat
pertumbuhan 15%. Pada hari Senin, 24 Februari 2003, Ahold mengumumkan bahwa
laba bersih dan Laba per saham di bawah Belanda GAAP dan US GAAP akan secara
signifikan lebih rendah dari sebelumnya diindikasikan untuk tahun yang berakhir
2002. Pada masalah yang penjual rabat, juga dikenal sebagai tunjangan promosi.
penjual makanan, seperti Sara Lee Corp dan ConAgra Food Inc, dibayar rabat
untuk US Makanan Layanan untuk menjual jumlah tertentu produk mereka. US Food
Layanan dipesan rabat ini awal sehingga tunjangan promosi meningkat. siaran pers
Kuasai memberi pendahuluan estimasi efek ini memiliki pada keuntungan operasi
untuk tahun 2001 dan 2002, berlebihan dari € 466.000.000. Pada akhirnya, jumlah
itu 820.000.000 € lebih periode tiga tahun, 2000-2002. The overstatements
diperlukan penyajian kembali laporan keuangan Ahold selama bertahun-tahun
fiskal 2000 dan 2001 dan yang pertama tiga perempat dari tahun fiskal 2002
- analisis menggunakan COSO Framework
Menurut COSO framework, Internal control terdiri dari 5 komponen yang saling terkait, yaitu:
- Control Environment
- Risk Assessment
- Control Activities
- Information and communication
- Monitoring
1. control environment atau pengendalian lingkungan
kesalahan dari royal ahold disini adalah terlalu berambisi untuk menjadi pasar retail terbesar. menjadi yang terbesar di negaranya yaitu belanda dan mulai berekspansi ke US dan cukup berhasil menjadi pasar retail yang besar disana menjadikan perusahaan ini besar kepala dan ingin mendominasi pasar retail di seluruh dunia hingga akhirnya dengan optimis membuka cabang di asia dikarenakan orang asia yang cenderung berbelanja makanan di supermarket menjadikan mereka optimis bisa membangun kerjaannya di asia. namun gagal dikarenakan banyaknya pesaing sehingga hanya dalam 3 tahun royal ahold menarik seluruh perusahaan retailnya di asia
2. risk assesment atau penaksiran resiko
kurangnya penaksiran resiko dari royal ahold ini menjadikan perusahaan ini semakin terpuruk, dimulai dari pengelolaan keluarga hingga profesional manajemen tidak menjadikan perusahaan ini berfikir akan resiko yang dihadapinya sebelum mengambil keputusan, banyak mengakusisi perusahaan dan membeli saham perusahaan lain tanpa memikirkan dengan matang resikonya
3. control activities atau aktivitas pengendalian
Aktivitas pengendalian adalah kebijakan dan prosedur yang membantu menjamin bahwaarahan manajemen dilaksanakan. Aktivitas tersebut membantu memastikan bahwa tindakan yang diperlukan untuk menanggulangi risiko dalam pencapaian tujuan entitas. Aktivitas pengendalian memiliki berbagai tujuan dan diterapkan di berbagai tingkat organisasi dan fungsi. jika control activities ini dilaksanakan dengan sebaik baiknya maka perusahaan ini akan maju dikarenakan semua arahan manajer dilaksanakan serta kegiatan yang tidak sesuai akan diketahui dan bisa ditindaklanjuti
4. information and communication
Informasi dan komunikasi adalah pengidentifikasian, penangkapan, dan pertukaran informasi dalam suatu bentuk dan waktu yang memungkinkan orang melaksanakan tanggung jawab mereka. jika komunikasi dan informasi berjalan dengan baik maka suatu perusahaan akan mencapai titik kemajuan paling tinggi namun ini tidak terjadi pada royal ahold bahkan terjadi konflik yang menyebabkan salah satu pendiri nya diculik dan dibunuh.
