Barriers are created psychologically in firms by having wrong perceptions and thoughts about other people and processes. Understanding each other whether in social life or at work by having a good communication and being a good listeners could unfreeze barriers between people. Organizational culture as far I know, acts as a barrier in every single improvement implementation I have studied so far. However, who is creating that?? It is us who did that “THE PEOPLE”. People starting to give false promises and lies to deceive others doing what they want, therefore, people start to have a trust issue with others. It is very difficult to build trust, but very easy to destroy it. When talking about organizational culture as a barrier I think it should be focuses deeply about people. Management should start to act and talk in simple and honest way with no misleading speeches. Talk simple, be simple, understand, be honest, value the others, give others a credit for their achievements, you name them. Everyone knows about them inside, but very few who really act on that. So start fixing yourself first, in order for you to start with the others.
June 03, 2013
Yesterday I had a conversation with one of my friends about Knowledge Management and I found out that his idea about KM is just limited to sharing the information, which seemed very easy concept to him!! So I started thinking is it that easy? Well of course not if we have a look at people perception within firms and societies. We live in a world where people value the most people with more information than others. Looking at most of the performance appraisal systems it will be found that employees do not prefer sharing their information because they do not want to lose their value in the company. Also they are afraid of someone else uses their knowledge and as a result came up with new idea which might gives him/her a chance to promote or awarded. So although KM appears as a simple concept to handle, however, we are here talking about cultural barriers which are introduced to our systems as a result of a misunderstanding both individuals & organizational psychology and the wrong applying of theories and approaches by firms. What I understand in that applying KM requires a significant shift in firms from their fat top in the structure down to the lowest position in the company, which is not that simple at all, but really worth suffering for.
Throughout this whole year as students we were a bit angry with the huge number of presentations and mini projects that we had to handle. Why are we doing this instead of attending a lecture was the only question for most of us. Well,, Kolb (1984) and Honey & Mumford (1986a) noted that pragmatic learning is important in group activities as it allows an individual to gain further knowledge on how to engage with others and how to visualize a situation in real sense with the view to finding solutions to the problems at hand. Therefore if we think about all of those activities in which we had, they are all mimicking the real world in which they were a great tool of learning more beneficial than lectures. All of these activity contained problems and required students to ensure coming up with a practical way through the right model that would enable applying the proper solutions for the case on hand. There are loads of theories around and what I recognize that MBE tries to teach us to just go out and deal with the world as it is.
April 23, 2013
I just do not know what to add to Vagelis's amazing explination, just want to say guys lots of valuable info is here.
Limitation in knowledge management arises from the behaviour of people and organisational culture. It is observed that employees or resources are reluctant in sharing information with their counter parts because they believe that their value in the firm will be lost or reduced once the information has been made accessible to other employees. Furthermore, attitude of employees is also extremely critical in this process as information and knowledge can lose their value or meaning if they are expressed in a way that is clouded by a person’s own opinion about it. People have different perspectives on every single aspect and transmitting information with its true essence in such scenarios becomes a tedious task. This is considered as an organizational cultural barrier. The thing is that most reward systems in many firms promoted and rewarded people based on their individual performances, which proved to be very detrimental for knowledge sharing. Therefore reflecting is this knowledge is to try to avoid individualistic culture in processes and support rewarding the sharing behavior with a sense of appreciation for those shared their experience, since they will lose their value in the company. Awareness of importance of KM is circular in here; therefore employees should fully understand the benefits and advantages of knowledge management that it is not taking experience but even add to their experience as well.
