"Never prefer your personal stupidity to someone else's useful advice." Socrates There is a phrase that illustrates a formal agreement, but also an actual disagreement in the team communication. I call it "dirty yes." Managers who chronically get such a "dirty yes" in their teams and wonder what is the reason for it, do not need to blame other people, but simply to look in the mirror. One of the first reasons for this "dirty yes" to be so widespread is that the managers themselves give such a "dirty yes" to their teams. They promise resources they cannot provide. They guarantee rewards for which they have no authority. And finally, they make commitments to their managers to impossible goals… and then unsuccessfully impose them on their teams. Let us use a specific example. Imagine working with about 200 other people on one floor in an open space environment. At the beginning of winter, you decide with other managers to introduce a policy in which people must leave their coats in the wardrobes at the entrance. The purpose of this is to create a comfortable working environment for all 200 people - not to turn work chairs into sources of any odors, not to have piles of scarves, hats, and any other winter accessories. All managers in the meeting agree with the rule and promise to introduce it on the same day. However, some managers, who are far from the entrance and the wardrobes, know that their teams will resist the rule and will probably not follow it. During the meeting, the managers give their "dirty yes" to all other managers. They agree because they do not want to admit that they cannot ensure the implementation of the rule, but, they do not ask for an exception for their teams or the provision of additional wardrobes to make compliance more practical and probable. At some point, the large accumulation of such "dirty yes" can create an environment in which people have the feeling that they are constantly swimming in a river of hypocrisy. But in any team, hypocrisy cannot last long without the "help" of the manager of that team - with his actions or inactions. There are two main types of "dirty yes": - In good faith - people use it purposefully to achieve a better goal for their teams. - Malicious - people use it when they deliberately sabotage their colleagues or managers because they know that their mini-failure will be an even greater failure for someone else they want to harm. Naturally, the team is always a reflection of its manager - almost every manager has said "dirty yes" with the best of intentions, which, however, have manifested themselves in negative affects on the team. The antidote to this "dirty yes" is full transparency and the creation of a safe psychological space for people to express thoughtful disagreement - n all directions of the organizational chart. Especially in the northern direction. This "dirty yes" can be part of the corporate culture in places where people are more diplomatic, often agree, and rarely fulfill their commitments. Here, this phenomenon is just part of the unwritten rules, but everyone knows them and organizes their work according to them. Then the drama is not that bad. It is more complicated when this "dirty yes" is not part of the company, but it is a part of the personal professional culture of managers. In these cases, people who have to work with such colleagues will go through a period of adaptation and finding an appropriate approach to work. It is important in this case that managers are not tempted to "fix" others and try to change them. Simply because it is impossible. The right strategy here is to manage the agreements with these people more precisely and on a more frequent basis so that the presence of "dirty yes" becomes visible in time and from there a way can be found to deal with it.
0 Comments
"When it's obvious, that the goals can't be achieved,
don't change the goals, change your actions." Confucius Just for one day try to finish each meeting with "Do we know who will do what by when?", instead of "Have a nice day". At first, this may increase your meetings by 5-10 minutes, but over time it will shorten them and will increase their effectiveness. One of the most common cold spots in management practice (time-consuming activities with low added value) is ineffective meetings. Those that carried out with inertia. They involve too many people and have vague or no goals at all. Is the meeting about gathering ideas, making a final decision, or presenting a new project? It's not clear. Since the goal is not mentioned at the beginning, people act impulsively and offer solutions when the decision has already been made. Or participants are asked to decide based on snippets of information from the meeting without preparing in advance. Or one of the worst cases - the meetings turn into an arena for pointing fingers and blowing steam for 2-3 hours, without a break. At one point, the workday was almost over, and someone trapped managers in ineffective meetings that only contributed to an increase in their current unfinished business and unanswered emails. If the average duration of an unproductive work meeting is about an hour and at the end of the meeting, say that someone has lost your time, it means only one thing. And that is - that you lost your time alone. No one can waste your time. You may say that someone lost 5 minutes at the beginning of an ineffective one-hour meeting. But you lost the remaining 55 minutes. Not someone else. Not your manager. Not the unprepared organizer of the meeting. You have lost 55 precious minutes of your life, simply because you have given priority to the unproductive meeting, instead of the actual work that awaits you. But sometimes you are ready for someone else to "waste your time" just because you use that time to diversify or "switch off" while you are in the meeting. If you want to well use your time at work and not become part of the mass "calendar slavery" then you will take part in meetings over 5 minutes only if those meetings are meaningful and productive. Otherwise, you will never have enough time. It will not be physically possible to take part in back-to-back meetings that waste your time. What is the solution for productive meetings? Two things: 1) The greatest possible simplification of the agenda, 2) Clarity at the end of the meeting about this: "Who is doing what by when?" If it is clear what needs to be done, but it is not clear who will do it, the action will most likely be swallowed up by the black hole of collective irresponsibility. If it is clear who and what needs to be done, but no deadline has been set, guess which part of the to-do list will be the deadline without a closing date. In the part that is desirable and will be done only when "there is time". So, I invite you to close today's meetings not with "Have a nice day", but with "Who is doing what by when?". And only then with "Have a nice day". "What can a poet achieve if he is not in pain?" Pain is just as important as the typewriter."
