- Proven ability to maintain Quality Management Systems according to the requirements of Automotive SPICE, ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 90003:2004, experience with ISO 26262 and ISO/IEC 61508, member of The SPICE User Group
- Experience in practical implementation of agile software development (SCRUM) as well as “V-model”
- Ability to work in multinational environment; highly developed multicultural awareness
- Proven ability to lead a team of 4-10 people with effective conflict resolving and motivation techniques
- Exceptional test management experience with test processes, techniques and tools, leadership of independent test team
- Experience in automotive communication protocols such Ethernet, CAN, LIN, MOST, FlexRay
- Proven ability to coach and mentor, manage and work with personnel effectively from mixed cultural backgrounds
- Experience in project and portfolio management, knowledge management and supplier management
Conflict Resolution Style
There are different theories and ways to describe peoples’ attitude to conflicts. I have choosen my favorite, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. According to these, I belong to “collaborítive” and “compromising” groups. Here are the definitions:
People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.
People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.
I attended to Leadership Challenge training where we had a few self-assesment training. The test aiming to discover how I can be motivated opened my eyes. “Social power” type people according to “McClelland’s Theory of Needs” exactly describes my motivation: I need to see my impact on how things going. The definition is here:
A person’s need for power (nPow) can be one of two types – personal and institutional. Those who need personal power want to direct others, and this need often is percieved as undesirable. Persons who need institutional power (also known as social power) want to organize the efforts of others to further the goals of the organization. Managers with a high need for institutional power tend to be more effective than those with a high need for personal power.
Work in a Team
The same training showed an approach to categorize people according to their contribution to a weamwork. This categorization is invented by Glenn M. Parker. The group I belong is “Challenger”, which have the definition:
The challenger is a member who questions the goals, methods, and even the ethics of the team, is willing to disagree with the leader or higher authority, and encurages the team to take well-conceived risks. Most peole appreciate the value of the candor and openness, but they think, at times, self-righteous and try to push the team so far. People descrives them as honest, outspoken, principled, ethical, and adventurous.
Syllabus of Management Leadership Training.”
Culture for Business
I participated in a survey performed by Trompenaars Hampden-Turner Consulting, where they analyzed the business culture of thousands of managers within the EU according to their 7 Dimension model. My profile shows that I’m quite close to the average.