Today is the 76th day that Liu Jun's study accompanies you.
▼
Today's topic ~
"Open Discussion"
Is a lump of harmony good or bad?
Our people always like to be "subtle".
People can't bear to quarrel with people in person, put on a posture of being an old and good person, calm things down, and try not to offend as much as possible, especially not to offend people in public.
Is this good for revealing the truth?
I'm afraid I'll have to put a big question mark.
Especially within the organization, if you want to find out the essential reason behind the problem, you can only rely on superficial harmony and temperament, and the communication between colleagues who are respectful and respectful may not work.
Sometimes in order to find the right decision, the argument must be argued, even fiercely with each other.
On this management guru Ram. Mr. Charan said,
"Actually, what you need is a heated argument, because that's the only way to get in touch with the real reality.
In order to achieve your goals, every task your team sets should be implemented by someone who is responsible for it—the whole team should have an open discussion, and the results of the discussion should be recognized by those who are specifically responsible, so that you can actually implement a strategy and give appropriate rewards to those who perform well.
You need to keep following up to make sure the whole plan is executed correctly. ”
Within the organization, people need to argue, even fiercely.
In the meeting, there was a group of harmony on the surface, but when they walked out of the conference room, they did not buy each other, and the meeting was opened in vain, which has become a reflection of the Chinese-style meeting.
But it is clear that this type of meeting is extremely costly and inefficient, and the meeting is just a formality.
And the teams that really have the ability to execute are brave and willing to argue in meetings, even to initiate heated arguments.
And these heated debates are exactly what the organization needs.
Only arguments, even heated debates, are more likely to bring people to reality, to the truth.
To solve a problem, you first need to ask the question correctly.
Bringing people to reality and making people face reality is more likely to solve problems correctly.
Otherwise, it is not a waste of everyone's time and energy.
"Every task your team sets should be implemented by someone."
Every task should have a responsible person.
Every task.
Chinese culture is used to being vague, saying half a sentence, and the rest let the other party "enlighten".
This is not the case with organizations that are truly executing, where people clearly define their goals, define those responsible, and make each task have a corresponding responsible person.
Everything is clear and well documented.
The entire team must openly discuss work objectives and tasks.
More importantly, the outcome of the discussion should be recognized and accepted by those specifically responsible for this matter.
It is the person who implements the task that undertakes the goal, and if they do not get their heartfelt approval and support, the possibility of achieving the goal will be greatly reduced.
At the same time, organizations should give transparent, open rewards to those who perform well.
Leaders rewarding the right behavior will make more people willing to adopt similar behavior.
Ultimately, the leader follows up and continuously reviews each work plan so that the entire plan is executed in good condition.
People can't expect employees to "automatically and spontaneously" have a certain consciousness and have a lofty professional ethics, but should correct and constrain employee behavior through corporate culture according to performance appraisal, reward and punishment system.
Are the plans in your organization often executed correctly?
Copyright notice: This article is the original article of Yang Liujun, source micro public number: Liu Jun said (y823021823)