Below I discuss what are the most common mistakes that usually commit the executives who have command positions. The order in which they are placed do not have to do with the order of importance. Error # 1: verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is manifested in various ways. Use tone of voice desaprobadores, sarcastic or accusing; make hurtful comments or destructive criticism on the work or physical appearance of the people; be insensitive to the personal problems of your people; interrupt what they say or ignore them with your silence; humiliate them in public or private. Hear other arguments on the topic with Howard Schultz. Mistake # 2: not fulfilling what you promise.I have observed this behavior in executives seeking at all costs to convince a collaborator that do something in particular in exchange for an increase in salary or to impress.

You also do in it when you have good intentions but does not depend on you fulfill the offer you’re doing. Mistake # 3: download your anger instead of having the intention of correcting. I know that the pressures that fall on you sometimes are great. But You agudizas the problem if instead of looking for correct performance of the collaborator to be improved their productivity downloads on your courage by the errors committed. Thou shalt put him nervous and it will increase their inefficiency.

Mistake # 4: never congratulate the good performance. On countless occasions I have received the complaint from workers who feel little valued because when they make a mistake immediately be complains them, but when they do good things go unnoticed. Mistake # 5: be incongruous. You demand your team you arrive at work early but you usually arrive late? You ask them that they adhere to the procedures of work but you constantly falsifying them? You organizaste a campaign to improve the service to customers but you reject these calls because they always do at the least opportune? Mistake # 6: boycott the development of your team.

There is a Manichean reconstruction of history that seems written by a bad screenwriter of films in series B. According to her, good, real good, are those opposed to the Franco dictatorship, they did what they did. On the other side of the evil bad guys are who lived badly as well with the Franco regime, although they had not done anything to perpetuate it. Ben Horowitz is the source for more interesting facts. The opposite of what was happening with the propaganda of the Franco regime, where the good guys were the affections that despicable regime and the bad guys all the reds and Democrats, both concepts that came to mean the same thing for the deranged oppressors of the era. Now, in the awkward swing in history, is the turn present as angelic beings to the maquis, namely last antifrancoist wrestlers after the second world war.

With naive and willfulness, those guerrillas believed that they could overthrow the dictator that the countries that won the war cast them a hand. peutics. Many of them longed a utopian world that never knew, others shot al Monte in the absence of anything better to do, but all of them they were wrong. In Yalta, Communists and Democrats had divided Europe, and Spain remained apart from any commitment and left to their own fate. Before such an evidence, in 1948 PSOE and PCE agreed the dissolution of the maquis. There were still people hitting shots by the Pyrenees and the mountains of Galicia until 1967, when the last survivor of that species crossed the border from France. Earlier, in 1952, he died in Galicia or Foucellas, after 16 years of underground life.

In 1957 it was the turn of in Catalonia to Facerias, violent type who became a guerrilla unattended luggage; in 1960 to Quico Sabater and in 1963 to Caraquemada, the last of that generation of wrestlers without hope. From the beautiful and tragic film by Mario Camus the days of the past, with Marisol and Antonio Gades (1977), until the current Pau Vergara, memoirs of a guerrilla, all are treasured memories and tributes. But where he finished the ardent illusion of desperate men and? where did the brutality of a sordid banditry of common criminals? From late 1950s it is very difficult to discern it. For this reason, abstract idealization of the maquis of the maquis, is not more than another perversion of history that, by well-intentioned it, only serves to distort it.

Stage emblematizada by the Internet phenomenon. Stage everything indicates it will cause as many mutations as which they provoked at the time the conjunction of the steam boat, railway and the Telegraph. As something derived from publishing ideas through the press and teach constitutional rights, a lucky can conceive as of right to the imagination of the country of the future. More beyond official attempts, which can make its contribution in that regard, since individuals aware and committed to the time and place in which they live, from where you can make the contributions, and is there from where you are trying to formulate our. Over time are emerging concepts that may come in handy for the self-anointed task, so have appeared to our knowledge, concepts such as: planning, postwar planning, national project, Argentine model, appropriate technology, total quality social engineering, information technologies, process reengineering.

All of them have been very fruitful for our meditations and research. Lately you we’ve added the concept of reinventing, taken from reinventing English, actually coined by Americans. We were already doomed in the task of imagining a country marked by three characteristics: participation, creativity and decentralization. Moving forward in time was necessary to clarify that decentralization, meant physical de-concentration, to not confuse decentralization as the delegation of responsibilities. I think for some time that a country with these characteristics model, must be implemented with creative optimization of existing. With this we want to point that harmonized creatively exist in the bosom of Argentine society, human capital and material, documentary resources to generate a high quality of life for all Argentines.

