Sabtu, 08 Maret 2008
Financial Planning Introduction Making a plan to reach your goals
Making a plan to reach your goals.Most of us have goals in life that call for an investment of a significant amount of time and financial resources. We may have done some planning. However, our natural tendency is to focus on only one or two goals that are most important to us right now. For most people, developing and maintaining a plan to achieve all of their financial goals is a daunting challenge—one we delay taking on.
Making a plan and sticking to it is sometimes challenging if you go it alone. You don't have to. Partner with someone who will act as your "financial coordinator" to help you make a plan, implement it, and change the roadmap as needed.
Making a plan and sticking to it is sometimes challenging if you go it alone. You don't have to. Partner with someone who will act as your "financial coordinator" to help you make a plan, implement it, and change the roadmap as needed.
The Process of Great Leadership
The road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successful leaders:
o Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be improved the most.
o Inspire a shared vision - Next, share you vision in words that can be understood by your followers.
o Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.
o Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells others what to do...a leader shows that it can be done.
o Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' heart, while keeping the pains within your own.
o Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be improved the most.
o Inspire a shared vision - Next, share you vision in words that can be understood by your followers.
o Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.
o Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells others what to do...a leader shows that it can be done.
o Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' heart, while keeping the pains within your own.
Managerial Grid
The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid (1985) uses two axis:
1. "Concern for people" is plotted using the vertical axis
2. "Concern for task" is along the horizontal axis.
They both have a range of o to 9. The notion that just two dimensions can describe a managerial behavior has the attraction of simplicity. These two dimensions can be drawn as a graph or grid:
High 9 Country Club Team Leader
8
7
P 6
E
O 5
P
L 4
E
3
2
1 Impovished Authoritarian
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
TASK
Most people fall somewhere near the middle of the two axis. But, by going to the extremes, that is, people who score on the far end of the scales, we come up with four types of leaders:
o Authoritarian (9 on task, 1 on people)
o Team Leader (9 on task, 9 on people)
o Country Club (1 on task, 9 on people)
o Impoverished (1 on task, 1 on people).
Authoritarian Leader (high task, low relationship)
People who get this rating are very much task oriented and are hard on their workers (autocratic). There is little or no allowance for cooperation or collaboration. Heavily task oriented people display these characteristics: they are very strong on schedules; they expect people to do what they are told without question or debate; when something goes wrong they tend to focus on who is to blame rather than concentrate on exactly what is wrong and how to prevent it; they are intolerant of what they see as dissent (it may just be someone's creativity), so it is difficult for their subordinates to contribute or develop.
Team Leader (high task, high relationship)
This type of person leads by positive example and endeavors to foster a team environment in which all team members can reach their highest potential, both as team members and as people. They encourage the team to reach team goals as effectively as possible, while also working tirelessly to strengthen the bonds among the various members. They normally form and lead some of the most productive teams.
Country Club Leader (low task, high relationship)
This person uses predominantly reward power to maintain discipline and to encourage the team to accomplish its goals. Conversely, they are almost incapable of employing the more punitive coercive and legitimate powers. This inability results from fear that using such powers could jeopardize relationships with the other team members.
Impoverished Leader (low task, low relationship)
A leader who uses a "delegate and disappear" management style. Since they are not committed to either task accomplishment or maintenance; they essentially allow their team to do whatever it wishes and prefer to detach themselves from the team process by allowing the team to suffer from a series of power struggles.
The most desirable place for a leader to be along the two axis at most times would be a 9 on task and a 9 on people -- the Team Leader. However, do not entirely dismiss the other three. Certain situations might call for one of the other three to be used at times. For example, by playing the Impoverished Leader, you allow your team to gain self-reliance. Be an Authoritarian Leader to instill a sense of discipline in an unmotivated worker. By carefully studying the situation and the forces affecting it, you will know at what points along the axis you need to be in order to achieve the desired result.
1. "Concern for people" is plotted using the vertical axis
2. "Concern for task" is along the horizontal axis.
They both have a range of o to 9. The notion that just two dimensions can describe a managerial behavior has the attraction of simplicity. These two dimensions can be drawn as a graph or grid:
High 9 Country Club Team Leader
8
7
P 6
E
O 5
P
L 4
E
3
2
1 Impovished Authoritarian
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
TASK
Most people fall somewhere near the middle of the two axis. But, by going to the extremes, that is, people who score on the far end of the scales, we come up with four types of leaders:
o Authoritarian (9 on task, 1 on people)
o Team Leader (9 on task, 9 on people)
o Country Club (1 on task, 9 on people)
o Impoverished (1 on task, 1 on people).
Authoritarian Leader (high task, low relationship)
People who get this rating are very much task oriented and are hard on their workers (autocratic). There is little or no allowance for cooperation or collaboration. Heavily task oriented people display these characteristics: they are very strong on schedules; they expect people to do what they are told without question or debate; when something goes wrong they tend to focus on who is to blame rather than concentrate on exactly what is wrong and how to prevent it; they are intolerant of what they see as dissent (it may just be someone's creativity), so it is difficult for their subordinates to contribute or develop.