Charles Bukowski The purpose of the following lines is to provoke you to say "no" to those things or people for whom you have long postponed saying that "no". So far, you may have been stopped by your good manners and the unwillingness to offend or hurt someone else. But in clearly saying "no" to something, there is a very deep positive force when you know why you say it. And this is good not only for you but also for the person on the other side. It is probably good for third parties as well. Here is a specific example. Let us say your office is an open space with many people on one floor. Your workplace is near a central corridor or door, which is passed by dozens or hundreds of people a day. From time-to-time people stop by you in the friendliest mood, strike up a brief conversation about yesterday's match, or about Kubrat Pulev's kiss. For them, this is just part of their planned vacation with a walk and taking coffee from the kitchen in the office. For you - this is another unwanted distraction. If you say a positive "no" to the dozens of unwanted daily distractions, what will be the biggest benefit for you? First, your working hours will be enough. Late nights or early mornings will be the exception rather than the current practice and the only way to get the job done. Now, managing the current workload is only possible if you stay up late or you come very early. The second benefit will be that mistakes in your work will be reduced. You will not have to write and read the same sentence five times because of a lack of good concentration. The third benefit will be that you will probably have some free time left, which you will decide how to use. You, not the surrounding people. You will decide how to fill the free minutes instead of the casual office pedestrians. Besides these undeniable benefits, there are some disadvantages to saying "NO" to distractions from colleagues. Some colleagues may be offended that you do not have a normal human attitude to exchange a couple of words with them. Some will think your ego is too big. Others will say you are pretending to be busy. Others will say that you have no friends in the office because you do not talk to anyone outside of meetings. If you put the opinion and approval of others before the desire to do your job without distractions, you will never have enough time. This is not because there are so many tasks. It is simply because you cannot organize yourself well and you cannot concentrate on your current tasks. You cannot say a positive "NO". A positive "NO" is not an oxymoron. It simply suggests that saying "NO" also has many positive effects. Especially if you get the right dose at the right place, with the right time, and with the right people. At the moment, you may think that you are not using the positive "NO" for the sake of others. So as not to hurt them, so as not to draw wrong conclusions, etc. But in fact, you are not saying a positive "NO" just because of you. Think about it. What if someone gets hurt because you do not have small talk? The problem is not in the unpreparedness, but because you do not want to be a person who affects others. If you are not a person who does not want to offend and hurt others, you have nothing to worry about in every conversation about who will be affected and how much. Then saying a positive "NO" is much easier. If your colleagues are offended because you did not take the ball of small conversations, what will happen to them when they have a reason to be offended? Then when they have outright personal attacks and take ultimate positions with someone else? They will probably go to the hospital every week after each such conversation. Managers are more likely to avoid negative experiences than to pursue positive ones. That is why so many team leaders prefer to avoid social rejection and negative perceptions than to focus on the positive experience of doing their work during working hours. Failure to use the positive "NO" is also the fast track to professional burnout. "It's never too late to become what you were meant to be."
