Bad advice - 2 or behavioral aspects of setting tasks in telecom
As a continuation of the topic.
In the last article, we talked about the “behavioral aspects of non-fulfillment of tasks” or “methods of sabotage” that we faced in a telecom. I will add that sometimes there are, of course, and quite exotic ways, when frankly stupid, and when - very “wise”. We do not consider them, because almost all of them fit into the category that Alice called the fox and Basilio’s cat in the famous film adaptation with the words: “Pinocchio! You are your own enemy! ”
Immediately make a reservation. Most likely, the points voiced in the previous and this article most often occur in organizations where the organizational structure has a hierarchical type (linear, linear-functional, etc.), i.e., where the status of the project manager is not clearly defined and he has no special powers (well, except to complain to some manager), where the motivation of those participating in the project is weak. When in such organizations a “non-trivial task” arises, which “clearly does not fall under the functionality of specific people,” a working group is assembled working in the framework of meetings.
Most likely, these moments are less in organizations whose structure is built according to the project type, where the project manager has real levers of influence on colleagues working in the project.
In general, when someone “zhuryat” for the failure of a particular task, this someone is hardly happy about it (the options “sado-maso” is not considered). After the next such “zhureniya” literate (not to be confused with the conscious) colleague begins to think that such “retarded” tasks (and what else can be the tasks for which he received the “melon”) never fall on you, that, from no one and under no circumstances. " The option "just complete the task" does not offer, because there are always reasons for which this option is unacceptable.
So, I propose to consider exactly how they act, so that certain tasks determined during the meeting are not assigned to a specific person.
Let's start from simple to complex.
')
Level 1 (basic).
You can simply not come to the meeting. The simplest and most obvious, and therefore the most accessible level. The reason for the absence can always come up. And what, as Dons said, “no man is not a problem”. In reality, it turns out that the problem is still there.
So - the disadvantages of this level:
- You can use this behavioral aspect only 1 or 2 times, because you will sometime have to come to the meeting, which means you can be asked for everything at once and for something else (further it becomes clear what else).
- While you are not at the meeting, “smarter, advanced level colleagues” can also blame you for their tasks or appoint you to cause them to fail.
- Automatic setup of your boss, if he also participates in the meeting (and he often participates). For they may ask (and will be asked) from it in essence the task. The boss will have to answer something. For an employee who is absent, this may be further fraught.
Level 2 (advanced).
It is human nature to develop. This also applies to the behavioral aspects of employees. In general, upon receipt of a task, you can immediately “delegate” it to your colleague on the basis of the fact that “the area of responsibility is also in his competence”. To facilitate this behavioral aspect can the lack of the necessary “responsible competent” colleagues at the meeting, when the task is set, or when asked about its implementation. And it is better if this colleague is absent from both meetings (level 1, what to get from him).
Disadvantages:
- surprisingly, but this does not improve the relationship with some colleagues;
- if this colleague is also “advanced in level” and is present at the meeting, then the method may not work.
Level 3 (proactive).
It lies in the fact that some colleagues in the receipt of the task develop a very hectic activity. Which, however, does not end with anything and has no end result. It seems that there is nothing to complain about an employee for - after all, he does something (seeks out new mistakes that clearly interfere with him, brings up related tasks, suggests new ideas), but usually there is no result, or rather there is, but he is from some other reality. If this happens very often, then when assigning a task to such an employee, everyone will think whether it is worth “tempting fate” and entrusting him with the fulfillment of key tasks.
Disadvantages:
- you can get the label "dust generator";
- in the end, everyone is beginning to understand the reason for all this "vigorous" activity.
Level 4 (the principle of "chicken coop").
Who in the outward look of “uninitiated others” never performs the tasks himself? The answer is simple - the one who puts them (or broadcasts from others). Conclusion - in order not to carry out the tasks, you need to put them yourself, and then, upon the expiration of the deadlines, “stumble” all. This requires a little - to prove that the rest are not suitable for this role and must be "overthrown". Therefore, sometimes Bacchanalia begins at some meetings: either several participants openly claim to be the “lead task director” and begin to sort things out right on the spot, or there are several leading ones at the meeting, tasks “sypyat” as if from a “cornucopia”, and the number of performers decreases by number of "leading". By the way, when a scolding begins at the meeting and the parties begin to “hang all the dogs on each other,” the reason for this may be just a claim to the role of a “new task director” - who should do something to not do this to me (“you must enter our position "," you must play by our rules ", etc.).
Disadvantages:
- as already mentioned, several candidates can apply for this level;
- the struggle between candidates usually leads to the fact that one or several candidates will be “overthrown”, they will again have to be content with only the first 3 levels, i.e. be content with the rank of “served”;
- often the project participants do not understand that the one who sets the tasks sometimes has to form them independently from the “strategic vision”, which is not given to many. It is in these cases that the meetings come to a standstill, since no one understands what to do next and how, and who understands “was deposed”, was offended and used the “1st level”.
However, if you again resort to the tactics of many-valued silence, “wiggling your eyebrows and appropriate facial expressions”, then you can again leave the meeting “unscanned and undefeated” ...
In the last article, we talked about the “behavioral aspects of non-fulfillment of tasks” or “methods of sabotage” that we faced in a telecom. I will add that sometimes there are, of course, and quite exotic ways, when frankly stupid, and when - very “wise”. We do not consider them, because almost all of them fit into the category that Alice called the fox and Basilio’s cat in the famous film adaptation with the words: “Pinocchio! You are your own enemy! ”
Immediately make a reservation. Most likely, the points voiced in the previous and this article most often occur in organizations where the organizational structure has a hierarchical type (linear, linear-functional, etc.), i.e., where the status of the project manager is not clearly defined and he has no special powers (well, except to complain to some manager), where the motivation of those participating in the project is weak. When in such organizations a “non-trivial task” arises, which “clearly does not fall under the functionality of specific people,” a working group is assembled working in the framework of meetings.
Most likely, these moments are less in organizations whose structure is built according to the project type, where the project manager has real levers of influence on colleagues working in the project.
In general, when someone “zhuryat” for the failure of a particular task, this someone is hardly happy about it (the options “sado-maso” is not considered). After the next such “zhureniya” literate (not to be confused with the conscious) colleague begins to think that such “retarded” tasks (and what else can be the tasks for which he received the “melon”) never fall on you, that, from no one and under no circumstances. " The option "just complete the task" does not offer, because there are always reasons for which this option is unacceptable.
So, I propose to consider exactly how they act, so that certain tasks determined during the meeting are not assigned to a specific person.
Let's start from simple to complex.
')
Level 1 (basic).
You can simply not come to the meeting. The simplest and most obvious, and therefore the most accessible level. The reason for the absence can always come up. And what, as Dons said, “no man is not a problem”. In reality, it turns out that the problem is still there.
So - the disadvantages of this level:
- You can use this behavioral aspect only 1 or 2 times, because you will sometime have to come to the meeting, which means you can be asked for everything at once and for something else (further it becomes clear what else).
- While you are not at the meeting, “smarter, advanced level colleagues” can also blame you for their tasks or appoint you to cause them to fail.
- Automatic setup of your boss, if he also participates in the meeting (and he often participates). For they may ask (and will be asked) from it in essence the task. The boss will have to answer something. For an employee who is absent, this may be further fraught.
Level 2 (advanced).
It is human nature to develop. This also applies to the behavioral aspects of employees. In general, upon receipt of a task, you can immediately “delegate” it to your colleague on the basis of the fact that “the area of responsibility is also in his competence”. To facilitate this behavioral aspect can the lack of the necessary “responsible competent” colleagues at the meeting, when the task is set, or when asked about its implementation. And it is better if this colleague is absent from both meetings (level 1, what to get from him).
Disadvantages:
- surprisingly, but this does not improve the relationship with some colleagues;
- if this colleague is also “advanced in level” and is present at the meeting, then the method may not work.
Level 3 (proactive).
It lies in the fact that some colleagues in the receipt of the task develop a very hectic activity. Which, however, does not end with anything and has no end result. It seems that there is nothing to complain about an employee for - after all, he does something (seeks out new mistakes that clearly interfere with him, brings up related tasks, suggests new ideas), but usually there is no result, or rather there is, but he is from some other reality. If this happens very often, then when assigning a task to such an employee, everyone will think whether it is worth “tempting fate” and entrusting him with the fulfillment of key tasks.
Disadvantages:
- you can get the label "dust generator";
- in the end, everyone is beginning to understand the reason for all this "vigorous" activity.
Level 4 (the principle of "chicken coop").
Who in the outward look of “uninitiated others” never performs the tasks himself? The answer is simple - the one who puts them (or broadcasts from others). Conclusion - in order not to carry out the tasks, you need to put them yourself, and then, upon the expiration of the deadlines, “stumble” all. This requires a little - to prove that the rest are not suitable for this role and must be "overthrown". Therefore, sometimes Bacchanalia begins at some meetings: either several participants openly claim to be the “lead task director” and begin to sort things out right on the spot, or there are several leading ones at the meeting, tasks “sypyat” as if from a “cornucopia”, and the number of performers decreases by number of "leading". By the way, when a scolding begins at the meeting and the parties begin to “hang all the dogs on each other,” the reason for this may be just a claim to the role of a “new task director” - who should do something to not do this to me (“you must enter our position "," you must play by our rules ", etc.).
Disadvantages:
- as already mentioned, several candidates can apply for this level;
- the struggle between candidates usually leads to the fact that one or several candidates will be “overthrown”, they will again have to be content with only the first 3 levels, i.e. be content with the rank of “served”;
- often the project participants do not understand that the one who sets the tasks sometimes has to form them independently from the “strategic vision”, which is not given to many. It is in these cases that the meetings come to a standstill, since no one understands what to do next and how, and who understands “was deposed”, was offended and used the “1st level”.
However, if you again resort to the tactics of many-valued silence, “wiggling your eyebrows and appropriate facial expressions”, then you can again leave the meeting “unscanned and undefeated” ...
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/286916/
All Articles