Management and on-site management are incompatible.

Hello, everyone.

Sai&Co.WAKU Chare Lab's Sai&Co. It is.

Well, today I'm going to talk about "management and on-site management are incompatible".

But before that, please.

Today's story, if "It was good!" If so, please share it with your friends😁

Then it's the main topic.

Well, everyone.

I think some of you already know, but I think those who work for a company know more.

The management of the company and the operation on the site are inevitably incompatible.

Company management, to put it bluntly, is the management of money, right?

If you can adjust it so that the money goes out less than the money that comes into the company, the company can continue to operate for a long time.

In other words, it's good if the money goes in and out goes well.

That's why many managers tend to only look at the entry and exit of this money, and leave the management of the site to their subordinates.

Well, that's the Western-style hierarchy type of organization.

I understand what such managers are saying.

Because if you look at the management and the management, it's multitasking, so the energy consumption of the brain increases a lot.

So I assign my subordinates instead of myself and have them take my place.

Well, speaking of rationality, it's a rational way of management, but it's too much of a fuss, and it puts out a policy of outside the field, so it's a problem.

If you discuss it properly, it will be difficult to become troublesome later.

On the other hand, how about the management of the site? In other words, the desire to demonstrate our skills, abilities, and services at the peak tends to be the top priority.

Moreover, many Japanese are serious, so they tend to take seriously what they are doing, so they want to improve their quality more and more.

That's a good thing, but I'll throw a way to improve that quality to the management side.

In other words, welfare benefits, technology development facilities, and so on, "It's the role of the company to prepare an environment where we can shine more and polish ourselves more, right?" As much as you say, you're constantly appealing to the management, aren't you?

But there's no way you can do it for free, so of course it costs money.

If the site that emphasizes quality and the management side that emphasizes money and the core part that emphasizes it are different, this will no longer be compatible, right?

If you spend money, the quality will go up.

If you don't spend money, the quality will be flat or go down.

But even if you spend money to improve the quality, the company's money will decrease.

If the company's money decreases, the management will not be able to stand this time.

However, there is a possibility that sales will increase due to the increase in quality.

On the other hand, if you don't spend money, the quality will be flat or down.

But the money the company has is increasing.

However, if the quality of the service is flat or decreasing, you will be worried about leaving customers in the long term, so there is a risk that the company's money will decrease as a result.

In that way, the quality of money and service tends to be balanced.

If you choose one or the other, one of them will sink.

When it comes to composition, I think this is a general composition.

Some companies don't work like this.

There are companies that increase quality and increase money, and companies that lower quality and reduce money.

So after that, how do you think about this fact and put it into the real world? That's what I mean.

One is that the management accepts that the management emphasizes the movement of money, and the site emphasizes the quality of services.

That way, it will be easier for each other to accept each other's circumstances, so you can minimize the collision.

In other words, it's easy to bring it to constructive discussions.

In the end, we should aim for the growth of the company and our own happiness.

I think it's best to end with a win-win.

The other is that you can see the emphasis on each other, so if you tickle the emphasis on that point, the other person will be happy and sad.

If you can be pleased, the opponent will be a powerful ally, and if you make it sad, the opponent will also be a strong enemy.

Depending on which option you choose, an enemy or a friend, the ending of the scenario will change drastically, and everyone's own happiness at the end will also change.

So there are a lot of options for this, but which one would you choose? I'm going to end today's blog by asking this question.

Well, how was today's story?

Like this, every day, I use psychology, brain science, personality analysis, and other things such as how to manage the organization, how to choose happiness in life, and make a blog in an easy-to-to-understand manner.

So, if you are interested in today's blog, please bring your finger to this other blog once.

Everything can be read in about 5 minutes.

We accept questions, impressions, and consultations from the official LINE.

I will also post stories that I couldn't write, so I'm waiting for your registration.

LINE Add Friend

Finally, if you say that today's story was good, please introduce it to your friends.

See you later✌️