Transcription
There are three manager mistakes. There is such an idea, a widespread idea, that being a good leader, a manager, is some kind of innate talent. Either you were born with it and consequently succeeded, or you weren't born with it and were unlucky. You can't acquire this. This is complete, actually, the most complete nonsense. Many good guys, specialists, entrepreneurs, at some point have to become leaders. But you have subordinates, you need to somehow manage these subordinates. We encounter, in general, if you look broadly at this life, you can quite quickly understand that most people achieve something worthwhile in life, earn a lot of money, gain fame, only when they attract many people to their projects, when they gain the ability to manage a large number of people. That is, roughly speaking, lone specialists who do not manage people rarely achieve great results. There are exceptions, but these are only exceptions to the rules. So, what have you planned, Jack? To return the black pearls? But I need people. It seems the wind has changed. Here's what: I'm not taking people. There are plenty of touched guys like you. I really hope so. And when we first encounter the fact that we need to lead people, there are three classic mistakes that almost every person, any leader, makes before becoming a good, cool, awesome leader. There are three classic mistakes. There are very painful consequences of these mistakes. Watch this video to the end, because in the three mistakes, you will see the reason why your business reaches a certain level and then stops growing. Income doesn't grow, and the business doesn't grow.
The first mistake is solving all subordinate problems. This is really true. Novice leaders think that they are obliged, that they must provide solutions, that they must solve everything for their subordinates, that they must give advice, they must help find the right path. They get so carried away with this idea that they really start playing this game. They understand, they have such a point of view that I must show by my example how professional I am, how handsome, how great, so that I can maintain all power over people in my, so to speak, hands, and so on. But they don't understand that in this way, by trying to make all decisions, by trying to find answers to all questions, the leader actually just kills the initiative of his subordinates, that is, completely kills it. I can say that capable and talented people who are prone to showing initiative and creativity do not want to work with such a leader who decides everything for them. They sometimes can't even answer why they don't want to, but they just get bored, it becomes uninteresting for them, they feel useless, they leave this company or they leave this department. If you try to find an example among successful entrepreneurs, among successful leaders, everyone knows them, I won't list them, a leader who himself tries to solve all tasks, all questions for his subordinates, you will never find it. This is nonsense, it doesn't happen. This is characteristic only of novice, inexperienced leaders, guys who became leaders, turning into leaders from specialists, grew from scratch, you understand, and never actually learned how to be a leader, never even read any sensible books, possibly read foolish ones, but this is not certain.
[Music]
What needs to be done? Look, every time, just this simple rule, it's primitive. Every time a subordinate comes to you with any problem, with any question, with any uncertainty, with anything, it doesn't matter. Our client, Uncle Misha, is asking for a discount, what to do? Or, a client called us, or our supplier didn't deliver on time. There is such an option, what should we do? Or, Vasya didn't come to work, how will we cope now? Here's what: just create such a mindset, such an idea for yourself, that no matter what question, problem, doubt a subordinate comes to you with, your first question should be: "And what do you think, and why do you think so?" That is, in other words, your first rule as a leader: you always demand a solution from the subordinate, always. This doesn't mean that your subordinate will always give the best solution. It doesn't mean that he will bring it to you on a silver platter. But if you ask him this question every time, he will start thinking, his brain will creak, he will start taking into account some data, he will become more initiative, he will become more responsible, you understand. There is also one cool question: when you approve a solution that a subordinate brought, it is easier for you to control its execution later, because it is not your decision, it is, so to speak, his decision. And people with much greater willingness and initiative implement their own decisions. I think you've noticed this. That's why you always demand that the subordinate provide a solution. A sales department specialist runs up to you and says, "You know, an unhappy client ran up to us, Mary Ivanovna, she bought a sofa from us, the sofa, something is wrong with it, and so on, she's complaining, demanding her money back, what should we do?" You say, "Okay, I understand, this is indeed a situation requiring consideration, a solution is needed here. And what do you think, damn it, what should we do and why do you think so? Please present your solution." And every time you do this, you will discover an amazing thing: gradually, your subordinates' ability to cope with various kinds of situations will become more and more, and they will become more self-propelled. And this is what a good leader needs.