April 22, 2013
March 17, 2013
Some authors define leadership as occurs within a situation “emerge leaders”. It is kind of a contingency approach which makes the leader to focus on their followers; mainly focuses on two leadership dimensions. Well looking from this concept it can be obvious that emerge leaders can be related to task issues or behavioral issues. Wars, disasters, corruptions, injustice, work stress… etc all of these leads to emerge leaders, but are they similar leaders?!! NO NOT THE SAME, that when employees feel stress emerge leader won’t be that one want to tells them and dictates the roles and responsibilities of the employees and force them to achieve their target. However, he might be that guy came and assists in the task process and asks employees to participate in the decision making and gives them the sense of involvement. Contrary, wars and disasters emerge leader might be that dictates one who guide and delegate authorities and tells everyone what to do, because they might be lost and needs someone to push and support with clear vision. Therefore, yes they might be an emerge leader in specific situations, however, this approach can’t be a theory itself since even these leaders won’t be the same and should ne adapting other leadership approaches. My reflection is that I totally believe that situational theory from what I read is just a way to prioritizing people behaviors in different situations and not an approach by itself. In other words, Situational leadership model just tells you that your personalities won’t put you in a leadership state in all situations, however, there might come a situation in which your personalities are the best to emerge as a leader. That will clearly gives you an idea why some times in real work place you feel that important and people listening to what you said and then turning to one of your colleagues and it could be a continuous fluctuating in a non- Routine working processes.
March 09, 2013
While reading about leadership theories and effective leaders, I came through a book named “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History” (1978) by Michael H. Hart. The author put the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) on the top of the rank, as the book mentioned “the most influential personality in the entire human history”. Talking from leadership view, why?! So what was his style in leading his followers, why are there still millions of people who follow him?! Was he only affecting the emotional side with no professional leadership skills? To answer all of these questions I read more to find out what was the leadership style Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) and understand why it was so effective. I found out that in a passage in the Quran, Allah enjoined and guide his prophet about leadership as the following:
“So by the Grace of Allah, [O Muhammad], you were soft and gentle with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and seek protection for them andconsult themin the matter. And whenyou have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him].” [Al-Quran 3:159]
It was basically explaining the “Consultative Leadership Style” + more about behaviours towards the followers as well. The type of “Consultative Leadership” was to consult the followers concerning public matters and therefore the judgment is to be taken by the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself in the final stage. Also traits mentioned were the following:
(1) Being soft and gentle with them
(2) Never to be impolite and rude
(3) Emotional side has to be involved
(4) Neglect minor faults and forgive,
(5) Look after their protection and security.
It wassohisconsultativesort ofleadershipalongsidesomewonderfultraits that he becamethe foremost powerfulhuman everwithin thehistory ofhumanity.
What I learnt from this??, Although this kind of information are more than 1400 years old, but from my point of view it is for sure valid for today’s leadership. It helps in both urgent and trivial situations that the leader still has the authority to control the speech with getting suggestions from people. Also ideas generated from consulting the others lead to more innovative and creative decisions. Building the self confident in followers is very easy using this style that they feel their importance and involvement in situations. It helps in getting closer to followers in a family phase considering their emotions and turns a blind eye in minor silly problems. All these pros makes me really considering prioritizing this kind of leadership in all of my situations in future since I believe that it is the most robust one to use.
March 06, 2013
Going back to one of my previous blogs about leadership nature-nurture debate, I came through new thoughts about this topic while reading throughout Behavioural theory which predicts that leaders are being made and not born. It does not think about the natural personality of an individual but this theory looks after the activities of the leader. The success of a leader does not depend on the characteristics of an individual alone, but in how he/she behave in solving issues. In contrast, the traits and characteristics seem to look good at a theoretical part but much more difficult to apply it. The trait theory looks after the people who possess leadership qualities and those who do not. It does not consider about the education and experience of the person. So from my understanding of both theories I think I can use the combination of both of them. To combine both thought as stated in Trait theory blog, understanding the trait theory is great in a way to assess yourself, but adding the part of Behavioural theory is quite easy to develop as it assesses the success of a leader by follow up their activities. Yet I have not finished my search through the theories to find which is the best to use, but gathering all the knowledge maybe to come up with my own style that fits me.