We all have to go through an interview. We all had an interview for a position, mostly many, sometimes for the same job. You may have also participated in another type of interview for a departure, either by choice or for decreases of work.
We do interviews before hiring a new person to find out more about the individual, their skills and abilities. We are looking for certain skills, a link with the organization, complementarity with the team.
At a departure often an interview will be conducted. We are looking for feedback on the organization. It seems that this type of interview gives positive comments. Many people prefer not to close doors in case of a return to the organization.
Between the two moments, you will probably have evaluation meetings also called performance interviews. This meeting will be used to assess whether you have fulfilled the objectives assigned to you.
During my recent readings, I encountered another type of interview. Each author, in a different context, presents a similar concept of interview with a more or less similar name. All spoke of interviewing of satisfaction, motivation or interest. During this interview, we seek to understand what is the motivation of the individual. It will be necessary to decode the points of satisfaction and non-satisfaction. It will be possible to discover his strengths. But this is absolutely not a moment for evaluation considerations.
The goal is clearly far from an evaluation, it is rather to see what will keep them in the organization, maintain or increase satisfaction, involvement and motivation. It might even be an opportunity to understand how to help get the most out of everyone. In the current context, people are the most important resource in the company or project.
It is a special time to identify what motivates each individual and what can be improved by the project or organization. This kind of meeting will tell you how to invest well in the motivation of your team.
• Want to get the full potential of each person on your team?
• What is the tolerance to lose people in your team?
Be a Project Motivator : Unlock the Secrets of Strengths-Based Project Management, by Ruth Pearce
Staying Power : Why Your Employees Leave and How to Keep Them Longer, by Cara Silletto
Drive : The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel H. Pink
Nous devons tous passer des entrevues. Nous avons tous eu une entrevue pour un poste, pour la plupart plusieurs, parfois pour le même poste. Vous aurez peut-être aussi participé un autre type entrevu celle d’un départ, que ce soit par choix ou pour des diminutions de travail.
Nous faisons des entrevues avant d’engager une nouvelle personne, pour en savoir plus sur l’individu, ses compétences et aptitudes. Nous recherchons certaines compétences, un lienavec l’organisation, la complémentarité avec l’équipe.
Lors d’un départ souvent une entrevue sera réalisée. On recherche des retours d’informations sur l’organisation. Il semble que ce type d’entrevue donne plutôt des commentaires positifs. Beaucoup de personnes préfèrent ne pas fermer de porte, en cas d’un retour dans l’organisation.
Entre les deux moments, vous aurez sans doute des rencontres d’évaluations aussi appelées entrevues de performance. Cette rencontre servira à évaluer si vous avez bien rempli les objectifs qui vous ont été attribués.
Lors de mes lectures récentes, j’ai rencontré un autre type d’entrevue. Chacun des auteurs, dans un contexte différent, présente une entrevue de concept similaire ayant un nom plus ou moins similaire. Tous parlaient de faire des entrevues de satisfaction, de motivation ou d’intérêts. Lors de cette entrevue, on cherche à comprendre ce qui est la source de motivation de l’individu. Il faudra décoder les points de satisfactions et de non-satisfactions. Il sera possible de découvrir ses forces. Mais ceci n’est absolument pas un moment pour des considérations d’évaluation.
L’objectif est clairement loin d’une évaluation, c’est plutôt de voir ce qui permettra les conserver dans l’organisation, de maintenir ou augmenter la satisfaction, l’implication et la motivation. Ce pourrait même être une occasion de comprendre comment contribuer à obtenir un maximum de chacun. Dans le contexte actuel, les personnes sont la ressource la plus importante dans l’entreprise ou dans le projet.
C’est un moment privilégié pour identifier ce qui motive chaque individu et ce qui peut-être amélioré par le projet ou l’organisation. Ce genre de rencontre permettra de bien investir dans la motivation de votre équipe.
· Souhaité vous obtenir le plein potentiel de chacune des personnes de votre équipe?
· Quelle est la tolérance à perdre des personnes dans votre équipe?
Be a Project Motivator : Unlock the Secrets of Strengths-Based Project Management, by Ruth Pear
Staying Power : Why Your Employees Leave and How to Keep Them Longer, by Cara Silletto
Drive : The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, by Daniel H. Pink
Has of writing this we don't know much about the source of the terrible fire, that ravage Notre-Dame of Paris.