Team Leader (high task, high relationship)
This type of person leads by positive example and endeavors to foster a team environment in which all team members can reach their highest potential, both as team members and as people. They encourage the team to reach team goals as effectively as possible, while also working tirelessly to strengthen the bonds among the various members. They normally form and lead some of the most productive teams.
Country Club Leader (low task, high relationship)
This person uses predominantly reward power to maintain discipline and to encourage the team to accomplish its goals. Conversely, they are almost incapable of employing the more punitive coercive and legitimate powers. This inability results from fear that using such powers could jeopardize relationships with the other team members.
Impoverished Leader (low task, low relationship)
A leader who uses a "delegate and disappear" management style. Since they are not committed to either task accomplishment or maintenance; they essentially allow their team to do whatever it wishes and prefer to detach themselves from the team process by allowing the team to suffer from a series of power struggles.
The most desirable place for a leader to be along the two axis at most times would be a 9 on task and a 9 on people -- the Team Leader. However, do not entirely dismiss the other three. Certain situations might call for one of the other three to be used at times. For example, by playing the Impoverished Leader, you allow your team to gain self-reliance. Be an Authoritarian Leader to instill a sense of discipline in an unmotivated worker. By carefully studying the situation and the forces affecting it, you will know at what points along the axis you need to be in order to achieve the desired result.
Leadership Models
Leadership models help us to understand what makes leaders act the way they do. The ideal is not to lock yourself in to a type of behavior discussed in the model, but to realize that every situation calls for a different approach or behavior to be taken. Two models will be discussed, the Four Framework Approach and the Managerial Grid.
Four Framework Approach
In the Four Framework Approach, Bolman and Deal (1991) suggest that leaders display leadership behaviors in one of four types of frameworks: Structural, Human Resource, Political, or Symbolic. The style can either be effective or ineffective, depending upon the chosen behavior in certain situations.
Structural Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a social architect whose leadership style is analysis and design. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a petty tyrant whose leadership style is details. Structural Leaders focus on structure, strategy, environment, implementation, experimentation, and adaptation.
Human Resource Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a catalyst and servant whose leadership style is support, advocate, and empowerment. while in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a pushover, whose leadership style is abdication and fraud. Human Resource Leaders believe in people and communicate that belief; they are visible and accessible; they empower, increase participation, support, share information, and move decision making down into the organization.
Political Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is an advocate, whose leadership style is coalition and building. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a hustler, whose leadership style is manipulation. Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get; they assess the distribution of power and interests; they build linkages to other stakeholders, use persuasion first, then use negotiation and coercion only if necessary.
Symbolic Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a prophet, whose leadership style is inspiration. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a fanatic or fool, whose leadership style is smoke and mirrors. Symbolic leaders view organizations as a stage or theater to play certain roles and give impressions; these leaders use symbols to capture attention; they try to frame experience by providing plausible interpretations of experiences; they discover and communicate a vision.
This model suggests that leaders can be put into one of these four categories and there are times when one approach is appropriate and times when it would not be. Any one of these approaches alone would be inadequate, thus we should strive to be conscious of all four approaches, and not just rely on one or two. For example, during a major organization change, a structural leadership style may be more effective than a visionary leadership style; while during a period when strong growth is needed, the visionary approach may be better. We also need to understand ourselves as each of us tends to have a preferred approach. We need to be conscious of this at all times and be aware of the limitations of our favoring just one approach.
Four Framework Approach
In the Four Framework Approach, Bolman and Deal (1991) suggest that leaders display leadership behaviors in one of four types of frameworks: Structural, Human Resource, Political, or Symbolic. The style can either be effective or ineffective, depending upon the chosen behavior in certain situations.
Structural Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a social architect whose leadership style is analysis and design. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a petty tyrant whose leadership style is details. Structural Leaders focus on structure, strategy, environment, implementation, experimentation, and adaptation.
Human Resource Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a catalyst and servant whose leadership style is support, advocate, and empowerment. while in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a pushover, whose leadership style is abdication and fraud. Human Resource Leaders believe in people and communicate that belief; they are visible and accessible; they empower, increase participation, support, share information, and move decision making down into the organization.
Political Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is an advocate, whose leadership style is coalition and building. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a hustler, whose leadership style is manipulation. Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get; they assess the distribution of power and interests; they build linkages to other stakeholders, use persuasion first, then use negotiation and coercion only if necessary.
Symbolic Framework
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a prophet, whose leadership style is inspiration. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a fanatic or fool, whose leadership style is smoke and mirrors. Symbolic leaders view organizations as a stage or theater to play certain roles and give impressions; these leaders use symbols to capture attention; they try to frame experience by providing plausible interpretations of experiences; they discover and communicate a vision.
