Thread Content
The work team not only undertakes the task of carrying out production and service activities, but also serves as an important place where employees can acquire knowledge, exchange feelings, and realize their value. The work team is the cell of an enterprise; only when each cell is healthy and vibrant can the entire organization remain healthy and vibrant. Domestic enterprises have always placed great emphasis on team building and management. In 2009, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council also issued the \"Guiding Opinions on Strengthening Team Building in Central State-owned Enterprises\" (Document No. Guozi Fa Qun Gong 52), which set out requirements for team building in 9 areas and provided 4 suggestions regarding the development of team leaders. Our gas industry also holds national safety competitions for work teams within the gas sector every year. Various gas companies attach great importance to team building and management, using various management methods and tools to create advanced work teams of different types. In the author’s view, policy documents regarding team building and management have a strong guiding role; the key lies in how enterprises understand and apply them effectively. The author believes that some current approaches and practices still tend to be oriented toward the ideals of being \"exquisite\" and \"beautiful and wealthy.\" Here, drawing on my own work experience and observations, I would like to share some thoughts on team building and management. The author has 6 years of experience leading teams: from May 2005 to October 2007, managing 3 construction teams ； From November 2007 to April 2011, there were 9 teams in the distribution and management department (2 inspection teams, 2 emergency response teams, 1 testing team, 3 comprehensive teams – bottle station, inspection, and emergency response), plus 1 repair team. Since starting my career, aside from spending 6 years leading a team, I have had the opportunity to observe and study team building and management up close. Before discussing the topic of team building and management, the author would like to address two issues first: one is the management of team leaders and other managers at the departmental level (that is, grassroots management), and the other is the issue of \"team systems\". Starting with the first point, the author has always believed that management is about providing support and services, especially in grassroots management. Throughout the practice of grassroots management, in addition to effectively conveying and implementing instructions from higher authorities, the main task is to support and assist subordinates, which mainly includes the following aspects: 1. Helping organization members understand the instructions from higher-ups (strategic goals, tactical goals, and emergency orders). This is a crucial task; if members of an organization are not clear about the organization’s goals or have different interpretations of them, it usually leads to a situation where everyone acts on their own. From departmental meetings to one-on-one discussions, these are all effective ways to help subordinates understand superior instructions. It also includes organizing various activities, such as discussions on certain issues, which enable the members of the organization to keep thinking, reflecting, and working together; as a result, most members tend to reach a consensus, thereby essentially resolving the issue of unified thinking. It must be clear that we are not unifying values, but rather unifying our understanding and mindset. 2. Understanding the status of team members: As a frontline manager, it is important to keep an eye on the situation of team members, and \"walking management\" is an effective way to do this. During the process of having team members carry out tasks, it is essential to understand their conditions – their personal emotions, working methods, sets of tools they use, weaknesses, and so on. If we wait passively for feedback, we will miss opportunities to make corrections or strive for improvement, which can prevent the organization from achieving its goals effectively and may even create potential problems. Bottom-up feedback generally has the following issues: (1) Due to the inertia of traditional culture or a sense of personal protection, or in order to maintain \"political correctness,\" no feedback is given ； (2) The time cost associated with providing feedback is too high; subordinates, when giving feedback (especially negative feedback), tend to delay it unconsciously ； (3) Feedback distortion is generally manifested in terms of degree; the actual situation may be more complex or severe than the feedback received. Therefore, managers should thoroughly investigate and grasp the “information on the ground” and make corresponding decisions based on that. The incompetence shown by managers is often not a matter of their own ability, but rather a lack of initiative and insufficient access to information. For example, when implementing certain management tools, we need to constantly pay attention to whether these tools have any significant negative effects on daily work – such as demanding a great deal of effort from employees (not only in terms of time but also in terms of attention), thereby affecting the progress or quality of their daily tasks. 3. People-oriented approach: I believe that the foundation of a people-oriented approach is not merely putting oneself in others’ shoes, but rather considering the universal aspects of human nature; this is often a qualitative issue as well as a matter of common sense ； As for some management tools, most of them are based on quantitative approaches. There is now a tendency toward technological (or tool) fetishism, the belief that finding a good technical approach or tool will solve a problem fundamentally; at least in terms of management, we should have a clear understanding and sound judgment. It’s like this: Western medicine relieves symptoms in a short period of time, while traditional Chinese medicine makes adjustments over a longer period. Organizational members vary in many ways; some perform very differently under different conditions, and it’s impossible to quantify such differences. Therefore, we need to get close to them, observe them, and make judgments. Putting people first has two meanings: (1) in a general sense, it involves stimulating and utilizing the positive aspects of human nature, while controlling or avoiding the interference of negative aspects ； (2) Individual significance lies in stimulating and utilizing different strengths to enhance the organization’s capabilities. No matter how good the technologies and tools are, they can only function effectively with flexible management. It’s like a precious sword or blade; if the person who uses it does not possess strong internal energy or martial arts skills, then it is no different from an ordinary sword. Secondly, the author believes that work teams lack systems. The author believes that a work team is not a first-level management organization within a company, but merely an important execution unit. In practice, team building and management generally involve standardization, one of which is the standardization of systems. The author believes it is inappropriate. The author believes that systems should be established and issued by the enterprise; including more detailed requirements set at the department level, these can only be understood as internal regulations, procedures, interpretations, and similar concepts within the department. As a unit, its role is to carry out the orders and requirements of its superiors; just like companies and platoons, all combat strategies are based on tactical principles, and the superior’s combat orders are fulfilled in accordance with existing military regulations. Teams can establish some internal management rules, which I believe should also be treated as conventions. If a work team has to establish so-called rules, it indicates that the company’s systems are inadequate. Suggestions from the work teams for better working methods or stricter work requirements can be put forward as a long-term initiative or as part of a work competition. If it is to be implemented on a long-term basis, it should be suggested to the department that the company conduct research and formalize it as a policy so that it has a legal basis. For example, the forms used for team work records should all be attachments to the systems established and issued by the company. Another example: a company’s emergency response plans are generally divided into comprehensive plans, specific plans, and on-site handling procedures. Many people interpret these as company-level plans, departmental plans, and team-level plans; in my opinion, this is a misunderstanding. These three levels of plans form a system, and all should be developed by the company’s organization. In practice, the development of specific emergency plans is generally led by the department responsible for that particular task, while the on-site response plans are usually prepared by the team in charge of that task. This often leads to misunderstandings. According to the procedure, it should be prepared by the company’s relevant personnel, and after discussion, revision, and improvement, submitted to the company for approval before implementation. It is merely the department or team responsible for this task that carries out the main preparation work, but the responsibility for managing the plan does not lie with that department or team. Of course, if the company assigns or designates such a department or team to take on the management responsibility, it can be considered as \"completing other tasks assigned by superiors.\"