Number two: do not expect subordinates to plan their work, do the planning for them. This is a mistake. This is an amazing thing, it's simply astonishing. If you understand management, this is simply something that blows your mind every time you see it. I'm saying a simple thing: employees came to work, and they themselves don't have their own plans, compiled by themselves, which specifically describe the tasks they need to do in the coming days. Well, in our company, for example, it is customary for the next reporting week to always have a clear plan of tasks that are achievable, that lead to the achievement of results, and so on. The employee creates their plan independently at the beginning of each reporting week. And the leader, of course, must look at this plan, he must approve it, possibly change something, adjust some priorities. What is astonishing is that some leaders, without this plan compiled by the subordinate himself, try to lead people. But how, damn it, will you lead people if each of them, you have 10, five people under your command, and each of them has 20-30 tasks for the week, and they don't plan this? You yourself have to plan more for them, you yourself have to keep all this in mind, write it down, keep it in spreadsheets, and then move their legs for them. What nonsense, what stupidity? In fact, the correct way to act is as follows: you became a leader, excellent. You came, you said, "Everyone, we have a new rule: now every reporting week will begin with you writing your work plan for the week, bringing it to me, we will have a meeting, I will approve it, adjust it a little, and so on. Then we will go through this plan, I will do intermediate control." And then, firstly, you force them to think, you force them to work, you force them to make decisions. Secondly, you are able to manage this in any case. Thirdly, you simply reduce the time you need to spend on coordination, on planning, but on checking progress daily, and so on. And in general, this is what your job as a leader is: to ensure that your people work effectively and do not deviate from priorities. If you force them to plan and approve plans, you have already, you can say, done 80 percent of your work as a leader. You have made your work easier and increased the effectiveness of subordinates. Voila, congratulations.
The third, big, colossal, of unusual size mistake, because of which all progress stops. Some leaders think, "Well, they are good guys at the operational level, and they have some planning, they somehow control their subordinates, and so on." And some leaders, being on stage, think, "Well, my main job is to make sure my subordinates don't get bored, they are always busy with something, they do something useful. And my job is to push them, and also to help them not make mistakes, to help them overcome some difficult corners, and to give advice, in general, and so on." And they get so carried away with this idea that they come to the conclusion that my main job is to help my subordinates. God, what crazy nonsense! In fact, the leader's job is to direct subordinates. On such a simple example, it would be understandable. Imagine a ship that goes out into the open sea. There is the captain of this ship, and there are various guys: mechanics in the hold with engines, sailors on deck, a cook who prepares food, officers who manage all this, and so on. And now imagine that the captain, the captain has the point of view that his job is to ensure that everyone performs their work effectively, interacts. Well, what will you get? A ship that is in the open sea, whose deck is being scrubbed, which is waiting for some fuel, people are being fed, everyone is busy, but it is not moving anywhere, because the captain does not define the destination and does not build all this activity to reach this destination as quickly and efficiently as possible. Therefore, the third mistake is as follows: not to establish long-term plans and priorities. Because not establishing long-term plans and priorities, it is unclear what is a priority even today, which task to give preference to, where to direct resources, where to send our wonderful, hardworking and capable people. Therefore, by the way, it is very easy to distinguish a professional leader from a dilettante, from an amateur. How? Very simply. You come, you see Petrovich, he works, I don't know, as a section head in production. And how to distinguish Petrovich, a professional leader or a dilettante? Just ask Petrovich, "Listen, what are your plans for the development of production, for increasing production volume in your section?" And he says, "Bible, what plans? We have a shift assignment, we fulfill it." Well, it's clear. He looks like a person who has a plan. I know that this is running after a car. I wouldn't know what to do if I caught it, so I just sing and that's it. You call the second image of Petrovich. You have, well, now, such people, employees, equipment. What are your plans for the development of people, for expanding the base? He says, "Daniilchenko, where are the plans? We have a shift assignment, that's all." And you understand that the person is not a leader, he is some kind of senior worker, some kind of foreman, he is not a leader. Why? Because any leader, at any level, whether it's the owner of the company, a top-level leader, who always has plans for the long-term development of the company, and he has long-term plans for income, for the production volume of this company. If we are talking about a section head who is two levels lower in the hierarchy, then he must have long-term plans for production regarding his section, and long-term plans for the development of his area of responsibility. That's all. And in fact, the professionalism of a leader is manifested in the details, but it is so easy to identify and so easy to create. Simply, if you are a leader, you must have two types of plans for your area of responsibility. That is, your task as a leader, if you don't have this, then you are taking your ship out into the open sea, and everyone suffers, struggles, works, ages, you understand, the destination will never be reached. If you are interested in what other important tools a leader should use in their daily work, simple and important, come to my free master class. It's a free, two-hour master class on management systems, and you will learn all the details about it.