Herrmann Dominanz Instrument (HDI). Part II
We continue our conversation about people.
This article focuses more on practical tools in the field of motivation and delegation of authority to staff. But some part of the theory will also be.
Despite the fact that the first part was relatively coldly received, I nevertheless decided to continue publication. Partly, because there were warm reviews, and partly, because I do not like to give up what I started.
The material in this part will be based on the previous one (which, you see, is logical). Therefore, for a complete understanding of the terminology - I recommend that you first read the introductory part (if you have not read it).
')
In this article we will consider:
Traditionally I will say that feedback is welcome: both in the first and in this part. Of course, as an author, I would like more of her to be positive, but I will also be glad to constructive criticism.
This type is the rarest and most flexible. Only about 2-3% of respondents have all dominants in a relatively equal volume. A manager of this type can deal with various matters in any branch of business. The predominance of this type is most often observed in the deputy directors. Leadership style for this type has no boundaries, it allows you to adapt to any situation and at the right time point to use the mindset of the necessary quadrant. But for the successful use of such leadership style it is necessary to be able to use it frequently, otherwise the leadership style of such an individual will be different at different times (any of those described earlier).
We have already reviewed the type descriptions and guiding styles inherent to these types of managers. But still, we are talking about managing people. I will not specifically describe in detail some of the details, for example, how to determine what type of people you lead, because this is more practical skill and sooner or later will come with experience. If you read carefully - you will not be difficult to understand how to do it.
Let us now consider which work is more suitable for each type.
For an employee of type A , the work of analyzing markets, stock quotes, jurisprudence, and the scientific field are more suitable, but one should not forget about the ambitiousness of this type. Once you give him a job without prospects, you strongly demotivate him. He is able to make decisions himself. Given his penchant for logic and arguments, and if you are not an analyst yourself, think three times and find the necessary arguments before entrusting him with something, preferably done in writing, with a clear indication of the timing and the necessary results. Be sure to show perspective. No matter how trite, but the best motivation for an “analyst” is money, not necessarily explicitly. Money can be an increase in employee capitalization. He will also willingly consider the prospect of growth, and getting some publicity is publicity. Monitoring his work is best done by results. Moreover, if you want to “grow” it - gradually loosen the control to zero. Such workers have a high degree of responsibility, sometimes it is a matter of honor for them to be on time.
With type B , everything is different. The love of detail and the penchant for security play their part. Such an employee works effectively only when he is in his comfort zone. Otherwise, he will run to you with questions about every little thing, and a sharp refusal to explain to him in the 100,500th time will only offend him. He should be given only that work, which he either knows in detail, or for which there is a clear unambiguous requirements-standards: preparation for the inspection, the creation of regulations, instructions. Delegate to him the work only with detailed instructions, and whenever possible it is better to write immediately (so that if you forget to detail something, you do not have to repeat it). Moreover, together with the instruction, specify the dates and results (including phased ones), and also provide it with the necessary resources. Regularly monitor it (delicately). For the “administrator”, this will be a concern effect and will also be a good motivator. Management support will also be a motivator. Surprisingly, the love of order and formality, namely a clear time frame - also motivates type B.
In the case of tight deadlines, for motivation you can go to the trick, play on his quest for "security." It is possible to depict a “threat” to safety, and that after doing the work it will return (security). I hope it is clear that I do not call for violence and threats, and the previous phrase should be understood allegorically
Such an employee should be developed through a gradual decrease in control and resource constraints.
Now you can go to the types of controlled in the greater degree of the right hemisphere of the brain.
I think that you yourself already guessed that Empath (type C ), due to its human-centeredness and emotionality, would be more willing to do work of a social or public nature. For example, agreeing or giving a presentation would be a pleasure for him. It is not sad, but every person measures people on their own. To the owner of such a dominant, you also need to have your own approach. He will appreciate, if in the meantime, in a personal conversation over a cup of coffee, ask him to do some work. But let's not forget that we all know about this type: the main thing for him is people, he will easily break the deadlines if the interests of business do not coincide with the interests of people. Therefore, the term is better to deliver with a margin. It is also necessary to put a clear result, if you do not want it to work out: “on the advice of Vasya, Kolya, and others, we decided that it would be better to disassemble the machine through the exhaust pipe,” or something like that. Moreover, it is desirable to outline the plan of action in advance. As a socially oriented type, he loves public recognition and praise, moreover verbally. Does not like close control, but control is necessary, preferably intermediate and unobtrusive. As a development, you can sometimes ask to send written reports.
