The course material is split into three sections, with an associated self-assessment questionnaire – these three sections are each linked to one of the InstLM’s 49 leadership components.
The three topics covered are:
Resilience leadership component,
Adaptability leadership component, and
Future-ready leadership component.
Obviously, in the context of a free course, lasting only a couple of hours including the assessments and some background reading, the depth is not massive – but I felt it was a good refresher of the concepts… and most importantly, I got a badge 🙂
Posted inCPD|TaggedCPD, InstLM|Comments Off on “Ready to lead: Be resilient, agile and future-ready”
At the Institute of Leadership and Management we believe leadership is crucial to success in all human endeavour, and fundamental to this is what happens between people. Sustained, optimal performance is achieved by working together towards a common goal in a trusting environment which, while objective, is guided by strong moral values and celebrates the human dimension. Our Leadership Dimensions give structure to this approach and so your responses have been ranked relative to; Authenticity, Collaboration, Ownership, Achievement and Vision. We know you are on a journey and so Your Report recognises your strengths and indicates areas which may benefit from further reflection.
Institute of Leadership & Management
Having undertaken the MyLeadership Profile self-assessment, my results showed:
Despite their many common characteristics and the underlying possibility of compromised safety resulting from cyberattacks, designing and developing for cybersecurity generally demands a different focus to functional safety. It is an environment that changes much more quickly, for example, and the potential for active aggressors is alien to the traditional world of functional safety.
Importantly, the topics of functional safety and cyber-security are global in their reach. With this in mind, I was invited, by ETauto magazine in India, to present a webinar titled Connecting Functional SAFETY and SECURITY in Automotive.
To quote from the blurb:
This presentation will discuss how those differences might impact the nature of functional safety standards such as ISO 26262, versus cybersecurity guidelines and standards like SAE J3061 and ISO/SAE 21434.
It will reflect on how it impacts the very nature of security standards, and consider whether their objectives can ever be as rightly defined as their functional safety equivalents. And it will review how sound application development techniques are likely to be central to any future cybersecurity strategy, no matter how the standards evolve.
I’d like to thank the team at ETauto for their welcome and support during the preparation and streaming of this webinar. I would also like to thank Mr Shinto Joseph, LDRA’s Director of South East Asia Operations for his contribution and local knowledge during the Q&A segment
A couple of years back, fellow members of the IET’s Safety Technical Professional Network Andy German and Richard Piggin (both then at Atkins) proposed the creation of a Code of Practice for Cyber Security and Safety.
This in turn led to deeper discussions, and for one or two people, a lot of hard work.
I am proud of my small, supporting, role in the production of this publication – I hope industry finds it useful and informative, and it can help make our systems more secure and hence safer. And my thanks to LDRA for supporting my involvement in this Group.