Comments for Four Groups' Blog

Comment on Is the glass half full or half empty? by Daniel Steyn

Daniel Steyn — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:18:34 +0000

Even the empty glass is full of potential.
Daniel Steyn

Comment on Linking Financial Values and Cultural Values by Organisational Value System « Unjustly

Organisational Value System « Unjustly — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:16:37 +0000

[...] October 26, 2006 in Biz/Tech, Business, Links Came across this article by Bruce Lewin on linking Financial & Cultural Values [...]

Comment on Managing Intangibles by Dove Lane » Blog Archive » Can KM Be Fun? – Part 1 of 2

Dove Lane » Blog Archive » Can KM Be Fun? – Part 1 of 2 — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:58:51 +0000

[...] In a perfect business world, all activities could be measured and valued and included on the balance sheet. That is to say, in a perfect business world based upon current accounting standards that grossly fail to assign value to intangibles, such as customer good will, employee satisfaction, brand name, intellectual capital, and social network relationships. I discussed this previously here. Here are some discussions of the issues behind valuing intangibles, such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s SFAS 141 and 142, and the factors that drive intangibles. [...]

Comment on When will the Artists take over from the Technicians? by Bruce Lewin

Bruce Lewin — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:29:35 +0000

Hi Pascalis,

>With all the arguments for and against, will HR ever become strategic business partner?

I think the key things that will put HR on the ’strategic’ map are the following;

* A scalable, objective technology or methodology that can be used on a widespread basis.

* The ability of the above to improve the economics of an organisation that uses it. Cheaper, more efficient, faster etc. etc.

* Given the implicit innovation, the above will change processes/people’s roles to adjust to new ways of working.

* The approach will sufficiently valuable that some CEO’s will take this ’strategy’ to their shareholders.

At the moment, I don’t think there are too many candidates? 4G, Enterprise 2?

What about you, what do you think?

Comment on Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q4 2009 by Intangibles matter

Intangibles matter — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:17:10 +0000

[...] Leadership, Intangibles, and Talent Review [...]

Comment on An interview with Mike Haffenden, co-founder of the Corporate Research Forum and former HR Director of Hewlett-Packard by Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q4 2009 | HRM Today

Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q4 2009 | HRM Today — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:43:15 +0000

[...] to the final Quarterly Review of 2009. This issue, in addition to the usual round-up, we have an interview with Mike Haffenden. Mike co-founded the Corporate Research Forum and was formerly HR Director for [...]

Comment on An interview with Mike Haffenden, co-founder of the Corporate Research Forum and former HR Director of Hewlett-Packard by Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q4 2009 | Four Groups' Blog

Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q4 2009 | Four Groups' Blog — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:26:26 +0000

[...] to the final Quarterly Review of 2009. This issue, in addition to the usual round-up, we have an interview with Mike Haffenden. Mike co-foundded the Corporate Research Forum and was formerly HR Director for [...]

Comment on When will the Artists take over from the Technicians? by Pascalis Claudius Lotinggi

Pascalis Claudius Lotinggi — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:45:50 +0000

Interesting information to think over at the dawn of the New Year. Whither HR?

Twenty years is a long time but perhaps not long enough for the majority to realize the important decisions on human resource waiting for the attention of corporate leaders.

CIPD’s comment is good for HR. We need more like it. This is to counter the negative comments about HR.

With all the arguments for and against, will HR ever become strategic business partner?

Comment on Mutualism and Measurement by Miki

Miki — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:22:50 +0000

I think the US is obsessed, not interested and that ‘leadership’ of whatever kind is seen as some kind of silver bullet that will fixeverything.

Leadership is what used to be called initiative, which is why it moves around an organization based on skills and interest—call it leadership in the instance.

But that requires people to do things for themselves and it’s much easier to complain than step up and do something.

Comment on Mutualism and Measurement by Bruce Lewin

Bruce Lewin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:36:27 +0000

Hi Miki, interesting… the results that come from mutualism may well render the definition redunant though?

Likewise, given the US interest in leadership as a whole (celeb CEOs and the Office of the President), I think the contrast between definition and interest at the field at large is somewhat a moot point…

How would you define leadership?