It remains to consider the last of the types - D. This type is the exact opposite of the “administrator”. For the "innovator" novelty and lack of knowledge is a kind of "air" and the main motivator. The right decision would be to entrust him with something that has not yet been done, for example, writing an event script, arranging a presentation, creating a concept, will also easily generate 100,500 new ideas. Writing speech can not read for a long time, so it makes sense to entrust something to him only orally. Type D - emotional nature, so do not forget to show emotions, but be careful, they at the subconscious level will distinguish sincere interest from simulated performance. Pierce - lose respect. He cannot feel himself a “bird in a cage” - he loves freedom, including freedom of choice, and does not like “material chewed up to trifles”, formalities, and other “writings”. When calculating the timing, it is also worth throwing time, because there is a risk that Ostap will suffer, or in the middle of the process, it can drastically change its mind. The desired result and deadlines (as amended) are preferably voiced when setting the task. Creativity on the stream is not set and framed not to drive. It is obvious that a person cannot create precisely from 9 to 18, therefore it is better for such people to give additional freedom in terms of work schedule. Like the analyst, loves scale and seeks to be first. Spend one-on-one with him to find out how things are going, what problems, and so on. As a trick on motivation, you can play on his vanity and vanity, but if you decide to take this step, do it carefully, make no mistake! In case of an error, you will insult him greatly.
Taking this opportunity, I wantto say hello to remind you that delegation is a delicate process. And if you delegate work, then along with your responsibilities, do not forget to delegate authority. Sadly, many people forget about it.
Let's recall the model illustration:
Now we know the description of the depicted quadrants, and we can state the obvious things, namely, that "diametrically opposite dominants are diametrically different . " Sorry for the pun. Indeed, the analyst does not recognize the personal factor, just as the empath does not show love to dry excerpts and facts. The administrator does not feel comfortable when you need to do something that you have not done. And the innovator does not recognize the formalities and detailed plans, although he can think conceptually.
Each job requires a person of certain qualities at a certain point in time. And if this need does not conflict with pronounced dominants, then this is not bad. Much better if it falls under them. And it is no good if it comes into opposition.
Earlier, I said that congenital and acquired qualities should be separated. Now I will explain why this is important. The best minds are still arguing over whether a person is born with character and personality traits, or he can be “molded” and “redone” after birth. Personally, I am inclined to believe first, if only because some children in the maternity hospital cry, others maintain absolute calm ( there are many opinions, the arguments are different, we will not focus on this ).
So, each person in the process of life activity acquires a new experience, knowledge, skills, and skills, someone has pretty “patted” his life, someone does not. If we consider the original data, and what we have at the exit - the differences will almost always be noticeable to the naked eye. Somewhere more, somewhere less, but (!) There are some qualities in absolutely any person who cannot be changed by any external influence for a long period of time (at least, Hermann claimed so). At best, he will accept the proposed model, but this model will be rejected, the subject will experience discomfort, which can later turn into depression and even psychosis. Sooner or later, no matter what acquired qualities a person possesses, those dominants that are considered “inborn” will manifest themselves clearly. It is very good if the acquired qualities are in harmony with the innate, otherwise there will be a constant internal conflict.
For a manager, an employee’s internal conflict is like a fire that must be instantly extinguished. To do this, you may have to give him another job, hold a heart-to-heart conversation, or simply give a vacation (people sometimes burn out). If you do not do this - at best, the efficiency of such an employee will be reduced to a minimum, at worst, you will lose it.
Together with the smooth (or sharp) course of our lives, ours, if you allow the “parameters”, also change. The parameters of our employees also change. For example, yesterday's bright creative, can earn an upgrade and add to his analytical skills. Your leadership style should track the dynamics of these changes. I will quote Casey Stengel , a famous American manager. “ The essence of management is to get paid for the fact that others are scoring goals. ” And I’ll add that it is your task to do everything possible and impossible for them to “score goals”.
On this note, I conclude the second part of my story.
Remark: HDI does not make sense to use in structures with meager pay, and as a result, high turnover of personnel.
UPD. The conclusion of the cycle .