George Elliott There are two main types of managers - thermometers and thermostats. 1) The first type of managers - thermometers - simply show the temperature of the environment in which they work. When the temperature is too high or too low - they just show it on their screen. Nothing more. Temperature, of course, is a metaphor for the energy level at the workplace. If there is a good amount of energy, it means that there is enough of these factors: - Willingness and desire for change, improvement, and development; - Seeking and giving feedback; - Initiative and proactivity; - Motivation and inspiration; 2) The second type of managers - thermostats - set what the temperature should be and make it so. The easiest thing in the world is to be in a good mood, have enthusiasm for work, and be productive when everyone around you is in a similar state. Then things happen almost by themselves, the entire team is in the so-called "flow" state. They achieve everything with ease. If everything worked fine all by itself, there will probably be no need for managers. In this case, with or without a thermometer (manager), the team naturally reaches and maintains an internal company homeostasis. Homeostasis is a property of an open system to regulate its internal environment through some regulatory mechanisms. These regulatory mechanisms in an office environment are managers. They do not create the balance in the system per se but help the system to self-regulate through their continuous feedback and alignment with current priorities. This happens when the manager is like a thermostat - he sets the temperature and makes sure it is at a certain optimal level. Teams do not need thermometer managers. Those that work only as sensors for the external environment and external problems. Teams need thermostat managers who have the vision of optimal temperature and help teams reach this state of dynamic homeostasis. The characteristic of this equilibrium is that it is dynamic, i.e. if analyzed at the micro-level, there will be a temporary imbalance and perhaps slight creative chaos. From a technical point of view, the thermostat is a device that, with the help of temperature sensors, measures the actual temperature, compares it with a set temperature, and adjusts it to the set value. If we continue the analogy for the thermostat manager - first, you need to be clear about what temperature you are aiming for. At the beginning, I listed the things for which this temperature can be a metaphor - energy, proactivity, inspiration, etc. If these are not at the level that is healthy for the team - your job is to do something. For example, to give feedback, to align expectations, and to adjust the workload. Don't just reflect the outside temperature like a thermometer. There are only two things in your work that are within your control: your time and your energy (including energy in the form of thoughts, emotions, etc.). Both time and energy are the main levers you can use to set the right temperature for the team and yourself. You have a limited amount of time and energy every day. It makes sense to use them carefully, as things that are not infinite. One way some managers do this is by limiting the number of decisions they have to make each day. Thus, they limit the use of their energy and focus on the small number of solutions that have a potentially large positive impact on the business. This can happen by following this rule of thumb: Every decision in the company to be made at the lowest possible level, for which there are competence and decision-making authority. Adherence to this principle significantly reduces duplication of work by several people. - The other important question is, what is your internal thermostat? - What is it that helps you regulate your internal temperature? - How do you use it? - How do you make it work for sure? Spend some quality time answering these questions. Then ask your team the same questions. Here you can directly use the Socrates method and turn all the thermometers on your team into thermostats. Starting with yourself. "Life, unlike a chessboard, is not always black or white."
John Updike If you find yourself in a stalemate situation in which you do not see any useful move, it is time to stop. It is time to take a breath and look at things from a distance. Stalemate + Distance = Clarity The second important thing that can help you get out of a stalemate situation is to simplify things. This means crossing out the many dead ends or impossible moves and staying with fewer of them. One of the major reasons for creating stalemate situations maybe that too many options are being considered and that you are trying to protect the interests of too many stakeholders. Chaos + Urgency = Disaster And the last way out of a stalemate situation is to realize which team you play for. You are probably a member of many teams apart from the one you lead. Subconsciously, you probably want to protect the interests of all teams as much as possible. But when they contradict each other, decide which team is most important to you at the moment. This will almost automatically give you clarity. And hence the impulse to get out of the stalemate. Limit your options to increase your clarity. The way to increase clarity is by remembering the values and priorities that are important to you and drive you right now. If it is more important for you to create a sustainable team at the moment - you will act in one way. If it is more important for you to achieve results quickly you will act differently. It is very tempting to say that it is very important for you to have both a stable team and to achieve quick results. But this is only possible if you add time. If you do not have time, choose between different priorities. After this point, it will be much easier for you to take adequate action and move forward. If you still do not have clarity, i.e. there is chaos, then adding action will only result in disaster. But if you have clarity and add urgency, you will get the ball rolling. Clarity + Urgency = Action "Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves." Leo Tolstoy Each manager chooses for himself how to go through his daily work - with motivation or