Why we need to apply our BA in Employability we received at “Mothers University” (MU)

Some answers to statements of those who – probably – like ‘talking’ more than ‘doing’ Bite size thoughts by Dr. Constantine “Dino” Kiritsis, founder, StudySmart Here are my answers to some statements we hear daily from a number of people: Statement 1: If I had this company, I would have done this and this and this and run it better than him or her… Answer: Well, let me inform you that someone else has the company and took the risk. It is easier said than done! (trust me…). Start by setting something up to run first and then talk… Statement 2: If I had money it would be easy… Answer : Well, go out there and get the money. What’s stopping you? Are you making good use of the money you’re making? Statement 3: No one helped me in my life… Answer: Well, join the club. Let me inform you that 80% of the most successful and innovative people had no help from anyone. Should I also send you the stories? Statement 4: If I were leading, I would fire all of them!... Answer: Well, let me inform you that it is tough being a leader. Again, this is easier said than done. Why don’t you start setting something up first, gain respect, trust, lead and then fire your own people? Statement 5 : I deserve more. ‘I’ am great… “I” have done this… “I” have done that…etc. etc. Answer: If you deserve more, why aren’t you getting it? Why hasn’t anyone seen it? Why don’t you go out there and ask for it? As an entrepreneur, I know that being ruthlessly honest is key to personal and professional development: don’t get me wrong! Complaining is not a strategy, so think twice before you use these statements. Talking is much easier than doing…The ideal world you picture in your head won’t just happen; you have to create the future.

Why & how “helicopter view knowledge” (or superficial knowledge) is becoming the norm and why it’s dangerous… Bite Size Thoughts by Dr. Constantine “Dino” Kiritsis, Founder, StudySmart November 2019 Many people read a fact on facebook and either reproduce it or use it in their conversations as an expert; many people see a show on Discovery channel on how to renovate a house and think they know everything about home building; Many people see something in the news on earthquakes and become earthquake experts. They can even assess the earthquake’s magnitude if they move. Others comment on an article, criticize it and a whole discussion arises which makes that person an ‘expert’ in the eyes of his/her network on social media (usually) and the whole discussion remains on the internet for others to refer to and even reproduce and use to support relevant thematic arguments. There are also those who see a 15 - minute TED talk or any video of that sort and become an ‘expert’ in that topic. What makes things worse is that people don’t even like watching videos longer than 3 – 5 minutes (we don’t even have the patience to wait 5 seconds for an add on youtube and we skip it). We all usually scroll a 1 hour video and don’t dig after page 2 of google (they say the best place to hide a dead body is on page 3 of google). It takes a lot more digging and researching to really understand something and be able to hold a conversation . And yes, there are sources after page 2 of google and there is worthwhile information in one hour videos. Well, I hate to break the news to you but there ARE people who know subjects better (they probably have studied the topic and usually have extensive experience in the area) and get very annoyed when people act as if they know everything about a topic in their area after listening to a video or reading a short article that was reposted on facebook. There is a lot more required in understanding a topic in depth. Fortunately, there is a lot of information out there, especially on the net. This information however – in many cases – is mainly unstructured and it is coming in very fast (velocity) so we are not able to synthesize well. Add to this fact the fast pace we are living in along with the short duration of videos to catch our attention, and one gets the idea: Superficial knowledge or a ‘helicopter awareness view” of things. I have a feeling that we are losing ‘focus’… Beware of digital rubbish and ‘mediocracy’ as my friend and associate Dr. Antony Michael likes to say. Next time, instead of saying ‘This is how this is done’ or “let me tell you how that works’ start your statement as follows: ‘ Even though I am not expert or anything on this topic, I recently saw a video and think this is how it is done’ … It shows appreciation and respect to those who DO know how things are done in that specific area and makes you a better communicator. Unless you really ARE an expert… #fakeexperts #digitalrubbish

