A little more Tolerance will help you to Learn and Co-operate better


A little more Tolerance will help you to Learn and Co-operate better

Unfortunately people tend to treat other people as if they rated as all right or all wrong. They class things as either black or white.

Many people fail to listen to others. Some criticise people unjustly. Many expect too much of others – especially when they approve of them.

We should accept the imperfection of others. If we do so we will expect that some of their actions (and ours) will prove incorrect and/or unwise. Thus we should listen more closely and carefully to other people and try to learn from their criticisms.

Too often we take criticism as an attack on our person as a whole instead of just an attack or disagreement with one or more of our ideas. If we accept the point of our imperfection we should already have allowed ourselves the “luxury” of making errors. Why get so upset when someone else helps us to see them?

Similarly, if we expect othersto rate as perfect we will feel disappointed and let down on some occasions. If we expect others to prove perfect on some occasions we will prove more tolerant of their errors. We will enquire more about what they mean by what they say. We will accept that they may have communicated to us something different from what they intended to “send”. We may have taken things in a way which they never intended us to take them

Often an effort to check what people really meant will show that we have a wrong meaning and/or that we took them “the wrong way”.

A little more tolerance for our mistakes and the mistakes of others should help us to learn more about other people and ourselves, and co-operativeness between everyone should increase

Suggesting to Your Boss that you make the Decision.


Suggesting to Your Boss that you make the Decision

Many Subordinates complain that they do not have enough position authority. They say their Manager makes too many decisions which they could make. They complain that their Manager does not delegate sufficiently to them. And so on.

Often many Subordinates complain about the above things with some justification. However do they do anything to encourage their Manager to change?

If you find yourself in the above situation have you made any positive suggestions to your Manager about changing? Have you ever said to your Manager: “Why not let me make the decision on this matter?

Often the very fact that a Subordinate makes such a direct suggestion will encourage the Manager to feel confident in the Subordinate’s ability to make the decision. It will encourage delegation of more position authority. Subordinates who perform the assignment well can make the same suggestion with a greater chance of success on other occasions.

The above suggestion should improve relationships between You and your Manager. This approach will help Managers see Subordinates as offering positive help.

Subordinates will realise that they have the power to influence the decision making of their Managers and that their Managers do listen to them.

So, on appropriate occasions, why not say to your Manager “Why not let me make that Decis

You already have Motivated People


You already have Motivated People

How often do you hear the statement “I must get my people motivated” or “The Sales Manager failed to motivate the Sales Representatives”.

This type of statement encourages people to think incorrectly about the subject of motivation.

Psychologists usually start with the belief that “something” causes behaviour. They label the something “inside” people cause behaviour – a “need”. If people attempt to satisfy a need they have a motive. Thus, a need plus the intention to satisfy a need provides one explanation of the word “motive”.

It follows logically that everyone already has some motivation towards something or other. Thus a statement such as: “He did not motivate his people” really makes no sense.

The above misleading statement really means that “my people” do not have the direction and/or strength of motivation that the Speaker considers appropriate.

Some Readers may class this approach as “splitting hairs”. However, once people start to realise that people already have motives, they (should) will see the need to -

(a)   find out peoples existing motives and (b) identify which particular motive they would like them to have. Once Managers approach motivation problems this way they should have a better chance of thinking more systematically about how to change the motivation of people. In other words, the phrase such as “You did not motivate her” does not describe the situation in a realistic way. It encourages sloppy analysis of the problem of obtaining appropriate motivation for the objectives of the Motivator.

(b)  Why not start your thinking from the viewpoint that you (perhaps as a Manager) already have motivated people. Then you can concentrate on deciding what motivation your people have and what type of motivation you would like them to have.

Disturb Conferences Rarely



Disturb Conferences Rarely

People who ring others should accept that usually it wastes time to interrupt Conferences and Meetings of people. Thus Callers should accept messages that the person they phone cannot (and usually shouldnot) come to the phone because of their attendance at a Conference or Meeting. Callers should not feel upset – not interrupting a Conference makes for greater efficiency.

Callers should realise that if a meeting involves six people, five other people waste their time when the sixth person accepts a phone call. Most calls can wait at least an hour or two – until the Conference finishes. People should not expect others to interrupt their Conferences to talk to them if in doing so they waste the time of other people. If ten people wait five minutes while one Member of the Conference takes a call, it wastes fifty person-minutes.