This model suggests that leaders can be put into one of these four categories and there are times when one approach is appropriate and times when it would not be. Any one of these approaches alone would be inadequate, thus we should strive to be conscious of all four approaches, and not just rely on one or two. For example, during a major organization change, a structural leadership style may be more effective than a visionary leadership style; while during a period when strong growth is needed, the visionary approach may be better. We also need to understand ourselves as each of us tends to have a preferred approach. We need to be conscious of this at all times and be aware of the limitations of our favoring just one approach.
Culture and Climate
There are two distinct forces that dictate how to act within an organization: culture and climate.
Each organization has its own distinctive culture. It is a combination of the founders, past leadership, current leadership, crises, events, history, and size. This results in rites: the routines, rituals, and the "way we do things." These rites impact individual behavior on what it takes to be in good standing (the norm) and directs the appropriate behavior for each circumstance.
The climate is the feel of the organization, the individual and shared perceptions and attitudes of the organization's members. While the culture is the deeply rooted nature of the organization that is a result of long-held formal and informal systems, rules, traditions, and customs; climate is a short-term phenomenon created by the current leadership. Climate represents the beliefs about the "feel of the organization" by its members. This individual perception of the "feel of the organization" comes from what the people believe about the activities that occur in the organization. These activities influence both individual and team motivation and satisfaction, such as:
o How well does the leader clarify the priorities and goals of the organization? What is expected of us?
o What is the system of recognition, rewards, and punishments in the organization?
o How competent are the leaders?
o Are leaders free to make decision?
o What will happen if I make a mistake?
Organizational climate is directly related to the leadership and management style of the leader, based on the values, attributes, skills, and actions, as well as the priorities of the leader. Compare this to "ethical climate" -- the "feel of the organization" about the activities that have ethical content or those aspects of the work environment that constitute ethical behavior. The ethical climate is the feel about whether we do things right; or the feel of whether we behave the way we ought to behave. The behavior (character) of the leader is the most important factor that impacts the climate.
On the other hand, culture is a long-term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents the shared expectations and self-image of the organization. The mature values that create "tradition" or the "way we do things here." Things are done differently in every organization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are a reflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture because culture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climate by its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything you do as a leader will effect the climate of the organization.
Each organization has its own distinctive culture. It is a combination of the founders, past leadership, current leadership, crises, events, history, and size. This results in rites: the routines, rituals, and the "way we do things." These rites impact individual behavior on what it takes to be in good standing (the norm) and directs the appropriate behavior for each circumstance.
The climate is the feel of the organization, the individual and shared perceptions and attitudes of the organization's members. While the culture is the deeply rooted nature of the organization that is a result of long-held formal and informal systems, rules, traditions, and customs; climate is a short-term phenomenon created by the current leadership. Climate represents the beliefs about the "feel of the organization" by its members. This individual perception of the "feel of the organization" comes from what the people believe about the activities that occur in the organization. These activities influence both individual and team motivation and satisfaction, such as:
o How well does the leader clarify the priorities and goals of the organization? What is expected of us?
o What is the system of recognition, rewards, and punishments in the organization?
o How competent are the leaders?
o Are leaders free to make decision?
o What will happen if I make a mistake?
Organizational climate is directly related to the leadership and management style of the leader, based on the values, attributes, skills, and actions, as well as the priorities of the leader. Compare this to "ethical climate" -- the "feel of the organization" about the activities that have ethical content or those aspects of the work environment that constitute ethical behavior. The ethical climate is the feel about whether we do things right; or the feel of whether we behave the way we ought to behave. The behavior (character) of the leader is the most important factor that impacts the climate.
On the other hand, culture is a long-term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents the shared expectations and self-image of the organization. The mature values that create "tradition" or the "way we do things here." Things are done differently in every organization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are a reflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture because culture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climate by its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything you do as a leader will effect the climate of the organization.
Roles ad Relationships
Roles are the positions that are defined by a set of expectations about behavior of any job incumbent. Each role has a set of tasks and responsibilities that may or may not be spelled out. Roles have a powerful effect on behavior for several reasons, to include money being paid for the performance of the role, there is prestige attached to a role, and a sense of accomplishment or challenge.
Relationships are determined by a role's tasks. While some tasks are performed alone, most are carried out in relationship with others. The tasks will determine who the role-holder is required to interact with, how often, and towards what end. Also, normally the greater the interaction, the greater the liking. This in turn leads to more frequent interaction. In human behavior, its hard to like someone whom we have no contact with, and we tend to seek out those we like. People tend to do what they are rewarded for, and friendship is a powerful reward. Many tasks and behaviors that are associated with a role are brought about by these relationships. That is, new task and behaviors are expected of the present role holder because a strong relationship was developed in the past, either by that role holder or a prior role holder.
