Should Employees Who Do Not Close Their Doors Be Resolutely Dismissed?

A few days ago, a friend told me a story about P.

He said he was a project director to check a project team of his subordinates.

In the conference room, a subordinate came in, closed the door, turned around, sat down, talked for two minutes, and opened the door; after seeing the door opened, my friend said, "shut the door, please!" the subordinate stood up, turned, pushed the door, and then turned around and sat down.

Before long, the door opened again; my friend said, "shut the door, please!" the subordinate stood up, turned, pushed the door, then turned around and sat down again.

The door opened again.

< /p >

At P this time, he could not help himself. He closed the door, pushed it slightly, and locked the door.

He found that the door could not be shut, but the strength was useless.

The strength is not used, and the door lock is not locked, so the door opens naturally.

< /p >

< p > they talked for about 20 minutes, and another participant came.

Knock on the door, push the door, close the door, turn around, sit down, the door opens; my friend said, "shut the door, please!" the subordinate stood up, turned, pushed the door, turned around, sat down, and opened the door again; after seeing it, my friend said again, shut the door, please!

< /p >

< p > my friend stood up again and closed the door. Then he asked the two subordinates a question: "why can I close the door, but you two can't close it?" < /p >

< p > the first subordinate said, "you have exerted great force, so you have turned it off; I have exerted little force because I am afraid of disturbing others, so -" second subordinates said, "in fact, the door locks can not be fastened, but it is only spring now, and the pressure inside and outside the room is different. So," - two people are all eloquent.

< /p >

< p > this annoys my friends, because in consequence, the two subordinates do not have any value in closing the door, because the door is closed by him.

In addition, the two subordinates may not know that they have not only closed the door, but also affected the efficiency of the meeting, wasting their time in disguise.

< /p >

< p > listening to this story, I also feel that closing the door is a very small thing, but it reflects a big problem: that is why many subordinates can not draw a perfect ending to their business. < /p >

< p > Yes, in many a href= "www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_p.asp" > Project < /a >, there are too many subordinates in the company's business. They are constantly closing, closing and closing like these two subordinates, but in the end they have not closed the door.

They complained, saying, "how did this project director do this? I closed the door three times, and you let me close. And the project director sometimes had no choice. How did you shut the door three times?" or "/p".

< p > in fact, many project directors, like my friend, end up closing their own doors.

When these project directors do their subordinates' work, if their subordinates are not guilty, it is really a terrible thing.

Because subordinates may therefore think that they do not need to do well at all, because there is no good director.

I think a lot of directors often convince themselves to help their subordinates to "shut down" in order to take account of the efficiency of the project, which eventually leads to a lot of subordinates who are still unable to shut down next time.

So, what should I do? I feel that when training subordinates, they should analyze their personal reasons for those who have closed their doors many times.

Under this premise, I gave several suggestions to this friend: first, closing the door does not only mean the ability to close the door, but more importantly, it represents the attitude of the work. He is not responsible for the result of his work at all. If so, he will dismiss as soon as possible.

< /p >

< p > secondly, change the way of motivation to facilitate the rapid pformation of those who are still promising.

Employees who are too tired to achieve the goal of closing the door must take the initiative to abolish the bonus so that they can know that they should eat fruit before they get the results.

< /p >

< p > once again, changing the way we work is not a substitute for the work of individual subordinates who have been used to problems.

For subordinates who can not do their basic job well, they should be demoted to ensure that < a href= "xm.sjfzxm.com/" > business efficiency < /a >.

< /p >

< p > finally, the a href= "www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_x.asp" > Training > /a > opportunities for subordinates who are unable to achieve the result because of skill reasons will help them rapidly improve their skills in the work and at the same time let him accept the concept of strength and real results in everything they do.

< /p >