Nuevo Curso en Español GRATIS!

FODAopenEl Curso Básico de la Matriz FODA es completamente gratuito pero valioso para aquellas personas buscando la oportunidad de aprender cómo crear una estrategia para alcanzar metas. El curso empieza usando el ejemplo de cómo decidir qué dirección se debe tomar en una meta personal y después habla de como aplicar los mismos principios para decidir la dirección a tomar para fijar y alcanzar una meta de negocios.

Para registrate sin costo y tomar el curso en línea sigue este enlace: Curso de la Matriz FODA

Hope Vs Training


[Originally published on Linked-In by Learning4Managers] Year after year line employees are promoted to supervisory and management positions due to their exemplary work. Kudos to all of them. But what is it they get when these people are promoted?

The promotion comes with a bundle of new responsibilities, high expectations, and pressure. To meet performance expectations on these new responsibilities, newly promoted managers are expected to instantly become leaders, coaches, and performance experts.

Here is what the promotion does not always include: a plan. Don’t get us wrong. Top management has plans and expectations for newly promoted employees. What is missing is a plan for the new manager to transition into the supervisory or management position to learn and practice the new skills required.

Let’s take a look at a few basic managerial tasks: interviewing candidates for a job, managing conflict between employees, and deal with employees who are not performing up to expectations. Are newly promoted managers expected to handle these issues effectively and efficiently? Yes.

Here is the problem. Are the tasks mentioned earlier the kind of duties they were expected to handle before the promotion? In most cases, the answer is no. So how are they supposed to know how to handle these new duties and meet expectations? How did you learn to deal with these issues? Take our survey on our site and let us know.

From the responses in surveys conducted in previous years we learned that 42% of managers taught themselves how to conduct interviews, as opposed to being taught on the job or via formal training. 37% taught themselves how to manage conflict and 31% taught themselves how to manage low performing team members.

In other words, around 1/3 of new managers or more figure things out on their own hoping that what they figure out is the right thing to do. Hoping is not planning and as the old adage says, if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. These conditions ought to be simply unacceptable to us.

Training is not the answer to all problems and we know that. However, it is an important step that paves the way to better performance, innovation, and overall to better business results. We encourage you to go back to your management and supervisor teams and survey them to see what they know and how they acquired this information. Offer training on key management topics to those who need it.

Next, take a look at your promotion practices and incorporate an onboarding program for newly promoted managers and supervisors. Finally, teach them to become Viral Leaders. As such, they will begin to plant the seeds of leadership in their respective teams, which will help prepare your next generation of promotion-worthy leaders. If you need assistance with any of these steps, Contact Us Today! 

Why Your Best Employees Are NOT Your Most Important Asset


If you are trying to get maximum productivity from your employees, then it is time you rethink treating them like they are your most valuable asset. To understand why, let’s explore the “most valuable asset” concept. Companies have depended on business models that treat people as one more asset in the organization. Workers are expected to show up on time and perform their tasks within expected parameters, in the same way machines and equipment are expected to work within specified standards.

As a result of this dominant view of the workplace, a saying emerged: Employees are a company’s most important asset. While the statement was meant to show the value of reliable employees, it strips employees of their real value. In fact, the thought unintentionally dehumanizes the person and turns the employee into nothing more than one more company asset.

This model does not fit with today’s employees’ expectations of the workplace. Are employees seeking to become just one more cog in the big corporate machine? Are they perceived as replaceable parts in the system? Do they feel treated as assets instead of people?

Today’s workers have a much bigger focus on work-life balance and social needs, forcing companies to re-think how they treat what we at Learning4Managers call the old concept of the people-asset or the person-asset.

Employees can no longer be treated as an asset but rather need to be viewed again as people with complex real life issues. These issues may include disruptive and bully behaviors, but they can also be about needs like having a sick spouse at home who needs attention, having childcare problems, or having to deal with problems with the facility caring for an elderly parent. 

To think that human beings can compartmentalize and keep their personal lives completely separate from their work lives is naïve. Let’s imagine we have an employee suffering of stress at home due to a health situation in the family. Stress causes hormonal changes to occur which can have an impact on the body for days. An employee cannot control hormonal changes caused by stress any more than they can control the direction of wind currents on Jupiter. How can we ask this employee to compartmentalize and stop feeling the stress during work hours?

The point is that people are far more than just an asset. If we expect them to be engaged and give their utmost for the company, companies need to understand that they need to see people first as individual human beings. Once they address the needs of the individual. Only then will companies be able to truly engage employees and as a reward, employees will freely give their best to the company.

A Toxic Lie Being Spread At Your Company: To Be a Manager is Bad – To Be a Leader is Good

VL_Facts_mythsRecently I noticed a post saying similar to this: “Managers make themselves feel important and leaders make people feel important.” There are many messages similar to this one floating around all over social media. Do you agree? It is tempting to want to believe it at face value. However, when you give it some thought, you may realize this is not only a lie, it is toxic and dangerous thinking.

In my book Viral Leadership, I make it a point to call out and confront these misleading and toxic messages. I say these messages are misleading because they are comparing bad managerial behaviors and attitudes with the behaviors of great leaders – not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

The fact is that there are great managers and there are horrible managers, just as there are great leaders and bad ones too. After all, Hitler was a leader. So was Osama Bin Laden. Should we start bashing the concept of leadership based on their example? If we are going to make comparisons, let’s at least be fair about it.

