Any manager knows that in order for the task to be completed, it is absolutely not enough to simply inform the employee about it. It is necessary to formulate the task as clearly as possible, describe the desired result, it is desirable to mention why, to whom and why all this is needed, to determine the time frame and, most importantly, to ensure control. I used to think that control is important only for those employees who can be conditionally referred to as performers. That is, those who do not have their subordinates, and whose range of tasks is limited to the well-known phrase "manage self". For example, when I was in charge of technical support, the question of the need for control was not even raised - the need was obvious. The tools used were no less obvious, such as: accounting for all applications and appeals, incidents, maintenance schedules, visits to the company's territorial offices and the like. Then life taught that you need control not only of performers, but also of managers. Not even so: the life mentioned, with the help of many illustrative examples, has shown that it does not matter at all - an executor or a manager, “manage self” or “manage others” or even “manage managers”. The assigned task may not be completed (at all, or on time, or with the desired result) for many reasons: the employee forgot about it, or forgot to instruct his subordinate, or did not consider it important, or generally understands the word "priority" differently.
top of page
bottom of page
Comments