Why are good people resigning? What are we doing about it? The case for ‘flipping the investment’ from the recruitment process to the fighting turnover process” By Dr. Constantine 'Dino' Kiritsis, China, August 2019 Image Credit: by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay. I totally understand that people can move from company to company as it is a free market. There is nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing necessarily wrong with employees moving ‘fast’ from one company to another, for example, in a year, especially when employees are young. It is like a football team that always signs new players so as to create the best “mix” to win trophies. However, in team sports the teams that really make a difference (in most cases – limitations recognized) employ a solid ‘backbone’ of talented individuals that will stay for a longer period than 1 year in order to build a challenging team around them. For example, a football team would build around some star players (maybe 3-4 our of 11) and a coach would stay for more than 1 year. It is quite impossible to win a championship and stay competitive for more than a year if you do not build around a nucleus of individuals. This has been the norm in football, basketball, volleyball and other sports. Just check Michael Jordan’s team in Chicago, Isiah Thomas’ Detroit Pistons, LeBron James’ teams in recent years, or Lionel Messi in Barcelona, Cristiano Ronaldo at Real and other amazing dynasties. Things are built around a nucleus of people which stay for a longer period of time. Which brings me to my point. If we accept the fact that companies are groups of individuals that try to become ‘teams’ (a much more powerful word in management than groups), why don’t we try harder to keep the best talent and build around them? History has proven that the best companies had a solid nucleus of talented individuals and I urge anyone who like research to check how Apple was successful, how Amazon became the most valuable company in the world and other examples of SME’s (which are probably worth even more attention) where a team of 3 – 4 individuals in the company, or each department (depending on the size of the entity) really made a difference. Most employers either ‘don’t care’ when talented people leave and very rarely make a counter offer to keep someone. This is because they rely on their powerful brand name to recruit more (if the brand is powerful) and their ego does not allow them to think differently . However, even if more do apply to be recruited, what are the mechanisms in place to keep the best? Companies have mechanisms to recruit, interview, assess, offer case studies, re-assess, shortlist, onboard, mentor people in the beginning and spend lots of money doing so, but it is a totally different ball game when the recruits stay for some time. What are companies doing with those talents who really can make a difference? This is where the effort needs to be made. Again – don’t get me wrong – big companies have systems in place to detect deal with the problem, but if we agree that 20% of companies have some systems in place (research stats indicate that 1 in 10 companies is actually considered ‘big), what are the rest doing about the problem? How are they making people stay? How are they building their employee’s careers? How are they nurturing the talent through training and development? The big brands continue to make their revenues despite departures mainly because the brand is bigger than the people who work for it. However, they do not – and probably do not want to - calculate the opportunity cost when top performers leave. It seems to me that we should ‘flip’ the investment by focusing more on what goes on AFTER the recruit has entered and not before. Through my involvement through consulting & training with a number of HR Directors from around the world, I would suggest recruitment should be based on attitude not skill (something we like saying more than applying). As most in the industry say “You hire for attitude and you train for skill”. If that is the case, it means that some will gain the skill after some time. Therefore when they get the skill and they couple that with attitude, you arguable have some talent. The examples of Zappos in the USA, or McKinsey are noteworthy as they have seemed to understand the problem and focus more on trying to keep the best on the team and not offer them to the competition. Zappos even gives money to people to leave the company. Their amazing innovative culture proves my point. No one calculates the loss and the damage in the market when something like this happens as it would be a disgrace for the leadership who let someone go, especially someone very important. Every team is a team, but undoubtedly some people stand out. Ronaldo and Messi are great players. If you have them on your team they can win you championships and world cups. Make sure you keep an eye on them… I feel big companies should make an effort to build a nucleus and stop counting on the brand doing all the work for them. Before they became ‘brand names’ someone actually did try to keep the best and they should never forget that. In an era where the average life cycle of a company is less than 15 years, transparency is paramount and disruption is everywhere, I feel the focus needs to change. Remember, the war on talent has been won by the talent…