This article focuses more on practical tools in the field of motivation and delegation of authority to staff. But some part of the theory will also be.
Despite the fact that the first part was relatively coldly received, I nevertheless decided to continue publication. Partly, because there were warm reviews, and partly, because I do not like to give up what I started.
The material in this part will be based on the previous one (which, you see, is logical). Therefore, for a complete understanding of the terminology - I recommend that you first read the introductory part (if you have not read it).
')
In this article we will consider:
- Multidominant type
- Frames decide everything!
- Interaction dominant or "everything flows, everything changes"
Traditionally I will say that feedback is welcome: both in the first and in this part. Of course, as an author, I would like more of her to be positive, but I will also be glad to constructive criticism.
Multidominant type
This type is the rarest and most flexible. Only about 2-3% of respondents have all dominants in a relatively equal volume. A manager of this type can deal with various matters in any branch of business. The predominance of this type is most often observed in the deputy directors. Leadership style for this type has no boundaries, it allows you to adapt to any situation and at the right time point to use the mindset of the necessary quadrant. But for the successful use of such leadership style it is necessary to be able to use it frequently, otherwise the leadership style of such an individual will be different at different times (any of those described earlier).
“Cadres decide everything!”
We have already reviewed the type descriptions and guiding styles inherent to these types of managers. But still, we are talking about managing people. I will not specifically describe in detail some of the details, for example, how to determine what type of people you lead, because this is more practical skill and sooner or later will come with experience. If you read carefully - you will not be difficult to understand how to do it.
Let us now consider which work is more suitable for each type.
For an employee of type A , the work of analyzing markets, stock quotes, jurisprudence, and the scientific field are more suitable, but one should not forget about the ambitiousness of this type. Once you give him a job without prospects, you strongly demotivate him. He is able to make decisions himself. Given his penchant for logic and arguments, and if you are not an analyst yourself, think three times and find the necessary arguments before entrusting him with something, preferably done in writing, with a clear indication of the timing and the necessary results. Be sure to show perspective. No matter how trite, but the best motivation for an “analyst” is money, not necessarily explicitly. Money can be an increase in employee capitalization. He will also willingly consider the prospect of growth, and getting some publicity is publicity. Monitoring his work is best done by results. Moreover, if you want to “grow” it - gradually loosen the control to zero. Such workers have a high degree of responsibility, sometimes it is a matter of honor for them to be on time.
With type B , everything is different. The love of detail and the penchant for security play their part. Such an employee works effectively only when he is in his comfort zone. Otherwise, he will run to you with questions about every little thing, and a sharp refusal to explain to him in the 100,500th time will only offend him. He should be given only that work, which he either knows in detail, or for which there is a clear unambiguous requirements-standards: preparation for the inspection, the creation of regulations, instructions. Delegate to him the work only with detailed instructions, and whenever possible it is better to write immediately (so that if you forget to detail something, you do not have to repeat it). Moreover, together with the instruction, specify the dates and results (including phased ones), and also provide it with the necessary resources. Regularly monitor it (delicately). For the “administrator”, this will be a concern effect and will also be a good motivator. Management support will also be a motivator. Surprisingly, the love of order and formality, namely a clear time frame - also motivates type B.
In the case of tight deadlines, for motivation you can go to the trick, play on his quest for "security." It is possible to depict a “threat” to safety, and that after doing the work it will return (security). I hope it is clear that I do not call for violence and threats, and the previous phrase should be understood allegorically
Such an employee should be developed through a gradual decrease in control and resource constraints.
Now you can go to the types of controlled in the greater degree of the right hemisphere of the brain.
I think that you yourself already guessed that Empath (type C ), due to its human-centeredness and emotionality, would be more willing to do work of a social or public nature. For example, agreeing or giving a presentation would be a pleasure for him. It is not sad, but every person measures people on their own. To the owner of such a dominant, you also need to have your own approach. He will appreciate, if in the meantime, in a personal conversation over a cup of coffee, ask him to do some work. But let's not forget that we all know about this type: the main thing for him is people, he will easily break the deadlines if the interests of business do not coincide with the interests of people. Therefore, the term is better to deliver with a margin. It is also necessary to put a clear result, if you do not want it to work out: “on the advice of Vasya, Kolya, and others, we decided that it would be better to disassemble the machine through the exhaust pipe,” or something like that. Moreover, it is desirable to outline the plan of action in advance. As a socially oriented type, he loves public recognition and praise, moreover verbally. Does not like close control, but control is necessary, preferably intermediate and unobtrusive. As a development, you can sometimes ask to send written reports.