frustration. Note that motivation or frustration does not depend on external factors, colleagues, customers, suppliers, etc. They depend solely on the person who experiences them. Motivation is a choice. Frustration is also a choice. You may feel frustrated by external circumstances, but this is not the case at all. Imagine a young account manager who in the first days of his work sees that he has made 100 calls to clients and none of them has answered positively. The young account manager is frustrated because he has made significant efforts against which he sees no results. There is a feeling that there is some huge invisible barrier between him and his monthly target. At one point he even begins to despair, and momentary frustration gives way to mild depression in the following weeks. The young account manager first starts accusing his clients of being rude and closing their phones. Then he blames his colleagues for not helping him. Finally, he blames his manager for his own failure to sell. He is already thinking about leaving. The young frustrated account manager blames his customers, competitors, colleagues, and manager. He can't help but wonder how he contributes to the lack of sales. Maybe he doesn't open the conversations well? Maybe he's being too polite on the phone? Maybe he has already mentally given up and sees each new refusal as a confirmation that his monthly target is absolutely unattainable? More experienced account managers, however, receive the same number of rejections from their customers over the phone, but in their expression and mood, there is lightness. There is no sign of frustration. What is the difference between the young frustrated account manager and the experienced motivated one? They face the same rejections, work in the same office, have the same manager, have the same bonus scheme. Their external circumstances - both positive and negative, are absolutely identical. The only difference between the two is the way they look at what is happening in the external environment. The frustrated young account manager has the feeling that he has no control over the situation, blames his clients, competitors, colleagues, and manager. The experienced account manager knows that he has complete control over his efforts. There is no complete control over the result. But he knows that the result depends on his efforts and focus on finding the best course of action, not on blaming others. The only person the experienced account manager blames is the person in the mirror. But how did this experienced account manager get to this state of being highly motivated, even when there is no external reason for it? He reached this state mainly thanks to his manager. His manager used the Socrates method and a few painful questions to support him in getting better, regardless of external circumstances. At the beginning of his work, the experienced account manager also blamed his clients, colleagues, competitors, and manager when he did not achieve his monthly goals. However, he was at work for 8 hours, but the goals were not achieved. According to him, the goals were not achieved, not because he is not good enough, but because the goals are too ambitious. When this experienced account manager complained to his manager that he was not achieving his monthly goals because of external circumstances, his manager neither agreed nor rejected his claims. Instead, his manager asked four questions that shaped the northern arc of the Motivation or Frustration model. The questions are: Facts: The account manager cannot achieve the monthly goals Manager: What do you really want? Account manager: To achieve my goals. However, they are unattainable because our prices are high, the competitors are very aggressive and the customers choose their suppliers in some dubious ways. Besides, all good customers are already served by other colleagues. And you have given me companies with which no one has previously closed deals. Manager: How do you "help" this problem to exist? Account Manager: Well, first I get angry because I don't think such a distribution of the accounts is fair. When I get angry, I talk a little sharper to everyone - both clients and colleagues. Then they react to my tone in the same way, and they talk more sharply. And honestly, almost every conversation stops shortly before we quarrel about something. Also, as the day goes on, I smoke a little more often, extend my breaks a bit, and even leave earlier. Hence, the time in which I really work on my goals decreases a lot and I don't really have 8 effective hours of work. Manager: You have already listed two ways in which you "help" your problem to exist - you speak sharply and angrily to colleagues and clients, and you also do not use all working hours while you are in the office. What do you choose to change? Account Manager: The first thing I can do is try to be a little calmer and friendlier at the beginning of the day. It's up to me. Maybe I can move my gym training before, not after work, to have more energy at the beginning of the day. So, I guess the conversations will become calmer, for I may have better chances for closing the deals. Manager: What is your first step towards this? Account manager: Tomorrow I will start with morning fitness and from there - with a better mood in the office. And from there - we'll see. In this dialogue you will notice two things: 1) The manager does not blame the account manager for failing. Failure is not a person, but an event. And the manager works with him. He creates psychological safety and provokes the search for solutions, not the search for guilt. 2) The manager asks questions. He does not give ready-made decisions about what the account manager should change. Following these two rules - creating psychological safety + asking quality questions, over time leads to only one thing - progress. This example with the account manager and his manager is, of course, a small representation of how the Motivation or Frustration model is used in practice. Visually, the model looks like this: We start with reality. It is what it is. But few managers see it objectively, because they look at it through the filter of their own experience, prejudice, and biases.