But before we even start making comparisons, let’s be clear about one thing. Management and leadership are two sides of the same coin. To be a great leader, you must also be a great manager. What good is a leader that does not respect a budget or deadlines? On the other side of the coin, we observe that to be a great manager you must also show great leadership skills. Managers who can’t inspire their teams won’t get far.

So why do we feel the need to give the word “manager” a bad reputation? To make ourselves feel good when we say we rather be leaders? Imagine the damage this message causes to the image of thousands of great managers who are out there doing a fantastic job with their teams.

For this reason, I say this ridiculous comparison between the concepts of management and leadership is toxic and needs to stop. Instead, give your good managers and leaders the respect they deserve, and build up the skills of those who need improvement. And most importantly, teach them to be viral. Teach them to pass on these great skills to the rest of their teams, and build up a viral chain of performance improvement.

I also encourage you to share your stories of managers and leaders, good or bad, who may have left an impression on you and shaped you into the professional you are today. Enter your story and you’ll earn a chance to win a Free Webinar (up to 50 participants) for your team. To enter, FOLLOW THIS LINK.

La Amenaza Más Grande a Su Empresa Está Adentro: Gerentes Malos

La revista Forbes reporta que la mitad de los empleados que renuncian lo hacen debido a su relación con su jefe. El censo de EE.UU. estima que 2.5 millones de personas dejan su trabajo voluntariamente cada mes. El costo estimado de remplazar esas vacantes puede ser de $22,297 a $222,975. Por lo menos la mitad de esa pérdida es causada por errores de gerentes.

Veamos el asunto desde otro ángulo: la mitad de las personas que renuncian son un síntoma de un mal gerente que en algún momento hizo una decision mala. Es muy probable que usted haya visto o vivido esto. Sin embargo, despedir a los gerentes malos no garantiza que los siguientes sean mejores.

La major manera de evitar que estos gerentes con pocas destrezas infesten nuestros equipos con actitudes malas es enseñarles a que se conviertan en Viral Leaders (líderes virales). Entre antes, major.

En nuestro libro Viral Leadership, describe tres obstáculos que evitan que los jefes tengan una relación buena con sus empleados: falta de claridad, desperdicio y conflicto. Una vez que aprenden cómo sobrepasar estos obstáculos, pueden pasar sus destrezas a sus equipos. Asi es como empieza la explosion en cadena. Esto es Viral Leadership en vivo y piede ayudarle a ahorrarle a su compañía miles de dólares.

Viral Leadership Book Available Now

Viral Leadership and companion resources by Learning4Managers are available now.

Follow This Link

Recompensas Que Dañan el Desempeño de Trabajo y la Productividad

Un estudio de la Universidad de Alberta en 2001 por Judy Cameron, Katherine Banko y W. David Pierce revise cientos de estudios experimentales que identificaron cómo algunas recompensas a menudo dañaban la motivación intrínsica. La razón, dicen ellos, es principalmente como se estructuran las recompenzas.

Recompensas destructivas: Cuando una recompensa tangible se anuncia por adelantado, como un bono o un premio, y la recompensa no está ligada directamente al desempeño laboral, la recompense puede disminuir motivación en gente que originalmente estaban interesados en hacer algo.

Recompensas sin efecto: En el studio, cuando una recompenza estaba ligada a desempeño laboral, la motivación no bajó pero tampoco subió necesariamente.

Recompensas de algún beneficio: Los mejores resultados se encontraron al ofrecer recompenzas verbales por actividades en las que las personas tenían libertad de eligirlas (las que no eran obligatorias) y en las que tenían interés. Por ejemplo, cuando se da reconocimiento a individuos por completar una serie de cursos de entrenamiento que no son obligatorios pero que pueden ayudarles a mejorar sus destrezas o conocimiento de productos o servicios.

En nuestra experiencia, el desempeño en el trabajo es a menudo un producto de la motivación. Como vemos en el estudio, la motivación depende de nuestras habilidades sociales y de liderazgo. ¿Usas la recompensa correcta?


Cameron J., et al. (2001). Pervasive Negative Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation: The Myth Continues. The Behavior Analyst.  Number 1 – Spring. Retrieved from

Are Your Rewards Hurting Performance? Which carrot works best?

A study at the University of Alberta in 2001 by Judy Cameron, Katherine Banko, and W. David Pierce reviewed hundreds of experimental studies that identified how some rewards often decreased intrinsic motivation. The reason, they say, lies primarily on how the rewards are structured.

Destructive Rewards: When a tangible reward is announced beforehand, such as a bonus or a prize, but the reward is only loosely tied to performance, the reward may actually decrease intrinsic motivation in people who were originally highly interested in the task.

Partially useless rewards: In the study, when a reward was linked to performance, intrinsic motivation did not decrease, but it didn’t necessarily increase either.

Relatively beneficial rewards: The best results in the study were found when offering verbal rewards for activities that people are free to choose to do (not required) and which they find interesting. For example, you may offer recognition to individuals who complete a set of training courses that isn’t mandatory but that can enhance their skills or knowledge of products or services.

In our experience, performance is often a product of motivation. As we see from the research, motivation is highly dependent on soft skills and leadership. Are you using the right carrot?


Cameron J., et al. (2001). Pervasive Negative Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation: The Myth Continues. The Behavior Analyst.  Number 1 – Spring. Retrieved from


Sabiencia 1

Estamos empezando una nueva tradición con Sabiencias, frases cortas que nos ponen a pensar acerca de lo que hemos aprendido de los miles de participantes y profesionales con quienes hemos entrado en contacto. Esperamos que les inspiren y les sean de ayuda.

“El éxito no le pasa a quien no hace nada para lograrlo.” _Jorge Acuña