Friendly team is a symbol of success
Lack of proper employee motivation can lead to disastrous results. The ability to competently (and therefore effectively) influence the increase in personnel productivity is one of the primary tasks of any manager. Employees working in a business are the most valuable tools for achieving success and should and should be motivated. As practice shows, not everyone succeeds in this. But that's not the point…
I'll explain everything with examples. I haven’t worked that much at different companies, but I’ll give you a couple of examples for understanding.
1) While working in the police, I fulfilled the assigned tasks, but the team, as many of the readers know, is so bad that once again you don’t know who to rely on and what to do in a given situation...
I don’t know how it was before, but nowadays every current employee, especially the boss, will in no way help you in your problematic situations, everyone takes care of themselves. I won’t go into too much detail, I think everyone has heard about it or has joined the ranks of employees.
2) Working at a factory as a safety engineer, I also did not see the team, although the enterprise is not that big, the team there was terrible, everyone could smile in your face, and after half an hour they would discuss you in another place, although you had no reason to discuss practically didn’t give... And it’s not at all about me. The women's team is what it's all about.
A stunning flow of emotions. All female representatives are distinguished by their extraordinary emotionality, and emotions can be both positive and negative. The situation takes on global proportions during PMS, and the more ladies in the team, the larger the bundle of emotions that will roll through each of you.
3) Working in the field of wood processing, I found myself in a very small and nasty team, where from the first day I understood that the people there were not very bright, and by and large they could be attributed to the rabble that was recruited from advertisements. Every day, getting ready for work, I thought about only one thing, when is the day off, so as not to see these - excuse the expression - moronic faces that would rather die of hunger than hit a finger, but these are my personal grievances...
This team, like dogs, simply formed a pack and did not want to let anyone in, as a result, by their behavior, preventing new employees from joining the team. I don’t even rack my brains to find words; I don’t think they are worthy of your attention.
What to do if an employee does not fit into the team
Conflicts among employees are a factor that distracts a lot of managers' attention and causes stress. Indeed, an experienced manager knows that if employees in a team do not get along with each other, then the situation becomes explosive; at any moment a “time bomb” can go off in the form of sabotage, the sudden dismissal of a valuable employee, or simply collapsed income and productivity statistics.
Before we look at how to deal with this, let's take a look at the causes of the phenomenon. They can be globally divided into two types. Either the employee is higher than the team in terms of development, or lower.
By low level of development I do not mean mental retardation, but social personality traits, ethical level and competence. A low IQ can annoy people, and I don't discount it. But this is not the only factor.
So, let's consider both situations. For example, a new employee is competent, eager to fight and ready to produce in large quantities. But the team as a whole is lazy, thieving and apathetic. Will such a newcomer fit into this swamp? Never in my life. If he wants to fit in (I don’t know for what purpose), he will need to slow down, put on a cynical mask and spit on his own integrity.
Have you ever heard the contemptuously thrown phrase “Do you need more than everyone else?” This situation often happens in companies where managers encourage theft or turn a blind eye to it. You know, “why pay a lot, since people steal anyway, it’s better to steal, but a little, within the bounds of decency...”. The approach of the manager is that of a thief who himself is not averse to putting his furry paw into the company’s coffers.
How can an employee survive here, whose eyes sparkle with enthusiasm , who came to the team in the hope of stable, long-term work for the benefit of himself and the company? He faces the “realities of life”, “takes off his rose-colored glasses” and... sinks to the level of the collective, or leaves.
Let's consider the opposite option. Into a well-coordinated team, whose performance is rapidly growing, activity is in full swing, and managers really care about the level of production and the ethics of employees, comes a newcomer, who can easily be classified as a “defective product of the hiring department.”
A person wants to get money, but is not eager to work. He is stressed by discipline, the demands of his superiors, and the demands of other team members. He cannot show openly rebellious sentiments and he is consumed by thoughts of how to work less, get more, but without anyone noticing. The emotional level of such an employee is cajoling, a polite smile of hidden hostility or concern. Productive employees instinctively reject such a person, since he basically deserves the contempt that is awarded to him. Some of these people “get involved” in work later, but at the same time their aspirations and opinions about life may undergo changes. Some never change, and either leave on their own or destroy the entire team with gossip and hidden activities, which is much sadder.
L. Ron Hubbard has a very interesting observation in his manual on the basic responsibilities of a leader, which really helps in determining the value of participants in such conflicts:
“...We have three possible categories of employees:
1) those who wish;
2) blatantly refusing to do something;
3) completely inert.
When working with them, we have only three classes of actions, and no intermediate ones. (True white is white, and true black is black.)
Category One (listed above): Treat them as described here - intelligently, understandingly, helpfully, courageously and compassionately.
Category two (listed above): just fire.
Category three (listed above): just fire.
Categories two and three are not suitable for employment. Why burden either the employees or the organization's economy?
The “willing” class includes those who are powerful, meek, fast, slow, efficient, and restless. Threats and punishments do not help such workers, but only harm the innocent by making them guilty. They are helped by a rigid schedule, perseverance, common sense, determination and understanding.
Those who belong to the “unwilling” class are of interest only to the labor exchange. It is better to leave the post vacant than to hire them. Subsequently, you will only regret that you hired such an employee.
Do not confuse quarrelsomeness, independence and lack of servility with reluctance to do anything. This is exactly what the military does, and just look at them! If you need employees who will not object to you, go to the army, where people are punished either for communication or for desertion.
