Na semana que findou estive numa empresa pela segunda vez. Da primeira conversa que tive com os meus interlocutores fiquei com a ideia que tinham graves problemas com a subcontratação. Desta vez perguntei-lhes como tinha evoluído a subcontratação e, para minha surpresa, responderam-me muito animados. Tinham sido obrigados a testar dois novos subcontratados, por incapacidade dos habituais, e tiveram uma surpresa espectacular. Encontraram gente que se punha do lado das soluções e não do lado dos problemas. Escusado será dizer que os subcontratados anteriores não serão opção para o futuro.
Foi disto que me lembrei ao ler "When Solving Problems, Think About What You Could Do, Not What You Should Do":
"Nobody likes a troublemaker at work. We’ve all had colleagues who annoy us or deviate from the script with no heads-up, causing conflict or wasting time: jerks and show-offs who seem to be difficult for no good reason and people who break rules just for the sake of it and make others worse off in the process. But there are also people who know how to turn rule breaking into a contribution. Rebels like Palmieri [Moi ici: Excelente exemplo que abre o artigo] deserve our respect and our attention, because they have a lot to teach us.
...
One of the biggest lessons is given a challenging situation — kids who want pizza — we all tend to default to what we should do instead of asking what we could do.
...
I then asked participants either “What should you do?” or “What could you do?” We found that the “could” group were able to generate more creative solutions. Approaching problems with a “should” mindset gets us stuck on the trade-off the choice entails and narrows our thinking on one answer, the one that seems most obvious. But when we think in terms of “could,” we stay open-minded and the trade-offs involved inspire us to come up with creative solutions."
1 comentário:
https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/1023955173670965248
Enviar um comentário