Leaders Should Not Interfere In "Authorized".

In enterprises, you can often see this phenomenon: 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 have delegated this matter to others and have to step in, do you know what the final result is? The water is not clear, it is the leadership of your own muddle.

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

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 them 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 he is.

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 work, the authorized work is not done at last, the employee will think, "you think you came to work, you are stronger than me, do you not succeed? Do you intervene? Do you not deal with the problem?"

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 at last. If you ask your subordinates why things haven't been successful, what will your subordinates say? He will 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, if there is a problem, then the responsibility of the person will be 100%.. If the leader delegates this matter to the subordinates and intervened in the middle, when the problem arises, when 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 the people, it is 100% of the responsibility. If you intervene, two people are unwilling to take responsibility.

In the process of leading the world China, I would not meddle in the matter of every authorization, even if I saw that my colleagues would soon mess up. Why? Because, first, "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, and if I do not intervene, I can make the subordinates 100% take the responsibility, and he will also be willing to accept punishment. This will not only make him unforgettable, but will also play a warning role to 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" is a good idea to their employees, slowly, will people be forced out? When I lecture, my cell phone is turned off, and after so many years, nothing has 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.