Tag: business

Liderazgo y trabajo en equipo

Image result for liderazgo y equipo

Para quienes trabajamos en equipos grandes conocemos de primera mano que el liderazgo individual es esencial para el trabajo en equipo efectivo. De hecho, sin un liderazgo efectivo, los equipos a menudo pierden el enfoque y la dirección, y el trabajo y la moral individual son los que pagan la factura.

Los diferentes enfoques de liderazgo funcionan igual de bien en los equipos pequeños, medianos o grandes. Cuando esté lanzando un equipo para un nuevo proyecto o reto, o si está en uno en este momento, piense cómo se aplican los enfoques de liderazgo en su propio entorno.

Conozcamos distintos tipos de liderazgo:

Liderazgo flotante. El liderazgo flotante es cuando diferentes miembros del equipo asumen el rol de liderazgo principal, dependiendo de lo que esté sucediendo en un proceso. En estos contextos, es necesario que todos conozcan las descripciones de puesto de los miembros del equipo claramente y que todos sepan quién está a cargo cuando el liderazgo “flota” en función de la experiencia necesaria en ese momento para esa tarea. Los miembros del equipo aprenden a hacer una transición perfecta de seguidor a líder a seguidor, lo que permite que la mejor persona para cualquier problema dado se mueva sin que haya conflictos o roces personales.

Liderazgo formal. El liderazgo formal es cuando alguien es asignado para estar a cargo del grupo. El líder puede ser un gerente de proyecto, un supervisor o incluso un líder externo. Los líderes de equipos formales efectivos saben cuándo se necesita una dirección clara, cuándo dejar ir y dejar que el equipo se desempeñe y cuándo apoyar al equipo sin intervenir mucho hacia un resultado de grupo colaborativo.

Liderazgo emergente. Los equipos de trabajo autodirigidos son populares en muchos lugares de trabajo y se están utilizando más y más. A veces, el equipo se reúne sin un anuncio formal de quién está a cargo. Estos grupos a menudo se autoorganizan y lo resuelven. Muchas veces, emerge un líder de equipo natural. Cuando el líder le gusta y respeta al líder, esto puede funcionar bien, proporcionando la estructura y la dirección que respalda la efectividad del equipo. En general, los diferentes enfoques utilizados por un líder formal también funcionan para un líder emergente. La clave es leer con precisión el equipo y ejercer las habilidades de liderazgo correctas en el momento adecuado.

Estos modelos se superponen y pueden coexistir uno con el otro. Un equipo puede tener un líder formal, pero ese líder alienta a los líderes emergentes o flotantes a afianzarse. El liderazgo emergente puede convertirse en un liderazgo flotante regular a medida que las necesidades del proyecto cambian con el tiempo.

Ahora, piensen en los equipos en los que han estado o en los que están actualmente. 

¿Quién ha cumplido qué roles, cuándo y cuán diferentes eran esos roles? ¿Qué salió bien? ¿Qué no salió bien? ¿Con qué estilo te sientes más cómodo? ¿Cómo puedes modificar tu propio estilo para servir a los equipos que lideras o en los que estás?

El liderazgo efectivo y el trabajo en equipo exitoso van de la mano. Reconocer estos modelos de liderazgo general ayuda a resaltar las diferentes habilidades que se necesitan en diferentes momentos, todo con el objetivo de mejorar la dinámica del equipo y lograr los resultados de la organización.

En un equipo de trabajo, la comunicación debe ser fluida, espontánea y natural. Los sentimientos deben expresarse con respeto a la intimidad y prestigio de cada participante. Las diferencias de estilo, la forma de comunicar, y los enfoques personales, no deben constituir una interferencia, sino más bien una oportunidad para enriquecer la unidad del equipo.

The legacy of George Washington’s Postal Service Act of February 20, 1792

127304 600 End of Saturday Mail Delivery cartoons

WASHINGTON — Faced with billions of dollars in losses, the Postal Service announced on Wednesday (Feb. 06 2013) that it would seek to stop Saturday delivery of letters, a sweeping change in mail delivery that immediately drew criticism from postal unions, some businesses and lawmakers.

What went wrong I wonder?  Would it had been better if George Washington had never passed the Postal Service Act of 1792? How many billions would taxpayers have saved since then?  Would private companies like the  American Letter Mail Company of Lysander Spooner have served better the market? Or would the system have collapsed without government intervention?

In February 20, 1792 the Postal Service Act, establishing the United States Post Office Department was signed by President George Washington.  An interesting date to remember in these days in which the Postal Service made it to the news with their Losses and their controversial solution by ending Saturday Letter Delivery.

We know for certain that in a free market no company would survive if they had kept losses as huge as the one USPS has had over all these years. They had losses of   $15.9 billion only last year.  A principle of free market transactions is that in competing  there appears a beneficial rivalry among sellers trying to achieve goals as increasing profits, market share, and sales volume by varying the elements of the marketing mix: price, product, distribution, and promotion.  Thus, enabling for those companies which succeed in growing larger and for those companies which fail to disappear.  With the existence of monopolistic services (like the Postal Service in the US) industries and business sponsored by government disrupted market transactions (bureaucratically made) and thus enabled for failing companies to continue existing even though they were not beneficial for society in the long-term.

126863 600 going postal cartoons

This reminds me to the company founded Lysander Spooner whom “being an advocate of self-employment and opponent of government regulation of business, Spooner started his own business called American Letter Mail Company which competed with the U.S. Post Office. Postal rates were notoriously high in the 1840s,[7] and in 1844, Spooner founded the American Letter Mail Company, which had offices in various cities, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York.[8] Stamps could be purchased and then attached to letters which could be sent to any of its offices. From here agents were dispatched who traveled on railroads and steamboats, and carried the letters in hand bags. Letters were transferred to messengers in the cities along the routes who then delivered the letters to the addressees. This was a challenge to the United States Post Office’s monopoly.[7][9] As he had done when challenging the rules of the Massachusetts bar, he published a pamphlet titled “The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails.” Although Spooner had finally found commercial success with his mail company, legal challenges by the government eventually exhausted his financial resources. He closed up shop without ever having had the opportunity to fully litigate his constitutional claims. The lasting legacy of Spooner’s challenge to the postal service was the 3-cent stamp, adopted in response to the competition his company provided.[10]“

Lets have this as food for thought…

Article recommendation: Twentieth Century Flick: Business History in the Age of Extremes

I apologize for posting much these last weeks.  I have been quite busy reading journals on Global Value Chains, Deviant Capitalism, Black Market Trade and theories on Global Political Economy.  While this has driven me nuts… it has also made me pay attention to the field of Business History.

Business history is not the history of Capitalism and it is also not the history of entrepreneurship.  The research in this field is mostly controlled by an European institutionalist approach.  And in the latest decades, it has gained more insights from economic and business studies that are highly afflicted by neo-marxist approaches of the 20th Century.  So, if you are interested in learning about this particular area of research here is the info for a good article on the topic that may get you also interested, and provide you with further bibliography.

Twentieth Century Flick: Business History in the Age of Extremes
Priemel, Kim Christian (2012)
Journal of Contemporary History vol. 47 (4) p. 754-772

.Full Text (PDF)

Recommended Articles: Business, Economic and Financial History

List of selected articles that I read last week that may be of your interest:

  1. Super-cycles of commodity prices since the mid-ninteenth century. Bilge Erten
  2. Against Liberty: Adorno, Levinas and the Pathologies of Freedom. Nelson, Eric S.
  3. Lords of Uhuru: the political economy of elite competition and institutional change in post-independence Kenya. Bedasso, Biniam
  4. The Euro crisis: a historical perspective. Mourlon-Druol, Emmanuel
  5. Economics and ethics: a historical approach. Ciani Scarnicci, Manuela

Discourse: Nationalization, Private Companies and Crony Capitalism

The neoliberal (a.k.a. crony capitalism) ruling of the world during the last 50 years is usually generalized as a “big fish eats small fish” relationship. The story continues, with the big fish in Washington, Brussels and Moscow fed themselves with the riches of the world and profited from globalization.  Meanwhile, the small fish continued breeding and feeding the always hungry lords.  This general discourse is repeated in most if not all the academic papers dealing with postcoloniality and globalization.

The impact of the ideas of these intellectuals is widespread and not easily observable for the ignorant masses.  As such, when you read the newspapers in Latin America or Africa in regard to the “new” nationalizations being undertaken by the “new” socialist/anti-neoliberal governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Greece, Lithuania, and Sri Lanka since 2011 people usually ignores that there is nothing “new” in these actions.

These nationalizations of privately owned assets have been in many of the cases actual renationalizations of companies that were not owned by the principles of free market ideas, but that had been privatized by corrupt social democratic governments 50, 40 or 10 years before and who created new privately owned privileged companies.  As a result of these social democrat and socialist governments many privately owned companies emerged as the bastions of crony capitalism, inefficiency and corruption.  The previous, generally increased as closer the national industries were owned by crony private companies that owned single-crop cultive exports and resource rich regions.

To mention short examples of the previous, recently in Argentina Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (YPF; English: “Treasury Petroleum Fields”) was renationalized (not nationalized) by the government under claims of corruption, inefficiency and negative benefits to their national interests.  In Bolivia, Transportadora de Electricidad (TDE) was nationalized by Evo Morales government.  However, TDE was also a fruit of the neoliberal and crony capitalist deals established in 1952 after a coup d’état that established a military socialist democracy with the party  Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR) which allied into a military-nationalist clique that lasted for 50 years.

Privately owned companies produce always more efficient and better products than state-owned companies.  However, privately owned companies that have benefited from government granted privileges for decades not necessarily will produce more and better services and products than state-owned companies.  The previous is something that few of us dare to identify and explain with a non-contradictory historical and philosophical background.  Meanwhile, the great majority of academics influenced by collectivist philosophies will start writing articles and books applauding the “successful” renationalizations and condemning those free-market authors who will write back and fight.

Indeed, there is a difficult road in defending private property and privately owned businesses in the context of countries and regions that lack respect for individual rights and the rule of law.  As such, to defend the private vs collective in those circles it is necessary that first we identify how the societies are currently organized around the collective inefficient systems of social and economic organization.  In the case of Bolivia and Argentina it is necessary for us to identify how these business and societies are not structured and organized around the principles of free market and individual rights.  By understanding and explaining this clearly there will be a chance to change the discourse of discussion from “why is renationalization good?” to “why laissez faire capitalism is better than the privately owned business of crony capitalism?”

Related articles