Big brothers! This kind of management will not destroy new employees.
I recently read an article "How the boss ruined an employee". The title is a bit shocking, but I can't accept it after reading the content carefully. The author summarizes seven kinds of route mistakes that may "destroy" a new employee, but according to my fifteen years of HR work experience, I find that these seven points will not destroy a new employee, but are the key to the success of a new employee.
First, make them feel at home.
The author believes that the purpose of hiring employees is to complete the work, not to establish relationships.
I totally disagree with this view, because a good beginning is half the battle. Imagine joining a new team, and everyone sends a message: there is no one here to help you, so get to work quickly. What do we think as newcomers? It must be a cold heart: can this indifferent team have good cooperation? Just like a blind date, you are not enthusiastic at the first meeting. How can you expect to live happily? Moreover, practice has proved that the way of master taking apprentices can make new employees integrate into the team in the shortest time, get started quickly and reduce the chances of making mistakes. This way is the most direct way to establish a relationship.
Second, conduct overall training.
The author thinks that the first step for new employees is not to understand the overall operation mode, but to know how to complete their own work. It is inevitable to know more about the content and the overall model.
I totally disagree with this view. Take me for example. When I join a new company, I will be completely blind unless I have the guidance of an acquaintance. Because I don't have enthusiastic colleagues and suitable tools to help me understand the overall operation mode of the company, I will definitely walk in the dark if I only know a little, so I must be careful not to fall into the pit. This kind of life is on thin ice. What can I do to give full play to my advantages? How to let leaders see my value? One may not even pass the probation period. Therefore, for new employees, they should at least know the general direction and understand the overall style and value orientation of the company, so as to have a general judgment standard and be targeted. Don't dive into it and get confused.
Please allow me to digress a little and say something about training. On the surface, training is the company's loss: input costs (time and money), employees are trained and their ability is improved. But in fact, the company is also a beneficiary, because a trained employee's working style, working ideas, working attitude and working efficiency will change. This change may not be immediate, but it will be more or less reflected in performance, so the company will also become a beneficiary. When you meet a grateful employee, you will feel that the company is really good and provides so many training opportunities. To make matters worse, employees quit after attending the training, but they will definitely mention what training the company provided before. Word-of-mouth effect like this is the real value of resigned employees.
Third, giving a reply is not timely and decisive.
The author believes that new employees should not hesitate to criticize or correct when they are hesitant, fearful and prone to make mistakes.
I think it seems a little far-fetched between the author's point of view (that is, the title) and its content. First of all, leaders should reply to any employees (not just new employees) in time, which is a kind of respect and supervision. However, solving the problem depends on the situation. Regardless of criticism or correction, "Decisiveness is king" is by no means the best policy every time.
First of all, employees are not appendages of leaders. They have their own ideas and must get opportunities for growth. If the leader points out "decisiveness" in everything, subordinates will only form the habit of dependence, which will not only hurt the enthusiasm and creativity of employees, but also make employees (or even more newcomers) face intensive criticism or correction from a "frank" leader all day, and the psychological pressure is too great, and the result is either collapse or death.
From the leader's point of view, it is too difficult to prepare for "timely and decisive reply" all day long. The normal practice is that when subordinates are hesitant, fearful and prone to make mistakes, leaders should first understand their real thoughts through communication, find out the key points, formulate solutions, and then guide them to implement them. Really excellent employees are not trained by criticism or correction, but by self-improvement. The value of leadership lies in guiding subordinates to agree with the same' judgment standard', and to think and reflect on themselves independently, so as to move towards the same goal. This kind of work will make it easier for leaders.
Another point is very important: leaders should have a certain mind. Subordinates are not allowed to make mistakes, and leaders who care about everything will only get a narrow evaluation in the end.
Fourth, the current specific target setting is wrong.
The author thinks that new employees should complete a specific job related to the post from the first day of work, and the purpose of "induction training" is to help new employees enter the stage of "hard work".
I also have reservations about this view. As we all know, when new employees arrive at a new company, their greatest wish is to make some achievements in a short time to prove their ability and existence value. This anxious thought doesn't need training at all. The purpose of training is to let them know some system standards in the company, what can and can't be done, and what kind of practices will step on the "red line". This can help new employees understand the current situation of the company more quickly and know what kind of strength or standards they can use to give play to their talents.
Moreover, the title of the author's "Wrong Setting of Current Specific Goals" reflects a common mistake in the company: not setting suitable goals for new employees. Many companies believe that recruiting a well-paid person or a person from a big company can save a project, a team or even the whole company. As everyone knows, without the guidance of specific goals, even the strongest employees are thrown into a post, which is a kind of "rhythm of spending money to let them die." Because new employees (whether ordinary people or cattle people) need to adapt to overcome their acclimatization, need the support and cooperation of the team, and need a reasonable "trainee goal" to prove their value.
Fifth, employees should not be allowed to wait in induction training.
In my opinion, new employees should not be allowed to sit there, but should be kept busy when lecturers postpone or cancel courses during training.
For this, only when there is a big gap between work and rest time is the correct conclusion, because if new employees do nothing for a long time, they will feel at a loss and bored, which is not conducive to the cultivation of enthusiasm.
However, the arrangement of induction training should not be too full, and a short blank time should be set aside, which can make new employees review the training content, deepen their impressions and improve the training effect, and also allow them to have a proper rest and not be confused by a lot of information.
Moreover, I strongly disagree with the author's example of letting new employees handle temporary jobs during induction training, because this "close-fitting" way of using human resources can realize the wishes that new employees are eager to express, but it is easy to make mistakes and dampen the enthusiasm of new employees by blindly letting new employees suddenly devote themselves to their work without goals and standards. The worse result is that this "chaotic management" practice has planted the seeds of "the company is really chaotic" in the hearts of new employees, not to mention good time management habits, not to mention efficient working methods.
But what if there is such a gap in the training process? This requires HR to prepare in advance, and there are many methods:
For example, record some video materials in advance, such as the company's operation and previous training. And show it to new employees during this gap period.
For example, it is better to make the training courseware into PPT that plays automatically. Of course, it is better to bring voice, and it can also be shown to employees.
For example, prepare some company product information and company introduction. Let new employees learn by themselves first.
For example, show new employees around the company and introduce the specific situation of the company in detail.
Sixth, how to deal with new employees' objections to the existing process.
The author believes that new employees are not allowed to readjust their current jobs without fully understanding the overall operation mode.
This view is somewhat contradictory to the author's above content: in the second point of "overall training", the author clearly mentioned that "for new employees, it is not necessary to know the overall operation mode at the first step of work. What they need to know is how to finish the work. " At this point, it says "unless they have fully understood the overall mode of operation". Imagine how new employees can "fully understand the overall operation mode" without overall training. Self-study Not to mention the cost of time, even the effect of learning must be thousands of people.
My opinion is that there are two ways to recruit employees: one is brand-new and the other is experienced. No matter what kind of new employees, if the company does not allow them to object to the existing process, it is one thing to discourage their enthusiasm and creativity. More importantly, the company is likely to miss very good suggestions. We should know that when employees can bring subversive changes to the company, that is, when they first join the company, not only because "newborn calves are not afraid of tigers", but also because new employees have not been assimilated by the original concept of the company.
Therefore, we should listen to new employees with ideas, and even let new employees try their own ideas according to the actual situation. The company is likely to spend little cost but get unexpected improvement results.
Seventh, decentralization.
The author believes that decentralization is a privilege, not a right. Employees should be given the right to make broader decisions … discretion. Winning decentralization by one's own ability is the only effective decentralization model.
Note: the "right" and "power" here are completely copied from the author.
According to my understanding:
Rights generally refer to the rights granted to people, that is, the right to safeguard interests and the right to choose to do or not to do.
Power refers to the power dominated by a specific subject within a specific scope. As long as it matches this power, it cannot be abandoned.
No matter what the author's intention is to use these two words alternately in the article, it seems that the author is trying to explain that employees must rely on their own strength to win the opportunity to show themselves and bear the corresponding responsibilities in order to obtain the corresponding power.
Is that really the case?
Let's talk about job responsibilities first. Any company will set up different positions, which is an inevitable division of labor to achieve the goal of high efficiency. Different positions will definitely have different responsibilities, different responsibilities will definitely correspond to different terms of reference, and power will naturally follow the position. Therefore, the power of employees is determined by their positions. Even in some companies with very chaotic responsibility management, even if the scope of power is vague, careful observation will definitely find that power will still match the position, just a matter of matching degree. Therefore, for new employees, on the first day of employment, they are given post authority and bear corresponding responsibilities for this authority.
From the leader's point of view, if all the power is in the hands of the leader, only when the employee proves his ability will he be given some power, or if the employee proves his ability in a certain aspect, then he will delegate some power. Is this kind of leader a qualified leader? First of all, this management method is definitely wrong, because you need to control so much power and you can't die. Therefore, when a leader shouts "busy to death" and "too much pressure" all day, this kind of leader is simply incompetent and unworthy of sympathy. Secondly, this management method is too risky, so much power needs to be controlled by leaders, and there will inevitably be omissions. The biggest risk is that when a leader leaves his post, the management of the company will face a very chaotic situation and even collapse.
Let's talk about "authorization" in management, that is, the way in which leaders delegate their power to subordinates. This is actually an incentive way, because in the eyes of subordinates, being authorized means being recognized by leaders, and employees will better express and improve themselves if they are encouraged. Leaders can decide the content, method and scope of "authorization" according to their subordinates' abilities or characteristics. The essence of authorization is "watching people cook", and employees can be authorized regardless of their ability. Strong ability can be empowered, and weak ability can be empowered. As long as the "authorization" is done well, it can not only stimulate the potential of employees, but also build a healthy team with strong combat effectiveness. On the contrary, leaders who don't know or are unwilling to delegate can't control the workload and cooperation of the team. A leader who works hard all day and does everything himself is not a mature leader and does not deserve sympathy.
To be a new employee, the company must let them feel the company's enthusiasm and welcome as soon as they join the company, do a good job in overall training and induction training, set a reasonable probation target for the direct leader, and give timely feedback when employees ask questions and suggestions. It is also important to motivate employees with authorization!