Is 'Working from Home' Another Big Work Lie?

March 25, 2014

When I wrote about “Out of Office” as a fib, all hell broke loose. Lots of comments and advice about work/life balance and office protocols ensued. The firestorm put a spotlight on another potential office fib: the concept of “working” from “home”. So let’s explore the truthiness of that pronouncement.

It’s a Friday morning and you receive an email message that declares, “I will be working from home today. I can be reached on my cell. Call if you need me.” We have all seen this note and it makes the mind wander and wonder.

Questions about the words “working” and “home” immediately come to mind. Is there anything more to believe than what the note says? The possibilities are endless. The note could mean:

• Surf’s up, I am on the beach for a three-day weekend.
• The endless interruptions in the office are frustrating. I really need to get something done today.
• My child (or parent) has a doctor’s appointment and I can’t deal with the logistics of going to work and running around so I am making it easy on myself by not coming in.
• I really need a mental health day to recharge my batteries. When I return on Monday I will be shockingly more productive.
• Baseball season started and I am playing hooky to see Derek Jeter.
• I need a break from my boss before I kill him or her.
• My commute is an hour each way every day, I need a break from traffic and for this one day I don’t want to waste the time in my car/train.
• Last week I worked 80 hours, I deserve a day off but I will have my phone with me anyway.

“Working from Home” could mean any or all of the above. Working from home every day is a slightly different situation but the perception of those who are always telecommuting is often a variation on the same theme mentioned above. Lately, the concept of working at home has taken a beating. The thinking is that people not in the office are less productive and the team needs everyone to show up. That ‘less productive’ perception is probably not deserved.

Nonetheless, companies, large and small, have reconsidered the notion of working from home. The assumption is that those working remotely might be looking for old flames on Facebook rather than really contributing. Traffic on the VPN was a simple way to find out who was “in” and “on” and in some cases the traffic was surprisingly low.

Is the notion of working from home sometimes abused? Yes.

Are some people more productive when not in the office? Yes.

Do remote workers negatively impact corporate culture and teamwork? Maybe.

Will teams perform at a higher level when the team shows up? Probably.

Is “Working from Home” another way to say, “I will contribute, regardless of where I am sitting”?

Read on.

The facts:

• Contrary to the perception that the person who works at home is a twenty-five year old techie or a young mother, the typical telecommuter is a 49-year-old college graduate who earns $58,000 a year and works for a company with more than 100 employees. These are numbers from the Census Bureau’s Annual American Community Survey. All ages at all levels work from home. And the group includes an equal distribution of men and women and people with and without children.
• Telecommuting has risen 79 percent between 2005 and 2012 according to statistics from the same American Community Survey. Lots of organizations are thriving with telecommuting workers.
• The severe winter and all those snow days that many suffered through this winter helped individuals and organizations see both the benefits and pitfalls of telecommuting.

So, is “Working from Home” a big fat lie? The answer is no. Usually. Working from home is a reality of today’s workplace that is being embraced. Flexibility helps us deal with complicated lives and helps organizations retain key people. Researchers are confirming that those who work at home tend to put in longer hours and are often more productive. “Working from home” is usually on top of the regular forty-hour workweek.

But we also know it can hurt an employee’s promotion chances and that some combination of working at home and showing up in the office is better. “Out of sight, out of mind” is not a good career planning mantra if you want to get ahead. The organization suffers too if no one ever shows up. Plans and accommodations need to be put in place that will ensure the organization’s success and accommodate the diverse workforce.

Sure, ‘Working from Home’ is sometimes abused. Sure, there are reasons why it can’t work in some organizations. Sure, most of us want to be part of a terrific team that is a model of innovation and productivity. And technology has been a curse and a miracle when it comes to being productive wherever we might be. So ‘Working from Home’ almost always means work is being done somewhere. There are enough lies and fibs at work, "Working from Home" is rarely one of them.

Destacado em:

• Your Career

Publicada por Richard A. Moran

Seguir  

       O Conselheiro Da Produtividade

                     sparks & honey posted by SAP

              (sobre como desenhar a rotina de trabalho)

Nos dias de hoje e na epoca dos aplicativos sob medida, para cada um dos aspectos da vida, parece que estamos nos aproximando de uma nova oportunidade de marketing, a qual tem revelado uma crescente necessidade social—a necessidade crescente de desenhar uma vida sob medida.