Relationships are determined by a role's tasks. While some tasks are performed alone, most are carried out in relationship with others. The tasks will determine who the role-holder is required to interact with, how often, and towards what end. Also, normally the greater the interaction, the greater the liking. This in turn leads to more frequent interaction. In human behavior, its hard to like someone whom we have no contact with, and we tend to seek out those we like. People tend to do what they are rewarded for, and friendship is a powerful reward. Many tasks and behaviors that are associated with a role are brought about by these relationships. That is, new task and behaviors are expected of the present role holder because a strong relationship was developed in the past, either by that role holder or a prior role holder.
Goals, Values, and Concepts
Leaders exert influence on the environment via three types of actions:
1. The goals and performance standards they establish.
2. The values they establish for the organization.
3. The business and people concepts they establish.
Successful organizations have leaders who set high standards and goals across the entire spectrum, such as strategies, market leadership, plans, meetings and presentations, productivity, quality, and reliability.
Values reflect the concern the organization has for its employees, customers, investors, vendors, and surrounding community. These values define the manner in how business will be conducted.
Concepts define what products or services the organization will offer and the methods and processes for conducting business.
These goals, values, and concepts make up the organization's "personality" or how the organization is observed by both outsiders and insiders. This personality defines the roles, relationships, rewards, and rites that take place.
1. The goals and performance standards they establish.
2. The values they establish for the organization.
3. The business and people concepts they establish.
Successful organizations have leaders who set high standards and goals across the entire spectrum, such as strategies, market leadership, plans, meetings and presentations, productivity, quality, and reliability.
Values reflect the concern the organization has for its employees, customers, investors, vendors, and surrounding community. These values define the manner in how business will be conducted.
Concepts define what products or services the organization will offer and the methods and processes for conducting business.
These goals, values, and concepts make up the organization's "personality" or how the organization is observed by both outsiders and insiders. This personality defines the roles, relationships, rewards, and rites that take place.
Attributes
If you are a leader who can be trusted, then those around you will grow to respect you. To be such a leader, there is a Leadership Framework to guide you:
BE KNOW DO
BE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, take personal responsibility.
BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence, candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination.
KNOW the four factors of leadership - follower, leader, communication, situation.
KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, and skills.
KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond to stress.
KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.
KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, who the unofficial leaders are.
DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making, planning.
DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating.
DO motivate. Examples: develop moral and esprit in the organization, train, coach, counsel.
BE KNOW DO
BE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, take personal responsibility.
BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence, candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination.
KNOW the four factors of leadership - follower, leader, communication, situation.
KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, and skills.
KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond to stress.
KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.
KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, who the unofficial leaders are.
DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making, planning.
DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating.
DO motivate. Examples: develop moral and esprit in the organization, train, coach, counsel.
Factors of leadership
Follower
Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation requires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know your people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your employees' be, know, and do attributes.
Leader
You must have a honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you can do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader who determines if a leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then they will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.
Communication
You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when you "set the example," that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate either builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees.
Situation
All are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in another. You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the leadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too harsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective.
Various forces will affect these factors. Examples of forces are your relationship with your seniors, the skill of your people, the informal leaders within your organization, and how your company is organized.
Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation requires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know your people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your employees' be, know, and do attributes.
Leader
You must have a honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you can do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader who determines if a leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then they will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.
Communication
You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when you "set the example," that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate either builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees.
Situation
All are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in another. You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the leadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too harsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective.
Various forces will affect these factors. Examples of forces are your relationship with your seniors, the skill of your people, the informal leaders within your organization, and how your company is organized.
Principles of Leadership
1. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid familiarity with your employees' tasks.
2. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they always do sooner or later -- do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge.
3. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools.
4. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi
5. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.
6. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them, but also seniors and other key people.
7. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.
8. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished - Communication is the key to this responsibility.
9. Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization, department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of people doing their jobs.
10. Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities.
2. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they always do sooner or later -- do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge.
3. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools.
4. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi
5. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.
6. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them, but also seniors and other key people.
7. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.
8. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished - Communication is the key to this responsibility.
9. Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization, department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of people doing their jobs.
10. Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities.
The Two Most Important Keys to Effective Leadership
A Hay's study examined over 75 key components of employee satisfaction. They found that:
o Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction in an organization.
o Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to winning organizational trust and confidence:
1. Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy.
2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key business objectives.
3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and how an employee's own division is doing - relative to strategic business objectives.
So in a nutshell -- you must be trustworthy and you have to be able to communicate a vision of where the organization needs to go. The next section, "Principles of Leadership", ties in closely with this key concept.
o Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction in an organization.
o Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to winning organizational trust and confidence:
1. Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy.
2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key business objectives.
3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and how an employee's own division is doing - relative to strategic business objectives.
So in a nutshell -- you must be trustworthy and you have to be able to communicate a vision of where the organization needs to go. The next section, "Principles of Leadership", ties in closely with this key concept.
Concepts of Leadership
Good leaders are made not born. If you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader. Good leaders develop through a never ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience. This guide will help you through that process.