5.Monitoring atau Pemantauan
yang terakhir adalah monitoring dimana semua kegiatan yang berjalan sehingga tidak terjadi hal hal yang melenceng seperti transparansi akuntansi. penggelapan dana, serta hal hal buruk yang terjadi pada manajemen royal ahold
Sabtu, 01 Oktober 2016
Etika Bisnis dalam Perusahaan dan Contoh Etika Bisnis
PENGERTIAN ETIKA BISNIS DAN PENERAPANNYA DALAM PERUSAHAAN
PENGERTIAN ETIKA BISNIS
Etika bisnis merupakan cara untuk melakukan kegiatan bisnis, yang mencakup seluruh aspek yang berkaitan dengan individu, perusahaan dan juga masyarakat. Etika Bisnis dalam suatu perusahaan dapat membentuk nilai, norma dan perilaku karyawan serta pimpinan dalam membangun hubungan yang adil dan sehat dengan pelanggan/mitra kerja, pemegang saham, masyarakat.
Perusahaan meyakini prinsip bisnis yang baik adalah bisnis yang beretika, yakni bisnis dengan kinerja unggul dan berkesinambungan yang dijalankan dengan mentaati kaidah-kaidah etika sejalan dengan hukum dan peraturan yang berlaku.
Etika Bisnis dapat menjadi standar dan pedoman bagi seluruh karyawan termasuk manajemen dan menjadikannya sebagai pedoman untuk melaksanakan pekerjaan sehari-hari dengan dilandasi moral yang luhur, jujur, transparan dan sikap yang profesional.
Perusahaan meyakini prinsip bisnis yang baik adalah bisnis yang beretika, yakni bisnis dengan kinerja unggul dan berkesinambungan yang dijalankan dengan mentaati kaidah-kaidah etika sejalan dengan hukum dan peraturan yang berlaku.
Etika Bisnis dapat menjadi standar dan pedoman bagi seluruh karyawan termasuk manajemen dan menjadikannya sebagai pedoman untuk melaksanakan pekerjaan sehari-hari dengan dilandasi moral yang luhur, jujur, transparan dan sikap yang profesional.
ETIKA BISNIS MENURUT PARA AHLI
· Menurut Velasques(2002), etika bisnis merupakan studi yang dikhususkan mengenai moral yangbenar dan salah. Studi ini berkonsentrasi pada standar moral sebagaimana diterapkan dalam kebijakan, institusi dan perilaku bisnis.
· Menurut Hill dan Jones(1998), menyatakan bahwa etika bisnis merupakan suatu ajaran untuk membedakan antara salah dan benar guna memberikan pembekalan kepada setiap pemimpinperusahaan ketika mempertimbangkan untuk mengambil keputusan strategis yang terkaitdengan masalah moral yang kompleks. Lebih jauh ia mengatakan Sebagian besar dari kita sudah memiliki rasa yang baik dari apa yang benar dan apa yang salah, kita sudah tahu bahwa salah satu untuk mengambil tindakan yang menempatkan resiko kehidupan yang lain.”).
· Menurut Steade et al (1984 : 701), dalam bukunya ”Business, Its Natura and Environment An Introduction” Etika bisnis adalah standar etika yangberkaitan dengan tujuan dan cara membuat keputusan bisnis.”.
INDIKATOR ETIKA BISNIS
Kehidupan bisnis modern menurut banyak pengamat cenderung mementingkan keberhasilan material. Menempatkan material pada urutan prioritas utama, dapat mendorong para pelaku bisnis dan masyarakat umum melirik dan menggunakan paradigma dangkal tentang makna dunia bisnis itu sendiri. Sesungguhnya dunia binis tidak sesadis yang dibayangkan orang dan material bukanlah harga mati yang harus diupayakan dengan cara apa yang dan bagaimanapun. Dengan paradigma sempit dapat berkonotasi bahwa bisnis hanya dipandang sebagai sarana meraih pendapatan dan keuntungan uang semata, dengan mengabaikan kepentingan lainnya. Organisasi bisnis dan perusahaan dipandang hanya sekedar mesin dan sarana untuk memaksimalkan keuntungannya dan dengan demikian bisnis semata-mata berperan sebagai jalan untuk menumpuk kekayaan dan bisnis telah menjadi jati diri lebih dari mesin pengganda modal atau kapitalis.
Dari sudut pandang etika, keuntungan bukanlah hal yang baru, bahkan secara moral keuntungan merupakan hal yang baik dan diterima. Alasannya adalah sebagai berikut:
- Secara moral keuntungan memungkinkan organisasi/perusahaan untuk bertahan dalam kegiatan bisnisnya.
- Tanpa memperoleh keuntungan tidak ada pemilik modal yang bersedia menanamkan modalnya, dan karena itu berarti tidak akan terjadi aktivitas yang produktif dalam memacu pertumbuhan ekonomi.
- Keuntungan tidak hanya memungkinkan perusahaan bertahan melainkan dapat menghidupi karyawannya ke arah tingkat hidup yang lebih baik. Keuntungan dapat dipergunakan sebagai pengembangan perusahaan sehingga hal ini akan membuka lapangan kerja baru.
- Implementasi etika dalam penyelenggaraan bisnis mengikat setiap personal menurut bidang tugas yang diembannya. Dengak kata lain mengikat manajer, pimpinan unit kerja dan kelembagaan perusahaan. Semua anggota organisasi/perusahaan sesuai dengan tugas pokok dan fungsi harus menjabarkan dan melaksanakan etika bisnis secara konsekuen dan penuh tanggung jawab. Dalam pandangan sempit perusahaan dianggap sudah dianggap melaksanakan etika bisnis bilamana perusahaan yang bersangkutan telah melaksanakan tanggung jawab sosialnya.
- Indikator Etika Bisnis menurut ekonomi adalah apabila perusahaan atau pebisnis telah melakukan pengelolaan sumber daya bisnis dan sumber daya alam secara efisien tanpa merugikan masyarakat lain.
- Indikator Etika Bisnis menurut peraturan khusus yang berlaku. Berdasarkan indikator ini seseorang pelaku bisnis dikatakan beretika dalam bisnisnya apabila masing-masing pelaku bisnis mematuhi aturan-aturan khusus yang telah disepakati sebelumnya.
- Indikator Etika Bisnis menurut hukum. Berdasarkan indikator hukum seseorang atau suatu perusahaan dikatakan telah melaksanakan etika bisnis apabila seseorang pelaku bisnis atau suatu perusahaan telah mematuhi segala norma hukum yang berlaku dalam menjalankan kegiatan bisnisnya.
- Indikator Etika Bisnis berdasarkan ajaran agama. Pelaku bisnis dianggap beretika bilamana dalam pelaksanaan bisnisnya senantiasa merujuk kepada nilai-nilai ajaran agama yang dianutnya.
- Indikator Etika Bisnis berdasarkan nilai budaya. Setiap pelaku bisnis baik secara individu maupun kelembagaan telah menyelenggarakan bisnisnya dengan mengakomodasi nilai-nilai budaya dan adat istiadat yang ada disekitar operasi suatu perusahaan, daerah dan suatu bangsa.
- Indikator Etika Bisnis menurut masing-masing individu adalah apabila masing-masing pelaku bisnis bertindak jujur dan tidak mengorbankan integritas pribadinya.
Etika bisnis memiliki prinsip-prinsip yang harus ditempuh perusahaan oleh perusahaan untuk mencapai tujuannya dan harus dijadikan pedoman agar memiliki standar baku yang mencegah timbulnya ketimpangan dalam memandang etika moral sebagai standar kerja atau operasi perusahaan.
- Prinsip Otonomi adalah prinsip otonomi memandang bahwa perusahaan secara bebas memiliki wewenang sesuai dengan bidang yang dilakukan dan pelaksanaannya dengan visi dan misi yang dimilikinya. Kebijakan yang diambil perusahaan harus diarahkan untuk pengembangan visi dan misi perusahaan yang berorientasi pada kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan karyawan dan komunitasnya.
- Prinsip Kejujuran adalah prinsip kejujuran meliputi pemenuhan syarat-syarat perjanjian atau kontrak, mutu barang atau jasa yang ditawarkan, dan hubungan kerja dalam perusahaan. Prinsip ini paling problematik karena masih banyak pelaku bisnis melakukan penipuan.
- Prinsip Tidak Berniat Jahat merupakan prinsip ini ada hubungan erat dengan prinsip kejujuran. Penerapan prinsip kejujuran yang ketat akan mampu meredam niat jahat perusahaan itu.
- Prinsip Keadilan adalah perusahaan harus bersikap adil kepada pihak-pihak yang terkait dengan sistem bisnis. Contohnya, upah yang adil kepada karywan sesuai kontribusinya, pelayanan yang sama kepada konsumen, dan lain-lain.
- Prinsip Hormat Pada Diri Sendiri merupakan prinsip yang mengarahkan agar kita memperlakukan seseorang sebagaimana kita ingin diperlakukan dan tidak akan memperlakukan orang lain sebagaimana kita tidak ingin diperlakukan.
CONTOH PENERAPAN ETIKA PERUSAHAAN PADA PT POS INDONESIA
Salah satu upaya untuk meningkatkan kinerja suatu perusahaan/organisasi adalah dengan cara menerapkan Good Corporate Governance (GCG). Penerapan Good Corporate Governance (GCG) merupakan pedoman bagi Komisaris dan Direksi dalam membuat keputusan dan menjalankan tindakan dengan dilandasi moral yang tinggi, kepatuhan kepada peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku serta kesadaran akan adanya tanggung jawab sosial perseroan terhadap pihak yang berkepentingan (stakeholders) secara konsisten.
Maksud dan tujuan penerapan Good Corporate Governance di Perusahaan adalah sebagai berikut:
- Memaksimalkan nilai Perusahaan dengan cara meningkatkan prinsip keterbukaan, akuntabilitas, dapat dipercaya, bertanggung jawab, dan adil agar Perusahaan memiliki daya saing yang kuat, baik secara nasional maupun internasional.
- Mendorong pengelolaan Perusahaan secara profesional, transparan dan efisien, serta memberdayakan fungsi dan meningkatkan kemandirian.
- Mendorong agar manajemen Perusahaan dalam membuat keputusan dan menjalankan tindakan dilandasi nilai moral yang tinggi dan kepatuhan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, serta kesadaran akan adanya tanggung jawab sosial Perusahaan terhadap stakeholders maupun kelestarian lingkungan di sekitar Perusahaa.
- Meningkatkan kontribusi Perusahaan dalam perekonomian nasional
- Meningkatkan nilai investasi dan kekayaan Perusahaan
CONTOH PELANGGARAN KASUS ETIKA BISNIS PT GUDANG GARAM (Tbk)
Menurut Etika Pariwara Indonesia, “Iklan ialah pesan komunikasi pemasaran atau komunikasi publik tentang sesuatu produk yang disampaikan melalui suatu media, dibiayai oleh pemrakarsa yang dikenal, serta ditujukan kepada sebagian atau seluruh masyarakat”.
Menurut Sony Keraf (1993 : 142), menyatakan bahwa dalam iklan kita dituntut untuk selalu mengatakan hal yang benar kepada konsumen tentang produk sambil membiarkan konsumen bebas menentukan untuk membeli atau tidak membeli produk itu.
Iklan dan pelaku periklanan harus :
- Jujur, benar, dan bertanggungjawab.
- Bersaing secara sehat.
- Melindungi dan menghargai khalayak, tidak merendahkan agama, budaya, negara, dan golongan, serta tidak bertentangan dengan hukum yang berlaku.
Melindungi dan menghargai khalayak, tidak merendahkan agama, budaya, negara, dan golongan, serta tidak bertentangan dengan hukum yang berlaku.
Iklan yang menyatakan kebenaran dan kejujuran adalah iklan yang beretika. Akan tetapi, iklan menjadi tidak efektif, apabila tidak mempunyai unsur persuasif. Akibatnya, tidak akan ada iklan yang akan menceritakan the whole truth dalam pesan iklannya. Sederhananya, iklan pasti akan mengabaikan informasi-informasi yang bila disampaikan kepada pemirsanya malah akan membuat pemirsanya tidak tertarik untuk menjadi konsumen produk atau jasanya.
Untuk membuat konsumen tertarik, iklan harus dibuat menarik bahkan kadang dramatis. Tapi iklan tidak diterima oleh target tertentu (langsung). Iklan dikomunikasikan kepada khalayak luas (melalui media massa komunikasi iklan akan diterima oleh semua orang : semua usia, golongan, suku, dsb). Sehingga iklan harus memiliki etika, baik moral maupun bisnis.