Sparks & Honey apresentou um estudo sobre os 20 top empregos que estarão mais demandados nos próximos 10 anos. Um deles era este – “ O Conselheiro Da Produtividade “

Faz Sentido.

Há tanta coisa para ser dita sobre a infelicidade no trabalho, web sites sobre produtividade, e coaches, ou conversações sobre como redefinir o trabalho.

Eu penso que a sociedade esta começando a concluir alguma coisa que o antigo filosofo Aristoteles sempre dizia. O mais importante e a felicidade. E a felicidade esta diretamente relacionada ao ser humano trabalhando. Esta também direcionada a como o ser humano esta sendo produtivo para aquilo que foi criado, para fazer.

Um amigo, me disse a sua formula teórica da felicidade :

O nível de contentamento/que VC produz = felicidade

Se no entanto fizer sentido VC começar uma nova carreira como conselheiro de produtividade va em frente. Mas isso não significa se especializar em psicologia e dar consultas para clientes numa poltrona reclinável. Eu penso que este tipo de consultoria ira precisar também de um requisito essencial – fome por tecnologia desenvolvida para aplicativos moveis.

Opa ! Psicologos, combinam com programadores de aplicativos.

Se olharmos para os smartphones e os tablets dos seus amigos agora, VC poderá ter uma ideia da vida que eles levam, baseado nos aplicativos que eles tem. Hoje em dia existem aplicativos para corrida, escolher restaurantes, escolha de roupas, para yoga, relação com parentes e para sua religião.

Numa visão mais ambiciosa, eu também vejo constantemente exclamações sobre questões existencialistas, como – o que eu realmente quero fazer com a minha vida?

Entao, o que eu preciso, para ser este tipo de profissional, ou um guia para salvar vidas (se VC preferir)?

Eu não sei exatamente. Mas eu penso que ajudaria muito voltar atrás para os pensamentos mais fundamentais – o que os filósofos antigos tem falado sobre – qual e o proposito dos homens? Do que constitui a felicidade dos homens?

Quando alguém compreende a resposta para esta pergunta, ele/ela podem usar a tecnologia para fazer a humanidade perseguir e atingir a felicidade.

Afinal de contas a tecnologia e meramente um facilitador. Na realidade e o espirito humano querendo ver avanços e florescer.

BH 30.03.2014

 Pesquisa, Tradução, Divulgação: Miguel Moyses Neto  Se gostou desta matéria , divulgue para seus amigos.

Visite nosso linkedin http://br.linkedin.com/pub/miguel-moyses-neto/28/971/9aa---Twitter: @mikenetIT onde VC poderá ver as principais agencias de noticias e os links das empresas & nomes mais famosos do mundo! ou simplesmente visite nosso blog :

WWW.linktomike.blogspot.com

Bremense Participacoes Ltda
			Desde 1940
	mikenet9@gmail.com

 

March Madness: The Top 10 Dumbest Hiring Mistakes Smart People Make

March 21, 2014

“,,,, if you don’t know what you’re looking for, you’ll use some lame excuse to justify how you found it.”

Over the past 40 years, I’ve interviewed over 10,000 people for hundreds of different jobs, from entry-level to CEO. As part of this, I’ve debriefed over 1,000 managers and tracked the subsequent performance of the people they hired and didn’t hire. Based on this, I can safely conclude these are the top 10 classic hiring mistakes:

1.  Using Presentation Skills to Predict Performance. Too many interviewers overvalue the candidate’s appearance, affability, assertiveness and how articulate the person is. These “Four A’s” don’t predict performance, all they predict is the likelihood the wrong person will be hired.

2.  Instantaneous Judgmentitis aka “Cherry-picking” Syndrome. Once a yes/no hiring decision is made (often in a few minutes) the balance of the interview is used to seek out information to confirm the initial flawed decision. For those candidates in the “yes” group, the tough questions are avoided, and for those receiving a quick “no” the toughest ones are asked. The problem can be minimized by waiting at least 30 minutes before making any hint of a yes or no decision.