It remains to consider the last of the types - D. This type is the exact opposite of the “administrator”. For the "innovator" novelty and lack of knowledge is a kind of "air" and the main motivator. The right decision would be to entrust him with something that has not yet been done, for example, writing an event script, arranging a presentation, creating a concept, will also easily generate 100,500 new ideas. Writing speech can not read for a long time, so it makes sense to entrust something to him only orally. Type D - emotional nature, so do not forget to show emotions, but be careful, they at the subconscious level will distinguish sincere interest from simulated performance. Pierce - lose respect. He cannot feel himself a “bird in a cage” - he loves freedom, including freedom of choice, and does not like “material chewed up to trifles”, formalities, and other “writings”. When calculating the timing, it is also worth throwing time, because there is a risk that Ostap will suffer, or in the middle of the process, it can drastically change its mind. The desired result and deadlines (as amended) are preferably voiced when setting the task. Creativity on the stream is not set and framed not to drive. It is obvious that a person cannot create precisely from 9 to 18, therefore it is better for such people to give additional freedom in terms of work schedule. Like the analyst, loves scale and seeks to be first. Spend one-on-one with him to find out how things are going, what problems, and so on. As a trick on motivation, you can play on his vanity and vanity, but if you decide to take this step, do it carefully, make no mistake! In case of an error, you will insult him greatly.
Taking this opportunity, I want
Interaction dominant or "Everything flows, everything changes"
Let's recall the model illustration:
Now we know the description of the depicted quadrants, and we can state the obvious things, namely, that "diametrically opposite dominants are diametrically different . " Sorry for the pun. Indeed, the analyst does not recognize the personal factor, just as the empath does not show love to dry excerpts and facts. The administrator does not feel comfortable when you need to do something that you have not done. And the innovator does not recognize the formalities and detailed plans, although he can think conceptually.
Each job requires a person of certain qualities at a certain point in time. And if this need does not conflict with pronounced dominants, then this is not bad. Much better if it falls under them. And it is no good if it comes into opposition.
Earlier, I said that congenital and acquired qualities should be separated. Now I will explain why this is important. The best minds are still arguing over whether a person is born with character and personality traits, or he can be “molded” and “redone” after birth. Personally, I am inclined to believe first, if only because some children in the maternity hospital cry, others maintain absolute calm ( there are many opinions, the arguments are different, we will not focus on this ).
So, each person in the process of life activity acquires a new experience, knowledge, skills, and skills, someone has pretty “patted” his life, someone does not. If we consider the original data, and what we have at the exit - the differences will almost always be noticeable to the naked eye. Somewhere more, somewhere less, but (!) There are some qualities in absolutely any person who cannot be changed by any external influence for a long period of time (at least, Hermann claimed so). At best, he will accept the proposed model, but this model will be rejected, the subject will experience discomfort, which can later turn into depression and even psychosis. Sooner or later, no matter what acquired qualities a person possesses, those dominants that are considered “inborn” will manifest themselves clearly. It is very good if the acquired qualities are in harmony with the innate, otherwise there will be a constant internal conflict.
For a manager, an employee’s internal conflict is like a fire that must be instantly extinguished. To do this, you may have to give him another job, hold a heart-to-heart conversation, or simply give a vacation (people sometimes burn out). If you do not do this - at best, the efficiency of such an employee will be reduced to a minimum, at worst, you will lose it.
Together with the smooth (or sharp) course of our lives, ours, if you allow the “parameters”, also change. The parameters of our employees also change. For example, yesterday's bright creative, can earn an upgrade and add to his analytical skills. Your leadership style should track the dynamics of these changes. I will quote Casey Stengel , a famous American manager. “ The essence of management is to get paid for the fact that others are scoring goals. ” And I’ll add that it is your task to do everything possible and impossible for them to “score goals”.
On this note, I conclude the second part of my story.
Remark: HDI does not make sense to use in structures with meager pay, and as a result, high turnover of personnel.
UPD. The conclusion of the cycle .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/144933/
All Articles