Bad advice - 2 or behavioral aspects of setting tasks in telecom

    As a continuation of the topic.
    We talked about the “behavioral aspects of non-fulfillment of tasks” or “methods of sabotage” that I encountered in telecom in a previous article . I will add that sometimes, of course, there are quite exotic ways, when they are frankly stupid, and when they are very “sophisticated”. We do not consider them, because almost all of them fit the category that the fox Alice and the cat Basilio mentioned in the famous film adaptation with the words: “Pinocchio! You are your own enemy! ”

    I will make a reservation right away. Most likely, the points voiced in the previous and this article most often arise in organizations where the organizational structure has a hierarchical type (linear, linear-functional, etc.), i.e., where the status of the project manager is not clearly defined and he doesn’t have much authority (except perhaps to complain to some leader), where the motivation of those involved in the project is weak. When a “non-trivial task” arises in such organizations, which “clearly does not fit the functional of specific people,” a working group working within the framework of the meetings gathers.
    Most likely these moments are less in organizations whose structure is built according to the project type, where the project manager has real leverage over colleagues working in the project.

    In general, when someone is “cheated” for not fulfilling a particular task, this person is hardly happy about this (we don’t consider options for “BDSM”). After the next such “cheating”, a competent (not to be confused with a conscious) colleague begins to think that such “moronic” tasks (and what else might be the tasks for which he received the “melon”) would never fall on you “never, for that, from no one and under no circumstances. ” The option "just complete the task" should not be offered, because there are always reasons why this option is unacceptable.
    So, I propose to consider exactly how they act so that certain tasks defined during the meeting are not posed to a specific person.
    Let's start from simple to complex.

    Level 1 (Beginner).

    You can just not come to the meeting. The simplest and most obvious, and therefore the most accessible level to understand. You can always think of a reason for the absence. And what, as the Dons said, "no man - no problem." In reality, it turns out that there is still a problem.
    So - the disadvantages of this level:
    - You can only use this behavioral aspect 1 or 2 times, because you still have to come to the meeting sometime, which means they can ask for everything right away and for something else (it will become clear for what else )
    - While you are not at the meeting, “smarter, more advanced level colleagues” can also lay down their tasks on you or designate you as the reason for their non-fulfillment.
    - Automatic setup of his boss if he also participates in the meeting (and he often participates). For they can ask (and will ask) from him the essence of the task. The boss will have to answer something. For an employee who is absent, this may be fraught later.

    2 level (advanced).

    It is human nature to develop. This is true for the behavioral aspects of employees. In general, upon receipt of a task, you can immediately “delegate” it to your colleague on the basis that “the area of ​​responsibility is also in his competence”. To alleviate this behavioral aspect can the lack of the necessary “responsible competent” colleagues at the meeting when the task is set, or when asked about its implementation. And it is better if this colleague is absent at both meetings (level 1, what to take from him).
    - surprisingly, but this does not improve the relationship with some colleagues;
    - if this colleague is also “advanced in level” and is present at the meeting, then the method may not work.

    Level 3 (proactive).

    It consists in the fact that some colleagues, upon receiving a task, develop a very rapid activity. Which, however, does not end with anything and has no final result. It seems that there is no reason to scold an employee for anything - he does something (he seeks out new mistakes that clearly hinder him, starts up related tasks, offers new ideas), but usually there is no result, or rather, it’s from some other reality. If this happens very often, then when assigning a task to such an employee, everyone will think about whether to “tempt fate” and entrust him with the fulfillment of key tasks.
    - you can get the label "dust generator";
    - in the end, everyone begins to understand the reason for all this “ebullient” activity.

    Level 4 (the principle of "chicken coop").

    Who on the outside look of the “uninitiated others" never performs the tasks himself? The answer is simple - the one who puts them (or broadcasts from others). Conclusion - in order not to carry out tasks, you need to set them yourself, and then, after the deadlines, “lock up” everyone. It takes a little - to prove that the rest are not suitable for this role and should be "deposed." Therefore, sometimes at some meetings a bacchanalia begins: either several participants openly claim the role of “leading task manager” and begin to sort things out right on the spot, or there are several leading at the meeting, tasks “roll in” like from a cornucopia, and the number of performers decreases the number of "leading". By the way, when abuse begins at the meeting and the parties begin to "hang all the dogs on each other,"
    - as already mentioned, several candidates can apply for this level;
    - the struggle between the candidates usually leads to the fact that one or more candidates will be “deposed”, they will again have to be content with only the first 3 levels, that is, be content with the rank of “bestowed”;
    - Often the project participants do not understand that the one who sets the tasks sometimes needs to form them independently from a “strategic vision”, which many have not been given. It is in these cases that the meetings come to a standstill, because no one understands what to do next and how, and the one who understands “was deposed” was offended and took advantage of the “1st level”.

    However, if we again resort to the tactics of ambiguous silence, “moving eyebrows and appropriate facial expressions,” then we can again leave the meeting “unchipped and undefeated” ...

    Also popular now: