Long ago, I was in a meeting with my team and a few other colleagues, including my boss. One of the team members presented a new project plan that she came up with. As seniors, my boss and I had a little more experience with the customer and we shared simialr approach to developing the plan.
My boss listened intently without interruption and then started asking the team some questions listened to their perspectives, and also sought out more information about the project, such as conducting research or talking to other experts in the field. He ended the meeting 30 min earlier and suggested we meet after 4 days and suggested a 30 minute meeting and take a decision.
I was curious, and after the meeting I asked my boss why he did not just suggest our approach and just come to the decision immediately and unnecessarily call for another meeting. I said that we could have just got the team executing right way with our approach. After all we had experience to support our logic.
He said that since it was ‘not time-critical and there was no right or wrong approach’ his goal was to understand the different perspectives’ and allow the team to come with a solution that emerged from themselves’ as consensus. He said if the ideas come from themselves, it would have higher ownership and build confidence for the future. “We are anyways there to provide guardrails”, he said.
I had been following that advice from that day 20 years ago and it has been one of the most valuable learnings. Much later in life, I came across the terms – advocacy orientation and inquiry orientation – I realised the power of these concepts.
Advocacy orientation and inquiry orientation refer to two different approaches to communication and problem-solving. Advocacy orientation involves taking a stance on a particular issue and arguing in favor of that position, while inquiry orientation involves seeking to understand multiple perspectives on an issue and finding common ground.
An advocacy orientation focuses on persuading others to accept a particular point of view and may involve the use of persuasive techniques, such as emotional appeals or logical arguments. This approach is often used in situations where there is a clear right or wrong answer and the goal is to convince others to accept the correct answer.
In contrast, an inquiry orientation involves asking questions and listening to others in order to better understand their perspectives and find solutions that can be agreed upon by all parties. This approach is often used in situations where there is no clear right or wrong answer and the goal is to find a solution that works for everyone.
Advocacy orientation and inquiry orientation are not mutually exclusive, and many people may use elements of both approaches in different situations. Which approach is most appropriate will depend on the specific situation and the goals of the conversation.
In the past, AI and machine learning were the tools of specialists. But today, they’re allowing generalists to take on more roles than ever before. Welcome to the age of Genralist 2.0!
Generalist vs. Specialist
The difference between a generalist and a specialist is simple: the former can work across multiple functions, while the latter specializes in one function. As you might expect, both are in demand, but for different reasons:
Generalists are in demand for their flexibility to work across different specialist functions. For example, if you’re a marketing manager who also has experience managing operations teams, you might find yourself doing just that at some point during your career – and that’s where your generalist abilities come into play.
Specialists are in demand because they have deeper knowledge of their specific field than other individuals with similar titles (e.g., “marketing manager”). This means that when an organization needs someone with specialized expertise (for example, someone who knows how to market cars), they’ll typically turn to those experts first before calling upon generalists like yourself
Generalists were in massive demand before the 2005s to manage the many specialist functions
Before the 2005s, generalists were in massive demand. Before the advent of AI- and ML-based systems, generalists needed to string together various specialists toward the larger organizational purpose.
In other words, they were literally the glue that held companies together.
Programmers started mass training of computers with specialist functions since 2005
In 2000, the demand for specialists to program computers was so immense that fewer and fewer people came into general management in the last two decades.
Specialists like Data Scientists, Machine Learning Engineers and Artificial Intelligence Programmers started mass training of computers with specialist functions since 2000. In fact, their roles were so vital that there were skills shortages in 2017 and we still have them today.
A surge in demand for specialists to automate their own roles
As demand for specialists increased, so did the need for more specialists to automate their own roles. In turn, this created demand for a whole new set of specialists. The cycle was self-perpetuating: with each iteration, the need for more and more AI experts grew exponentially.
The rise of generalists has helped make this phenomenon possible by providing exhaustive training programs that teach workers how to operate complex machinery without having any prior knowledge or training in engineering or computer science—and no college degree required!