“Those who don’t want to” express a single thought through their actions or words: “it’s impossible to do,” regardless of what solution or task is offered to them. Usually they don't say anything. Sometimes they are simply models of meekness. But just like a hunting dog that won't kill partridges, they're no good for you. If they are no longer in your organization or department and only those who want to work remain, then why pay more attention to punishments rather than decency? ... "
Isn't it true, it is written very clearly.
So, the employee did not fit into the team. Either on the one hand, or on the other, someone is clearly not in the best mood for work.
What is this conclusion based on? Very simple. “Didn’t fit into the team” always means “didn’t find mutual understanding with the team,” right? The basis of mutual understanding and an integral component is agreement. If people have agreement, if there is a lot of this agreement, then there will be communication (there is something to communicate about), and sympathy, and understanding in general.
Now imagine: both the employee and the team are very productive, work for the benefit of the organization, agree with its goals and generally agree with management. They help each other and provide the services expected of employees towards each other.
Will they have agreement, at least on a working level? Of course yes. Is the atmosphere in the team healthy? Within normal limits, at least.
Dissent in a work community can only reach its peak when someone disagrees with the work itself. This is an interesting thought, and it may be key to resolving the situation.
Which one? An employee or someone from the team? This can be easily established through inspections of actual production. Check the personal performance records of everyone involved in the conflict, and pay close attention to those whose production statistics are at the bottom or falling. Don't listen to excuses or boasting - look.
These people are your target when settling. Just don’t make the mistake of mistaking someone’s lies for high performance. Only objective evaluation criteria are taken into account. In fact, without a good personnel performance system, it is difficult to make judgments about the value of employees and handle such situations.
Working as a consultant, I sometimes observe timidity among some managers in terms of bringing order to the organization. What if my employees think I'm a despot? What if I punish an innocent person? After all, all people are good, maybe I’m wrong? Or maybe I’m just a bad leader that I can’t fix everything with two kind words?
No, the manager’s task is to establish as many points as possible on which it would be possible to achieve agreement even among employees who are dissimilar to each other. One of these moments is discipline. The other is organizational politics. Even just a reasonable order regarding conflicting employees can bring the team into a more efficient, team-oriented state, provided that it concerns both parties and actually improves the situation.
A striking example is ship crews. In maritime literature one can often read how a tough captain, taking control of the situation on a ship on which a stabbing was about to begin, extinguished the conflict, at least temporarily. And then, after the storm, the team united and forgot about their differences. I talked to sailors, and this is indeed true to this day.
Ancient maritime observation - a team becomes a team only after the first serious storm.
Recently, “team building trainings” based on the postulates of psychology have become very popular. You've probably heard about them, some of you may have participated in them. This is when the company’s team is taken to the forest and the animators force everyone to do entertaining exercises together (sometimes quite risky). As a result, almost everyone is happy and had fun, but when they return to their offices, they discover that the team spirit has rallied no more than after going to a barbecue or playing football. What is really true is that it is cheaper to just buy meat, vodka and a soccer ball, and go to nature, than to pay money to animators for “team building”. Unless, of course, the goal is not just to have fun, but to unite the team.
Here's a question, by the way. Will such “team building” solve the problem we raised in this article? That is, will an employee who does not fit into the team be able to fit into it during “team building”? No, like any event based on outdated and moss-grown postulates of psychology that we inherited from the Stone Age, this will not work.
What postulate is false here? Here's what it is: fighting spirit is the basis of production. This is not true, quite the opposite! A working philosophy looks like this: production is the basis of morale! Take a look back at your actual experience and remember the morale you had immediately after achieving a major production result.
This is how teams come together at sea - in a storm. Even team building for sailors takes place in real conditions. The first team-building exercise is to teach them how to row a boat smoothly in an actual open sea environment. In a city office environment, this can be a real, complex production task that requires coordinated, hard work of conflicting parties to achieve a specific result within a set time frame. And let the leader's whip always whistle over the backs of sloths.
And here you will see who truly belongs to the class of “wishers”. Incompetence can manifest itself, but it is easily corrected by training. Teams are destroyed by gossips, those who shift responsibility to a neighbor, those who are unwilling and inert. Identify them not through rumors (this is how you can accidentally get rid of the best team members), but only on the basis of personal statistical indicators of employees and based on your own observations.
And don’t be afraid to send overboard the one who is responsible for destroying the climate within the team.
There are so few of them that the team will only win. You will breathe more freely. And production will gain momentum.
Vadim Malchikov,
owner of the Central Training Company
Original article
Why did I plan all this?
Not long ago I joined the ranks of the Loginof security service; it is not very old, but at the moment it is a very successful and reliable company among its competitors.
The first working days flew by instantly only thanks to the management team, namely the head of the security service, people here are of a completely different cloth, there is little envy and anger or something, but I also want to note that the salaries here are not what you might think - under 50 or 100 thousand. Average salaries. But I understood what was going on. Team! In addition to the basic principles such as transparency, reliability, stability, everything in this company is built on mutual understanding, respect and human relations.
I once saw a manager ask employees to stay after work to discuss some issues, and what do you think?! Everyone stayed with pleasure, although it was a request, not a requirement. And this is only a little that I can tell you; I don’t want to make the article longer.
The head of the company set himself a task that at first glance was impossible - to create a cohesive team that was ready to work not only for monetary compensation, but also for the sake of a common idea and success. This task is not easy, since even employees of a general profession have different characters, temperaments, and hobbies. But since I am writing about this, the manager succeeded.
I could not ignore this topic and I think you will also be interested, everything printed above is a cry from the heart. And the leader himself is here with a capital letter, there is no star fever, no vanity syndrome. I think everyone understands that a fish rots from the head, but in our case this saying is not appropriate.