People should not expect others to interrupt their Meetings to accept calls; they should not allow others to interrupt their Meetings.


Leave Messages to save the Time of the Sender and Receiver.


Leave Message to save the Time of the Sender and Receiver

Executives who phone other Executives will save time if they leave messages with the Assistants or Secretaries of the people they call. It saves the original Callers ringing again and probably they will get an answer quicker and possibly through less-costly channels.

The Original Caller’s message should include more than just that they rang. Some calls want information. If the Callers leave the question with the Receiver’s Secretary, someone can collect relevant information. The Executive can tell his/her Secretary the answer – who can phone it to the Caller. When the Secretary can obtain the information, the Executive merely has to check its contents and then ask the Secretary to phone the Caller.

This approach will help particularly if the Executives receiving such calls rings in to their office or comes to their office with only a limited time before another appointment. They can tell their Secretary what to tell the Caller – or approve the answer suggested by the Secretary. This approach saves the time of Executives and the Callers get the information quicker

Sometimes a message will not prove suitable, but too few Executives use the Secretary of others and their own to save themselves time. If everyone knew the advantages of leaving a message and answering a message by use of a Secretary, no one would class the approach as discourteous – Executives would accept it as efficient and normal.

Advantages of saying – “I don’t understand”.


Advantages of saying – “I don’t understand”

We tend to blame ourselves if we do not understand a Sender’s communication and we feel frightened to show our ignorance. This situation occurs no matter how unclearly the Sender communicates.

However, if more people said “I do not understand” more often, almost everyone would benefit.

Senders of communications would learn how often they communicate poorly. They would increase their chances of getting Communication Receivers to do what they want and gain help in improving their communicating ability.

If we say we do not understand, a Sender often gets annoyed because of the Receiver’s “stupidity”. Thus Subordinates leave their Managers even though the Subordinates do not understand what their Manager wants. Too often the Managers finds their Subordinate have not done what they (the Managers) wants them to do – and it wastes much time and effort. Both make a mistake: the Manager assumes the Subordinate understands and the Subordinate allows the Manager to believe it.

Often Subordinates answer “Yes” when their Managers (the Senders) say “Do you understand? – even though they know that they do NOT understand. They just prefer to hope that they can work it out. They hope it will prove alright in the long term and they will avoid embarrassment in the short term.

Everyone would gain if they could learn to: (a) tell Communication Senders that they have communicated poorly, and (b) take the risk of embarrassing the Senders by telling them they have failed.

No real blame should attach to the Receiver. Everyone should learn the benefit of looking the Communication Sender in the eye and saying, “I do not understand”. In the long run they will help the Communication Sender — and themselves.

Too often people believe they can communicate clearly because people do not tell them that they have not made sense.

Some people do not want to know that they communicate poorly. How often do you hear the phrase – “Right?” meaning “Do you understand?” and/or “Will you do it?” Listen how often the Speaker never really pauses to obtain an answer. Try an experiment – say “No”. Most Communicators will continue talking without even realising that the Receiver has not agreed.

Why not try out the above ideas? Almost certainly the trials will encourage a change of approach.

Why not say: “I do not understand” – wherever appropriate. In the long run everyone will benefit.



The ‘Point of No Return” in Training


The “Point of No Return” in Training

Formal Training Courses often skim the surface of too many topics and, in a few weeks, the Trainees can remember almost nothing of’ the topics and apply almost nothing.

An application problem occurs with any new technique when Trainees say to themselves “I have a situation where I could use Technique “X”. However I do not feel confident in using Technique “X” – I do not remember all about it. Therefore I now have two problems: (a) How to solve my problem and (b) How to use Technique “X” in trying to solve it. Thus I will stop trying to use Technique “X”; I will forget it and just try to solve my problem”

The idea of the “point of no return” aims to overcome such a situation. Training reaches this point when a Trainee knows sufficient about the new technique, method, approach, etc. to gain distinctly more benefit from using it on the first occasion in real life than the problems involved in trying to use it.

The point of no return proves difficult to specify exactly but the idea rates as important.

The physical skill of typewriting provides an easy example to use to explain this concept. Tom can type twenty words per minute by the “hunt-and-peck” method and learns to touch type to fifteen words per minute. When he returns to the job and has to type something urgently he will tend to use the hunt-and-peck method. If he has experienced enough training to reach 25 words per minute by the touch-typing method he will use the touch-type method. In the latter case Tom strengthens his skill in touch typing.