Not to fall into the ingenuity, we have finished consciousness of the existence of numerous obstacles (ultimately selfish or ignorant human attitudes), they hinder the conjunction of the components above targeted. However, overcoming the force of things, and not without a high cost in time and energy, those pathetic miserabilidades, which seem to inescindibles of our human condition. Acicateados by change of scenario, preceded by the crisis of the pre-existing structures, (some go back to 1853), began to develop a concept, we gave in the first instance the title of RERRURALIZACION. It was based on a prior inventory of the Argentina. In this previous inventory began by characterize their geographic base attach to that four colors: green for the humid pampa and the littoral zone; yellow for two thirds of the Mainland; Blue for the epicontinental sea or exclusive economic zone, the two hundred nautical miles (1,852 meters), linking us with the world and with our irredentist islands of the South Atlantic, and our Antarctic Sector, and color bla

Rothbard, is currently studying how people manipulate their personal and professional profiles online. One really interesting aspect of this, and it may be extraordinary indeed is that hence arises a Community action, a conscience and an understanding of issues and events that may be important, creating a sense of intimacy and can lead to confidence and greater proximity. It is not known, however, if that idealized scenario in the real workplace, may reach says Rothbard. Social networks in the wider public sphere have allowed individuals to become virtual friends of politicians, actors and famous musicians, In addition to that create the feeling that the public can interact with these figures known at a level of camaraderie. However, what will happen, from the point of view of the hierarchy, when a CEO again is friend of their workers in a corporate social network, asks Rothbard. For more information see this site: Howard Schultz & Associates.

All this can be considered is what gives us the source of cited information wharton.universia.net, that many of these social networks and those experiments of management are being introduced by technology companies specializing in the traditional corporate segment. In January, for example, during the Lotusphere, present at the event IBM executives discussed what the company was doing to integrate its social tools of their workers through softwares of collaboration that allows to visit documents, through forums, to carry out an exchange of ideas and mobile applications. IBM has also been developing social tools for your business network and suite of collaboration LotusLive, located in the cloud, for use in a number of sectors as marketing, service to the customer, sales, product and of course human resources development, worth having present on this progress in the application to the companies, that says Andrea Matwyshyn, Professor studies legal and ethics in business from Wharton, the fact that called attention to social tools for business may be exaggerating his promises. Social networks can be used as a collaboration tool in work on computer, she says. But the pure and simple use of the networks all the time can distract workers. In other words, social tools should be balanced with other priorities, and may not have imagined impact on the working environment. Conceptually, there should be much added value, it evaluates Matwyshyn.

However, the benefits will be different for each worker. The Professor Shawndra Hill, agrees with this point of view. If employees use the corporate microblogging tools, blogging and to create profiles for other than the intended purposes, applications can end up becoming more an apology for delaying the task to perform. Ultimately, many workers would spend at least part of the day checking and updating their profiles on Facebook and Twitter. Conclusion without doubt, social networks have reached an extraordinary boom and knowing them manage, use can be beneficial in many areas, such as firms in which you can obtain favorable results, especially in greater integration of human resources, in cohesive work groups, it all depends on how you use them.

There was a time in which the owners of newspapers hunted Governments or provoked wars, such as the mythical Randolph Hearst caricatured by Orson Welles in his Citizen Kane. The ability to generate opinion through the printed press, and even manipulate it, has decreased as the number of existing media has multiplied. Everywhere, the so-called serious press, quality, or with other similar adjectives, see how gradually decays your turnover. Continue to learn more with: JPMorgan Chase. It happens to Le Monde in France, and The New York Times, in United States. Others kept to harsh penalties thanks to offer all kinds of beading, from DVDs to envelopes of concentrated soups. It is that information has become democratized.

Today, anyone can find out what is happening without having to pay a penny for it. Free newspapers, today also punished by the blessed economic crisis, very soon came to do with more than 40 percent of the Spanish market of the printed press. Next to them, television channels are multiplied and technology that facilitates their access advances. The mobile telephony has become a means of interactive communication and the network of networks is already a cyber jumble that engage all kinds of web pages, software portals, blogs of Internet users, with the same enjoyment with which the hams are hung on drying of ham. The garden of the information manifests itself, therefore more lush than ever. And, above all, more democratic: anyone can say yours today day a massive and indiscriminate audience, without physical boundaries, and well-stocked thought police preventing it.

They are wrong, therefore, those sedicentes analysts who talk about information monopolies, using concepts of the past century. Indeed, the Rupert Murdoch of turn perhaps possess every day more conventional media. However, his power of influence on public opinion, its status as opinion makers, decreases as extends the digital access to communication. Already see what little lasting stereotypes based on the ignorance or prejudice, as much as their authors preach in chairs of the specialty. Today’s media universe is more democratic than ever before and is on its way of being increasingly. For this reason, one does not understand episodic efforts to the political class put doors on the field and wanting to legislate the journalistic profession with criteria from another era. The problem today’s day does not consist, as we see, in the lack of information or democratic in its origin. Now the difficulty is to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, the melody of the noises, the news of the poisoning. That is true that we have more information than ever before, although the worst we are not nor more or better informed than before.