Do you still remember the last scene in The Lost World, a sequel to Jurassic Park? Ambition Peter Ludlow - nephew of John Hammond - to bring a variety of animals Jurassic of the Site-B to the zoo in San Diego a mess because the mother T-Rex rampage on the go. The entire crew was killed pathetic freighter. Worse yet, the T-Rex ran away and then rampage and ransacked the entire city of San Diego. Parent T-Rex a new calm after finding her baby who being hostage. Now these two ferocious creatures were ready to be sent back to their habitat. Ludlow who did not accept his plan was thwarted immediately boarded the ship to catch the baby T-Rex that his leg was broken. But his intention is not running smoothly because it turns out, the parent of T-Rex was coming from the influence of drugs containing shells. Now he is trapped in the hold the ship together with two ferocious creatures that.
The film is filled with scenes of malignancies of T-Rex when catching and tearing prey. However, in the hold the ship he did not immediately pounce on Ludlow. Why? Because now he's rewarded the greedy people as a toy for the baby. Still remember how the T-Rex's mother accompanied him to experiment with 'toys' new? Seeing the scene, I became ideology: why T-Rex in such a mighty and skilled adult prey pounce. In the office, we are also the same. Adult T-Rex was like the boss. While the baby T-Rex that represents the subordinate. If you're a boss; would you reward your people with a box of toys so that they can experiment while learning to become a reliable professional? For those of you who are interested to accompany me to learn to forge and develop your staff
Remember that once you had the same cute person with them. This is the first foundation to understand subordinates. Many bosses are upset with subordinates who are considered incompetent, incompetent, unreliable. Maybe there is a subordinate category like that. But if the subordinate is received through a series of selection systems that are reliable, meaning they actually have all the potential needed to develop. If today they are still 'has not been incompetent, not competent, and can not be relied upon' like your assessment; it is fitting to remember back that long ago, maybe you were just as funny as they are. Occasionally, open your photo album. Then you'll realize that every human being has periods of development during his lifetime. If you are great, now; no means was this good a few decades ago. If you can grow, then your men, too.
Realize that you are not their identical twin brother. It's okay if you want to say: "First, I do not like you!" Perhaps, since the beginning of work you are already a hard worker. As for your subordinates, no. Perhaps, you are very quick to learn. While your subordinates take longer. You may be resilient. While your people cry just because you are cursing him. "Do not be sloppy! My boss was harder to me. I'm okay! "The size of our shoes are different, how could we feel subordinate our shoes? Even if you are a workaholic just out of the office hours of 11 pm, you can not force the subordinate to do the same. Why? Because they are not your identical twin brother. Each person is unique. And one should not equate with your personality to be successful like you. We can succeed, with the uniqueness of each.
Give them a chance to experiment. Our expertise gained from experience, not from books and lecture halls. Hence, it is not fair if the boss we demand their subordinates who lack the experience to have a high competence. Continue to where they can get that experience? There is no other place better than where we are. They are the fruit of our children. Then we who are responsible for giving him a chance to cultivate the experience as much as possible. If you want them to expert data processing, for example, then there is no other way than to give him a stack of data and allow them to experiment with these data. How about one? His name is also the process of development. There are periods of learning and increasing skills that must be passed. If you managed to give that opportunity, and they managed to use it; then you definitely have a reliable subordinate. But it's risky if until they make a fatal mistake? Yes given according to their abilities and the development of dong.
Be there when they need you. When the baby T-Rex was faced with Ludlow alone, she was very frightened. But when he knew there was an accompanying parent, she has high self-confidence. Parent T-Rex did not have to bite the prey. Nor should participate in the game to make it bold experiment. Subordinate us are the same. They do not require a supervisor to intervene directly covered in mud and sweat. They just took his boss 'present' side. Present not in a physical sense, but they know that you are always there to support, sustain, and provide comfort. Even when others cornered him, you have to protect it. Do bandwagon becomes a boss who likes to put the blame on subordinates. Instead they need you to be a backup in every action he does professionally. Be there with your commitment to be a backrest that can be relied upon by his subordinates.
Help them to be themselves. We all know how difficult it is to be yourself. Too many blasphemies and judgments from the outside so that most people eventually choose to 'adjust'. In fact, every time someone 'fitting in', that means we lose an opportunity to establish uniqueness. We regarded it as a norm, while incessantly touting about the importance of being unique. Only a unique company that will continue to survive. Only a unique product that will be lasting in the market. Only a unique person who can build any uniqueness. But we do not give space to those we lead to be himself. Ironic, is not it? Being yourself does not mean it should act as they pleased. But has the space and the ability to explore the capacity itself to the highest level. Imagine if we could help the subordinates to be himself. Not just happier at work, they also can produce the product or performance that we've never got before.
It's not fashionable to regard their subordinates as people who are incompetent. Those who are strictly selected must have the potential to contribute as expected. If they do not also managed to show the qualities and high performance, perhaps because they lack effort and commitment to develop themselves. But perhaps also it is because we do not give them a 'toy' is enough to experiment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment