ראשי » ניהול ומנהיגות » ניהול צוותים » איך ניתן לבנות אמון ולהשיג תוצאות בישיבות צוות?

איך ניתן לבנות אמון ולהשיג תוצאות בישיבות צוות?

ישיבות צוות אפקטיביות

איך ניתן לבנות אמון  ולהשיג תוצאות בישיבות צוות?

 מאת: ד"ר יצחק אדיג'ס

המאמר המלא באנגלית

 

תקציר מתורגם

יצחק אדיג'ס מציג את חשיבות בניית האמון והכבוד הדדי בעבודת צוות. אדיג'ס משווה בין משחק פוקר לבין ניהול ישיבות וטוען, כי אחת הסיבות לפערים באווירה (תחושת הכיף במשחק הפוקר לעומת העייפות והריקנות המורגשת לעיתים קרובות בישיבות הנהלה(, נעוצה בהכרה במערכת חוקים ונורמות קבועות. בעוד במשחקי פוקר מקובל לשמור על חוקים, בישיבות צוות פעמים רבות חוקים אלו אינם נשמרים – דבר המוביל לחוסר תוצאות ולתחושות לא טובות. אדיג'ס מציע מספר חוקים ראשוניים היכולים לסייע בבניית אמון בישיבות צוות והשגת אפקטיביות, זאת תוך איזון עדין בין שונות ואחידות.

  • עמידה בזמנים – עמידה בזמנים והתחלת הישיבה בזמן מכבדת את כל הצדדים הנוגעים, ונקיטת ענישה למאחרים.
  • הקשבה לאחרים – אחת בעיות בישיבות היא שאנו עסוקים בחזרות לגבי מה אנו נאמר ולכן לא מקשיבים לצד השני.
  • חוק הימין/אי התחרות על זמן אוויר– לאחר שאחד סיים את דבריו, רשות הדיבור עוברת לזה שיושב מימינו, ולא לבעל הסמכות הגבוהה ביותר או לזה שמרים את היד.
  • שימוש בשמות פרטיים – שימוש בשמות פרטיים במקום שמות משפחה במהלך פגישה מצמצמת את הרשמיות ואגרסיביות.
  • שימוש בשפה נאותה – המנע ממשפטים כגון "אתה טועה" "זה מגוחך" ובמקום זאת השתמש בסגנון עדין יותר "אני מעוניין להציג גישה אחרת" וכו'.
  • התאמת האווירה נוקשה/רכה – ישנן שיבות בהן יש צורך בנוקשות, ואילו באחרות רכות. צור איזון בין ישיבות נוקשות לרכות.
  • עונש/תשלום על חריגה מהכלליים – קבע קנסות מסוגים שונים (כספי, ביטול תור דיבור וכד') על כל שבירת חוק, התפרצות באמצע וכו'.

קביעת קנסות עלולה להיות קשה בתחילה אך עם הזמן הצוותים מקבלים על עצמם את החוקים והשימוש בהן פוחת באופן טבעי. הרציונאל העומד מאחורי השימוש בחוקים הוא לא לדכא מחלוקת אלא לשלוט בה. קחו את הזמן בפגישות ואל תזדרזו להגיע להחלטה. צרו זרימה של אמון הדדי וכבוד לתרבות ולמבנה הארגוני. שמירה על כללים מבטיחה, כי תצליחו ליישם דברים.

Meetings That Build Trust and Get Results converting committee work into teamwork. By Ichak Adizes. PhD.

A few years ago I was invited to give a lecture to a group of executives of a very large Canadian company. The chief executive picked me up at the airport the night before the lecture and invited me to join him in the hotel hospitality suite. I walked in and there were all the executives who were attending my lecture the next day. They all greeted me warmly and they were in great spirits. They were sitting four to a table at three different tables engaged in a lively game of poker. The energy was high. They were joking and laughing and having a terrific time even though hundreds of dollars were exchanging hands. This went on until well after midnight. When the night was over they all shook hands. "Great game", they all said. "Shall we together and do it again soon?"
 