Correspondingly Generalists were a fading function
In the early days of the internet, generalists were in demand. A generalist was a person who knew how to code and could do basic design work, and was also able to manage a project from start to finish. They were the glue that held together teams of specialists.
But as AI came along, it became easier for machines to do what used to take humans years or decades: write code, design interfaces and manage projects.
AI and ML start replacing specialist functions
The new era of generalist 2.0 has begun
The rise of machines that can automate the work of professionals is well underway, and this has important implications for those working in professions that rely on specialist skills. But it’s also worth remembering that these machines only exist because a human being created them — someone who was themselves a specialist in one area (computer science) and then used their knowledge to create tools which can do things they themselves cannot. In other words, machine learning is just another form of specialization — albeit one with benefits that are far more widespread than traditional forms of expertise could ever hope to achieve.
We all have our own specialties within our chosen fields, whether you’re an accountant or an astrophysicist or even if you’re just really good at folding origami animals! And we’ve been using technology for decades now: calculators have existed since 1774 when Charles de Périer invented what was essentially a slide rule; computers have been around since 1822 when Charles Babbage wrote his first design for a mechanical computer called “Difference Engine”; cameras go back even further – Leonardo da Vinci was tinkering around with prototypes way back in 1490! The point is technology hasn’t always been there but when it comes along it changes everything about how we work – often making tasks easier but also sometimes replacing them altogether.”
Rise of the tech-savvy Generalist 2.0 – who can work with specialist machine systems
One of the most significant shifts in modern business practice is the rise of generalist 2.0, after the specialist 1.0 model that has dominated over the last century. This change will be particularly beneficial for businesses that need to leverage technology but don’t have in-house experts or external consultants to build it for them.
The reason for this shift is simple — computers are now faster, more predictable, and cheaper than humans at performing specialized tasks such as data analysis or translation from one language to another (think Google Translate). This means that there is less demand on human specialists who can perform these tasks more efficiently than machines — and therefore less need for those human specialists altogether!
But why would anyone want a generalist over a specialist? The answer lies in how quickly technology advances; generalists have tech savviness which makes them better able than specialists at learning new skills and adapting when new technology comes along (like AI!). They also tend to have broader knowledge bases which allow them to understand connections between different fields without having specific expertise in any one field—take an example where someone needs to use machine learning algorithms but doesn’t know anything about programming languages like Python or C++…it’s unlikely they’ll find many developers with both skillsets available locally so instead they might hire someone who has experience with ML but hasn’t coded before–this person could then take on their role effectively whilst learning how code works at their own pace outside their full-time job responsibilities!
Long live the AI, ML, and the Generalist 2.0
The generalist is back, and he’s smarter than ever!
The specialist is dead. Long live AI, ML, and the generalist 2.0!
For a long time we’ve been told that there’s no future for generalists. That we’re doomed to be replaced by automation and bots that can do our jobs better than us. But now it looks like our survival skills are coming back in vogue as technology becomes more powerful and ubiquitous – with AI (Artificial Intelligence) taking center stage in many industries where automation has taken over traditional jobs previously done by humans alone: from law firms that use AI software instead of associates; accounting firms using bots instead of accountants; insurance companies using bots instead of adjusters; banks using algorithms instead of bankers…the list goes on and on!
AI and ML are evolving at a rapid pace, but so far the tech-savvy Generalist 2.0 seems to be able to keep up with them. As long as this trend continues, it looks like we’re going to see an increase in demand for generalists who can work alongside specialist machine systems rather than being replaced by them.
When building a successful business, the age-old question arises: Are good leaders the key to building good companies or vice versa? The answer, as it turns out, is a bit of both.
A case for ‘it depends’.
Good leaders are essential for any company because they set the tone for the entire organization. They provide direction, set goals, and inspire their employees to work towards a shared vision. Good leaders also create a positive work culture, which is crucial for employee engagement and satisfaction. A good leader will also be able to navigate the company through difficult times and make tough decisions that will benefit the company in the long run.
On the other hand, good companies also play a vital role in developing good leaders. A good company will provide opportunities for employees to grow and develop their leadership skills. They will also have systems in place for mentoring and coaching, which will help to develop the next generation of leaders. A good company will also have a clear vision and values that align with the leader’s, which makes it easier for them to lead the company in the right direction.
A case of how leaders built companies –
In my view, I tend to believe that good leaders make good companies. While good companies may attract good leaders or groom some, ultimately, it is the leadership at the top that sets the direction and tone for the organization. Good leaders have the vision, drive, and ability to make tough decisions that will benefit the company in the long run. They also create a positive work culture, which is crucial for employee engagement and satisfaction. This, in turn, leads to a more productive and efficient workforce and, ultimately, to a more successful company. While a good company can certainly provide opportunities for employees to grow and develop their leadership skills, it is ultimately the leader that is responsible for leading the company to success.
One great example of this is Amazon. Jeff Bezos, the founder, and CEO, are widely considered one of the best leaders in the world. He has set a clear vision and values for the company and has created a culture of innovation and customer focus. This has allowed Amazon to become one of the most successful companies in the world.
Another example is Apple; under the leadership of Steve Jobs, the company was able to create a culture of innovation, design, and focus on customers. He was able to lead the company through difficult times and make tough decisions that ultimately led to the company’s success.
Yet another example of a leader who has had a significant impact on their company’s success is Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter. Musk is known for his ambitious vision and ability to think outside the box. He has led Tesla to become one of the most valuable car companies in the world and has revolutionized the way people think about electric cars. Additionally, his leadership has also led to SpaceX becoming a leader in the private space industry with its reusable rockets and satellite launches. Even with Twitter, much as there have been different views on style, clearly, Twitter today is a lot more agile and a lot more shipping new stuff than the sumber it was in for almost 7-8 years.
Musk has also implemented a unique management style in both companies, where he sets very ambitious goals and encourages (pushes ;)) his employees to work towards them. This approach has led to rapid innovation and development, allowing Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX to achieve milestones that were once thought impossible. His leadership has also been vital in fostering a culture of innovation and risk-taking within the companies, which has been a key driver for their success.
Bezos, Jobs, and Musk are prime examples of leaders with completely different leadership styles who have had a significant impact on the success of their companies. They have a clear vision, super ambitious goals, and an ability to think outside the box, which has led to rapid innovation and development. Their leadership has also been key in fostering a culture of innovation and risk-taking within the companies, which has been a key driver for their success.
A case of how companies building leaders –
While it is true that organizations like Unilever, GE, and IBM have built great leaders, it is less common that those leaders have gone on to build great companies. These companies are often established and have a long history, with well-established systems and processes in place. While the leaders of these companies have certainly had a significant impact on their performance, they are often working within the framework of an already successful organization.
For example, while leaders at Unilever have been instrumental in shaping the company’s strategy and direction, the company itself has a long history and has been successful for many years. Similarly, while leaders at GE have been able to drive growth and improve performance, the company has been a leader in its industry for decades.
It’s not to say that these leaders haven’t had a significant impact on their companies, but it is a rare case that those leaders have built great companies from scratch. Building a company from scratch requires a different set of skills than managing and leading an already successful one. It requires a more creative and innovative approach and a willingness to take risks.
Needless to say, while organizations like Unilever, GE, and IBM have built great leaders, it is less common that those leaders have gone on to build great companies. These companies are often established and have a long history, with well-established systems and processes in place. While the leaders of these companies have certainly had a significant impact on their performance, they are often working within the framework of an already successful organization.
In conclusion, the relationship between good companies and good leaders is a complex one. While both elements are important for a successful business, they play different roles. Good leaders provide direction, set goals, and inspire their employees to work towards a common vision. They also create a positive work culture which is crucial for employee engagement and satisfaction. On the other hand, good companies provide opportunities for employees to grow and develop their leadership skills; they have systems in place for mentoring and coaching. They have a clear vision and values that align with the leaders. Building a company from scratch requires a different set of skills than managing and leading an already successful one. It requires a more creative and innovative approach and a willingness to take risks. Both elements are needed to create a successful business, and one cannot exist without the other.