3.  Using Hard Skills to Predict Performance. It’s what people do with what they have that makes them successful, yet most interviewers focus more on the depth of the having rather than the quality of the doing. It’s better to first determine how these skills are used on the job, and then use the one-question interview to figure out if the person has done what needs to be done.

4.  Thinking Soft Skills are Too Soft to Matter. Collaborating with other people in other functions, meeting challenging deadlines, changing priorities, making business tradeoffs, obtaining resources, and the like, are too important to be called soft. Yet most interviewers spend too little time on how these non-technical skills drive performance.

5.  Missing the Forest for the Trees. If you’ve ever hired someone who’s partially competent, you’ve experienced this problem. Technical people focus too much on technical brilliance and not enough on how these skills are used on the job. Intuitive people rely on a narrow range of abilities, like assertiveness and intellectual horsepower, and assume global competency. The problem can be minimized by preparing a performance-based job description defining the top 4-5 things a person needs to do to be successful. Then put them in priority order and get everyone on the interviewing team to agree. Combine this with the one-question Performance-based Interview and you're unlikely to make this mistake again.

6.  Gladiator Voting. Putting a bunch of interviewers in the same room and deciding to hire or not hire someone by adding up the yes/no votes is a recipe for hiring the wrong person. Sharing evidence around the factors that drive success is the key to an accurate assessment. Here’s a scorecard we recommend using to collect the objective evidence needed to make an accurate assessment. When there is a wide variance of opinion around each factor, you can safely assume your company’s interview process is based on something other than the candidate's ability to do the work that needs to be done.

7.  The Safety of No. A no vote is easier to make since those that invoke it can never be proved wrong. A “no” also rewards the weakest and the most conservative interviewers, since neither has enough information to vote yes. Worse, one no vote can override 2-3 yes votes, especially if the person voting no has more authority. This is why the talent scorecard approach mentioned above is more effective.

8.  Misreading Motivation. Motivation to do the job is essential to job success. However, doing the job is not the same as motivation to get the job. Being prepared, being on time, doing company research, or responding “correctly” to the question, “why do you want this job?” are terrible predictors of real motivation. Unfortunately, too many interviewers are seduced by these superficial displays of interest. The one-question Performance-based Interview will reveal what really motivates candidates to excel.

9.  Ignoring Situational Fit. Even if you overcome all of these relatively easily preventable hiring mistakes and measure true ability, there is one issue that is often overlooked. If the candidate isn't highly motivated to do the actual work that needs to get done, doesn’t mesh with the hiring manager’s style, or can’t thrive in the company culture (i.e., pace, decision-making process, approach to collaboration, level of sophistication, level of support and resources available) success is problematic.

10.             Asserting the Wrong Consequent. An example best illustrates this problem. Most interviewers falsely assume that the best sales reps make good first impressions. With this viewpoint, many compound the error by concluding that everyone who makes a good first impression will be a good sales rep. (This is an example of "asserting the consequent" logic problem.) What I’ve discovered is that the only common characteristic among the best sales people is a track record of great sales performance. When I find a great sales rep who makes less than a stellar first impression, I've discovered the person works harder than everyone else. You can apply this same principle to any job where there's a belief that first impressions matter. What matters is a track record of past performance doing what you need to get done.

Don’t take shortcuts when it comes to hiring. This starts by defining what you need done. If you skip this step you’re likely to fall prey to one or more of the common hiring traps described here. As someone once told me, “If you don’t know what you’re looking for, you’ll use some lame excuse to justify how you found it.”

_____________________

Lou Adler (@LouA) is the CEO of The Adler Group, a consulting and search firm helping companies implement Performance-based Hiring. He's also a regular columnist for Inc. Magazine and BusinessInsider. His latest book, The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired (Workbench, 2013), provides hands-on advice for job-seekers, hiring managers and recruiters on how to find the best job and hire the best people

March Madness: The Top 10 Dumbest Hiring Mistakes Smart People Make

March 21, 2014

“,,,, if you don’t know what you’re looking for, you’ll use some lame excuse to justify how you found it.”

Over the past 40 years, I’ve interviewed over 10,000 people for hundreds of different jobs, from entry-level to CEO. As part of this, I’ve debriefed over 1,000 managers and tracked the subsequent performance of the people they hired and didn’t hire. Based on this, I can safely conclude these are the top 10 classic hiring mistakes:

1.  Using Presentation Skills to Predict Performance. Too many interviewers overvalue the candidate’s appearance, affability, assertiveness and how articulate the person is. These “Four A’s” don’t predict performance, all they predict is the likelihood the wrong person will be hired.

