In management, the relationship between leaders and subordinates is delicate and complex.
For the sake of their own status and progress, leaders need to rely on their subordinates to complete the set goals of the team, and also maintain the stability of the team and their own stability.
In many cases, the psychology of leaders is very contradictory, and their concerns seem ridiculous, but they are really in their own vital interests.
Leaders sometimes worry that their subordinates are too ambitious and too hungry for power and status, and leaders naturally become a stumbling block to such subordinates.
This excessive ambition can lead to tension and conflict within the team, affecting the stability and efficiency of the team.
More importantly, this kind of ambition can easily make the leader his imaginary enemy and pose a direct threat to the leader.
Ambitious and capable subordinates will make the leader jealous and give birth to a sense of prevention.
Leaders will be afraid of subordinates who are too capable and afraid of being replaced. But the leader is also afraid that his subordinates are a group of straw bales and cannot create results for the team.
No matter where you are, completing your job responsibilities is the most basic task. Leadership is no exception.
Leaders want team members to be able to do their jobs, contribute to the success of the team, and become a ladder to stabilize their position and even go further.
If a subordinate is not capable of doing his job, it will not only affect his own work, but also negatively affect the overall performance of the team.
The so-called strong generals have no weak soldiers, and on the other hand, too many weak soldiers also indicate that the generals are not strong.
The manifestation of leadership power and prestige is the decision-making power possessed. Leadership without decision-making power is decoration.
A leader must expect his subordinates to respect and implement the decisions he makes, rather than acting or making decisions on their own.
Self-assertive behavior can lead to duplication of effort, wasted resources, and chaos within the team. Even if a subordinate makes the right assertion, it can seriously damage the authority of the leader.
Leaders are afraid that their subordinates will make their own decisions and that their power will be ignored.
Subordinates who assert themselves are disgusted by their leaders. But asking the leader's subordinates about everything is also very annoying to the leader.
What the leader grasps is the major decisions and the general direction of the team, rather than taking care of all trivial things.
Subordinates need to have their own judgments and opinions within the scope of their own work, and they do not need to consult the leader on everything.
Subordinates have no ideas and ideas of their own, which can take up too much time and energy from the leader, and may also cause the team to miss opportunities and respond effectively to changes and challenges.
Leaders want their teams to be united. But this kind of unity must be a unity with leadership as the core, not a pure unity among subordinates.
Subordinates bypass the leader and form small groups. Such unity can easily override the leader, or kidnap the will of the leader, and influence the leader's decision-making.
Therefore, in order to prevent this unity of subordinates, many leaders deliberately use the art of checks and balances to create disputes, so that they can become referees and not be set aside.
Subordinates who are too united, the leader will be afraid. But if the team has frequent conflicts, team members are fighting and attacking each other all day long, which will also make the leader headache.
Frequent conflicts can undermine team cohesion and stability, and can also greatly affect the team's productivity and performance.
Leaders must focus on and resolve conflicts, facilitating basic and effective communication and collaboration among team members.
However, when resolving conflicts, both sides have their own demands, and it is difficult for the leadership to achieve fairness and neutrality that are satisfactory to all parties, and to be fully understood by both sides. This, in turn, will affect the management and prestige of the leader.
Management is the grasp of "degree", which is too much.
Management is also the embodiment of the leadership pattern, and if you don't think far-sightedly, you will have more near-term worries.
Everyone will start from their own interests and look at the problem from their own perspective.
Whether it is a leader or a subordinate, if you can always empathize and meet the interests of the other party, this may be the essence of upward management and downward management.