Then, when reality doesn't live up to expectations, it's perfectly normal for frustration to occur. In fact, the only source of negative emotions in your life and work is the delta between what you expect and what you are experiencing. This delta can frustrate you or motivate you. If you take the southern arc of the model and start blaming the people and circumstances around you, you will get just that - frustration. However, if you look at yourself and realize exactly what you want to achieve, how you "help" the problem to exist - then the solutions and motivation for action will automatically appear. The four questions that are at the heart of the Motivation vs Frustration model and that you can use as a manager in almost any situation with your teammates, and with yourself, are: 1. What do you really want? 2. How do you "help" this problem to exist? 3. What are the possibilities? 4. What do you choose? All the questions are important, but the most crucial is the second one. It focuses managers and their teams in the right direction - to realize how they "contribute" to the problem to exist and from there to take actions to overcome any obstacles. All chronic problems in teams exist only because managers in some way "help" their existence. Then, when managers recognize how they "help" the problems and have the will to make a change - the positive results will become visible shortly. But if you stay in the mode of blaming others and asking questions on the southern arc of the model (Who is to blame? Why is no one doing their job? Why is everyone waiting?) - then the problems will deepen. Because of the manager, not because of the people in the teams or the external circumstances. Although they can be cited as reasons. But there is only one reason. And this is - the team manager, i.e. you. "Discipline is the mother of victory."
Alexander Suvorov The daily team alignment (DTA) makes sense to be done regularly at two distinct levels: - emotional level–it shows how people are feeling and what is the energy level in the team; - rational level–it shows the current priorities, the workload levels, and the business-critical tasks that should be turned around by the end of the day. That's it. Almost no team fails because one-day things didn't go well. Team failures, and successes, result from systematic and constant actions that are repeated over and over again. One such action that should be done every day is the alignment of the team. Alignment means that all people on the team have the same understanding of the current priorities. Everyone should know what is expected of him, respectively, what everyone can expect from others. The DTA (Daily Team Alignment) is straightforward to do. And for the same reason, we often miss it. Just because it's easy. And because the results of one or two omissions can be challenging to notice. But the same results begin to be seen very clearly when the omissions become systematic. Here is a very suitable analogy for going to the gym. If you miss a workout, you won't notice much difference. You may even feel better because instead of training, you have rested or done something else. It's the same with the office's alignment - if you miss once or twice, there is not much difference in the work; even people have freed up a little more time to catch up with the whole flow of work waiting for them. Both with the training and daily alignment - the problem is not in one omission in the month. The problem is when it becomes a leak every week and then even another day. And notice that this happens gradually - little by little until at some point, it turns out that the team hardly gets together and everything is done on the go. The work will not stop suddenly. But it will reach a turning point where it will suddenly get worse. This will be the point where a few people are a little overwhelmed, a little more nervous, and a bit too tired. Just a little is enough to get to where the more the work - the worse the situation - the more mistakes are made, there is duplication of work, some people more emotional reactions, others even go to the hospital. This scenario is not apocalyptic but only realistic. As soon as the people in the teams started slapping each other on the forehead and wondering where they had gone wrong, it was time for a break and a rational analysis. It is not a time to jump to conclusions. Here comes the place for these little things that are easy to do. But it's easy not to, just like the daily alignment of the team. This alignment is on a business and rational level and a purely human level, without holding hands and singing kumbaya, but only connecting with people. Beyond the roles and tasks, they perform. Alignment also includes the distribution or redistribution of current work. You may be surprised, but you probably find that you have people who can do something but wouldn't want to in these alignment meetings and people who can't or haven't tried but want to. In the daily alignment, people will get to know not only their work and colleagues but also themselves. They will understand that the rational laws they have studied in universities rarely work at the micro-level in their teams. For example, economic logic does not suggest that a manager would prefer to change position and work more for less money. But it happens. It happens often. Irrationality is not only available to the people you work with. It is also available to you. Think about how many of your career moves were rational and how many were completely irrational and without any sound logic. And more importantly, what resulted from both types of decisions? You may only now realize that the best moves in your career have been entirely irrational but correct. But you are only judging by today's results. One typical disadvantage of daily alignment is that it becomes a routine and does not get to the conversation's heart. At one point, people may perform the alignment like a pro forma, and the entire team may suffer. Of course, this cannot happen without the "assistance" of the manager of this team. So, if you notice a sluggish or pro forma presence - there is no room to ignore it. Address it directly and with respect, without jumping to quick decisions. Alignment is also the time when, besides priorities, people align their energy. They become enthusiastic and recharged with good mood and excitement for the entire day. There will be days when someone, or even yourself, is at 50-60% of your capacity. Do not sweep things under the rug - if someone is not in a resourceful state to do their job—make some changes for the day. There is no sense to work at half speed. It's like driving a car with half-cylinders. When you make sure the cylinders and everything else is in order, it's time to race. "There is no chaos in the world except the chaos created by our mind."
Nisargadatta Maharaj Imagine that instead of washing five T-shirts at once in one washing machine, you decide to run each T-shirt separately. You can wash T-shirts after T-shirts all day, be terribly busy, waste a lot of energy, but you have only five T-shirts washed with five washing cycles instead of one. Something like this happens in teams that have zero tolerance for the "inaction" of planning. When there is no "real" work, but only talking about what needs to be done. In such teams, hustle, even an artificial one, is elevated to an internal cult. In such an atmosphere, people are frequently in a hurry, and they are always late for something. They jump from meeting to meeting. They have a constant hamster heartbeat. They are startled by every deadline and even more by every new emergency that may be more urgent than the previous one. Panic and sprinting between urgent tasks create the illusion that big and important things are being developed. But at the end of the day - there are only five washed T-shirts. You can easily recognize the chaos of overreaction. First, if you notice that you are developing a hamster heartbeat yourself, you are parking and ignoring the new opportunities rather than exploring or discussing them. Second, if people in your office run between meeting rooms, forget their laptops at other people's desks, spill their coffee more and more often, and finally, they always open their meetings with "there's not enough time for anything." By these signals, you will recognize that you have a chaos of overreaction. But what triggers it? Three primary reasons start it: - lack of clear priorities; - improper resource planning; - inappropriate people in critical places. The reasons may be spin-offs of these or different. But the total responsibility for overcoming this chaos of overreaction lies with the manager. To clear this chaos from his own daily life. To support the people in his teams in this direction. Or even to find a third alternative that comes from the teams themselves. "The hell you can endure is just as great as your love."
Ayn Rand In moments of heavy workload and chaos, some managers tend to fantasize about giving up and leaving. Binary thinking appears, even thoughts of self-sabotage with sentences like this - "I can't fix everything; therefore I won't fix anything." This is a natural defensive reaction, but these moments are very suitable for something else instead of giving up. They are perfect for a break. One of the easiest ways to get out of this state is to take enough time to rest. Then focus only on what can be fixed immediately. And then on to the other. Thus, the work takes off, and the feeling of control over the environment returns. The other stream of attention, of course, is on the people on the team. Those who, if they are also on the verge of burnout, are likely to have fallen into the trap of binary thinking - all or nothing. Support for them is similar - first, take a break, then focus only on what they directly control by their effort ... and only then - return to "everything". "Torn by hesitation, we often make decisions that lead to new doubts."
- Sylvia Crystal Many managers enter the corridors of misunderstood diplomacy, keeping silent about things they disapprove. But yet they hope that the surrounding people will read their minds and correct themselves. This self-regulation might happen sometimes. But it most often occurs in managers' dreams. Not in the real world. Hoping that someone will read your mind and come up with a solution to a problem that bothers you is as probable as turning a spring rain into a Morse poem. With few exceptions, most people cannot read minds. Most people understand their managers' messages as soon as they turn them from thought waves into vocal waves. Although mind reading is not widespread, the hope that someone else will apply it and read your mind is. No one can read your thoughts, for example, that you don't like someone being late, interrupting you, looking at your phone while you're talking to him, having a dirty glass in the kitchen, talking loudly, etc. What causes frustration among managers is not the actions mentioned above, but that the people they work with do not think of interrupting them themselves. The frustration comes from having to have such conversations—more than once. These actions irritate you that can turn from a source of irritation into a source of improvement and structure. But not like anyone else has changed. And as you go from a king of silence to a naturally communicating manager. But communicating in a particular way - speaking and listening-is in the proportion suggested to us by nature - twice as much listening. The opposite of this "hope of reading my mind" is direct communication. It turns out to be simple. But not always easy. The only reason it's difficult for you is because of the stories you tell in your head. The story that if you make a remark, you can hurt someone. No one can be offended without his consent. Let's use a specific example. Let's say your colleague leaves his cup of coffee in the kitchen unwashed. Instead of telling him to wash his glass directly, it would be better first to help him realize what it would mean for the entire floor if a hundred people left their glasses like that until 10.30 in the morning. The people on your teams are smarter than you think. You don't have to treat them like little children because that would lead to people behaving like 35-year-old children. However, before asking questions, check whether you can ask them with a supportive rather than a judgmental and sarcastic attitude. Because: The highway of sarcasm will take you to the city of apathy. |
Архиви
March 2024
|