I got to thinking.
What if the same executives were seated around a committee table forced to come to an important decision about their organization? After two hours they would probably be exhausted and drained of energy. Would anyone say, "Great Game, let's get together and do it again soon."? Probably not.
What's the difference between the poker game and what is a daily chore for many management teams: getting something done at a committee meeting? Why do so many people hate management by committee?
It occurred to me the difference is rules of conduct.
Meetings are a critical point for any company. They are the difference between good ideas and actually getting an outcome. Without specific rules, the meeting can be all talk without any results.
As a matter of fact everything in life is a game of rules – from poker to marriage. A marriage could turn out to be quite stormy if you don't invest the time early on, to learn the rules by which to carry out the marriage.
Diplomatic negotiations are built on rules of trust and respect- and the rules themselves – or else nothing is accomplished.
When you break the rules you are breaking mutual trust and respect. In order to create mutual trust and respect we need both unity and differences. This is true whether it is for a marriage or a business. Without differences there is no change and therefore no growth.
The danger however, is that if we don't follow rules, we achieve either organized chaos or a false unity: differences that kill unity, or unity that kills differences.
The difference between management by committee and management by team is the presence of mutual trust and respect. And mutual trust and respect is based on rules of conduct that must be adhered to.
The challenge is to make mutual trust and respect between participants really work in meetings. And it is not about talking about mutual trust and respect. As a matter of fact the more you talk about them, the more you decrease them.
If the structure of an organization or its meeting structure is changed, and people learn the rules that nourish mutual trust and respect, then people will naturally start acting with mutual trust and respect.
And business gets done.
The following are some simple rules that change the structure of committee meetings and convert a chore into effective – and "fun" – teamwork.
Rule 1: Start it on time. You can often tell the entire organizational structure from the order people turn up for the meeting. The more important they are, the later they come. That sets the wrong tone for mutual interaction. Starting on time together, shows respect for everyone attending. If someone is late, set a penalty for every minute of tardiness – whatever you want to determine. It reinforces the rule of respect and is also a good icebreaker.
Rule 2: Learning to Listen. One of the problems at meetings is that we are so busy rehearsing what we are going to say when it is our turn that we don't listen to what the other has to say, This is particularly a problem with entrepreneurial types who usually have a pocketful of ideas to drop on the table.
Modern technology has trained us to "tune out" and to treat people like a radio that we hear but don't listen to. The starting point is with you. Really listen, not just hear, what the other is saying. Let a person pause, think about what they are saying and continue. Don't be ready to jump in. If everyone is aware of this rule, then we can all avoid the pressure of trying to get everything said at once because someone is ready to cut in and cut off.
Rule 3: Learning not to compete for air time, or The Rule of Right. When the subject is finished, he or she looks to the right for the next person to talk. The next person to talk is the first person to the right – not necessarily the head of the pecking order or the first person to raise a hand. When there is no rule other than who has power or who has put their hand up first, an atmosphere of rushing to judgment is created. Half-baked ideas can drop on the table because someone is ready to cut in and cut off.
Rule 4: First names only. This rule is suggested not merely to "democratize" meetings. It's more functional than that. It has to do with an ease factor. First of all, a full name has a built in formality and stiffness that goes back to childhood when your parents got upset with you and said (with some anger), "Jonathan Smith, it's time for bed!" On the other hand, it's hard to say a first name with aggressiveness and anger. First name communication tends to lower any levels of hostility and aggressiveness and keeps the climate friendly.
Rule 5: The Rule of Language. Words can set off wars: "I disagree!" "You're wrong!" "That's ridiculous!" Even phrases like "What do you mean by that?" have an inherently confrontational judgment behind them. Substitute phrasing like, "I have a different opinion", or "here's another alternative."
Rule 6: Hard and Soft. Certain meetings need control and discipline, whereas other meetings need a maximum flow of discussion. Balance hard versus soft rules so that they can be put into effect to set the tone for your meeting.
Rule 8: Pay the Penalty! Set a small monetary fine, or "loss of turn" for speaking out of turn or breaking any of the other rules. Will it work? Yes.
Jim Hennessey of Advanta Mortgage notes that fines are "fast and furious at first" (some entrepreneurial types will gladly pay money to keep talking), but they begin to decline as the rules sink in. In the meantime, the penalties can add up to a nice contribution to the Children's Hospital.
There are other rules, but these are a start. You are being dealt a great hand when you begin your own "poker game" in the meeting room. Some companies will call on sets of the rules when they get into particularly tight meeting situations. Others have built them into their ongoing organizational structure. The choice is yours.
The point of all of the rules is not to suppress conflict of opinion but discipline it. In Hebrew, one says, "The words of the wise are listened to peacefully." And, in Arabic, "Rushing is from the devil."
Take the time in meetings not to rush to judgment. Build a flow of mutual trust and respect in your culture and in your organizational structures, which will guarantee that you will get things done. The right way.

http://www.adizes.com/newsletter/html/meetings_that_build_trust.html

תמונה מתוך הניוזלטר:

rtf3925077140_1762132707

 

קישורים רלבנטים באתר:

מנהיגים ברשת

www.leadersnet.co.il

leaders@leadersnet.co.il

© כל הזכויות שמורות ל"מנהיגים ברשת" יולי 2002. החומר מותר לשימוש אישי בלבד. אין לעשות בחומר שימוש מסחרי/עסקי ו/או להפיצו בכל דרך שהיא (להוציא באמצעות יצירת קישור למאמר ספציפי  ולעמוד הבית במקביל) מבלי לקבל רשות מפורשת בכתב מהנהלת האתר

 

 

 

יכול לעניין..

HadarKantor

כיצד הופכים אוסף של מנהלים טובים לקבוצה מנצחת?

 מאת: הדר קנטור * במהלך הקריירה נתקלתי לא פעם בחברות ששדרת הניהול שלהן מורכבת ממנהלים ...

כתיבת תגובה

האימייל לא יוצג באתר. שדות החובה מסומנים *