Original is not easy, ask for sharing, ask for one key and three links

Some time ago, there were always friends who asked me how to stand out? I don’t know how to talk about it for a while, but after thinking about it carefully, I think it can be divided into three stages:

Dare to take responsibility, even if you can’t afford it, but a failure, no one will question your attitude, but the accumulation of experience to make a good impression, it is very likely to become a small leader at a point in time;

Become a small Leader, all the way to fight monsters and upgrade, cognition, influence accumulation to a certain stage, there is a certain ability to affect the situation, as long as the team does not pull the crotch, then you can go further;

Then entering the world of “smart people” requires the ability to think independently, which is a necessary skill for subsequent gaming tables, and we will tell today’s ideas here with two stories.

Before taking over a product business line, I said the division of labor with the original Leader, which roughly means:

I came here to learn, but also to bring more resources to the team, the work within the team you continue to manage, the previous planning to continue to do, leave me alone. After a pleasant time together, I arrived at the departmental weekly meeting. I found that once there was an omission in the team, the leader, naturally, proudly said:

This piece of small plutonium will do planning, this piece of small plutonium will be organized, this piece I come down to talk to the small pliletto, the small plutonium let you prepare the next, the small plutonium said that there is no need to provide…

Nima, how did I become a pot bearer! It should be noted here that this product classmate “is definitely not because he is not satisfied with my existence” and said so! To sum up, the main reasons for this situation are:

If a new leader (probably the strongest person) appears in the team, then the rest of the people, even the previous leader, are more inclined to stop thinking, ask for instructions, and lie flat and wait for the belt to fly…

First answer the first question: who is easy to be promoted to Leader, here is the direct answer: “responsible people are easy to be promoted”!

Story 1 If it corresponds to the rights-liability model, its behavior is reasonable, but reasonable is not necessarily correct. Because such students are often not preferred when they are promoted or when major opportunities come, the core reason here is “responsibility and responsibility”.

Because for the farther road, responsibility is an important trait, Leader will encounter a lot of three regardless of things, departments push each other to cause the overall waste is amazing!

In the face of great difficulties, people tend to call for heroes or pluck themselves clean. So some interesting phenomena arise:

And people have been strong and worship heroes since ancient times, and this kind of behavior is easy to be convinced by themselves:

To be more true, I think this is a kind of pot throwing behavior, this behavior is not easy to judge, there is no basis to punish this behavior, after all, what is wrong with following the hero’s thinking? So wasteful behavior is more unscrupulous because there is no cost;

Responsible people tend to solve problems, and speculators tend to divert problems

If responsibility is the problem that ends with me, then are we going to cover all the problems? The answer, of course not, here is the second story:

This case comes from my work, there was a theme meeting where industry and research understand each other and work together, a classmate made a speech, which caused a lot of dissatisfaction among technical students, and also caused me to think.

Here first talk about the conclusion and then talk about the process, the conclusion is that the student needs to write the same as, but want to let the technology go to the bottom, the technology obviously does not buy it, began to pull, I stood in the overall situation and sent a paragraph:

The students on both sides are from the perspective of product and research and development, so there will be basic problems, but the big goal is the same, which is the first.

“The essence of the product is to write the requirements, and the essence of research and development is to write code.”

The evaluation index of the demand can be “the degree of completion of the requirements” or the details of the “smoothness of the logical flow”, which is the foundation; The evaluation of the code can be the overall “development efficiency” and the “quality of operation” after the launch, and performance is not involved here.

If a technical newcomer is not familiar with the business or other factors, the code written is very bad, whether the product students need to make up the bottom, there are two questions here, the first is the inconsistency of professionalism caused by the product students can not be bottomed, and the degree of professionalism caused by the degree of can make up the position.

The same problem is the same in terms of product demand, whether the technology needs to be replaced, this is a question of whether and to what extent.

The product is further is the experience, the technology is further is the performance is the page stutter rate and other experience indicators, similar to this kind of thing is not necessary to make up for each other, I think it is needed.