My first impression is that the construction/renovation happening on the building might be at the source of the blaze. Many old structures need to undergo a major renovation. That is not without risk.
All around the world-historical structure need to go through a renovation cycle from time to time. In the process of those project do we put enough security? Who should be responsible for ensuring that enough resources are considered for fire risk? We have to be reminded that many of those historical structures consist of an important quantity of wood. Wood should I remind you is highly flammable, especially old dry wood.
Hopefully in the case of Notre-Dame the external structure, the part in stone, will be saved. That is the initial evaluation. Rebuilding will be a daunting project, likely over 10 years of work.
Everybody that is involved in a similar project should double check the risk mitigation that is planned in the project. I can think of two projects that would go into a similar rework the city hall here in Montréal and the Parliament in Ottawa are just starting this kind of work. The Voltigeurs de Québec Armory structure was in this kind of renovation, you guessed it a fire also destroyed the wooden structure in 2008.
In any case, I'm not blaming anyone, a project is the work of many people.
We should learn from those terrible events. How many of other historical landmarks can we lose before learning?
Were there similar events in your region? What were the lessons learned?
A study made by Didier Rykner in France reveals that 50% of church fire is during renovation work, so associated with construction work. Should there be more lessons learned from that?
Some resources I found concerning fire risk in renovation
If you don't know about Notre-Dame
And the fire
The temperature, yes the temperature, in itself is not a risk. What is a risk is the events triggered by this temperature. In the last few days, the weather forecasts announced heavy precipitation accompanied by sustained winds accompanied by gusts. It was a certainty, not an unexpected and sudden event. Risk management involves identifying future events and their impacts.
Having weather forecasts in hand, problematic scenarios could be established. A significant snow accumulation in a short period of time, accompanied by severe wind blowing, increases the threat of accidents and pile-ups.
Sound risk management requires that the various scenarios be identified in a mitigation plan and emergency measures. Responsible authorities must then provide for material and human resources as well as operational procedures to mitigate their impacts and minimize the time the crisis lasts. So, establish risk mitigation plans and crisis management plans potentially.
In light of the information I have, a highway in the urban centre (A13 near Montréal airport) was the scene of a foreseeable event, or close to 300 vehicles were blocked from 8 pm to 8 am the next day. So for about 12 hours, people had to wait for the cold in their vehicles, without any communication with the responsible authorities concerned.
In short, an event for which, if a mitigation plan had been prepared, it has obviously not been put into action.
Losses, which have by no means caused any casualties, are obviously multiple, and shared mainly between the owners of the vehicles involved. In addition to material losses, the loss of confidence in the responsible authorities should not be underestimated, as they will have to urgently mobilize significant resources (human and financial) to carry out the post-mortem of the event and, Development of a mitigation plan.
It is a loss for society in general that could have been greatly diminished with an intervention plan/communication, initiated by a sound management of risk. There is no doubt that the actions would have been implemented quickly.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Article originally posted in LinkedIn (English and French available)
In recent days, we have been able to see that the East energy pipeline project had all the characteristics of a crisis management. This project has indeed been criticized from all sides in the media and the reactions of the promoter allow us to doubt that such criticism had been taken into account in the social acceptance process of the project.
No doubt that sound risk management would have allowed to identify such situations and to react better in the circumstances. I always wonder when projects of this scale do not seem to have set up established risk management process. Yet this is what the best practices suggest; about this, we can draw from two large project management-related organizations such as the PMI with the PMBOK and Axcelos with Prince2.
The implementation of the risk management process, allows among others to identify all types of risks, better understand and ultimately to limit the negative impact of an event if it occurs and thanks to the preventive measures to reduce the impact (probability and/or consequence). Moreover, this process helps to identify and recognize the warning signs and thereby better prepare the organization for the management of crisis or emergency.
Risk management is a proactive approach that limits the need to revert to crisis management. This process must, to maximize efficiency, be implemented from the planning stage and thus offer more options to the organization. When the only choice is crisis management, we are left with a much more limited selection of options which are usually much more expensive.
The implementation of the risk management process is an inexpensive investment but which allows among other to limit the impact of painful incident.