2.  Instantaneous Judgmentitis aka “Cherry-picking” Syndrome. Once a yes/no hiring decision is made (often in a few minutes) the balance of the interview is used to seek out information to confirm the initial flawed decision. For those candidates in the “yes” group, the tough questions are avoided, and for those receiving a quick “no” the toughest ones are asked. The problem can be minimized by waiting at least 30 minutes before making any hint of a yes or no decision.

3.  Using Hard Skills to Predict Performance. It’s what people do with what they have that makes them successful, yet most interviewers focus more on the depth of the having rather than the quality of the doing. It’s better to first determine how these skills are used on the job, and then use the one-question interview to figure out if the person has done what needs to be done.

4.  Thinking Soft Skills are Too Soft to Matter. Collaborating with other people in other functions, meeting challenging deadlines, changing priorities, making business tradeoffs, obtaining resources, and the like, are too important to be called soft. Yet most interviewers spend too little time on how these non-technical skills drive performance.

5.  Missing the Forest for the Trees. If you’ve ever hired someone who’s partially competent, you’ve experienced this problem. Technical people focus too much on technical brilliance and not enough on how these skills are used on the job. Intuitive people rely on a narrow range of abilities, like assertiveness and intellectual horsepower, and assume global competency. The problem can be minimized by preparing a performance-based job description defining the top 4-5 things a person needs to do to be successful. Then put them in priority order and get everyone on the interviewing team to agree. Combine this with the one-question Performance-based Interview and you're unlikely to make this mistake again.

6.  Gladiator Voting. Putting a bunch of interviewers in the same room and deciding to hire or not hire someone by adding up the yes/no votes is a recipe for hiring the wrong person. Sharing evidence around the factors that drive success is the key to an accurate assessment. Here’s a scorecard we recommend using to collect the objective evidence needed to make an accurate assessment. When there is a wide variance of opinion around each factor, you can safely assume your company’s interview process is based on something other than the candidate's ability to do the work that needs to be done.

7.  The Safety of No. A no vote is easier to make since those that invoke it can never be proved wrong. A “no” also rewards the weakest and the most conservative interviewers, since neither has enough information to vote yes. Worse, one no vote can override 2-3 yes votes, especially if the person voting no has more authority. This is why the talent scorecard approach mentioned above is more effective.

8.  Misreading Motivation. Motivation to do the job is essential to job success. However, doing the job is not the same as motivation to get the job. Being prepared, being on time, doing company research, or responding “correctly” to the question, “why do you want this job?” are terrible predictors of real motivation. Unfortunately, too many interviewers are seduced by these superficial displays of interest. The one-question Performance-based Interview will reveal what really motivates candidates to excel.

9.  Ignoring Situational Fit. Even if you overcome all of these relatively easily preventable hiring mistakes and measure true ability, there is one issue that is often overlooked. If the candidate isn't highly motivated to do the actual work that needs to get done, doesn’t mesh with the hiring manager’s style, or can’t thrive in the company culture (i.e., pace, decision-making process, approach to collaboration, level of sophistication, level of support and resources available) success is problematic.

10.             Asserting the Wrong Consequent. An example best illustrates this problem. Most interviewers falsely assume that the best sales reps make good first impressions. With this viewpoint, many compound the error by concluding that everyone who makes a good first impression will be a good sales rep. (This is an example of "asserting the consequent" logic problem.) What I’ve discovered is that the only common characteristic among the best sales people is a track record of great sales performance. When I find a great sales rep who makes less than a stellar first impression, I've discovered the person works harder than everyone else. You can apply this same principle to any job where there's a belief that first impressions matter. What matters is a track record of past performance doing what you need to get done.

Don’t take shortcuts when it comes to hiring. This starts by defining what you need done. If you skip this step you’re likely to fall prey to one or more of the common hiring traps described here. As someone once told me, “If you don’t know what you’re looking for, you’ll use some lame excuse to justify how you found it.”

