Incorrect style of interaction with the team.
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 8:28 am
Even managers with extensive management experience often choose the wrong style of communication with their subordinates. For example, they come to a new team from another position and try to apply their usual scheme of actions in the new place.
A case in point: a new specialist took over the position of head of the sales department. He had previously worked for a competing company, but they had dragged him in, showing extreme interest in his professionalism and authority. He immediately showed his tough management style. He preferred to communicate with subordinates only in the form of orders and punishments for failure to carry them out (in the form of fines and reprimands).
This approach was a shock for the entire team: people were used to more democratic interaction with management. As a result, a conflict arose and even a refusal to obey occurred on the part of several employees. Only the HR director was able to smooth over the situation, and some people still chose to quit.
5 Mistakes in Communication with Subordinates
Another common scenario is cameroon email list when a "friend" from the department becomes the boss, and at the same time he leaves the previously established familiar style of communication with colleagues who have now become subordinates. He does not have enough experience for radical changes, and he continues to be friends instead of leading.
It should be said right away that in such a case there will certainly be problems with discipline. In addition, the manager will also face serious management costs, because changing the established style of interaction with the team is not so easy.
Always communicating the same way with all your subordinates is the wrong approach.
Many short-sighted or unwilling managers adhere to the position that it is the employees who must adapt to their superiors. A manager of this type almost automatically communicates with all subordinates in the same way, having once chosen a single style of interaction and not wanting to change anything.
A simple example: we will talk about a small company engaged in logistics. There, the warehouse manager had five people reporting to him with small salaries and low qualifications (and equally low motivation). Plus, naturally, there was turnover. In such circumstances, it is clear that the manager had to repeatedly repeat to his subordinates what and how they should do, plus support them morally. Willy-nilly, this particular management style developed.
However, the company developed, grew, and now this boss is in charge of a large department, where both old employees and many new, highly qualified, seriously motivated ones work. But the boss talks to them the way he is used to - chews over every little thing, which, undoubtedly, is very annoying. The subordinates tried to explain that this is not always necessary and not for everyone, but the man adhered to his usual communication style and did not see anything bad in his actions, not realizing that he was destroying the employees' motivation with his own hands.
A manager should not communicate with subordinates in one single chosen format. Of course, he will hone this favorite interaction technique to perfection, but if at some point it turns out that it does not work and something else needs to be used, such a manager will have nothing in reserve, because his arsenal is narrow. As a result, it will not be possible to establish prompt and effective communication with the team.
Lack of feedback.
Without it, the communication process will be incomplete and one-sided. It is important not only to be sure that subordinates have heard everything that was said, but also to know exactly how they reacted to your message. So, the lack of quality feedback is a problem for many domestic companies. Often, managers do not see the need for it, and subordinates do not dare to express their thoughts themselves. The effectiveness of such a style of interaction is extremely low, which is not surprising.
For example, in one training group, the leader structured the work in such a way that the participants never received feedback from him on the tasks they had completed. He responded only to serious mistakes (criticized them severely). The tasks that were completed correctly were ignored altogether, as were the people who worked on them. The result? An almost complete lack of motivation. In addition, with normal feedback, making changes or even reworking tasks would have taken much less time.
A case in point: a new specialist took over the position of head of the sales department. He had previously worked for a competing company, but they had dragged him in, showing extreme interest in his professionalism and authority. He immediately showed his tough management style. He preferred to communicate with subordinates only in the form of orders and punishments for failure to carry them out (in the form of fines and reprimands).
This approach was a shock for the entire team: people were used to more democratic interaction with management. As a result, a conflict arose and even a refusal to obey occurred on the part of several employees. Only the HR director was able to smooth over the situation, and some people still chose to quit.
5 Mistakes in Communication with Subordinates
Another common scenario is cameroon email list when a "friend" from the department becomes the boss, and at the same time he leaves the previously established familiar style of communication with colleagues who have now become subordinates. He does not have enough experience for radical changes, and he continues to be friends instead of leading.
It should be said right away that in such a case there will certainly be problems with discipline. In addition, the manager will also face serious management costs, because changing the established style of interaction with the team is not so easy.
Always communicating the same way with all your subordinates is the wrong approach.
Many short-sighted or unwilling managers adhere to the position that it is the employees who must adapt to their superiors. A manager of this type almost automatically communicates with all subordinates in the same way, having once chosen a single style of interaction and not wanting to change anything.
A simple example: we will talk about a small company engaged in logistics. There, the warehouse manager had five people reporting to him with small salaries and low qualifications (and equally low motivation). Plus, naturally, there was turnover. In such circumstances, it is clear that the manager had to repeatedly repeat to his subordinates what and how they should do, plus support them morally. Willy-nilly, this particular management style developed.
However, the company developed, grew, and now this boss is in charge of a large department, where both old employees and many new, highly qualified, seriously motivated ones work. But the boss talks to them the way he is used to - chews over every little thing, which, undoubtedly, is very annoying. The subordinates tried to explain that this is not always necessary and not for everyone, but the man adhered to his usual communication style and did not see anything bad in his actions, not realizing that he was destroying the employees' motivation with his own hands.
A manager should not communicate with subordinates in one single chosen format. Of course, he will hone this favorite interaction technique to perfection, but if at some point it turns out that it does not work and something else needs to be used, such a manager will have nothing in reserve, because his arsenal is narrow. As a result, it will not be possible to establish prompt and effective communication with the team.
Lack of feedback.
Without it, the communication process will be incomplete and one-sided. It is important not only to be sure that subordinates have heard everything that was said, but also to know exactly how they reacted to your message. So, the lack of quality feedback is a problem for many domestic companies. Often, managers do not see the need for it, and subordinates do not dare to express their thoughts themselves. The effectiveness of such a style of interaction is extremely low, which is not surprising.
For example, in one training group, the leader structured the work in such a way that the participants never received feedback from him on the tasks they had completed. He responded only to serious mistakes (criticized them severely). The tasks that were completed correctly were ignored altogether, as were the people who worked on them. The result? An almost complete lack of motivation. In addition, with normal feedback, making changes or even reworking tasks would have taken much less time.