Of course, we are also making mistakes, but they are all expected. We will make full use of our mistakes, because we have formed the habit of seeing them as opportunities for learning and improvement. One of our most impressive lessons happened in the early 1990s, when Ross, who was in charge of trading, forgot to put the client's money into trading or keep it as cash. When this mistake was discovered, it had caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses.
This is a terrible and expensive mistake. I can't react too violently. For example, taking the dismissal of Ross as an example, I tell everyone that we can't tolerate mistakes. Because mistakes are always inevitable, doing so will only encourage others to hide their mistakes, which will lead to bigger and more expensive mistakes. I firmly believe that we should put the problems and differences on the table in order to sum up what we should do to improve. So Ross and I wrote an "error log" of the trading department together. Since then, whenever there are any adverse results of any nature (such as the transaction is not executed, the transaction fee we paid is obviously higher than expected, etc.). ), the trader will record it and then we will take remedial measures. As we continue to track and solve these problems, our transaction execution mechanism is constantly improving.
Use a set of procedures to ensure that the problem will be put on the table, and at the same time ensure that the root cause of the problem will be analyzed, so as to achieve continuous improvement.
To this end, I insist on using the problem log in the bridge water. My rule is simple: if something goes wrong, you must write down its severity in the log and who is responsible for it. If there is an error, record it in the log, and you will be fine; If you don't remember, you are in big trouble. In this way, problems will be presented to managers, which is much better than managers have to find out the problems. Error log (now we call it problem log) is our first management tool. Later, I understood that management tools play an important role in urging people to take correct actions. This understanding led me to create many other tools, which will be detailed later.
Regarding the handling methods given by Daglio to deal with mistakes in the work, we should think about several points:
1. What can we learn from this method?
"Systematize the lessons we learn from mistakes"-this is Dario's summary of work mistakes.
It should be said that the method given by Dario is a brand-new angle. "We will make full use of our mistakes as much as possible, because we have formed a habit of seeing mistakes as opportunities for learning and improvement." This mistake cost the enterprise. How to take advantage of the wrong opportunity is a problem we should think about. What caused this mistake? Are there some knowledge points that we don't understand or pay attention to? What causal relationships can be inferred from this mistake? Are there any devices that need to be updated? Are there any working methods that need to be improved? Do some people need to adjust? Do some people need training?
Systematizing the wrong experience and lessons is not an expedient measure, but a holistic view. We should think about the causes, links and degrees of mistakes from a systematic perspective, and put the wrong solutions or strategies back into the system for consideration, so as to prevent the phenomenon of pressing the gourd to float the ladle, or the futility of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Many people are used to thinking and solving problems from the micro level, while Daglio thinks from the perspective of systematic thinking to prevent the solution of a single mistake from leading to more mistakes. This is something that my previous mode of thinking did not take into account.
Second, is this method applicable?
For example, it is only applicable to European and American cultures, or only to the financial industry, or only to high-end intellectuals, so there will be deviations when transplanted into the eastern cultural environment.
Personally, I feel that Dalio's method is applicable.
Because this method requires the participation and close cooperation of people who make mistakes, I doubt whether there can be good participation and cooperation of lower-level employees. Of course, Daglio's method has a premise, which is to be extremely frank and open to each other. In some hierarchical organizational structures, it is impossible to be extremely frank and open between managers and employees. Managers in such organizations use information asymmetry for more management. If they are extremely frank and open to each other, the manager's previous management assumptions will no longer exist, and he will not be able to manage as before, which is painful for the transformation of managers and hierarchical power. Therefore, in this sense, this method must have a scope of application, which is only applicable to scattered flat organizations, but not to concentrated pyramid organizations.
Of course, to test whether a method is applicable is to test it repeatedly in practice.
Third, does this method have sequelae?
Daglio explicitly mentioned the sequela of this method: "This culture of putting problems and differences on the table has caused a lot of discomfort and conflicts, especially when people's weaknesses are discussed in depth. Soon after, the contradiction broke out. "
When adopting this method, you should consider whether you can successfully eliminate the adverse effects caused by it. If you can't control the adverse effects of this method, you should be careful before adopting this method. Otherwise, you will fall into a situation where there are wolves in front and tigers behind, and you will be in a dilemma, full of difficulties and riding a tiger.