To inspire your workers into higher levels of teamwork, there are certain things you must be, know, and, do. These do not come naturally, but are acquired through continual work and study. Good leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills; they are NOT resting on their laurels.
Before we get started, lets define leadership. Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Although your position as a manager, supervisor, lead, etc. gives you the authority to accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization, this power does not make you a leader...it simply makes you the boss. Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals, rather than simply bossing people around.
To inspire your workers into higher levels of teamwork, there are certain things you must be, know, and, do. These do not come naturally, but are acquired through continual work and study. Good leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills; they are NOT resting on their laurels.
Before we get started, lets define leadership. Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Although your position as a manager, supervisor, lead, etc. gives you the authority to accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization, this power does not make you a leader...it simply makes you the boss. Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals, rather than simply bossing people around.
Competence May Be Enough
There she was, at her podium center stage, ready for the onslaught. And Sen. Hillary Clinton got what she expected at last week's Democratic debate, and more. Aside from the predictable ripostes from rivals Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards about her lack of specificity on fixing Social Security and her past support of the Iraq war (and maybe a future one in Iran), she was painted, in no particular order, as unelectable, untrustworthy, and unappealing. In an election that's about change, they were calling her the status quo Democrat—hoping the ultimate insult would stick and become the kiss of death. Or a way to revive their own poll numbers.
No doubt about it, Clinton's performance was the worst of her campaign. The warm Hillary—with the ever ready smile (and all-too-ready laugh)—was gone. She was more the stern headmistress than the coy front-runner, glaring at her opponents as they dared take her on—off her perch. She stonewalled direct questions as if that might be a way to keep out of political trouble. It didn't work; it only reminded voters (with help from her opponents) of another Clinton who used to parse his words. "Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country?" snickered former Senator Edwards. "You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don't think that's going to happen!"
But hold on. The argument about change is more complex than Edwards would have us believe. Sure, this election is about change; they always are. And of course Clinton didn't help herself in last week's debate, looking like just another evasive pol. But here's the real question to consider: How much change does the public really want? Have the voters decided it's time for the political equivalent of a long ball? Or do they think the times are too dangerous to take a big risk? After all, elections are often defined by the features of the previous presidency. George W. Bush has been a risk-taker, and the results have been less than inspirational. He's also regarded as a management nightmare. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, says that for the past two years, the word most volunteered by those asked to describe the president is this: incompetent.
The public feels the same way about its government, seeing Congress as pretty much a joke (80 percent say it isn't getting anything done, according to a recent Pew survey). And around two thirds of Americans think the country is headed down the wrong track. But as New York Times columnist David Brooks recently pointed out, people also feel fairly good about their own lives. So as they try to decide on the next president, he says, they're looking for a way to reconcile their personal satisfaction with their dismay at the way the country is being run. In other words, fix the government, but leave them alone.
Experience. That's why this election may turn out to be more about the intangibles—that sense of what voters want in a leader. So when Clinton dissembles, refusing to answer direct questions—such as whether illegal immigrants should have driver's licenses or whether her husband's presidential papers should be released before the election—she doesn't help herself. But all is not lost. If voters are looking for the post-Bush president—someone strong and competent—she could still be their man. A new Pew survey shows that overwhelming majorities of voters find Clinton to be ambitious (93 percent), outspoken (84 percent), and tough (78 percent). For a woman, those traits were once deadly; now, the poll shows, a majority consider these attributes something they like about Clinton. (We've come a long way, baby.) She may not give you goose bumps at a rally, but she probably knows how to get things done. "Voters may not be willing to take a risk this year," says William Galston, a former Bill Clinton domestic policy adviser. "They probably want someone with a steady game plan." In other words: less preaching, more pragmatism.
If true, that's not good news for Obama, whose campaign is built on inspiration—and on big ideas, like passing the generational torch. On the podium next to Clinton, he seems young and ill at ease; she exudes what she often calls her "lifetime of experience." But there is a danger here for Clinton, and we saw it last week: Obama's freshness also seems honest and sincere. Hillary's caution—which is the best spin to put on her performance—seems born out of too much political experience, and expedience. Evasiveness is not a quality voters search for in a leader.
No doubt about it, Clinton's performance was the worst of her campaign. The warm Hillary—with the ever ready smile (and all-too-ready laugh)—was gone. She was more the stern headmistress than the coy front-runner, glaring at her opponents as they dared take her on—off her perch. She stonewalled direct questions as if that might be a way to keep out of political trouble. It didn't work; it only reminded voters (with help from her opponents) of another Clinton who used to parse his words. "Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country?" snickered former Senator Edwards. "You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don't think that's going to happen!"
