Managers Should Be Coaches First.

Recently, I was doing something new that I had never met before.

Thinking of such a problem is due to the fact that most of the enterprises will encounter the situation: most of the respondents do not talk with you about the future of the company and their career development, and are always complaining that this is not good or bad.

A similar example, Peter.

Saint Ji also mentioned in "the fifth discipline - the art and practice of learning organization": "the employees of the company are mostly smart, well-educated, energetic, and eager to get ahead."

But by the time they reached the age of more than 30, only a few of them were always on the move. Most of them lost all their ambition, mission and excitement at the beginning. They only put a little energy into their work, and their minds were almost completely absent from their work.

Why does this happen? In previous discussions, people often blamed the cause on their personal problems: "people are like this! It is impossible for everyone to become a Buddha."

However, there are also some examples of organizations or enterprises coming out of the us that have proved to us another reason: the management of the organization and the coaching role of managers are indispensable factors in the growth of employees.

According to Peter.

Shengji's argument is that the reasons for employees' laziness in career growth come mainly from the lack of management and cultural construction.

And from the perspective of realistic management, an important aspect of organizational management and organizational culture construction is the result that most of the managers who take the team directly are "referees" instead of "coaches".

In the management reality, managers and even business leaders do not pay much attention to training work. They also know that managers should have the ability to bring teams, but they often go into a huge misunderstanding: it seems that the improvement of staff ability is mainly dependent on the simple training outside the work practice, while ignoring the most important "field coach" in the work practice.

Along this line of mind, it is Peter who is the leader and manager of many companies.

Shengji's "learning organization" gave "flicker", thinking that learning organization is to do well in training work! Of course, we know Peter.

Shengji's original intention is not so. The core of the "five discipline" is to combine the "practical" learning and Coaching Activities of the management process to achieve the improvement of the overall ability of all the employees.

He shares this topic with a leader of a private enterprise.

The boss of military origin attaches great importance to the ideological work of the staff. For this reason, several instructors and instructors have been specially employed from the job changing officers to do the work, but there still exists a phenomenon of "two skins".

My view on this issue is:

First, these instructors and instructors do not yet understand the specific problems of enterprise management, and ideological work can not be integrated into management practice.

Second, they may have used the content of the army's ideological and political education rigidly, and have not yet fully understood the specific real needs of our specific employees.

Third, and most importantly, staff's ideological work is inseparable from the actual management process.

And in this process, the most direct understanding of him should be his direct manager rather than the ideological worker who is divorced from his work situation.

Therefore, the best way is to let managers take two positions, both heads and political commissar.