Four Steps For Managers To Intervene In Bosses

Why can't the boss do the "letting go process, just the result"?

The manager's "take me to ask" can really avoid the boss's involvement?

Dialogue: do you meddle in trouble?

Why do you leave the company?

Manager: "cough, don't mention it, the boss..."

I was carrying out the planned plan step by step, and suddenly the boss came in and did not understand the situation.

The more you don't want it, the more the boss gets involved, so he can't work at all.

So I chose to leave.

"How do you deal with such a situation?"

Manager: "since the boss is in charge, I don't care.

Otherwise, who will be wrong?

"Do you want to prove that the boss is wrong?"

Waiting to see the boss's joke? "

Manager: "speak with facts.

I do this to keep my boss in memory, and never interfere. "

The author: "does the boss have a long memory after losing his fortune?"

Manager: "long memory is good!"

This is the bottleneck of XX boss.

Therefore, XX enterprises do little. "

"What do you say the boss should do?"

Is it not the boss who decides to let you do it? "

Manager: "yes!

Now that the boss has arranged for me to do it, I will leave it alone and wait for the result.

The author said: "if the time is up, we will not achieve the expected results and have a big loss. What should we do?"

Manager: "take me to ask!"

Managers tend to be very civil at this time.

"What do you ask?"

What can I ask? "

Most managers will be tongue tied.

But there are also managers who reluctantly reply, "I guarantee my personality."

At this time, I joked, "can personality be included in the contract as security?"

Dialogue: why should the boss intervene?

"Why do you think the boss wants to step in?"

Manager: "no trust!"

Trust on the surface, in fact, everywhere defenses, tracking, and meddling.

The author: "do not trust you?"

After thinking, the manager replied, "two.

One is the ability to distrust, the two is worried about what I do.

But the main thing is the ability to distrust.

"Why do I have a distrust of ability?"

Manager: "most bosses always feel that they are the best and the most capable themselves."

Can the boss not intervene?

A good personality is not equal to no need of restraint.

Many of the bosses agree on the issue of trust in character: professional managers do a certain level. Generally, there is no big problem in character.

But there is nothing wrong with character, which does not mean that there is no need for restraint and supervision.

The difference between a good person and a bad person is that a good person can consciously abide by the restraint and supervision of the system.

The ability to play is necessary.

The ability to trust is always the concern of the boss.

However, in the actual operation process, whether the ability to change the environment in the past can still play a role remains to be tested.

Professional managers do well in A enterprises, not necessarily to B enterprises can do well, at least you just airborne to an enterprise, will not be like a duck to water, always need to adapt.

Therefore, even if the boss gives you full authority, you must have a tracking and protecting process for your power.

A A manager dropped to 1 billion of the company's chief executive. On the day he took office, the boss announced that he was in charge of A, but in fact the boss was behind the scenes.

This is not a simple distrust of A's overall capabilities, but a general protection for A, and a responsibility for enterprises.

Just imagine that the chairman of a big enterprise suddenly ignored the fact that giving up an airborne manager who was not familiar with life was not an international joke.

Managers are in a weak state when they enter the company. If the boss is not strong enough to help you behind the back, you will surely fall off.

Some managers will say, "since the boss is not at ease, I would rather not declare it to me."

I said I would not let you know that you could not get the nominal support. How can we talk about it?

Therefore, it is a responsible way for the boss to announce in public that he has stepped in again.

What is the real reason for the boss's intervention?

Why did the boss intervene?

From the above analysis, it is the boss's distrust of professional managers that seems to be the boss's problem. Actually, there are two reasons for the analysis from the perspective of professional managers.

First, professional managers themselves have communication barriers. In reality, many managers do not know how to communicate with their boss, and they will not communicate with their boss. They are only professional and not professional. They will only do things without being human.

Most of these managers come from professional technology or come from foreign companies. They are good at doing things, but they are not very good at interpersonal relationships. They have two misunderstandings.

First of all, it is not necessary to communicate with the boss, especially the private enterprises that should pursue efficiency.

This shows that some managers can communicate with their subordinates, but they can't communicate with their bosses. They think that the boss's high salary is my job. I don't have to spend so much time doing things that have nothing to do with business.

Secondly, the boss should take the initiative to communicate with managers.

I thought the boss paid a high salary and asked me to explain that I was better than the boss.

This is a matter of mind. There is a problem in mind and something is wrong.

Fact experience tells people: in fact, the inaugural private enterprises should pay more attention to communicating with their boss, because many information channels mechanism has not been established or confused in the process of growth and development of private enterprises. If you do not actively communicate with your boss, the boss can not get information at all.

Second, there is a lack of legal constraint mechanism for professional managers. Because of the unsound legal mechanism in our country, there are no restrictions on professional managers at present, and the constraints of state-owned enterprises on cadres are quite strong.

Therefore, from the management point of view, the boss of private enterprises is in a relatively weak position compared with the state-owned enterprise managers. Because of the need for risk control, the boss frequently intervene in subordinate affairs.

How can managers handle their bosses?

It's easy to find the real reason.

The specific solution, I call it "slow four steps", because each step of these four steps is not urgent, but can be slow fire, like slow four steps of dance music.

The first step is to communicate actively with the boss before doing things. Managers should communicate with their bosses not only in business matters, but also in non business matters.

Don't look down upon those messy things, because these things may have something to do with you.

To put it in a simile, the boss wants a manager to do something like pulling out a big tree, but if you don't clean up the soil around the roots, you won't be able to pull it out.

Of course, there are some managers who think that these bosses should take care of themselves.

Just imagine that the boss paid a high salary for you to make things and earn money. But the boss asked you to come to spend money. You should have done things for your boss. Why should your boss do things for you?

What can you do if the boss can fix these things?

So these basic communication should be done by the manager. If necessary, you can ask the boss to help you finish.

Therefore, "first dig the pit, then pull the tree" is the principle of professional managers to act.

Digging is a way of life, pulling trees is doing things.

When people do well, things are done.

The second step is to pform your decision into the boss's decision making. Many professional managers boast of being more direct. They think they dare to speak right and force the boss to agree with their own views.

This is like cattle not to drink water, strong head, there are three kinds of results: first, the cow will kill you directly; the two is that the cow will kill you after drinking the water; three is the strength of the bull, and it is free to run away.

No matter what the result is, it is a failure as a manager.

In fact, the solution is very simple. It is to make every effort to turn the decision into a boss's decision, turn the viewpoint that he wants to convey to the boss, and let the boss be the decision-maker of this matter.

Once the boss makes a decision, the boss will mobilize all kinds of resources to make this happen.

If managers make decisions, all resources support will be far behind, especially the new managers will inevitably face the embarrassment of inadequate support of resources.

This is an art of communication, an art of being human, and this is also the best way to prevent the boss from getting involved halfway.

Some managers often think that the boss should listen to me if he asks me to pay me.

This is a bad idea. The boss paid you to come and listen to you.

In fact, we should understand this way. The boss has spent money to invite you. Of course you have to listen to the boss, which is in line with the fair market paction principle.

But that does not prevent you from contributing wisdom.

You must contribute your wisdom and let the boss decide, and then you execute.

The third step is to actively maintain the dynamic communication with the boss. Many managers in reality believe that once the boss has made a definite decision, he will not have to communicate with the boss in the process of doing the work. The boss will only wait for the result.

But it's like letting you look at the children for three months. During the period, parents are not allowed to ask any questions. Can parents be in a hurry?

Often the boss not only wants the results, but also focuses on the process and attaches great importance to the process.

If you deliberately obstruct your boss's involvement, the boss will be more inclined to intervene.

Why should the boss pay attention to the process?

Very simple, things are changing, and the boss has the right to know the course of things, so that it can be adjusted in time.

Especially small business owners are very concerned about trifles.

Because every little thing can affect the survival of an enterprise, every manager's small mistake is ultimately paid by the boss.

At the same time, because the enterprise is very small, in many cases, the employee's "list" boss can not be buried.

Therefore, managers should pay attention to communicating with their bosses in time, and let them make decisions in time, so as to ensure that the boss knows everything.

Especially the airborne manager, because the boss is not very familiar with your style, you need to let the boss know your trading process.

Even if the boss is very confident about your work, or the boss clearly does not have time to pay attention to this matter, you can also exchange a more convenient means to communicate with the boss, let the boss understand and grasp the whole process.

In the fourth step, when the boss suddenly gets involved, he actively cooperates and works constructively. The boss has been actively supporting and advancing this matter. You are also working hard to push things forward. Suddenly, the boss decides not to do it or change direction. Or the boss has not been paying attention to what you are doing in the past. Now he suddenly takes part in what you see as a blind leader and plays the piano.

This is like a division commander fighting. Suddenly, the commander is coming to the front line. What should the teacher do?

The only way a teacher can do is to cooperate actively, otherwise he will not be able to fight.

Enterprises, like the war in the army, are the right way to intervene in bosses. Managers first consider that they should cooperate with their bosses.

If the boss is right, then follow the boss's advice; if the boss's practice is wrong or even playing the piano, seriously and very methodical communication with the boss, let the boss accept his right opinion; if the boss is still stubborn, he should not be discouraged, should change the way to communicate with him; if the method is exhausted, the boss will not look back, still do not be discouraged, should try their best to minimize the negative effect of the boss's wrong way.

This is to do things constructively and actively.

As the saying goes, "cross the sea and show the hero", the boss has given you a difficult problem. It is when you show your true colors, it is your chance to challenge yourself and make yourself a success. Why do you consider it difficult and difficult?

Why does the experience of foreign countries fail?

Some managers who have worked in a foreign company always talk about the practice of foreign enterprises, but they can not really implement the practices of foreign enterprises. Why?

There are two reasons for this: first, you can't reach a real boss in a foreign company, and only the boss who is also a professional manager, so the degree of concern for the matter and the responsibility for the outcome of the event are different.

In private enterprises, the real boss is the ultimate bearer of corporate responsibility.

Whose flesh knows pain.

Two, most foreign companies have a long history and become mature. The system structure of enterprises is relatively perfect. The team immune system has been established, so the collection and decision-making of information are very important.