4. Can this method be optimized, improved or adjusted?
This method can be tested, and the range of one factor can be adjusted to see the change of the result under the condition of keeping other factors unchanged. After testing one factor, test other factors, and adjust and correct the values of some factors according to the actual situation of the enterprise, which not only meets the requirements of the enterprise, but also will not lead to the results that the enterprise does not want to see.
5. Is there an efficient way to solve work mistakes more effectively than this method?
It depends on us to study and think more, especially to take more exams and practice more. Some people say that management is an art rather than a science, because there is no one-size-fits-all management method. There is no difference in management, but whether it can be applied to specific management situations and specific management objects requires our managers to think carefully.
What do I think of "how to deal with work mistakes?"
First of all, "preventing mistakes from happening" is better than "solving mistakes once they happen"
1. Collect possible errors in a certain work field and compile them into XX work error compilation;
2. Train and evaluate employees' familiarity with XX work error compilation and its implementation;
3. Can we develop a corresponding reminder or early warning system to give voice prompts for possible errors in this work link, which will be confirmed by relevant personnel in this link? Or, the system automatically searches for feedback information, and collects and verifies information of some links that may go wrong. If there is no relevant information feedback or the feedback is abnormal, immediately remind the executor of this link, and send a copy to the supervisors of upstream and downstream links and related links;
4. Punish those responsible.
Daglio's approach does not advocate punishment. But from my management practice, if there is a work mistake and the person in charge is not punished, the same mistake will occur. Even if you keep stressing that even if you talk about how to prevent similar work mistakes, employees just have no motivation to improve their behavior unless you punish them. Once punished, employees' sense of responsibility is obviously strengthened. In order not to be punished, he will try his best not to make mistakes at work.
Dario is worried about punishment, that is, he is afraid that employees will hide the problem and that employees will not feedback the problem in time, which will lead to greater mistakes. For this, my method is two points: first, strengthen inspection and check the results. You can check the process if you have time. If you really don't have time, just check your grades; Second, I will take the initiative to feedback and reduce the punishment by half. Because I will check the results, I will find out any mistakes in my work, and hiding the problems will only make me bear greater losses. Therefore, employees often take the initiative to feedback their work mistakes and try to feedback the problems before I check them out, which is what he is interested in.
Actually, I've thought it over. If employees actively feedback their work mistakes, and the proportion of relief is appropriately increased, for example, active feedback only bears one-third or one-quarter of the punishment standard, they will be more inclined to take the initiative to feedback rather than hide their work mistakes. Of course, there must be a premise that you should always check the results. If you don't check the results, you can't find the mistakes in your work. In this case, the employee can't take the initiative to give feedback, because he doesn't take the initiative to give feedback, and you can't find it. In this case, he has no motivation to give you feedback on his work mistakes.
The level of punishment standard or the amount of punishment will have a certain impact, but in fact, even if it does not involve material or financial punishment, the negative feedback you give employees will have a certain impact. Of course, there are still considerable differences in punishment.
Generally speaking, for low-ranking employees, it is best to adopt the form of cash punishment because they pay the highest attention to cash and money; For higher-ranking employees, performance appraisal can be used, and the effect of implicit punishment will be better, which not only takes into account his dignity, but also gives him face. However, the performance appraisal of each job directly affects his income, and he will also feel pressure, which will urge him to improve the quality of his work and reduce his mistakes.
5. Add the errors in work to the compilation of XX work errors;
6. Re-train and evaluate employees' familiarity with XX work error compilation and its implementation.
Second, it is better to "solve the error after it happens" than "not solve it after it happens".
It's never too late to mend, but it's a pity that if you make a mistake and ignore it, it will only make the situation worse and worse. Perhaps this is called "the embankment of a thousand miles, collapsed in the ant nest." It's a real pity. It's a real pity.
"Failure to solve the error after it occurs" is manifested in two aspects:
1, without analyzing the cause of the error.
It is terrible that there is no in-depth analysis of the field of work. If the source of work mistakes is not found, it is impossible to put an end to them.
In fact, after an error occurs, it is not the person responsible for the error who can solve it, but the manager and the person responsible for the error should analyze the cause of the error together, and never give up until the root of the problem is found, and never give up until a solution is found.
2, do not punish those responsible.
After an error occurs, you will never stop until you find the person responsible for the error and punish the person responsible.