Self drifting workgroup vs. intensive leadership

Self drifting workgroup vs. intensive leadership

In the modern working life, there are many people, who have different kinds of training and duties. That means that the persons, who are working in the same workgroup might have different kinds of opinions and other points of view. And the duties of the leaders is to make the group work for one goal and fit different opinions to one team.

This is the reason, why leaders and directors are hired. Sometimes people are asking about the thing that could the working group be self-drifting. And the problem of the self drifting group is that if people would not tell everything to the group leader, that means that the problems would be build-up, and then the thing blows against the face.

But the other point of view is that the intensive leadership would take the time of leader, but otherwise, we can ask, why leaders are hired? Even the highest trained specialists need the person who would put the team together, and who would give help if there are something problems with the henchmen. And the thing that every leader must remember is that the position, what is called "leader" means that the person is the representer of the owners of the company.

The leadership means that the person must find the problems from the team, and then stick to those things. That means the leaders should be out of the team. Sometimes people are saying that the best leadership is learned in the military forces. This thing is partially true, but there is a small difference between leadership in the military and leadership in the private company.

The last one is the leadership, where the discipline is limited to the divorcement from the team and company. And the second thing is that every minute, what person would be in the workplace is giving payments for the company. That's why companies are following the use of time. If we are talking about the discipline, we can make endless discussions about something, but that thing would give payments to the company.

And if the henchman would not act how the company expects, that means the divorcement. Those things are extremely problematic because the employee has no responsibilities for the company after the leader has been cut the working relationships. When the professional leaders are keeping addresses to henchmen, that thing happens always out of the eyes of other group members.

This thing guarantees that there is no need to play any kind of role. And if the person would not make a job, that means the discussion, why that person should be in the workplace. The cases where people are cheating another team member, that thing would take the time of at least two workers. Kicking off persons from the working place is not nice. And the problem is that the company leaders must find another person, who has similar training to the workplace.

Diversity in working life part II

Diversity in working life part II

Many people think that diversity is just some physiological or psychological thing. The thing is that diversity can be that somebody has different kinds of education than somebody else in the workplace. That kind of thing can also cause challenges in the relationship with the working group.

So, diversity in working life can mean many more things than just ethnic or linguistic differences or be in some kind of sexual minority. That doesn't mean also handicap or illness, and we always forget one thing, which might make us different than others.

That he might be the different educational backgrounds in the working environment. Those things are almost every time we have forgotten to mention in the cases when we are talking about diversity. So when we are thinking about isolation and problems also nontypical training in working place can cause problems.

And sometimes some people are asking "why workplace would not be homogeneous. Does that mean why every person would not have the same education as leaders and directors? The thing is that controlling that kind of working society would be easy, but then we can ask one question: are every side of things noticed and research by every side by using the analytic methods?

So should somebody sometimes notice things like legal aspects of some decision? And should somebody advice leaders of the company in the technical questions? The thing is that the leadership of big companies is not an easy thing. And if things like copyrights and licenses are forgotten, that thing would cause very big losses and if the bought land area, what is meant for holiday or hotel use would be polluted there would be financial losses in this kind of case.

The purpose of hiring highly trained specialists for a company means that they will bring their knowledge and skills in the use of leaders of companies. Their mission is to support the leaders of the company and give advice on important questions. That means that those highly trained and highly paid people's mission is not to sit and be nobody in the company. Their mission is to give advises in the questions, where is needed some special skills, and one of them is the code of laws.

And in the big International environment, there are many special sectors, which have their own special trained people. In those cases, nobody handles all areas of business, legal and political fields. If the firm exports to the wrong country that can cause very bad problems with the authorities. If there are some limits in exporting products to that country those rules must be followed.

The team and feedback

The team and feedback

One of the most important skills of management is giving feedback

Feedback is a very big role in teamwork. The thing is that positive feedback would seem like very supportive, but the thing is that if that feedback comes from a boss, or it is given in the wrong situation or wrong way, that thing might make the employee think that the feedback is somehow given patronage. If the person, who got the feedback is the fixed-period worker, and the workplace would not regularize the working relationship, that might feel really bad, even if the feedback of the work is very good.

The thing, what the boss sometimes forget is that people sometimes need also good feedback. And the problem is that constructive critique is sometimes only negative. In those cases, the boss would forget to tell things, what the henchman has made right, and this thing makes sometimes that feedback very embarrassing. In those cases, the henchman would hurt the feelings and even quit in that place, because that inmate would be boring to hear only the negative feedback, and that causes the quitting in the firm.

The most interesting part of this kind of things is how to tell worker, that the person is very important for the company. If that thing would be told the wrong way, that inmate can even blackmail the corporation, and ask a very high salary. And in those cases, the replacement for that worker could be very hard to get. But otherwise, if the importance of the worker would not tell to that person, would that worker change the workplace very easily, if the racer would offer better salary and more comfortable working environment.

Here we must realize that the workplace is also more than just the salary. If the worker would get in the team, where is better team spirit, and the people would offer that worker better change to benefit the strengths of the work that might feel more comfortable than stay in some room, where nobody ever visits or even notices the worker investment to the workplace and it works.

So the simple way to say the person, that inmate is important is give some attention to that person, and say thank you, or you are making a good job. Those things are a cheap and very nice way to show person, that the job was well done. There is no need to give Hawaii trips or season card for the Gym to tell that the person is making a fine job. And if we are thinking about the fixed-period worker, that person might respect, that somebody would regularize that position.

And if the feedback is bad and only things, what went wrong are handled in the workplace the attitude of the workers might turn that way, that they would make everything wrong anyway, and that means that they would not even try. When we are thinking about the gifts, what is given by the well-done work, we must understand that the well-done work must not be the thing, that every time when the routine work is well-done the workplace would give candies to the workers.

The wrong kind of feedback can destroy entire workplace

Here I mean that the things like being best team should notice, but if the inmate makes routine reports without errors, that would not mean the 5 weeks holiday on Hawaii. But if the reward system in the company is made the wrong way, that might mean that the team spirit would turn to zero, and the race would destroy the spirit in all workgroup.

The well-done work must somehow be noticed, but if the reward system is made in wrong way, that would cause the opposite phenomenon in the working group, what is decreasing the productivity and increasing the number of resignations. And the race about being the best of the workers can cause even sabotage against other workers. The race about being the top might cause the stab in the bag, and sometimes the tires of the salesmen have been emptied by the workmates. This kind of things can make the workplace some kind of hell on Earth.

https://travellingintimeandspace.wordpress.com/2019/05/22/the-team-and-feedback/