Talking about "Anti-routines" in Management
Tags: career
Published: 2021-08-21 09:55:45

After doing management for so many years, I found that "management" is a very complicated word. Why is it complicated?

First of all, most people agree that management is indispensable in an organization.

However, when it comes to management, the first thing that comes to mind is some negative words.

"Routine" should be one of the most typical evaluations.

Don't believe it? Let me give you a few examples

First part
 Routine One
Someone once asked me on WeChat:

The morale of the team has been low recently, and many people leave after get off work. How can we make everyone willing to work overtime?

Quite common, right.

I asked the person how much he recognized the job, and the answer was just to eat. I don't want to work overtime, but I can't stand the pressure of the boss.

In this example, the manager's attention is not on how to find the reason for the low morale, but on the hope of fooling team members through "talking".

 Routine 2
If you want to select "What scene makes managers feel the most difficult?" 』—— Interviews with low-performing employees and dismissed employees must be on the list.

So some people choose to say:

1. Actually, I don't want to fire you either. This is the above decision. I can't help it.

2. In fact, I don't want to give you low performance, but the company requires someone to be the bottom, and I can't help it.

3. Everyone takes turns to get low performance. This time you take it first, and next time I will improve your performance.

Some "good-hearted" supervisors are always entangled in their hearts when they have to play the role of "villains", even with a deep sense of guilt, and feel that they are "executioners".

All the above statements seem to be acts of "goodwill" sympathy, comfort and even compensation, but in essence they are also a routine. The purpose is to shirk the responsibility that one must bear as a manager and reduce the inner anxiety and sense of debt.

In this case, the most important purpose of the interview: the analysis of the employees’ problems, and the exploration of opportunities and measures for future corrections, are not important in the minds of managers.

The moment the manager walked out of the meeting room, what the manager thought was definitely not "great, we finally reached an agreement on the issue and action", but "thank God, Ta finally accepted this result".

 Routine Three: Interest Exchange
In the promotion season, the biggest headache for managers is the question of who should go to with a limited number of places.

The backbone is promoted and resigned. I want to take advantage of this promotion to promote Ta to keep him. Is it okay?

That's correct, isn't it?

If the backbone wants to resign, of course they have to do everything possible to keep people.

The heart is good, but the means are wrong.

Whether it is a salary increase, bonus or promotion, the original intention is to motivate.

However, in practical applications, these incentives are often used by some supervisors who usually neglect team building, personnel training, and employee care, or by inexperienced young supervisors, as a "trading bargaining chip" to quell employee dissatisfaction.

It is not difficult to explain why many technical people are determined to leave no matter how the leader promises to increase the salary or even promotion after resigning. Because the other party feels in his heart: Your move is just a routine, just a slow strategy.

Even if it succeeds by luck, the company's system has lost its true meaning in the eyes of employees and has become one of the means of bargaining next time.

Part two
Sometimes I think about it, this is really the "sorrow" of management and managers.

Obviously, management studies are the propositions of "how to make enterprises, organizations, and individuals better", but in practice, it always becomes a "thick black school". Managers have become a group of "treacherous and cunning" people in everyone's minds.

Where is the problem?

A few days ago, I finally found the answer after reading the book "Knowledge and Action: The Road to Management of Technical People". There are a few key paragraphs, I excerpt as follows:

"Management methodology exists for the purpose of good management. As a whole, it belongs to the category of "means". Since it is a means, its good and evil lies not in the management methodology itself, but in the original intention of the managers who use the methodology." "Knowledge and Action: Technicians" The Road to Management, page 279

"Most of the managers do not have character problems, but lack of knowledge-they don't know how to use management methodology instead of "routing others"." "Knowledge and Action: The Road of Technical People's Management" page 279

In fact, there is only four characters from "Tao Lu" to "Non-Tao Lu"-sincerity and righteousness.

Specifically: What you think in your heart and your words and deeds are unified, not contradictory. It is precisely because of words and deeds against your will that the methods and means you use become "routines."

Talking about skills but not energy in management work is like having only tricks without internal strength, and its management skills cannot be strengthened. "Knowledge and Action: The Road to the Management of Technicians" page 279

Most of the middle- and basic-level managers (including myself) of enterprises are from wild roads. When we approach management, we don't start with learning "role recognition", but start with imitating "management skills".

In the above three cases, the managers used all "management skills", and their hearts, words and deeds were inconsistent:

I am disgusted with overtime and have to do it under pressure.

Unwilling to face the fact of dismissing employees, forced to do it due to duties

May not feel that the backbone is worthy of promotion, because the situation has to do

So, we saw an interesting phenomenon:

Originally, the manager's attention should be on how to solve the problem, but in the end the manager's attention has become: how to solve the person who caused the problem.

At this time, the manager had already unknowingly walked in the direction of the "routine".

What should I do then? The answer is given in the book-sincerity and righteousness.

A manager said: I did what I should do, I have a clear conscience! What he said "what I should do" is actually judged from personal values, which is not necessarily the same as "I did what I should do as a manager".

Starting from the role of the manager, do what the manager should do instead of personal preference.

For example, sometimes from a manager’s point of view, it is necessary to persuade an employee, and you may not like to do it personally, but you still need to make a choice based on the manager’s role to be considered righteous. "Knowledge and Action: The Road to the Management of Technicians" page 280

To put it simply, it is to: be clear about the role of the manager, start from the role of the manager, think about things and do things

Part Three
Take the above case as an example:

Case 1: The responsibility of a manager is neither a "microphone" nor a "supervisor". What managers have to do is to find the inner driving force for themselves and the team, not how to fool everyone into working overtime.

Case 2: One of the responsibilities of a manager is to "correctly evaluate everyone's contribution and decide whether it is suitable for staying." You have your brotherhood, but you should look at this issue more from the perspective of team development. You don't owe the other party anything, let alone a villain. What the manager has to do is to analyze the problem honestly with the other party based on the facts and find ways to improve, instead of just thinking about how to make everyone "feel better in their hearts".

Case 3: One of the responsibilities of managers is to use the power and resources in their hands to create a better environment for competition and cooperation, rather than using these as bargaining chips to quell problems. What managers have to do is to review whether their usual work is in place.

As the book says:

If we manage with a sincere and upright attitude, the methodology we use will have its own "anti-routine" function. On the contrary, if you fail to be sincere and upright, all methodologies are fake and fancy methods, which will eventually put the managers themselves in a passive position.

Encourage it!

**FURTHER READING**
▶ [Walkthrough007](https://www.walkthrough007.com/) - https://www.walkthrough007.com/