But hold on. The argument about change is more complex than Edwards would have us believe. Sure, this election is about change; they always are. And of course Clinton didn't help herself in last week's debate, looking like just another evasive pol. But here's the real question to consider: How much change does the public really want? Have the voters decided it's time for the political equivalent of a long ball? Or do they think the times are too dangerous to take a big risk? After all, elections are often defined by the features of the previous presidency. George W. Bush has been a risk-taker, and the results have been less than inspirational. He's also regarded as a management nightmare. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, says that for the past two years, the word most volunteered by those asked to describe the president is this: incompetent.
The public feels the same way about its government, seeing Congress as pretty much a joke (80 percent say it isn't getting anything done, according to a recent Pew survey). And around two thirds of Americans think the country is headed down the wrong track. But as New York Times columnist David Brooks recently pointed out, people also feel fairly good about their own lives. So as they try to decide on the next president, he says, they're looking for a way to reconcile their personal satisfaction with their dismay at the way the country is being run. In other words, fix the government, but leave them alone.
Experience. That's why this election may turn out to be more about the intangibles—that sense of what voters want in a leader. So when Clinton dissembles, refusing to answer direct questions—such as whether illegal immigrants should have driver's licenses or whether her husband's presidential papers should be released before the election—she doesn't help herself. But all is not lost. If voters are looking for the post-Bush president—someone strong and competent—she could still be their man. A new Pew survey shows that overwhelming majorities of voters find Clinton to be ambitious (93 percent), outspoken (84 percent), and tough (78 percent). For a woman, those traits were once deadly; now, the poll shows, a majority consider these attributes something they like about Clinton. (We've come a long way, baby.) She may not give you goose bumps at a rally, but she probably knows how to get things done. "Voters may not be willing to take a risk this year," says William Galston, a former Bill Clinton domestic policy adviser. "They probably want someone with a steady game plan." In other words: less preaching, more pragmatism.
If true, that's not good news for Obama, whose campaign is built on inspiration—and on big ideas, like passing the generational torch. On the podium next to Clinton, he seems young and ill at ease; she exudes what she often calls her "lifetime of experience." But there is a danger here for Clinton, and we saw it last week: Obama's freshness also seems honest and sincere. Hillary's caution—which is the best spin to put on her performance—seems born out of too much political experience, and expedience. Evasiveness is not a quality voters search for in a leader.
Chartered Accountant in India
In India, the profession of chartered accountancy is handled by ICAI. Chartered Accountancy Course is a professional course in Accounting introduced in India in 1949, with the enactment of the Chartered Accountants Act. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) was formed the same year . This Institute is both an examining and a licensing body. It is the responsibility of the institute to conduct the Chartered accountancy (CA) Course. The course involves a blend of theoretical education and practical training which run concurrently for a period of three years and equips a student with knowledge, ability, skills and other qualities required of a professional accountant
Chartered Accountant in South Africa
In South Africa only one accounting body manages the designation CA(SA) (Chartered Accountant (South Africa) namely SAICA (South African Institute of Chartered Accountants). A separate registration is needed for Chartered Accountants wishing to act as Auditors, namely RAA (Registered Accountant and Auditor). The RAA Designation are controlled by PAAB (Public Accountants and Auditors Board.).
The public are often mistaken by thinking that all Chartered Accountants may act as Auditors. Since TOPP (Training Outside Public Practice) a great number of members earned the designation Chartered Accountant whith no knowledge or experience in Auditing. These Chartered Accountants specialise in financial management and almost exclusively act as financial directors or managers for large corporations.
Various other accounting bodies play a role in South Africa. Of these the CFA and CPA designations are the best known. These accountants mainly act as accounting officers for close corporations (A legal entity much like a company, but with less regalatory measures). No person other than a person holding both the CA(SA) & RAA designations may act as an auditor for companies.
The public are often mistaken by thinking that all Chartered Accountants may act as Auditors. Since TOPP (Training Outside Public Practice) a great number of members earned the designation Chartered Accountant whith no knowledge or experience in Auditing. These Chartered Accountants specialise in financial management and almost exclusively act as financial directors or managers for large corporations.
Various other accounting bodies play a role in South Africa. Of these the CFA and CPA designations are the best known. These accountants mainly act as accounting officers for close corporations (A legal entity much like a company, but with less regalatory measures). No person other than a person holding both the CA(SA) & RAA designations may act as an auditor for companies.
Canadian accounting bodies
In Canada, there are three recognized accounting bodies. CA (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants) is the oldest and the largest, followed by CGA (Certified General Accountants Association of Canada), and CMA (Society of Management Accountants of Canada). CA and CGA were established by Act of Parliament; CMA was established by the Company Act. The CA designation issued by the Institutes of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Ontario is recognized as a CPA (chartered Public Accountant) designation in the USA.
Auditing rights are regulated by provincial governments. In British Columbia, the Company Act provides that only CAs, CGAs, or anyone who has been granted an accounting licence by the provincial regulatory body may audit public companies. In Prince Edward Island, only qualified CAs and CGAs can perform public accounting and auditing in accordance with the Public Accounting and Auditing Act. In all other provinces, except Quebec, only qualified CAs, CGAs, and CMAs may audit public companies.
