Most People Think They Know What They Are Good At, And More Often Than Not, People Only Know What They Are Not Good At.

This era of our life is full of unprecedented opportunities: if you have ambition and wisdom, wherever you start, you can go to the top of your career along the way you choose.

However, we have responsibilities if we have the chance.

Today's companies do not control the professional development of their employees; in fact, knowledge workers must be their chief executives.

You should open up your own world in the company, know when to change the way of development, and work hard in the 50 years of your career.

To do these things well, you need to have a deep understanding of yourself first, not only to understand your strengths and weaknesses, but also to know how you learn new knowledge and work with others, and to understand what your values are and what you can make the most of them.

Because only when all your work is done by your strengths can you truly achieve excellence.

Great men in history - Napoleon, Da Vinci and Mozart - are all good at self-management.

This is to a large extent the reason why they become great men.

However, they are very rare wizards. They not only have different talents from ordinary people, but also naturally manage themselves, thus achieving different achievements from ordinary people.

Most of us, even those who are somewhat gifted, have to learn to master the skills of self-management.

We must learn to develop ourselves. We must know where to put ourselves in order to make the greatest contribution, and we must maintain a high level of vigilance and devotion in the 50 years of our career. That is to say, we need to know when we should change jobs and how we should change them.

1. my strong points

Most people think they know what they are good at.

In fact, more often than not, people only know what they are not good at - even at this point, people often do not know clearly.

However, if a person wants to do something, he can only rely on his strengths, and if he does not work very well, he will not be able to achieve anything, let alone those things that he can not do at all.

In the past, there was no need for people to understand their strengths, because a person's birth determined his status and career: the son of a farmer would be a farmer, and the daughter of a craftsman would marry another craftsman.

But now people have a choice.

We need friends to be friends.

The only way to find out your strengths is the feedback analysis (feedbackanalysis).

Whenever you make important decisions or take important actions, you can record your expectations of the results beforehand.

9 to 12 months later, compare the actual results with your expectations.

I have used this method for 15 to 20 years, and every time I use it, I get unexpected results.

For example, feedback analysis shows that I can intuitively understand professional and technical personnel, whether engineers, accountants or market researchers.

It surprised me.

It also makes me see that I do not really resonate with those who have extensive studies.

Feedback analysis is nothing new.

As early as fourteenth Century, this method was invented by a German theologian who would have been unknown forever. It was adopted by French theologian John Calvin and Spanish theologian Saint ENaC about 150 years later.

They all applied this method to the practice of their followers.

In fact, feedback analysis has made their followers develop a habit that has always focused on practical performance and results. This is also the reason why they founded the sects, the Calvin church and the Jesus society, which could dominate Europe for 30 years.

As long as we stick to this simple method, we can find our strong points in a short period of time (maybe two or three years). This is the most important thing you need to know.

After adopting this method, you will know what things you are doing (or not doing) will make your strengths fail.

At the same time, you will also see which aspects of your ability are not particularly strong.

In the end, you will also know that you are not good at what you are doing, and you can't do well.

According to the inspiration of feedback analysis, you need to take action in several aspects.

First of all, the most important thing is to focus on your strengths and put yourself in the places where you can play a strong role.

Second, strengthen your strengths.

Feedback analysis will quickly show which areas you need to improve your skills or learn new skills.

It will also show your gaps in knowledge - these gaps can usually be made up.

Mathematicians are born, but everyone can learn trigonometry.

Third, find any prejudice and ignorance caused by the arrogant and arrogant, and overcome them.

Too many people, especially those who specialize in the industry, tend to dismiss the knowledge of other fields, or think that smart minds can replace knowledge.

For example, many first-class engineers are helpless when they encounter people related matters. They are also proud of this because they feel that people are too confused and disorderly for a well-organized engineer's mind.

In contrast, professionals in the field of human resources are often proud of their ignorance of basic accounting knowledge or quantitative analysis.

However, if people are complacent about such ignorance, it will be self defeating.

In fact, if you want to bring your strengths into full play, you should strive to learn new skills and learn new knowledge.

Another point is equally important -- correct your bad habits.

Bad habits are things that affect your work performance and performance.

Such habits can be quickly reflected in feedback.

For example, a planner may discover that his wonderful plan has finally come to nothing because he has not carried out the plan.

Like talented people, he believes that good ideas can move mountains.

But the real mountain moving is bulldozers. Creativity is just a direction for bulldozers to let them know where to dig.

The planner must be aware that the project will be completed without a plan. Next, we must find someone to carry out the plan and explain the plan to them. We need to make timely adjustments and modifications before taking action, and finally decide when to terminate the plan.