Therefore, the point of discussion should pull a baseline of ability values, in “below the baseline of ability values, there is no need to make up positions, can not make up positions, need to perform their respective duties, to achieve professional ability, above the ability value needs to complement each other” to achieve a common goal.

Sure, hanging a title from a technical leader would think I had a “position” question, but that’s what I really thought:

Ability values below the baseline do not need to be filled, can not be filled, need to perform their respective duties, above the ability value needs to complement each other

To avoid misunderstanding, a sentence was added:

This is not specifically referring to the product classmate ability problem, so there is no need to diverge

For example, I can say that 10% of the students’ ability value on the research and development side is lacking, that is, internal training is needed, and making up for shortcomings is one of them

Although the current ability value of the leader at the next level is online, it will also lead to insufficient ability with the development of the company and the growth of the business

Objectively speaking, I feel that my own ability is now insufficient, and I cannot fully understand the business in depth, and systematically, which is not a matter of principle

If we suddenly change from a company with a market value of 1 billion yuan to a company with a market value of 10 billion, the ability requirements will definitely change, “this lack of ability is the relative value is not an absolute value”, “the ability baseline is also dynamic.”

But as far as my follow-up observation is concerned, the classmate seems to “not understand”, why is this?

Cognition is the understanding of people and things, the understanding of the underlying structural relationship of related people and things Management cognition is the projection of the understanding of the management world, which is the basis of the five-dimensional model, here is a diagram:

We assume that people’s growth trajectory must be from the bottom to the top, and very few people are born at the end, after all, there are few dragons in the real world. Under this hypothesis, one person asked me what direction the library was in:

Cognition is downward compatible, with people with higher cognition knowing what people below are thinking, while people with lower cognition may not know what people above are saying

Therefore, when we convey a message, we must do “the same frequency dialogue” and try to “pull together cognition”, otherwise it is very easy to become a chicken and a duck, which is most commonly seen in products, operations, research and development, and GM each saying their own words. This is also the main reason why the students of the above product cannot understand it, because everyone does not have the same frequency dialogue.

I have been mentioning the “ability baseline” before, what is this ability baseline? Then, the company will have a lot of projects, why does this project fall into my hands?

To answer this question, we propose another logic, the potential energy versus the capability value baseline

Here are a few points to express:

With this realization, let’s draw a second picture:

Complete some projects, the potential energy will reach a certain level, this time more difficult projects, higher positions will take into account you, ability value is the basis for doing things, potential energy involves the resources you can use, need long-term operation, we will also get a further evaluation model:

The products in the above story can be well matched with the BVR model:

Therefore, we will first circle a person’s ability baseline, and then look at his potential energy, which is our so-called influence, according to basic ability and potential energy, we can judge what kind of things this classmate can do.

Here is a step further, to judge a thing you can not do, more specifically to judge this thing your team can do, so the examination of personal ability, potential energy at the same time, will also examine the team’s ability, potential energy, so the team can find more people to make up for the shortcomings of ability, the so-called ability complementarity is so.

In order to better illustrate the correlation, here is an example (in the example, it is just my cognition, not necessarily correct, you can have other judgments):

In the previous work experience, there are several students whose basic ability gap is not too big (here specifically refers to the ability to do projects), and slowly the gap comes out, the reasons for this:

Including the ability to “build momentum”, the initial and luck is related, and the luck component will be leveled in the long run

It would be more of the “identity” dimension in the triangle (not that the classmate got to that level, but that he thought so in that work environment at the time, not necessarily in the larger environment). For example, one of the students will think that I am the second position of the team, and the other will think that I am the third position of the team, which is a baseline of ability values they have pulled for themselves.

This self-awareness baseline will change his “ass”, will affect his thinking, will affect his requirements for himself, it is likely that the third class will occasionally challenge the second classmate, completely obey the No. 1 classmate, and mentally “suppress” all the students outside the No. 2 position, and they will confirm the correctness of their positioning according to various psychological temptations and events

Your perception and positioning of yourself will determine your behavior

Cognition + potential energy largely determines your behavior and position, which is not related to ability, in most cases, the gap in ability will not be so large.