Due to political reasons, historically Quebec and Ontario only allowed CAs to audit public companies. However, CGAs and CMAs can audit a selected list of public bodies in Quebec. In 2004, Ontario government authorized qualified CAs, CGAs, and CMAs to audit public companies, subject to improved professional standards to be applied equally to all three accounting bodies.
In Quebec, the situation is currently under review and challenge based on the Agreement of Internal Trade (AIT). In August 2005, the AIT issued a report recommending Quebec to change its legislation by opening public auditing to qualified accountants who are not CAs.
The size of the accounting bodies varies across Canada. In Ontario and Quebec, CA is substantially bigger than CGA or CMA. In Manitoba, CGA is the largest accounting body, whereas in British Columbia, CA and CGA are about the same size.
In the federal level, all statutes provide equal recognition of all three accounting bodies. Given that most Canadian provinces and statutes provide equitable treatments to CAs, CGAs, and CMAs, the "Canadian Chartered Accountant equivalents" are CGA and CMA.
Auditing rights are regulated by provincial governments. In British Columbia, the Company Act provides that only CAs, CGAs, or anyone who has been granted an accounting licence by the provincial regulatory body may audit public companies. In Prince Edward Island, only qualified CAs and CGAs can perform public accounting and auditing in accordance with the Public Accounting and Auditing Act. In all other provinces, except Quebec, only qualified CAs, CGAs, and CMAs may audit public companies.
Due to political reasons, historically Quebec and Ontario only allowed CAs to audit public companies. However, CGAs and CMAs can audit a selected list of public bodies in Quebec. In 2004, Ontario government authorized qualified CAs, CGAs, and CMAs to audit public companies, subject to improved professional standards to be applied equally to all three accounting bodies.
In Quebec, the situation is currently under review and challenge based on the Agreement of Internal Trade (AIT). In August 2005, the AIT issued a report recommending Quebec to change its legislation by opening public auditing to qualified accountants who are not CAs.
The size of the accounting bodies varies across Canada. In Ontario and Quebec, CA is substantially bigger than CGA or CMA. In Manitoba, CGA is the largest accounting body, whereas in British Columbia, CA and CGA are about the same size.
In the federal level, all statutes provide equal recognition of all three accounting bodies. Given that most Canadian provinces and statutes provide equitable treatments to CAs, CGAs, and CMAs, the "Canadian Chartered Accountant equivalents" are CGA and CMA.
Chartered Accountant in Australia
Constitution
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA) was constituted by Royal Charter in 1928.
The ICAA now operates under a Supplemental Royal Charter (amended from time to time) granted by the Governor General of Australia on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II on 19 August 2005.
The ICAA is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members who are elected by Chartered Accountants on regional registers and up to four Board appointed members. Directors and Regional Councillors will be elected for a three year term, with one-third of the positions on the Board and Regional Councils being up for election each year. The President and Deputy President are elected annually by the Board.
[edit]
Regional Councils
The principal role of the Regional Councils is to provide advice to the Board on strategic policy and member issues, act as a link between the Board and members in their region, assist in public profiling and liaison with State and Territory governments, and carry out such functions as may be delegated to them by the Board. Each Regional Council has either six or nine members elected by the members in that region.
[edit]
Becoming a Chartered Accountant
Most Chartered Accountants in Australia, are university graduates who, after completing their degree, are required to pass a postgraduate program, the CA Program and also complete a 3 year period of approved practical experience mentored by a Chartered Accountant. To then retain their Chartered Accountant designation members must complete Continuing Professional Education (CPE) of 120 hours in a triennium.
[edit]
Professionalism
Chartered Accountants in Australia are employed, in the most part, by public companies and professional accounting firms. There is great rivalry between Chartered Accoountants and other professional bodies in Australia including the CPA Australia (CPA's).
[edit]
Membership
During the 2005 year, the membership of the Institute grew to 42,455. In addition, there were 15,151 university accounting graduates enrolled in the CA Program. Membership grew by some nine per cent. 43 per cent of members work in commerce and 39 per cent in public practice at locations throughout Australia and in 107 countries around the world. The remaining members fill positions in government, academia and elsewhere.
By comparison, the CPA Australia membership in 2003 was around 102,192 members.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA) was constituted by Royal Charter in 1928.
The ICAA now operates under a Supplemental Royal Charter (amended from time to time) granted by the Governor General of Australia on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II on 19 August 2005.
The ICAA is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members who are elected by Chartered Accountants on regional registers and up to four Board appointed members. Directors and Regional Councillors will be elected for a three year term, with one-third of the positions on the Board and Regional Councils being up for election each year. The President and Deputy President are elected annually by the Board.
[edit]
Regional Councils
The principal role of the Regional Councils is to provide advice to the Board on strategic policy and member issues, act as a link between the Board and members in their region, assist in public profiling and liaison with State and Territory governments, and carry out such functions as may be delegated to them by the Board. Each Regional Council has either six or nine members elected by the members in that region.