At the same time, feedback also reflects problems caused by lack of courtesy.

Politeness is the lubricant of an organization.

It is a natural law that friction occurs when two animals move in contact with each other, not only inanimate objects, but also human beings.

Politeness, in fact, is also very simple. It means saying "please" and "thank you", remembering people's names, or greeting each other's little things like this, but it is such inconspicuous details that make two people get along well, no matter whether they are interested in each other.

Many smart people, especially smart young people, are not aware of this.

If feedback analysis shows that a person who fails to meet someone who needs cooperation is likely to fail to behave properly, that is, lack of courtesy.

If you compare expectations with actual results, you will find that you can not do anything.

We all have many ignorant and gifted areas where we can not even achieve mediocrity.

People, especially knowledge workers, should not try to accomplish the tasks and tasks in these fields.

They should try their best to waste less energy on those areas that are incompetent, because from incompetence to mediocrity, people need much more effort than class to excellence.

However, most people, especially teachers and organizations, are all bent on turning qualified people into qualified ones.

In fact, they might as well spend their energy, resources and time on cultivating competent people.

2. my way of doing things.

Surprisingly, few people know how they usually make things happen.

In fact, most of us do not even know that "different people have different ways of working and performance."

Many people do not work in their customary ways, which of course can lead to inaction.

For knowledge workers, "what is the way I work" may be more important than what is my strong point.

A person's work style is unique as well as his strong points.

This is determined by human personality.

Whether personality is determined by nature or nurtured, it must have been formed before a person entered the workplace.

Just as a person is good at what and is not good at what is established, a person's working style is basically fixed. It can be slightly adjusted, but it can not be changed completely. Of course, it will not change easily.

And just like people who do their best jobs, they can easily make achievements. If they take the best way of doing things, they can easily achieve success.

Usually, a few common personality traits determine the way a person works.

Am I a reader type or a listener type? First of all, what you need to know is whether you are a reader type reader or a listener type.

Most people do not even know that there are readers and listeners, and few of them are both readers and listeners.

There are fewer people who know which type they belong to.

However, there are some examples of how much harm can be done by such ignorance.

When Dwight Eisenhower was the supreme commander of the European Union, he was always the darling of the news media.

His press conference is famous for its unique style - no matter what questions the reporters ask, general Eisenhower has answered readily.

Whether he introduced the situation or explained the policy, he could use two or three concise words to make it clear.

Ten years later, when Eisenhower became president, he was publicly despised by the same group of journalists he had worshipped.

They complained that he never answered the questions directly, but kept on chattering about other things.

They always laugh at him when he answers questions, he is incoherent, does not conform to grammar, and spoil standard English.

Eisenhower obviously does not know that he is a reader type rather than a listener type.

When he was the supreme commander of the European Union, his aides tried to ensure that every question raised by the media was submitted in writing at least half an hour before the start of the press conference.

In this way, Eisenhower fully grasped the questions raised by reporters.

When he became president, his two predecessors were hearers - Franklin I and Harry Truman.

The two presidents know that they are listeners, and they like to hold a free press conference.

Eisenhower may think he has to do what two predecessors have done.

But he never even heard what reporters were asking.

Moreover, Eisenhower is not an extreme example.

A few years later, Linden Johnson messed up his presidency, largely because he did not know he was a listener.

His predecessor, John Kennedy, is a reader oriented person. He has collected some excellent penmen. When his assistant asks them to write a notice before he goes to face-to-face discussion,

Johnson left these people, and they continued to write briefings.

But he obviously couldn't understand what they wrote.

However, Johnson used to be extraordinary when he was a senator because he must first be a listener.

There are few listener types who can make efforts to become qualified readers, whether active or passive, and vice versa.

Therefore, those who try to turn from listener type to reader type will suffer from Linden Johnson's fate, while those who try to turn from readers to listeners will suffer from Dwight Eisenhower's fate.

Neither of them is capable of achieving talent or achievement.

To understand a person's way of working, the second point we need to understand is how he studied.

Many first-class penis are not good students -- Winston Churchill is an example.

In their memory, school is always a total torment.

However, few of their classmates have such memories.

They may not get much pleasure in school, and the greatest pain for them is boredom.

The explanation for this problem is that people who are good at writing usually do not learn by listening and reading, but learn by writing. This has become a rule.

Schools do not allow them to learn in this way, so their grades are always bad.

All schools follow such a train of thought: there is only one correct way of learning, and everyone must follow it.

However, it is hell for students who are not very different from others in learning.

In fact, there are probably six or seven ways to learn.