In cases where Trainees have not reached the point of no return, only very strong-minded Trainees will force themselves to use the new method.

Invariably Trainers try to achieve too much in their training. They should concentrate on getting to the point of no return in connection with fewer skills and/or topics. In the long run probably they would achieve a greater return on the training investment of time and effort for both themselves and their Trainees.



How much Butterflyng have you done recently?


How much Butterflying have you done recently?

Whenever two or more people have a discussion, butterflying usually occurs. This word describes what happens when group members make contributions over a wide variety of topics. Mr. “A” talks on topic 1, “B” contributes on topic 2, “C” comments on topic 1, and “D” starts on topic 3.  “A” comments on topic 3 and starts topic 4, “E” talks on 2, “F” on 1, “D” returns to topic 3 – and so on.

Each Group Member tends to want to discuss his own topic, ignore contributions on other topics, and discuss what interests him. Consequently the group as a whole usually does not focus sufficiently on one particular topic. They never come to any solution on any specific topic; they move from topic to topic without reaching any agreement.

To achieve objectives in oral face-to-face discussion, each Member needs to control himself sufficiently to stay on one topic at a time. A group needs to get some finalisation on each topic – even if the finalisation involves agreeing to disagree.

Eventually some group discussions make some progress. However butterflying almost always decreases the efficiency of the discussion. In some cases people become so confused that the discussion cannot achieve its objective – because people lose sight of the objective.

Do you realise the harm butterflying causes in your organisation?

Have you warned other people about its harmfulness?

Do you encourage yourself and others to remind themselves that they have fallen into the trap of butterflying when it occurs in a group discussion?

The less you butterfly the more efficient. will your conferences become.


All Group Discussion Members should take Leadership Roles.


All Group Discussion Members should take Leadership Roles

Group discussions contain two types of contributions: content and procedure.

A procedure contribution aims to influence the way the Group conducts itself. A content contribution adds to the ideas on a particular topic -unfortunately not always the discussion’s official topic.

Examples of Procedure Contributions

A Member who says: “I think we should stay on this topic a little longer” or “I think we should change the topic” or “I think we have lost sight of the topic” – makes a procedure contribution. Someone who tells another Member to “shut up” or says “I would like to hear what Tom thinks” make a procedure contribution.

A Member who says: “I think we should talk about topic A before topic B” or “I think we should appoint a Chairperson” or “I think we should write that idea on the board” makes a procedure contribution.

Effective conferences need procedure contributions. Often Participants believe that Leaders or Chairpersons should make all procedure contributions. Sometimes Leaders believe this point also.

However, with some topics, Groups have difficulty in finding an effective procedure. Thus the Group needs to pool its resources in finding effective procedures for the conduct of the Conference and the encouragement of correct behaviour of each Conference Member.

Leaders cannot afford to ignore procedure contributions from Members – especially good ones.

Participants cannot afford to rely on a Leader finding the correct procedure without help. While they certainly play a lesser role they should try to contribute effective procedure ideas at appropriate times during conferences.

Classifying contributions into Content and Procedure provides a framework which will help both Leader and Participants to achieve effective Conferences.




Do you ask appropriate Questions?


Do you ask Appropriate Questions?



The ability to ask yourself and others appropriate questions will often help everyone to improve their decision making. Improved decisions should lead to better planning.

The following lists some questions which often prove helpful in a variety of different circumstances.

Why not check off, right now, the number that you have used recently.

Cross the ones that you have not used frequently but you believe should have use more often. Bring forward this list to yourself (say) every fortnight and aim to make more use of the marked questions.


Even if we achieve this objective, just how much will it contribute to the organisation?

Have we considered the people who have to implement this idea and just how they would feel about it?

With what degree of certainty do you make that recommendation?

What would you do if you had to make that decision in my absence (Completed Staff Work)?

Just how much money does this situation involve?

What rates as the best thing that can happen – and the worst thing?

Have we rushed into choosing between possibilities when we should have spent more time on finding possibilities?

What objective do we have for this meeting?

Have we planned to cheek frequently enough in these matters?

Have we checked sufficiently on our ability to communicate by obtaining feedback?

What attitudes do these people have which will affect their reception of this message and instructions?

What attitude does the person need to achieve the particular objective?