Loading...
A team that is quiet in meetings, but whose complaints only leak out behind the scenes. We have organized devices that change feedback from being a battle between people to a ‘fight for results.’
The expression doesn't say anything, but the words say it's okay.
If I speak directly, I am afraid that the relationship will break down, so I make a ‘tolerating agreement’.
Change the check question: **“What is your score from 0 to 10?”** (Specification)
Requests for corrections are treated like personal attacks.
When objects (people/products) are mixed, the defense goes up.
Target fixation: First declare **“Only based on results”**
I can't speak in meetings and only complain in personal chat.
If official channels are not secure, unofficial channels will grow.
Rule: **Collect ‘anonymous risk’ 5 minutes after the end of the meeting**
“You did that on purpose, right?” Same sentence.
It becomes a battle of personalities rather than a story of results.
This is a sign that the official channel is empty.
I can speak without emotion.
Example: “When I look at A, I see B, so why not change it to C?”
Reduces ambiguity.
Example: “What is your score now?”
Safe opposition possible.
Example: “Anonymously, take only one risk each.”
It ends.
Example: “Today’s conclusion: go with A, and complement risk B with C.”
Try saying: “I will only talk about results, not people.”
Try saying: “If the score is 0 to 10, what is the score? If it is 7 or less, there is only one line of improvement.”
A. On the contrary, when opposition is made ‘official’, there are many cases where backbiting decreases and the team temperature stabilizes.
I have a meeting, but when it's over, it feels like there's nothing left. We have organized a structure where decisions cannot be made and words/rules for reaching conclusions without breaking the team spirit.
A team where only the talkative people keep talking, and the quiet people speak separately after the meeting. How to reduce the variation in speaking volume through ‘rules’ rather than ‘people problems’.
A team that loses speed while trying to reduce risk. This is not to abandon perfectionism, but it is a way to ‘stage’ perfection so that the team can safely become faster.
The intention is to deal with the situation quickly, but the opponent feels it is an attack. We have compiled sentences/rules to reduce misunderstandings in asynchronous communication.