_____________________

Lou Adler (@LouA) is the CEO of The Adler Group, a consulting and search firm helping companies implement Performance-based Hiring. He's also a regular columnist for Inc. Magazine and BusinessInsider. His latest book, The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired (Workbench, 2013), provides hands-on advice for job-seekers, hiring managers and recruiters on how to find the best job and hire the best people

            Provoque Seu Talento

 

                     By John E. Michel, Published by SAP 04.12.2013

 

Havia certa época, um irmão e uma irma, para quem foram dados a cada um, um presente. O rapaz, com medo de que o presente fosse perdido ou roubado, resolveu esconder seu presente embaixo de uma pedra para mante-lo seguro. A moca, por outro lado pegou seu tesouro e comprou algumas sementes.

A moca plantou e cuidou das sementes e bem antes do esperado, teve uma colheita abundante. Ela colheu e o resultado, levou para o mercado, vendendo-o com um lucro bastante razoável. Com o lucro ela comprou mais suprimentos e equipamentos e plantou ainda mais sementes para a próxima colheita.

O presente do rapaz, enquanto isso, permaneceu seguro embaixo da pedra.

A moca pesquisou e implementou maneiras novas de fazer uso da sua área plantada. Ao tempo da colheita, ela ainda conseguiu um lucro maior e se preparou para aprender sobre oferta e demanda. Ela descobriu como alguns bens tem um apelo maior para os consumidores e então começou plantando aquelas sementes com maior demanda.

Sua próxima colheita foi ainda maior e ela decidiu investir seu dinheiro na compra de melhores equipamentos para a plantação. Devido ao seu trabalho ainda mais árduo e especializado, seus produtos ganharam mercado e as vendas se espalharam para o pais inteiro. Ela se tornou uma mulher muito mais rica.

O presente do rapaz, neste meio tempo, permanecia seguro embaixo de sua pedra.

A moca simplesmente resolveu não acumular seu dinheiro ou deixar parado num banco. Ao invés disso ela escolheu colocar o dinheiro para trabalhar, estabelecendo programas para ajudar outras pessoas aprenderem como elas poderiam usar seus presentes para fazer um mundo melhor do que aquele que encontraram. Ela então, construiu uma escola que ensinava economia e negócios e formaram uma organização de caridade que ajudaria outros a se beneficiarem dos presentes originais.

Enquanto isso, o rapaz agora um homem, ainda mantinha seu presente original. Ele estava guardado sob a mesma pedra. Enquanto sua irma crescia para se tornar muito bem sucedida, junto a vida dos outros com o seu presente, a vida do rapaz parecia estagnada e muito pequena. Com o seu presente guardado e escondido longe da sua visão, ele arriscava pouco e realizava menos. Nunca querendo saber sobre o que realmente aconteceria se ele tivesse escolhido fazer o que sua irma fez, e usar seu presente para construir mais valores a sua volta.

Todos temos presentes únicos, talentos especiais, para serem usados a ajudar um mundo melhor do que aquele que encontramos.

Como esta moderna parábola dos talentos foi desenhada para nos lembrar que, todos temos presentes únicos, talentos especiais os quais nos foram dados para tornar o nosso mundo melhor do que aquele que encontramos. Quando fazemos disso uma prioridade, como a moca em nossa estória, generosamente dividimos nossas habilidades naturais e todos se beneficiam. Contrariamente, quando escolhemos fazer como o rapaz e escondemos nossos talentos, todos perdemos.

Infelizmente, ao invés de vermos os talentos como  contribuições únicas, todos temos que dividir com o mundo inteiro, sendo muito comum associarmos e celebrar talentos com somente alguns poucos. Temos por exemplo alguém como LeBron James driblando e saltando seu caminho para a cesta nos maravilhando com seu brilhantismo. Intimamente sabemos que a arma secreta para o sucesso e o seu talento. Um talento o qual ele emprega livre, para a fascinação de qualquer um que veja ele jogar.

Da mesma forma que milhões de pessoas ficam maravilhadas com o incrível talento de LeBron, olhamos também para outras celebridades, Al Pacino, Tiger Woods, Gary Phelps, Adele Atkins e Julia Roberts como exemplos, e pensamos que eles tem a mesma coisa: eles possuem talentos incríveis. Eles foram abençoados com um PRESENTE maravilhoso. Para a maioria de nos, estes talentos parecem uma coisa rara e preciosa, coimados em cima de um punhado de gente especial, longes de nos. Eles são diferentes, aquelas pessoas com talentos. Eles não são como “nos”.