Some students will deliberately build their own small teams, this training can be pointed, given resources, given management permissions, all of which are for him to have more experience, experience will make a fundamental difference (review the ability / potential energy map above).

There is a gap between the team and the team, such as the team of the second class is more closed-loop and the ability is more comprehensive; The team of the third class students is more single-dimensional, lower, and the horizontal comparison is high.

Management cognition + potential energy + team can determine your real role in an environment, personal potential energy needs to be operated, and team potential energy operation is more difficult;

Cognition is the basis of what you want, potential energy is whether you are qualified to ask for this thing, the team is whether you can do this thing, several large and small factors, one is indispensable.

After a stage, the basic management ability, the overall promotion ability and even the beautiful characteristics of intelligence are the basic chips on the gambling table and the basis of the same dialogue.

Knowledgeable, capable, and incapable will be considered to be ambitious or unlucky, and after a few failures, others will think that you only have some arrogance left in you, and it is difficult to achieve great things. If the cognition, ability, and team are in place, if you want to go further, you only need to wait for the opportunity to wait for work, and the character is fine.

Therefore, it is easy to be promoted to Leader with responsibility, and after becoming a Leader, there is a correct management cognition, good team potential and a team that can fight a hard battle, and will be promoted twice.

When you encounter specific matters, try not to let the leader help you think, try not to let the leader help you carry the pot, if you can, please try not to let the downstream team help you carry the pot.

Provide your professional advice, provide your decision-making model, provide the arguments you use for decision-making on current matters, and finally try to synchronize information with relevant parties, and then ask the leader to make a decision, the so-called responsibility here is more for yourself, not necessarily for your leader.

The so-called correct cognition is actually very simple:

Knowing the real situation in your environment is conducive to making a correct judgment and not doing something ridiculous, such as letting the downstream team mess around, and being able to see the situation clearly is a necessary skill for the director.

The last question, was promoted twice, and then what?

Some time ago, my work thinking was to resolutely implement the boss’s understanding of the product, which is the biggest advantage, but it may also be the biggest problem, because my work has become the interpretation of the boss’s input, which leads to my thinking all circled in the boss’s thinking.

So what is the reason for this fact? I think there may be two points:

However, this is not necessarily a healthy state, perhaps the real situation is that it is necessary to jump out of the framework in the field of subdivision, and the upper and lower corroboration can form real innovation.

The background of innovation is enough reading, if you want to jump out of the boss’s cognition, it is not easy to exceed the reading volume throughout, you must make enough efforts in the subdivision field, here is a thought:

The boss gives about 20% of the thought input, and then at a certain level and at a certain stage, he must reject the influence of the boss’s thought, independently put these 20% of the arguments, evolve the argument to about 60%, and take the extra 40% to compare with the boss.

After all, he has limited time, although he thinks widely, but he may not be in the subdivision field to verify our deep, the boss thinks widely, we argue deeply, this may be a way to differentiate and complement and cooperate.

As for whether this extra 40% extension is right or wrong, whether it is good or not can be discussed, and it can be pulled, but we are already discussing problems in 60% of the scenarios, which is 40% of the extra research, which is the confidence of our fight with the boss

How to go from 60% to 100%, what is the proportion of it, we can discuss it together, test it together, and consider it together.

The core thinking here is: “active thinking”, find the most difficult point of the problem to break through, do not have the idea of trickery, for the really difficult things, it is difficult to get through. “Only by striking hard and drilling deeply can we get the real solution”

Mastering the ability to think actively and independently is the key to being promoted again.

To sum up:

The answer is enough responsibility, correct cognition, and active thinking.

The three complement each other, and only with responsibility can we solve problems and get opportunities, only with cognition can we solve some problems, and only by thinking can we solve problems thoroughly.

Well, today’s sharing is here, and the students who like it can support it four times:

If you want more communication, you can add me to WeChat: