The best key search skeletal muscle cells and their packaging into muscles answers to review 14 pdf.
Supervising Feedback of Staff and Idea to Receive the Best Results
Many companies leave strategy and a management to a top management command. Employees go down downwards, ‘ categories ‘ find difficult to carry out idea or even have heard.
The small amount of the companies, however, undertakes effort to listen to their staff irrespective of where in categories they sit. Input degree changes, from schemes of ideas of the employee and anonymous senders of a feedback, to correct a way through to the permission serving basically to comment and promote something concerning what they have a representation.
Whether really it is the best approach? As the employee, you could assert instinctively that voice presence is a preferable choice. Probably you have lifted ideas within the organisation before and have found that it is difficultly heard. On the other hand, as the manager, you could would like to put arguments in favour of more restrictive approach. On the permission to staff to comment and has entered on everything, has many potentially undesirable results. It – because, unrestrained, a feedback it will be frequent:
– Concentrate on negative or problematic problems;
– Include objections which can or cannot be thought well over; and
– Present resistance to change.
The person giving a feedback:
– Probably, does not concentrate on work, which they are employed to make;
– Can make estimations and offer opinions, without being knowing about the full facts;
– Can upset or demotivirovat’ people, doing judgements, especially if their feedback is made ‘ public ‘ within the organisation;
– Can influence others in acceptance of their opinion, causing unnecessary excitement (‘ rallying armies);
– Can mislead the organisation or slow down its advancement; and
– May also suffers from work problems if they feel that their contributions are ignored or undesirable.
When these features become obvious, never for the blessing of the whole company – someone maintains results to suffer. The analogy can be made with our democracy. Presence of the several higher officials, making all decisions, is undesirable, from the point of view of the citizen. Through democracy the desire of the majority is identified and given the power. However, while we want, that the country was conducted in a way which represents majority representation, it cannot be conducted in such a way as to crush on the rights or interest of minority. There should be limits.
I do not protect it, we clean the right for employees to be heard, however – very much the other way. In a business context if your employees ‘ on the party ‘, they function better and to receive them ‘ on the party ‘, you should enclose purchase. Take shares it is reached, allowing them to promote. That we choose for us directly, we devote ourselves to result (almost the factor five to one) much more. Further, the permission of free discussion of projects and ideas promotes joint environment and allows to divide knowledge and creative potential.
However, while their input is valuable and probable to lead more motivirovannoy to a command, they cannot to allow provide that entered into a way which ‘ crushes ‘ on the rights or interests of other people. They – it is possible those within the Company who of less vocal or whose work completely is not appreciated. If, therefore, the Company decides to allow to promote its staff in any case, it is so important to protect interests of all those employees, putting back the certain policy and procedures. This policy and procedures should be developed to avoid undesirable mentioned above consequences.
The politician to give only the feedback constructive, positive and based on the fact it seems to the first etazhem in the organisation where contributions are welcomed. Unreasonable ‘ to representations ‘ and uncertain ‘ to feelings ‘ which do not have any real substance, it is necessary to discourage extremely. Further, staff should use the best efforts to separate the comments intended in the person from comments on their work also.
As the manager, take into consideration that it – not necessarily way to which to us teach to communicate. As we are formed, to us often teach to look on and to sound that is wrong that is broken that is a problem, and it can lead to natural aspiration to put a negative feedback. And if you wish to beat a dog, you can always find a stick, it is easy. As the manager, do not assume that your employees know how to put, a good feedback – roll out training. For example, you can teach to people how to transform potentially negative comment into the positive:
The negative: ‘ the website does not receive the big movement in general ‘.
The positive: ‘ Using these methods SEO and AdWords, the website could benefit by increase in movement ‘.
The negative: ‘ it seems that no successes have been made on this project ‘.
The positive: ‘ I asked a question, whether I (or to find that someone has helped) could help, advance this project further ‘.
Be convinced that have offered the credit for good offers and a positive feedback. Your policy should not be accepted for shortage of a susceptibility to a feedback. When the feedback is offered, which inappropriate, to use this possibility to teach to the person, how be more positive following at once. Guarantee that you deal with any consequence quickly as the negative feedback could potentially demotivirovat’ and approach for the person, it has been aimed on, influencing morals and productivity.
You should roll out the anonymous sender also, probably delivered directly to the top management or HOUR? My sight concerning it consists that it really depends on your organisation – such device never should be necessary while the clever policy is put back. If you used a correct kind of people – what welcome a constructive feedback as possibility to improve and what can give a constructive feedback without bad intention – difficultly to understand, why any should use such system. Anonymous senders support contrast of cooperation. Further, there is no way to give to the person giving a feedback with training on how they can make the feedback constructive and useful if they do not wish to identify themselves.