I often hear the leader say: I am right about things, not people. I have never believed this kind of nonsense, not at first, not now and never again. People have their own differences, their first feelings, and their own standards of measurement.
The reason why we say the right thing, not the person, is nothing more than to create a seemingly fair situation and make it easier for people to accept it. People themselves are different, and the same mistake will have different consequences for different people. It means the same thing, the personalized promotion of human talent.
It is irresponsible to criticize subordinates for how to solve things and want them to follow the rules. It is impossible to give targeted opinions and create fairness. When subordinates make mistakes, they should not only analyze things, but also analyze what is a common phenomenon and what happens to individuals according to the situation of different individuals.
Only in this way can subordinates feel concerned and think that leaders attach importance to themselves instead of saying a lot of cliché s in Mandarin, which not only has no effect, but also forms a state of fatigue and immunity to the criticism of leaders.
2. Criticism should make mistakes and improve the situation.
Simple criticism lets subordinates know that they have made mistakes, but they can't put forward the direction of improvement. I will make similar mistakes next time, and may improve, but I may not meet my own requirements, or even be completely different from my own ideas. Not only will it not be effective, but it will also reduce efficiency.
The purpose of criticizing subordinates is not criticism, but improvement. If you can't suggest the direction of improvement, don't criticize at will, because you may make similar mistakes. If you can make mistakes, why criticize your subordinates? Let's discuss how to solve the problem and improve the status quo.
As a mature person in the workplace, all actions should be purposeful and fruitful. If criticism is just to vent one's dissatisfaction, it is meaningless at all.
When criticizing subordinates and making suggestions for personal improvement, subordinates will naturally think from their own point of view, some subordinates will follow suit and achieve satisfactory results, some subordinates will put forward specific problems and solve them, and subordinates will naturally be able to complete their own goals.
If you can't take responsibility, you can't enjoy power.
Why criticize subordinates? Fundamentally speaking, it is the power given by the organization. Without this power, no one is willing to listen to the criticism of superiors, but to convince subordinates, the foundation is to assume their own responsibilities.
On the question of responsibility and power, I have heard such a dialogue. The general meaning of power is embodied in responsibility. Take the ancient army and bandits for example. Everyone has strength, but they exercise different responsibilities.
Bandits only care about themselves, but the army is also responsible to the people, so the army is often more convincing, while bandits are the object of exclusion. Even bandits who rob the rich and help the poor are bound to be excluded as long as they step out of their territory. The same force, bandits are not as powerful as the army, and the key lies in what kind of responsibility they bear.
Similarly, in the workplace, leaders can't afford their own responsibilities, and subordinates won't be convinced from the heart, let alone criticize. When criticizing subordinates, they will subconsciously think that you are right, otherwise they will not really be convinced even if they are afraid of power.