Keywords – Good companies, good leaders, business success, company culture, employee engagement, leadership development, innovation, risk-taking, leadership examples, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Unilever, GE, IBM, interplay of good companies and good leaders, building a successful business, good leaders key to building good companies, managing and leading successful companies, creative and innovative approach, leadership matters, building a company from scratch, key to business growth, key role of leaders in a company, relationship between good companies and good leaders, importance of good leadership in companies, impact of good leaders on companies, company success and leadership, developing leadership skills within a company, company vision and values alignment with leaders, company mentoring and coaching for leadership development, key elements for a successful business.
Tags: Leadership, Business, Success, Companies, Culture, Employee engagement, Development, Innovation, Risk-taking, Examples, CEO, Vision, Values, Mentoring, Coaching, Building a company, Key to growth, Impact of leaders, Company and leadership, Skills development, Alignment, Key elements, Business growth, Management, Business strategies, Entrepreneurship, Organizational development.
My two-wheeler was malfunctioning and I had to replace the spark plug. that is when I thought how leaders play a extremely crucial role in an organisation which is similar to a spark plug in internal combustion engine.
Here are six reasons why good leaders should be like spark plugs.
A good leader should be able to bring together the organization’s internal resources and the external market opportunities to create value. Just as a spark plug brings together the fuel and air in an IC engine to create energy, a good leader brings together the organization’s resources and market opportunities to drive success.
A good leader should be able to use high-pressure situations to ignite a spark and convert the team’s potential into momentum and the organization’s growth. Just as a spark plug is able to ignite the fuel-air mixture in a high-pressure situation within the combustion chamber of an IC engine, a good leader should be able to use high-pressure situations within the organization to motivate and inspire the team to achieve their potential and drive the organization’s growth. This requires the ability to remain calm and focused under pressure and to use that pressure to drive positive change.
A good leader should be reliable and consistent, just like a spark plug. In an IC engine, the spark plug must consistently ignite the fuel-air mixture to keep the engine running smoothly. Similarly, a good leader should consistently provide direction and guidance for the team to keep the organization moving forward.
A good leader should be essential for the smooth operation of the organization, much like a spark plug is essential for the smooth operation of an IC engine. A spark plug ensures that the fuel-air mixture is ignited at the right time, and a good leader ensures that the team is working towards a common goal and that the necessary resources are available to achieve it.
A good leader should be proactive in seeking out new opportunities and addressing problems, just as a spark plug is proactive in initiating the combustion process. A spark plug initiates combustion before the fuel-air mixture is fully compressed, and a good leader should be proactive in identifying and pursuing new opportunities or addressing problems before they become too large to handle.
A good leader should be able to spark creativity and innovation in the team, just as a spark plug is able to spark the fuel-air mixture to create energy. A spark plug provides the initial spark that ignites the fuel-air mixture, and a good leader should be able to provide the initial spark of inspiration that ignites creativity and innovation in the team.
When it comes to selling, the words we choose can significantly affect the outcome. While some words or phrases may seem harmless, they can be interpreted negatively by potential customers and ultimately hurt the sale. Here are seven phrases that should immediately be replaced in your sales conversations:
Replace Policy with the Process
Replace Cheap with Great Value
Replace Pitch with Presentation
Replace the Contract with the Agreement
Replace Fee with Investment
Replace ‘Let me tell you with ‘Let me share with you.”
Replace ‘our product is incredible’ with our ‘other customers realised these benefits.’
Here I explain why?
Replace policy with process: Instead of referring to a “policy” in your sales conversations, you should use the word “process” instead. While “policy” can make people feel like they’re being constrained, “process” suggests that there’s an orderly and organised way to get to the desired outcome.
Replace cheap with great value: You should never refer to your product or service as “cheap” in a sales conversation. Instead, focus on the value it brings to the customer. Describe it as “a great value” or “an excellent investment”.
Replace pitch with presentation: It’s important to avoid using the word “pitch” in a sales conversation. A “pitch” suggests that you’re trying to pressure the customer into buying, but a “presentation”, on the other hand, implies that the customer will be given a chance to ask questions and provide feedback.
Replace Contract with Agreement – Contract has a negative connotation and can create a sense of rigidity that could turn potential customers away. On the other hand, Agreement has a more positive connotation and suggests that both parties are willing to work together to create a mutually beneficial situation.
Replace Fee with Investment – Fee has a negative connotation and suggests that the customer is just paying for something without any return. On the other hand, Investment indicates that the customer is investing in something that will yield a return in the future.
Replace “Let me tell you” with “Let me share with you” – The phrase “Let me tell you” can come across as overly authoritative and can make potential customers feel like they are being lectured. Replacing it with “Let me share with you” shows that you are cooperative and willing to work together to find the best solution.
Replace “our product is awesome” with “other customers realised these benefits” – Touting your own product as excellent can quickly be perceived as boastful and can come off as self-serving. Instead, focus on how other customers have benefited from your product and how it has improved their lives.
The above article outlined seven phrases that should be avoided in sales conversations to ensure a successful outcome.
What are key things to keep in mind for taking meeting notes and circulating them to all attendees for action and next steps?
Here are some key things to keep in mind for taking meeting notes and circulating them to all attendees for action and next steps:
Start by clearly stating the purpose and agenda of the meeting, as well as the names and roles of all attendees. This will help everyone understand the context and focus of the meeting, and ensure that all participants are on the same page.
Take detailed and accurate notes of the discussion and decisions made during the meeting. This may include key points, action items, and deadlines. Make sure to include the names of the individuals responsible for each action item, and any relevant references or attachments.
Use a clear and concise writing style to organize and present the information in the notes. Avoid using jargon or abbreviations that may not be understood by all attendees, and use bullet points or numbered lists to highlight key points and action items.
Review and proofread the notes carefully before sending them to all attendees. This will help ensure that the information is accurate and easy to understand.
Use a professional and standardized format for the notes, such as a table or template. This will help to ensure consistency and make it easier for attendees to quickly find and access the information they need.
Follow up with attendees after the meeting to ensure that they have received the notes and understand their action items. This will help to clarify any questions or concerns, and ensure that everyone is on track to meet their deadlines.
Overall, the key is to be organized, detailed, and professional in your approach to taking and circulating meeting notes. By doing so, you can help ensure that everyone is on the same page and able to take the necessary action to move forward.
We are happy to do a session for children this time and how children can use Mindmaps towards excellence.
This program is curated by a Buzan Mind Map Certified® trainer, to help your child finish double work in half the time and help them have more fun. Mind mapping is an internationally proven is a secret method to help children with
– Remember better – Produce brilliant ideas – Dramatically save time – Prioritize work – Get better grades – Organize day-day life – Have fun
Mindmaps helps the brain to work at full capacity by using both sides of the brain simultaneously – the left side for the words and logic and right side for the imagination and creativity.
It is proven to help in thought organization, memory, cre8ivity, comprehension, concentration, communication, organization, problem-solving, project management, decision making.
Date, Time – (two sessions of 9o min each) Session 1 – Tuesday April 28, 2020 11:00am Session 2: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:00am Register Link: https://bit.ly/MM4CRegister
Trainer : Rajesh Soundararajan Rajesh is a certified Buzan Mind Map Trainer who was trained by Tony Buzan himself, the inventor of Mind Maps. Rajesh is also a member of the High IQ Mensa club with a recorded IQ of 156. He is a Mentor of Change under the NITI Aayog Atal Innovation Mission.
A CEO, dad, engineer, entrepreneur, farmer, ivy league MBA, road tripper, shutterbug – he invests much of his spare time on children, environment, and social issues.