Maybe you're not doing anything because your boss is too overbearing

In the workplace, there is an odd circle: many people are full of energy and confidence when they first join the company, but after dealing with their bosses and supervisors a few times, they soon lose their energy. They find that no matter how well they do, their bosses are not at ease and they have to fix everything themselves. So they gradually take a back seat and say, "You're the boss, you're in charge."

When I was working on new media for a company, I once met a boss who was "very meticulous". He would not only revise the new media copy I wrote word by word, but also check the layout of the article. The word spacing here is a bit large and the border of this picture is a bit wide ...... makes me ask in my mind, "Isn't the leader the one who is responsible for the general direction? Why are you here to steal my job?

Perhaps my situation is a bit extreme, but there is no denying that in the workplace, there are many bosses and supervisors who are too broad-minded. On the one hand, such bosses will make their subordinates lose their motivation and initiative. On the other hand, bosses do not know that this situation is caused by themselves, and they will think that their subordinates are becoming more and more inattentive and of average ability.

The boss thinks that his subordinates are not good enough and takes more responsibility, while the subordinates will retreat again and again and think that the boss likes to tell them what to do and is not humane. In the end, the task fails, the boss dismounts and t, and the subordinate leaves.

The sad thing is that in the end, both sides will only blame each other, but do not know the root cause of the problem so that similar things are repeated.

This root cause is the "responsibility virus", which is always lurking in the workplace and can easily be triggered. Only by dealing with it scientifically can we make everything develop in a positive direction.

1

-THE FIRST-

This is the source of conflict in the workplace

The term "responsibility virus" was coined by management guru Roger Martin in his book "The Responsibility Virus: How to Delegate Tasks and Take Responsibility". It refers to a situation where one party has too much responsibility and the other too little, which can lead to a chain reaction of poor performance that ultimately leads to mission failure. And the responsible parties are unable to achieve any growth.

The responsibility virus is insidious and has its roots, not in the organization, but the human heart.

There is an ancestral "fight and flight response" in the human mindset, which means that when a threat is faced, one either fights or flees.

When people are faced with a task, the 'fight and flight response is automatically activated - they either take responsibility or abdicate it, going to both extremes. For example, when a couple argues about the education of their children, one partner will often say in anger, "Since you think I'm not doing the right thing, I'll leave the kids in your hands."

It's the same in the workplace. No matter who starts, in whatever way, it only takes one party to make the slightest movement for the other to go in the opposite direction. This reaction is quick and instinctive.

For example, there is this real-life case. Caroline was the vice president of a famous American magazine publishing company, specializing in sales, and very much a sales genius. But on one occasion, when a major company said it was dropping its advertising plans with the magazine, Caroline didn't know what to do and had to go to her boss, Mike, for help.

Mike was annoyed to see Caroline's unsure look. He promised Caroline that he would help her attend the next negotiation meeting with the client. At the negotiation meeting, Mike became the complete protagonist, while Caroline sat in the back row of chairs and became a spectator.

Caroline is very grateful for her boss's help, but her self-confidence takes an even bigger hit when she sees him busy helping her to "put out the fire". Seeing her helplessness, Mike takes on more responsibility and is constantly involved in negotiations and fumbling around. He is unhappy with Caroline's ability to do her job and always speaks with a sting, while Caroline thinks Mike is too aggressive.

Despite Mike's best efforts, ad sales continued to decline. Finally, one day, Caroline tearfully resigned. It was a 'lose-lose' situation, and the root of the failure was the 'blame virus'. The virus was set in motion when Mike first replaced Caroline as the lead negotiator.

The responsibility virus stems from a deep-seated human 'flight from war' response and is also linked to the way people interact with each other. According to Chris Argyris, a professor at Harvard Business School, most people subconsciously follow a "dominant value" in their interpersonal interactions. That is: only win in any exchange, always keep the situation in your own hands, avoid any form of embarrassment, and always keep your head above water.

In the case above, the desire to remain in control makes Mike take full responsibility for the situation. To avoid embarrassment, he takes responsibility without discussing it with Caroline, because to do so would reveal that he feels in his heart that everyone else is incompetent, which would cause embarrassment. At the same time, such a discussion could also make him emotional and make it impossible for him to keep his sanity.

On Caroline's side, on the other hand, when she chooses to be in flight mode in the face of her fear, she is willing to retreat to the point of putting herself in a position of control by allowing herself to manage a very small job that she is sure she can do. The reason she says nothing, despite her internal resentment towards Mike, is to avoid exposing the embarrassing situation of her inability to do the job. In this way, she appears to be sensible, even though she is completely disorganized.

This 'dominant value' is hidden in all situations and forms of human interaction, not just in the workplace, and it prevents people from communicating openly and honestly, and contributes to the proliferation of the 'blame virus'.

2

-THE SECOND-

Other people are bad

You may have caused it

Since "dominant values" are the underlying cause of the responsibility virus, is there anything we can do to avoid its effects? The answer is yes.

When we recognize the existence and manifestations of the responsibility virus, we have already taken a big step towards solving the problem. The next step is to redefine the roles of leader and follower at the level of awareness.

In our traditional definition, leaders are authority figures, the big heroes. They are like the captain at the helm, charged with the responsibility of saving the day.

This definition of a leader has four characteristics: unilaterally assigning responsibility; assuming most of the responsibility themselves; taking undisputed control; and checking their performance.

Correspondingly, followers are defined by passive acceptance, staying out of trouble, and obeying the leader. They are characterized by allowing and encouraging the other person to assign responsibility unilaterally; by abdicating responsibility; by abdicating their responsibility and remaining silent; and checking their performance.

This traditional definition, which is the breeding ground for the responsibility virus, must be redefined. Business managers should understand that

The leader is not the one who unilaterally decides how to divide responsibilities, but rather defines his own and others' responsibilities through an open dialogue.

Leaders should not be heroes who say "I'm in charge", but should find ways to match their own and others' competencies with their responsibilities.

The leader should say what he or she thinks, listen to any objections to the division of responsibilities, and allow everyone to check their performance together.

If you are in a follower role, then set yourself relatively high standards of responsibility wherever possible. If you fail or encounter difficulties, don't back off unilaterally, and don't imply that the leader is taking unilateral action. Instead, discuss it with the leader and together redraw roles and responsibilities for the future.

Discussing together means giving up full control and allowing others to check in, potentially bringing about embarrassing situations. These practices, which go against our dominant values, will make most people feel uncomfortable.

To overcome this discomfort, ask yourself: "What did I get from the previous way of leading?" "What did I get from the way I used to follow?"

One way to powerfully urge you to make changes is this: envision the end of your journey.

If you are a leader, rethink the increasing burdens you are forced to carry. Imagine what your life would be like in the next three years with all that extra work added to your current job. Then comes the next three years, with even more burdens ......

You will see that this kind of load is simply not something that anyone can handle and it creates more danger than having a subordinate share the load.

If you are a follower, imagine your supervisor taking on more and more work day after day, and you then continually abandon that work, you forfeit opportunities to advance yourself and resent and dislike each other and your supervisor. Imagining this worst-case scenario can help you muster the courage to take action.

We have to learn to see the other side of the responsibility again. As a leader, you see your subordinates as weak, poor, and lazy, look at them in a different and more positive light and think about why they are the way they are.

No one becomes a poor person because they enjoy being a poor person. They have their strengths. A more plausible explanation for their poor behavior and attitude is that it is a result of your behavior.

As a follower, you are oversimplifying things if you think your boss is arrogant, overbearing, and cynical. Few people enjoy displaying these negative personalities, and it is more likely that their demeanor is a reaction to your demeanor, and that if you keep backing off, they keep moving forward.

3

-THE THIRD-

Two effective ways to overcome the responsibility of virus

Redefining the roles of leader and follower can bring about a change in perception, but we need a more scientific approach if we are to resist the "responsibility virus".

From the above analysis, we can see that one of the main causes of the "responsibility virus" is immunization which results from dominant values. To avoid loss of control and embarrassment, both parties hide their true feelings.

In response to this, the book The Responsibility Virus offers a method called "Structured Decision Decision-Making. This approach promotes full and open discussion and testing without violating everyone's dominant values. It helps team members to collaborate effectively with each other and to make better and more reliable decisions.

The structured decision-making process aims to create a safe, encouraging environment where each member feels valued by the team. It emphasizes the separation of perspectives from the individual and the collective ownership of ideas by the team. The team has to be open to all ideas, no matter how quirky.

This means that if any member of the team feels that an idea is important, then that idea should be taken seriously. Once an idea is presented, it is a team asset and it has nothing to do with the level of the person who presented it.

Once an idea has been put forward, it is important to discuss what is needed to make it happen and whether all the conditions are currently in place. If the conditions are not available, then the person who came up with the idea will also see that his idea has been treated fairly.

The next step is to openly test the conditions that the team members think are impossible to achieve. The conditions that the team believes are least likely are tested first.

Testing may involve having to survey 1,000 customers, or it may just involve talking to one supplier. Whichever form of testing is used, the point is to get the team to believe that the test is justified and valid. The most skeptical member of the team can be asked to set the test criteria and lead the test.

Once the team has a common understanding of the logic behind each idea and has tested the barriers to its implementation, it can rule out those ideas that cannot be implemented and finally make the optimal decision.

You might say that it's too much of a waste of time to do testing one item at a time. With this approach, any decision is made with the support of everyone, including the most skeptical and potentially uncooperative members, before it is made.

Think about it: wouldn't an exceptionally well-coordinated team implementing a proven decision be far more effective than if the leader had made it unilaterally? What's more, a unilateral decision could be wrong.

A second practical tool to avoid the responsibility virus is the "responsibility ladder". This is a dialogue that changes the distribution of responsibility and is divided into six levels.

At the bottom of the ladder is level 6, which takes no responsibility and passes the problem on to someone else or a superior.

Rank 5 is similar to Rank 6, but with one difference: you explicitly ask the other person to handle the problem, but you follow along so that you can solve it yourself the next time you encounter a similar situation.

At level 4, you ask for help in structuring the problem or task and getting a head start on it.

At Level 3, you structure the problem yourself, come up with a few ideas and then ask your boss to decide on the best one.

At level 2, you feel you can analyze ideas and advise your boss to analyze which one is the best.

In level 1, you generate your ideas, analyze them and make the fidecisioanalyzeonly communication you have with the other person is notification.

In most cases, we always either take responsibility for Rank 1 or Rank 6, the two tiers that tend to trigger the responsibility virus.

If you feel awkward in the issue of assigning responsibility, pick the one that is causing you distress, but not the most difficult to overcome, and start a responsibility ladder conversation with the other person, choosing a Rank 2 to Rank 5 approach. A few small signals in this area can help you steer clear of the responsibility virus.

You can start the conversation with the phrase: "I think this is a Level 2 situation." This technique will greatly increase the speed and efficiency of the conversation, while also allowing both parties to quickly adjust their thinking without having to guess where such a conversation will lead us again.

The workplace "blame virus" is ubiquitous and can only be avoided if both leader and follower are aware of the seriousness of the problem and are willing to make genuine changes. By combining these approaches, companies can make better decisions, all employees can communicate and collaborate better, trust and understand each other, and everyone can improve their skills more quickly - all in one fell swoop.