How to manage those who do not cooperate with the work of the old staff

Restaurant operation for a long time, will naturally precipitate a number of old seniority of the staff, referred to as the old staff. Then how to manage these old employees? The following is organized by me for you how to manage those old employees who do not cooperate with the work, welcome to watch!

When we want to implement a policy, issue an order, set up a task, often feel the pressure is not from the new employees, but those who do not cooperate with the old employees. This may be divided into the following forms of non-cooperation:

1, I do what I do: The surface promises to be very good, but then still in accordance with their own way of working I do what I do. To submit the results of a variety of excuses, a variety of excuses.

2, negative response: What to give, what to do what is required, the surface seems to be very cooperative, but a closer look will find that the submission of things completely failed to meet the standard. The first thing you need to do is to ask him to re-submit, and then he complains about it.

3, blatant refutation: Using the rich experience and accurate grasp of the leader's preferences, quickly find your vulnerabilities and weaknesses fierce attack; or rely on the old openly do not cooperate with the work. At this point, either you convince him, or suppress him, or want to implement things must not go on.

Why do older employees often give managers the impression that they are not working together?

The oldest employees of the company are not only long-serving, they all have more or less a certain amount of historical capital. They are either accompanied by the boss *** with the startup of the old man, or in the process of enterprise development has made significant contributions to the merit.

Some of them are the boss's heart, the backbone of the enterprise; some have key technologies, understand the core secrets; there are also by virtue of the long-term accumulation in the enterprise and cohesion of a small group of people loyal to themselves. In either case, this is a group of bosses and managers love and hate a group of people.

?

They have a deep connection with the enterprise, and have a strong sense of identity with the corporate culture; but they often mistake their own values for those of the enterprise, and when something new comes along, they begin to repel and counterattack like the body's immune cells.

At work, old employees are familiar with the external market, familiar with the enterprise situation, can more accurately grasp the enterprise's strategy, better work. But on the other hand, because of the old staff familiar with the various rules of the game of the enterprise, they are always comfortable to use the loopholes in the enterprise system to get some small convenience, or play some rubbish, seemingly illegal but not punished.

At the same time, under the influence of the traditional concept of respecting the elderly and loving the young, most of the old employees in the enterprise will have a sense of superiority, and occasionally there will be a "brush face card". The situation.

How do you manage older employees who don't work with you?

A lot of research has been done on this, and there are about three ways to summarize it.

First, to understand the reason, to move, from the concept of change.

Personally, I don't think this will work too well, as values and habits are hard to change. Even if the short-term effect, but after a period of time is still back to the same old, or even worse.

Secondly, we need to standardize the rewards and punishments.

Personally, I feel that if you only start from the hard system, such as the attendance problem, it will only bring counterproductive, due to small losses. If, on the performance of fair and open, welfare slightly tilted to the old employees, is to a certain extent to guide the behavior of the old employees.

Third, career planning, so that old employees are not "old".

This is a more lofty move, the effect is good, but for the manager and the size of the enterprise are very high requirements.

In summary, all three methods are an integral part of employee management! But these three methods are all proposed in a **** the same premise, that is - the old employees themselves subjectively is not willing to work with the work. All methods are either softly or hardly forcing them to work and develop in the way the organization wants them to. Not only do I have to ask, is the older employee really that much of a prick, a rebuttal, and a non-cooperator? If two people submit the same work results , also far from meeting the standards, but one of them is a new employee and the other is a veteran employee. Would you immediately jump to the conclusion that the new employee does not understand the situation and the old employee is not cooperating with the work. Have you ever asked yourself, do you give a reasonable task? Have you really articulated the results you need to deliver? You need others to cooperate, do you really let others clear how to cooperate? Will people think they have cooperated, but still not up to your standards, making you feel that they are not cooperating?

In response to the above questions, I think to improve the old staff with the degree of need to do the following

First, full respect for the old staff.

This respect is not the surface of the compliment or flattery, but really value the work experience and ideas of the old staff. Older employees accumulated many years of lessons learned from the work habits must have its own reason for existence. When we want to implement a system or set up a task, we must first fully communicate with the old staff in the enterprise, listen to everyone's views, know how people used to do, the key to figure out why do so. Throw out their own point of view to accept the review of the old staff. Don't think that what you have is advanced, scientific, and recognized by the upper management must be reasonable. Older employees will offer many questions and opinions based on their experience, but that doesn't mean they resist new things and refuse to change. On the contrary, these questions and comments are very important to help us improve the system or the task itself. As the saying goes, "It is easier to know than to act", it is better to communicate more in the early stage, make more modifications and reach a concerted agreement than to wait for the promulgation of the system or the task to be issued and then hear the voice of doubt. And, the agreement reached in this way, in the latter part of the system and the implementation of the task in the process, the old staff will play a very positive role in promoting.

Second, the message is complete, clear and accurate.

Do not feel that the preliminary communication has been communicated, we have reached an agreement, there is no misunderstanding and differences. Finally, we must put what we want to do on paper, and the content must be complete, clear and accurate, even those who feel that everyone knows the details. If the employee is required to give a debriefing, or some other form of work result. Then it must be clearly stated what is to be submitted, in what form, when it is to be submitted, to whom it is to be submitted, what the deadline is, and what happens if it is not submitted on time, preferably accompanied by a standard template or example. At the same time, through meetings, documents, public announcements and other ways to ensure that everyone is fully aware of the system, if necessary, to focus on systematic training and awareness. If you want to get a high level of cooperation, you have to have a high level of outreach up front.

Third, actively follow up and feedback.

Often people, after setting up the work, just sit and wait for the receipt of the results, almost to the deadline found that no one submitted the results, they feel that other people do not cooperate with their own work. I don't realize that follow up and feedback is also a very important part of the process. Everyone has a lot of things to do every day, and they have to be prioritized and prioritized. Anyone who knows how to manage time knows to do the urgent and important things first. Unless the work itself has a very obvious sign of urgency and importance, it is easy to be mistaken as not so important, at least not so urgent. Therefore, the stage of follow-up, on the one hand, can increase the other party's attention to the matter, serve as a reminder. On the other hand, it can also keep abreast of the problems that arise in the process of advancing and make timely corrections.

"The world is a mirror that shines on our hearts, and what we are, the world is." I think this saying also applies to the management, when you complain about others did not do, should not first ask yourself, they should do all done?