Home >

Leaders Should Not Interfere In "Authorized".

2011/4/3 9:41:00 52

??? 日本語 Fran?ais English 中文

Leader

If you want your subordinates to wait for you to fail, do not want your subordinates to shirk their responsibilities, and really want to emancipate themselves and regenerate your business, then do not meddle in "authorized" from today.

stay

enterprise

This phenomenon can be seen frequently: when half of a subordinate's work is carried out, many leaders like to run over to ask: what step to do, what to do next, or tell subordinates to call me.

So subordinates encounter problems not to find solutions themselves, but to find you.

I'll call you, but you always rush to rush over.

The most obedient staff are leaders, so you can only suffer from it frequently. This is your own request.

When you take this thing

To grant authorization

Do it for others and meddle in it. Do you know what the final result is?

The water is not clear, is the leadership of your own muddle.

Because you are not only without authorization, but also more serious than without authorization.

Meddling will only produce serious consequences. Let's take a look.

When you fail

The first serious consequence of "empowered" is that subordinates will not cooperate with you, but wait for you to fail.

Why are your subordinates waiting for you to fail?

We can analyze from a psychological point of view, only if you fail, can you prove that you are not very good; only if you fail, can you prove that you are not stronger than him; only if you fail, can you prove that you are not doing better than him.

If you succeed, you will prove that your employees are useless and useless.

In this way, he must be uncomfortable.

Therefore, under normal circumstances, subordinates will not cooperate with you.

If you intervene, employees will be waiting to see your jokes, or even sabotage secretly, hoping that you will fail, so that you will not succeed if you succeed.

You see, he failed to prove that you were stronger than him, rather than helping you succeed.

When you get involved in the authorized work and fail to achieve it, the employee will think, "do you think you did it, you are more powerful than me, have you not succeeded?"

Don't you handle the problem if you intervene?

Big brother, don't talk about two brothers. We are all at the same level.

Shirk responsibility

The second serious consequence of "authorizing" is that employees will shirk their responsibilities when things are not authorized.

Think about it: when you get involved, things don't work out. If you ask your subordinates why things haven't been successful, what will your subordinates say?

He will certainly find all kinds of excuses to shirk responsibility.

For example, he would say, "Wang, you knew that at that time", "Wang, we did it according to your original intention", "we called you back then," and so on.

So, readers, the moment your subordinates begin to intervene, the responsibility he has to start has shifted to you.

If a person is responsible for the end of the matter, if there is a problem, the responsibility of this person will be 100%.. If the leader delegates the matter to his subordinates, he will intervene in the middle. When there is a problem and two people are in charge, how much is the responsibility for each reader?

50%?

50% is your digital psychology, but from the psychological inertia and acceptability of people, it is 100% of the responsibility. As long as you intervene, two people are unwilling to take responsibility.

In the process of leading the world, I would not meddle in the matter of empowerment, even if I saw that my colleagues would soon fail. Why?

Because, first of all, "no doubt, no doubt, no need for people", so since I use him, I need 100% to trust him; second, once I get involved, things are finally screwed up, and that is my responsibility, but without taking part in it, he can make the subordinate 100% take the responsibility. He will also be willing to accept punishment. This will not only make him unforgettable for life, but also play a warning role for others and avoid being made the same mistake.

The loss caused by the mistake of one person is a valuable educational activity with the value and meaning of execution as a way to avoid more losses.

{page_break}

If you are good at forcing your employees and instilling "forcing" to their employees is a good idea for him.

When I was giving lectures, all my cell phones were turned off, and after so many years, nothing happened.

I told my colleagues, "if you come near to me, you will get temporary happiness. If I stay away from you, you will get short suffering, but you will get long-term happiness.

So if something happens, it will give us a chance to reflect and learn more from the problem.

So, if you want to let your subordinates wait for you to fail, do not want your subordinates to shirk their responsibilities and do not want to be so tired, really want to let themselves be liberated and let the enterprises reborn, then from today on, do not meddle in "authorized".

Not only do you say so, but you must do so.

Only in this way can we truly realize the gradual liberation of leadership and the rebirth of enterprises in the future.