'It's too tiring to lead people, why don't you do it yourself! ' Subordinates always make mistakes, which is a test for leaders
I'm resigning, please have a meal.
This surprised me a bit.
I remember when he first joined this company, he was very ambitious, full of enthusiasm and expectations for his work, and he was promoted to the business director half a year ago. With a small team of 6 people, he has clear goals and references. Planning, coupled with his own professional level, should not be difficult to do.
Unexpectedly, he said: these are not problems. The problem is that subordinates always make some low-level mistakes. These small omissions are not too big, and they will not touch the red school stipulated by the company, but they are small and not small. rework”, feeling exhausted.
After going back and forth like this, he was mixed between his subordinates and his own leaders, feeling unpleasant on both sides, exhausted, and simply quit.
Friends have this kind of character, and I can still understand this reason coming out of his mouth.
But when it comes to "minor mistakes", it's really troublesome.
- Beware of "carelessness" and "carelessness"
Sometimes some small mistakes, everyone will use the phrase "Oh, just accidentally".
Prioritize the current situation, because it is urgent, there is no problem; but when reviewing the event afterwards, if you still use the excuse of "accidental" and do not really feel that you are at fault, you need to be vigilant in this situation.
Often make small mistakes, need to reflect on two points:
First, is it a process issue.
Second, is it a personality issue.
The so-called "people who are not saints and sages can have faults", many workplace people, even if they are not new to the workplace, are not considered "finished products" when they take over a new business. Therefore, it is necessary for team leaders to maintain a certain "fault tolerance rate".
When encountering process problems, employees always make mistakes. You need to think about it:
How to optimize the process to reduce the possibility of making mistakes?
For example, there was once a customer service supervisor who found that many new employees did not know the technology and the difference between http and https, so they often missed "s" when they needed to manually enter the connection, which caused users to often Feedback "Connection cannot be read".
After a few verbal corrections, the supervisor found that teaching by speaking was useless and was often forgotten.
So he did two things:
First, in the customer service manual, a reminder was added to remind the customer service to pay attention to the https problem when entering the connection;
Then, he also contacted the technical department and asked them if there was any way to deal with the problem that the http connection could not be jumped at all, and whether it could be dealt with in some technically related ways.
In this way, the problem of making mistakes caused by an "s" has been double-insured, and the proportion of customer complaints has been reduced a lot.
In fact, it is a matter of personality. If it is the case of a single person, the principle of "nothing but three" can be adopted.
For the first time, I found that the leader should give timely feedback and inform the correct way to deal with it. This step can be hand-guided.
The second discovery, if the mistakes made are consistent with the first, formal reminders and warnings are required;
Special reminder: If a new problem is discovered this time, it is operated according to the instructions, but there is still a problem, it should be treated as a new problem.
For the third time, if it is the same mistake, it is recommended that the leader consider changing people.
We must understand that no one has "unlimited responsibility" in the workplace, especially if the subordinates themselves are not concerned, the same mistake occurs repeatedly, and there is no progress. Most likely, it is not a problem of ability, but a problem of attitude.
Insufficient ability can be taught, but there is zero tolerance for bad attitude. ,
It is generally recommended to give your subordinates at least two chances to make mistakes, but as for the upper limit, it can be determined according to the difficulty of your task and how much you can tolerate.
- "Call" first, then "remediate"
Some leaders, such as my friends, are more impatient, and the first reaction to a problem is "I'm coming".
When you meet a leader or team leader with this character, the advantage is that you have a sense of security, but the disadvantage is that you may not be able to progress. Because it is easy to become dependent when encountering problems, "Just tell the leader, he will solve it anyway."
After a long time, the leader may be "tired" and leave.
Therefore, when a subordinate makes a mistake, as long as it is not burning the eyebrows, it must be dealt with quickly, otherwise it will lead to a big mistake. It is recommended that the leader must first stabilize his emotions, be patient, "teach" the subordinate, and give him some time to learn to solve it by himself.
You can help in the middle, but it's best not to "hand help".
When the matter is over, the subordinate's mentality at this time is often: both a sense of accomplishment, a little guilt, and a little gratitude at the same time. At this time, it is the best to take the subordinates to do the review.
After all, it was my own fault. Under the tension and anxiety, I made up the matter again. What is the problem and how to avoid it in the future? The subordinates already know more or less.
In fact, as a leader or team leader, you must reach a consensus with your subordinates: in the same team, whether it is a leader or a subordinate, it is not an antagonistic relationship in essence.
For leaders, the cultivation of subordinates is itself a management task, so when subordinates make mistakes and leave a "pit", it is not only the subordinate who is facing this "pit", but you are also facing this "pit". ".
Therefore, there is no "filling the pit for subordinates", but "filling the pit for oneself".
When you don't train your subordinates well, this "pit" is actually your own creation.
- Use "question" instead of "blame" to let subordinates learn to grow by themselves
A slap doesn't make a sound, if the employee "keeps it after repeated teachings", in addition to the process and personality, they should also consider: whether the feedback from the leader is reasonable.
"Ethical labels" and "holding on to shortcomings" are low-level mistakes that leaders must avoid. We won't talk about them here.
Generally speaking, there are two styles of coaching from leaders to subordinates:
The first is the "teacher type", who will teach subordinates how to do things.
There's also the "coaching type," who isn't good at hands-on presentations, but they ask questions.
Harvard education expert and tennis expert Galway once did one thing: because the number of registrations for the tennis class was too high, he had no choice but to ask two ski instructors to help. He didn't have much hope at first, but unexpectedly, Galway discovered that the students brought by the ski instructor made faster progress than the students brought by himself!
So he became interested in this phenomenon, began to observe, and designed experiments to analyze.
It turns out that the crux of the problem is not whether the coach will know it himself, but rather:
Can the coach let the trainee know if they are doing it right, and if they are wrong, why?
It's like skiing coaches don't know tennis, so they don't know what the students are doing wrong, so they often ask the students: "How did you exert force? What do you think about the spin of the ball? The ball you just hit, did you How do you understand it?"
It's like, if an employee makes a mistake, some leaders will demonstrate the correct demonstration by hand, and then tell their subordinates: do the same next time.
There is also a category of leaders who may ask employees to summarize, "Why do you think this campaign failed? What is the reason for the failure?".
There is no absolute right or wrong between the two methods. It depends not only on the specific situation faced, but also on the acceptance of the employees. Not all people can use the second method.