27.08.2019
0
1447
5 minutes.
In a business environment, communication is very important, since the effectiveness and efficiency of all parts depends on its quality. The rules of interaction between superiors and subordinates, as well as within the team, are called subordination. It is based on respect for management, adherence to business etiquette and performing one's work tasks without conflicts.
How to build a relationship with a subordinate - an example
Let's say I want to build a relationship with a specific subordinate. And let’s say I don’t know anything about him, since I don’t like the person very much. And in general, I don’t enter into any contact with him, I simply ignore him like an empty place. It is not right. Then you need to think about how to approach the person. How to approach? Well, sometimes invite him to some conversation. Say: “Well, don’t be surprised, but we’ll talk about personal things. To my shame, I don’t know anything about you. I would like to get to know each other better, don’t be surprised.”
Well, perhaps this will surprise a person and make him wary, but this is a step forward. If you are friendly, don’t pry into your soul with dirty shoes, but nevertheless somehow ask around, take an interest. Well, perhaps the person will be pleasantly surprised, perhaps at first just surprised. But if he sees that you have really changed your behavior pattern, are not rushing to him with hugs, but are simply trying to show attention to him, I assure you, as a rule, this will be interesting to everyone.
Why start an office romance?3
The question may seem strange at first glance, but in fact, most romances at work arise for specific reasons.
There can be 3 of them in total:
- Selfish goals. Some people start relationships in the workplace in order to advance their career or shift some of their responsibilities to another person. Women often sin with this, but sometimes men also resort to this method. As a rule, young professionals start affairs with their bosses, counting on receiving a lot of privileges.
- The desire to taste the forbidden fruit. Relationships at work are an unspoken taboo, the violation of which is quite risky for both participants in the process. Some people are simply annoyed by this. Gambling personalities and thrill-seekers eagerly begin to have affairs with their superiors or colleagues. They are driven not by romantic feelings, but by passion and the desire to break certain prohibitions. As a rule, such individuals are not careful and constantly expose themselves and their partner to risk.
- Strong feelings. This reason is far from the most common of those listed. As a rule, behind conditional love lies passion caused by excitement and risk. In rare cases, sincere feelings develop between colleagues, which are determined by the presence of common (in particular, work) interests and mutual sympathy. This arrangement can be called the most favorable, since people in love can calculate the risks and meet mainly during non-working hours.
Before you start an affair at work, you need to understand for what reasons sympathy or passion arose between two colleagues. Sometimes the real motives lie much deeper. For example, an aging and married boss may, roughly speaking, “want” a young subordinate due to a midlife crisis. Such an approach will help a person assert himself through his own power and privileged position. The young subordinate, in turn, will receive another benefit - an increase in salary or position.
It is also necessary to define for yourself the boundaries of relationships at work. This could be a romantic union or just sex “with the best intentions.” There is no need to harbor deceptive illusions and lead your colleague by the nose, because in the end this can easily backfire.
If a subordinate does not comply with subordination - what to do?
If a subordinate does not respect the chain of command, you think about what to do. Do you think where you contact? How do you communicate? What don't you like? And then you clearly see which elements need to be changed or stopped.
At the same time, you can call the employee again and simply talk to him: “You know, I would like you to exclude such and such moments . It takes a certain amount of courage. He may or may not listen. Can you tell me what's wrong with you? And you can say: “Nothing, I just decided that it would be right.”
Here is an important point. The boss can explain his decision, but is not obliged to . But the boss is not obliged to prove his decision. Because the prover is weak. That is, he can explain his decision, and by explaining your decision, you are actually taking a step forward. You rely on a person's intelligence when explaining a decision.
But often the explanation is perceived as dependence, there are people who immediately decide that since you explain your decision to me, it means that I have the opportunity to influence it, or somehow challenge its validity.
And here the leader, entering into this conversation, must be extremely sensitive. To the point where the line may be crossed.
What might this look like?
Let's say we are having some kind of dialogue. And I tell my subordinate:
“You know, I analyzed our relationship with you, and I wouldn’t want you to do this, that, and that. Because it seems to me that this is insubordination. This interferes with the managerial climate and equality in our department. Therefore, I would ask you, simply as a friend, or as a good acquaintance, to meet me halfway, understand me, and in the future to maintain subordination.”
Relatively speaking, if an employee joyfully flies in and shouts: “Hello Sanya!”
And since he alone shouts: “Hello Sanya!”, and the rest say Alexander Petrovich. Either allow everyone or...
Another example of formatting relationships with employees:
Sometimes older workers, trying to seem to reduce our importance, address us by a shortened name. Relatively speaking, Sasha or Sashenka, that is, it’s a little patronizing.
You need to be sensitive to these things, and always think whether this attitude suits you. Because sometimes such a little teaching begins with the reduction of the name. So, it seems to be benevolent, well, Van... And it seems to be in an amicable way, and it seems that he already has the right to teach.
And a leader, when he encounters this kind of thing, should, noting this, always note how you are treated, and whether it is the way you want. And it is not necessary to react to this, he can decide for himself what to react to and what not to. Because if we think it’s wrong, that it’s insubordination, we can ask the person to address you by such and such a name.
For example: “It would be more convenient for me if you called me not Sasha, but Alexander . If you don’t mind,” says the manager.
Or, on the contrary, you can address another person in the same way. Which, as a rule, he doesn’t count on.
For example, he says:
-Well, Sashenka, you know, I would advise you this and that.
And you can answer:
- Thank you Petenka, thank you for the advice. But you know, I would prefer to act in a slightly different manner. But if Petenka you have any advice, please, I’m always glad to hear from you.
And at the door you can call out:
- Yes, Petyunya, what do you have scheduled for tomorrow at 8 am?
That is, we kind of flogged a person with his own whip. He was hoping to talk to us from above...
Well, what if a person accepted this appeal? Then we can again decide what to do. Maintain the same relationship or fix it. And for example, the person did not flinch, but happily accepted it, but this does not suit us. Then we can go to him the next day and say:
“You know, yesterday we switched to diminutive names, I analyzed it and thought that this is not the best form. Come on, if you don’t mind Peter, we will still address you by your full name. Fine? So, you are Peter, and I am Alexander. Can we consider that we have reached an agreement?
Statistics i
According to statistics, more than 80% of Russian bosses are against their employees having romantic relationships in the workplace. Managers explain this by saying that novels of this kind provoke conflict situations, reduce productivity and negatively affect the general mood of the team. Many bosses are willing to fire both parties in a romantic relationship, while some agree that circumstances should be taken into account.
At the same time, about 57% of Russians are ready to start a relationship at work. Of course, statistics cannot fully reflect the real state of affairs. But in sociological surveys, it is statistics that have the greatest weight and act as the main argument.
In America, by the way, more than half of the people have experienced an office romance. Unfortunately, there are no statistics showing how such relationships usually ended.
But there is evidence that most bosses have a negative attitude towards this topic. And this is very reasonable.
What does it mean to maintain subordination if the subordinate is a friend?
What does it mean to maintain subordination if you have friendly relations with your subordinate? The expression that there is more demand from our own does not mean that we ask more from them. We just expect them to behave more ethically. It is precisely the ethics that he is allowed closer, which means he must be especially careful so as not to betray trust.
The Chinese have a saying: “Never tie your shoelaces in your neighbor’s garden,” so that he doesn’t think that you are stealing his harvest. The idea of this saying is that there is no need to do things that could be perceived by someone as wrong.
Sometimes external ethics are as important as the absence of evil intentions. This means that if I am in a close relationship with a leader, then I should not demonstrate this closeness in front of everyone , because this is a violation of subordination.
That is, if I have a close relationship with the manager, then, on the contrary, I must observe more decor than everyone else. And so that the leader himself does not feel a sense of awkwardness, it seems that it is inconvenient to explain, but not explaining is also bad. And so that others do not decide that the leader has some kind of double standards. This is the important point, “don’t tie your shoelaces in your neighbor’s garden.”
If one of two friends gets a promotion, he shouldn't create more distance. This is stupid, like now address me like this. But, on the other hand, he must avoid what was still possible yesterday, but did not cause difficulties, because they were equal.
And now he must maintain the same relationships in public as with others. In public, attitudes must change . So calm and neat, at least without any visible accents that show that our relationship with two people is different. Because it breeds some kind of resentment, suspicion, etc.
During non-working hours, as much as you like.
The next point is demandingness. If friendship with a subordinate interferes with being demanding, the manager should distance the friendship.
Yesterday's colleagues are now subordinates
How do they feel about you? Someone is gnawed by envy, someone's pride is hurt and resentment clearly manifests itself (why am I not in his place). And some are clearly going to sabotage all your orders and instructions. What should I do?
Sabotage depends on how the leader defines his positions at the beginning of his path. Follow the principle of trust and listen to what your subordinates advise you. If you have worked in this department, you know their strengths and weaknesses well. Be calm, confident, do not worry. Don't decide everything yourself.
From the first minutes of leadership, clearly define your goals and objectives, note the strengths of your colleagues, tell them who you would like to rely on and for what. Immediately draw boundaries between yourself and team members. Monitor the implementation of assigned tasks very carefully, especially at first.
Reward those who take your side for positive actions and good work. Then the sabotage will “come to naught.” Highlight those employees who support you. Deal with them: ninety percent of your working attention should go to them, and ten to the “resistors.” There is a principle: “Don’t feed the shark and crocodile.”
Fighting saboteurs will only drain your resources. Be positive, look at what is happening in the company as an integral system. You have chosen a direction of movement - stick to it, contact everyone, including those who are against you.
Insubordination - what to do, example
Very often it may turn out that a subordinate, in response to the manager’s claims of insubordination, will behave something like this:
“Oh, come on, stop worrying about it, it’s all nonsense...”
Or something like that.
And here we must say loudly and clearly: “STOP!”
You can interrupt it. By the way, “Managerial Struggle” involves using some techniques of black rhetoric . This constructive dialogue involves listening to the other person. And here you can interrupt and confirm this non-verbally. For example: sharply throw your hand forward, and at the same time raise it at eye level of the subordinate. Say loudly: “STOP!” And it shuts anyone up.
But I didn’t hit him, I didn’t insult him, I wasn’t rude. It's just a combination of verbal and non-verbal. Reducing the distance, raising your hand, and clearly the word: “STOP!” Check it out if you want to shut up someone you don’t mind. Check out this move. This is a well-tested technique. When you hit a nail placed in a tree accurately with a hammer, the nail goes into the tree, and this is quite natural. This technique works because it combines several things.
Or like this: “Stop, wait!” - raised a finger. And say something like this: “Wait a second, before you go too far, I want to say this. I think you got the impression that I was asking you for advice. You made a mistake. I tell you about my decision and explain what caused it, but I don’t ask your opinion. And I am not yet interested in your advice in this direction. So, I asked you to address me in such and such a way. Agreed?"
That is, as soon as the subordinate decided that gentle treatment, an explanation, is a sign of weakness. So for some reason he subconsciously decided, we immediately switched to a language understandable to our opponent, and explained to him that he was mistaken. That our gentleness and correctness are just a form of communication between two civilized people.
But it comes from “strength”, not from “weakness”. That is, why should we rattle weapons? Intimidate someone? We are polite, well-mannered people who, nevertheless, remembering the classic: “Goodness must come with fists ,” we are quite capable of defending ourselves.
And if the subordinate decided that a soft approach, polite, that this was from “weakness,” then we immediately showed that he was very mistaken. And this is just out of respect for another human being, but nothing more.
And we, taking a step forward, taking into account our personal relationships, explained our decision. Moreover, we turned to the person with a request to understand us correctly and meet us halfway. But if a person decides that we are asking him or are going to consult, or we are interested in his enlightened opinion: “Give it up, don’t give it up.” He misunderstood us, but having done this technique, we must maintain the same relationship, except for this moment.
That is, we should not now, when passing by him, look menacingly like: “Here, you got a filthy creature, just like that, you’ll know!” We should not distance ourselves , we should not avoid communication, but on the contrary, we can immediately approach a person on some issue and say: “Let’s go have some coffee!”
This has been used many times, and often a person looks in surprise, and we say: “Listen, I wanted to...”, that is, a normal conversation. If the subordinate does not violate subordination, and we behave absolutely normally with him. In the right hemisphere of most people, such a thing is not installed automatically; it must be installed through the left. That is, these must first be conscious actions. Such habits must be introduced into the hemisphere responsible for habits.
The fact is that our security center already scans the world around us, but unfortunately, it gives us a command to react spontaneously, which is wrong. And we actually must learn to constantly monitor the surrounding space, but this time consciously. We must evaluate other people's behavior patterns. Are they behaving correctly? Is there something in their behavior that then breeds optionality? Some destructive actions have a bad effect on work.
Because everything often begins with form, remember: “Being determines consciousness.” An employee’s attitude to work, to certain issues, is often determined by the form of relationship with the manager.
If the leader is “Petyunechka” or “Sasha”, then why bother? Why come to work on time? In principle, he is not a criminal, he works, he works well. But he thinks that he can be allowed some “little slack” from his point of view. He thinks so, we don’t think so.
And you can start with any form. That is, the leader must rebuild the surrounding space along any vector he considers necessary. Because if space breaks through in one place, it then breaks through in others. It rarely happens that a line goes in one direction, but otherwise everything is fine.
That is, it rarely happens that a leader is called “Petenka” or “Sasha,” and this does not in any way affect other aspects, for example, the accuracy of the execution of orders or deadlines. And precisely where the question arises: “should I run after the trolleybus,” a person may not run.
Alexander Fedotov
List of all articles here >>>
Types of leaders
The psychology of the boss and subordinate must always be taken into account. For example, for female managers, the personal qualities of employees and their level of communication skills are important. Men have a different approach, aimed at the professional component.
Autocrat
Tough, overwhelming, requires obedience and execution of orders, sole decision-making. Principles: the company is me, the end justifies the means. Initiative is punishable, discussing proposals/projects is pointless, you should keep your distance and maintain subordination.
Liberal
Ideal for scientific and creative companies. Free form of control. Mutual respect and trust. It is permissible to enter into discussions
Democrat
Employees are allowed to independently solve production problems. The manager trusts the experience and professionalism of his subordinates and is aware of their interests and hobbies. A company is a team. Objective. You can discuss ideas, projects, proposals, understanding that they will find a response from your superiors. Subordination is required, but you can reduce the distance and contact not only business issues, but also personal ones.
Team builder
Built system of industrial relations. Tends to define rules of conduct in the company (follows them clearly). Reduces the level of interpersonal relationships. Clearly act according to the rules, taking into account the rules of hierarchy.
Companion
Uses trial and error method, no system. The goal is to create an optimal atmosphere in the team and strives for a “golden mean” between business and personal relationships. There is no system in place, frequent meetings. With a companion, you can reduce the distance and discuss all production issues, proposals and initiatives. But don’t expect that your projects will definitely be implemented.
Manipulator
The rules of corporate culture and production etiquette are established only by him. The requirements are “floating” and are inconsistent, but the team is obliged to comply with them, although the manager often does not fulfill them himself. Attentive to employees, welcomes relationships between colleagues. Only opportunists and intuitives feel comfortable with it. If it allows you to shorten the distance, be on your guard, this is fraught with consequences, sometimes not very good.
Ascetic
The interests of production are at the forefront, which is also expected from colleagues. He is not interested in the problems of his employees outside of work. He is often single. He does not interfere with the interpersonal relationships of employees, but he himself distances himself from the team, adhering only to business connections. There is no use in shortening the distance. But if you explain that you care about the company’s success and that your actions and plans will be beneficial, then the proposed ideas and projects will receive support.
Uncertain
Avoids everything: responsibility, professional, interpersonal relationships, acts “on orders from above.” He tries to communicate with the team “through intermediaries.” Unsure = bureaucrat. Rely on yourself, be professional. The main rule in a team where insecurity reigns is “don’t meddle in the manager’s affairs, and he won’t meddle in yours.” It's better to keep your distance with this one.
Patriach
At the forefront are relationships between people, and only then work problems. He needs a not very large team, where everyone has sincere respect for him. Loves flattery, congratulations, favors from colleagues (beyond work). Fires without explanation. It is better to clearly carry out all instructions, orders, requests, find positive traits and sincerely praise. Then a place at work and a promotion are guaranteed, but ideas and projects can wait. But he will go and get a place in kindergarten for your child.
Harimatic
There is talent bordering on genius, business abilities. This is a charming person who attracts attention. Distanced from employees. Unites the team with his charisma. The central figure of the enterprise. If you work with such a person, you yourself will fall under his spell. His word will be your law.
Informal
Nobody cares about his status. His authority is the result of his activities and earned respect from his colleagues. Wise Experienced. Professional. Has influence on formal managers/leaders. Able to motivate the team to achieve its goals. Do you want to achieve the implementation of your plans? Go to the informal and seek his approval. Then formal leadership will be on your side.
See video: “Why subordinates hate managers” Alexander Friedman. Demotivation"