Dalam dunia periklanan, para pelaku iklan mempunyai sumber daya manusia yang mayoritas memiliki tingkat kreatifitas yang unik dan menarik, yang dapat divisualisasikan dalam bentuk visual (video, gambar, ilustrasi, dan tulisan) atau pun dalam bentuk audio (suara).
Di Indonesia, sangat menjunjung tinggi nilai-nilai moral dan etika pada setiap perilaku kehidupan sehari-hari. Tentunya hal ini membuat para pelaku iklan juga harus mematuhi apa saja yang telah diatur dalam UU Penyiaran atau UU Pariwara Indonesia yang telah diatur agar sejalan dengan nilai-nilai sosial-budaya masyarakat.
Adapun kasus pelanggaran yang berkaitan dengan etika dalam bisnis khususnya dalam hal etika periklanan, yaitu kasus pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh PT Gudang Garam (Tbk) sebagai berikut :
Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia (KPI) Pusat berdasarkan tugas dan kewajiban yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang No. 32 Tahun 2002 tentang Penyiaran (UU Penyiaran), pengaduan masyarakat, pemantauan dan hasil analisis telah menemukan pelanggaran Pedoman Perilaku Penyiaran dan Standar Program Siaran (P3 dan SPS) Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia Tahun 2012 pada Program Siaran Iklan Niaga rokok “Gudang Garam” yang ditayangkan oleh stasiun TV One pada tanggal 10 Mei 2014 pada pukul 19.43 WIB.
Program tersebut menampilkan iklan rokok di bawah pukul 21.30. Jenis pelanggaran ini dikategorikan sebagai pelanggaran terhadap perlindungan kepada anak-anak dan remaja serta larangan dan pembatasan muatan rokok.
KPI Pusat memutuskan bahwa tindakan penayangan tersebut telah melanggar Pedoman Perilaku Penyiaran Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia Tahun 2012 Pasal 14 dan Pasal 43 serta Standar Program Siaran Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia Tahun 2012 Pasal 15 ayat (1), Pasal 58 ayat (1) dan Pasal 59 ayat (1). Menurut catatan KPI Pusat, program ini telah menerima Surat Teguran Tertulis Pertama No.953/K/KPI/05/14 tertanggal 5 Mei 2014.
Berdasarkan pelanggaran di atas KPI Pusat memutuskan menjatuhkan sanksi administratif Teguran Tertulis Kedua. Atas pelanggaran ini KPI Pusat akan terus melakukan pemantauan dan meningkatkan sanksi yang lebih berat jika tetap melanggar ketentuan jam tayang iklan rokok.
Sesuai dengan PP Nomor 50 Tahun 2005 tentang Penyelenggaraan Lembaga Penyiaran Swasta, penayangan iklan rokok disiang hari jelas melanggar pasal 21 ayat (3) Iklan Rokok pada lembaga penyelenggara penyiar radio dan televisi hanya dapat disiarkan pada pukul 21.30 sampai dengan pukul 05.00 waktu setempat dimana lembaga penyiaran tersebut berada.
Kemudian juga sesuai dengan Etika Pariwara Indonesia menyatakan dalam wahana iklan melalui media televisi, yaitu iklan-iklan rokok dan produk khusus dewasa (intimate nature) hanya boleh disiarkan mulai pukul 21.30 hingga pukul 05.00 waktu setempat.
Solusi untuk kasus pelanggaran etika dalam bisnis khususnya etika periklanan yang dilakukan oleh PT Gudang Garam (Tbk), yakni dipasal 57 menyebut Lembaga Penyiaran Swasta yang menyelenggarakan siaran iklan rokok diluar ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 21 ayat (3) dikenai sanksi administrasi berupa denda administrasi untuk jasa penyiaran radio paling banyak Rp. 100.000.000 (seratus juta rupiah), dan untuk jasa penyiaran televisi paling banyak Rp. 1.000.000.000 (satu milyar rupiah).
SUMBER
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)