Eu mostro uma diferença.

Ao invés de adotarmos uma estreita visão, da compreensão do talento, como as coisas seriam diferentes no mundo se nos víssemos o talento menos como uma questão de disposição genética e mais como um reflexo de proposito e determinação ? A ênfase aqui esta na palavra “proposito.”

Como as coisas seriam diferentes no mundo se nos víssemos o talento, menos como uma questão de disposição genética, e mais como um reflexo de uma determinação propositada?

Seria isso uma fascinação pelo risco, uma paixão por servir aos outros, ou um compromisso para explorar, questionar, e se divertir com estado atual das coisas, pondo o seu talento para trabalhar intencionalmente e produtivamente alavancando suas forcas naturais para acrescentar valores tangíveis as suas anteriores. Seria uma escolha liberal para compartilhar o melhor de VC com todos a sua volta.

Como VC pode iniciar usando seu talento para fazer uma contribuição única a um mundo em estado de espera? Comece pela busca de oportunidades para :    

*Verifique suas aprendizagens criativas e inclinações naturais. Nas escolhas e decisões para se aventurar em novas maneiras de melhorar sua própria vida, e ao mesmo tempo enriquecendo a vida das pessoas a sua volta. Convergentemente, negando a si mesmo a oportunidade de permanecer na sua zona de conforto e em direção aos seus sonhos, o que poderá levar a uma estagnação e frustração.

* Verifique o seu potencial para criar algo sobre  beleza e conteúdos importantes. Jim Elliot certa vez dividiu uma frase : “Ele não e idiota para dar o que não puder manter, para ganhar aquilo que não pode perder.” O que ele esta querendo dizer e a realidade de muitas pessoas somente sonharem sobre alguma coisa, ao invés de usar seus talentos para materializar uma solução. Quando VC se ocupa transformando seus talentos naturais de uma forma tangível que possa ser desfrutada, experimentada, e compartilhada por outras pessoas, todos ganham.

* Verifique dentro de sua originalidade, o seu melhor. Todas as suas posses, a sua habilidade para fazer uma coisa que ninguém mais pode. Todos nos temos uma forca especial capaz de acrescentar valores imensos para seus relacionamentos.

* “Se VC foi criado para curar o câncer ou escrever uma sinfonia ou descobrir a fusão a frio e não conseguiu,” afirma o autor Steve Pressfield no livro “A Guerra Nas Artes”, VC não somente se auto destruiu; como também atingiu seus filhos. VC me atingiu. VC atingiu o planeta.” Fazer seu melhor trabalho não e um ato de egoísmo ou uma forma de oferecer-se como participante. E um presente para o mundo e para todos os seres humanos dentro dele. Não engane a humanidade por causa da sua contribuição única. De generosamente tudo que VC tem. Todos que VC encontrar poderão ser ainda melhores.

Cada um de nos nasceu com talento com o qual estamos livres para compartilhar ou para esconder. Quando compartilhamos de maneira liberal nossas melhores intenções com os outros, crescemos mais, melhoramos nossa felicidade e promovemos nosso porvir. E como resultado, o mundo literalmente se torna um lugar diferente. No entanto, se nos escondermos nossos talentos, negamos a todos a oportunidade da experiência de estarmos em nosso melhor espirito.

Não engane aqueles ao seu redor. De ao mundo o que existe de melhor dentro de VC. Provoque seu talento e faca tudo que puder.

Porque não começar hoje?

VC gostou da postagem de hoje? Se gostou visite mais o nosso blog.

BH 27.03.2014

 

 

Pesquisa, Tradução, Divulgação: Miguel Moyses Neto  Se gostou desta matéria , divulgue para seus amigos.

Visite nosso linkedin http://br.linkedin.com/pub/miguel-moyses-neto/28/971/9aa---Twitter: @mikenetIT onde VC poderá ver as principais agencias de noticias e os links das empresas & nomes mais famosos do mundo! ou simplesmente visite nosso blog :

WWW.linktomike.blogspot.com

Bremense Participacoes Ltda
			Desde 1940
	mikenet9@gmail.com