[edit]
Becoming a Chartered Accountant
Most Chartered Accountants in Australia, are university graduates who, after completing their degree, are required to pass a postgraduate program, the CA Program and also complete a 3 year period of approved practical experience mentored by a Chartered Accountant. To then retain their Chartered Accountant designation members must complete Continuing Professional Education (CPE) of 120 hours in a triennium.
[edit]
Professionalism
Chartered Accountants in Australia are employed, in the most part, by public companies and professional accounting firms. There is great rivalry between Chartered Accoountants and other professional bodies in Australia including the CPA Australia (CPA's).
[edit]
Membership
During the 2005 year, the membership of the Institute grew to 42,455. In addition, there were 15,151 university accounting graduates enrolled in the CA Program. Membership grew by some nine per cent. 43 per cent of members work in commerce and 39 per cent in public practice at locations throughout Australia and in 107 countries around the world. The remaining members fill positions in government, academia and elsewhere.
By comparison, the CPA Australia membership in 2003 was around 102,192 members.
Chartered Accountant in United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, there are five accounting bodies authorised by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Companies Acts to audit the accounts of a business as Registered Auditors. A member of these bodies will generally be known as a graduate member after passing all the necessary exams and then become an Affiliate, Associate or Fellow. Their counterpart in U.S.A is called American CPA or CPA of individual state board of accountancy (without mutual recognition agreement at Federal level). He or she should have been trained by a recognized qualifying body (RQB) such as the Association of International Accountants (AIA), Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS),the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW), Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland or Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA). The primary authority is the Companies Act while the traditional authority is a Royal Charter granted by Her Majesty the Queen. Apart from brand preference, all five registered auditors are with equal status under law, particularly by reference to EU directives for mutual recognition with auditors of all twenty-five EU member states.
In Britain, ICAS is the oldest and smallest of these organisations. The AIA is the youngest with just around 76 years. In terms of number of members, ICAEW is the largest in England and EU while ACCA is the British largest global accounting body. All five British registered auditors are recognized to be a member of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (HKICPA) subject to certain requirements. As such, "English Chartered Accountant equivalents" in UK are AIA and ACCA, recognised by the DTI, and by mutual recognition agreement with HKICPA, China (as Hong Kong was formerly a British state pre-1997).HKICPA is the only accounting body which gained exemptions from China Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Beijing (CICPA)and with reciprocal with six chartered accountants.
Consumers or employers may be confused by the standing of Chartered Accountants (CA) in various jurisdictions. CAs in UK and those in the Commonwealth may not be interchangeable or be regarded as equivalent standards. Many jurisdictions have their own accreditation programs for admission of foreign or out of state accountants for quality assurance.
Similarly in the Republic of Ireland, there are five audit bodies under the Irish Companies Act: the Institute of Certified Public Accountant in Ireland, Institute of Incorporated Public Accountants, Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, ACCA, and ICAEW, three of which are the same in the UK. "Irish Chartered Accountant equivalents" in the Republic of Ireland are the CPA (Ireland) and IIPA.
In United Kingdom and Ireland, there are other accounting bodies which have received the Royal charter or Royal Coat of Arms such as CIPFA,CIMA and ICEA but which are not yet authorised by the DTI to be Registered Auditors. It seems that such bodies will merge with other Registered Auditors in coming years.
In Britain, ICAS is the oldest and smallest of these organisations. The AIA is the youngest with just around 76 years. In terms of number of members, ICAEW is the largest in England and EU while ACCA is the British largest global accounting body. All five British registered auditors are recognized to be a member of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (HKICPA) subject to certain requirements. As such, "English Chartered Accountant equivalents" in UK are AIA and ACCA, recognised by the DTI, and by mutual recognition agreement with HKICPA, China (as Hong Kong was formerly a British state pre-1997).HKICPA is the only accounting body which gained exemptions from China Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Beijing (CICPA)and with reciprocal with six chartered accountants.
Consumers or employers may be confused by the standing of Chartered Accountants (CA) in various jurisdictions. CAs in UK and those in the Commonwealth may not be interchangeable or be regarded as equivalent standards. Many jurisdictions have their own accreditation programs for admission of foreign or out of state accountants for quality assurance.
Similarly in the Republic of Ireland, there are five audit bodies under the Irish Companies Act: the Institute of Certified Public Accountant in Ireland, Institute of Incorporated Public Accountants, Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, ACCA, and ICAEW, three of which are the same in the UK. "Irish Chartered Accountant equivalents" in the Republic of Ireland are the CPA (Ireland) and IIPA.
In United Kingdom and Ireland, there are other accounting bodies which have received the Royal charter or Royal Coat of Arms such as CIPFA,CIMA and ICEA but which are not yet authorised by the DTI to be Registered Auditors. It seems that such bodies will merge with other Registered Auditors in coming years.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
