For your in-depth analysis: this problem seems to be a problem, a careful study will find that this is actually two problems. The first problem is that "the leadership is always insinuating that you do not understand", that is, "the leadership intention is to let you understand, but you just do not understand what the leadership is saying"; the second problem is that "directly ask and say that you would like to The second problem is "asking and saying that you want to understand", that is, "you say you don't understand, and the leader doesn't explain too much, as if he doesn't intend to let you understand what he is saying". The first problem involves personal comprehension and communication; the second problem involves the leader's art of leadership. Both are very representative of the most common problems in the workplace.

I think: in the workplace, subordinates do not quite understand the leadership of the speech, can not completely understand the intention of the leadership, is a very normal phenomenon, and is not the leadership in the "innuendo", or "pretend to be profound"; this is because the leadership and subordinate conversation This is because leadership and subordinates talk, is essentially a "workplace information transfer" process, in this transfer process, due to the source of information (leadership) and the receiver (subordinates) of the cognitive scope of the different information processing and understanding, coupled with the channel (transmission path) and often subject to a variety of interferences, resulting in the receiver (subordinates) can not correctly accept the information source (leadership) to send information. The source of information (leadership) to send information, or often received by the interference of the distortion of information, is a norm. If the source of the information itself is a deliberately processed message, it usually means that the leader is not simply passing on information, but testing the subordinate's "decryption ability" or information extraction ability.

As an employee, if you often feel that the leader's speech is "insinuating and unintelligible", the problem is usually not with the leader, but with the employee himself, who needs to strengthen his ability to decode the information transmitted by the information source. Specifically, in the workplace, after receiving the information conveyed by the leader, no matter whether the subordinates really understand, or do not understand, or the leader told you to "think for yourself", you must immediately carry out the following three aspects of preparation and action:

1, think about the underlying purpose

2, think about the context

3, immediate feedback

Subordinates can not understand 100% of the true intentions of the leadership, unless it is a very clever leadership, or the leadership itself is very difficult to understand 100% of their own point of view and intentions. Therefore, as a subordinate, what you have to do is to immediately carry out the above three actions, which is the most effective way to deal with the leadership speech in the workplace.

The first problem: it is not that the leadership speech "insinuation" or "make profound", but due to the leadership and subordinates of the information asymmetry and channel factors, resulting in a primary distortion of information. The result is that subordinates often can not correctly understand the true intentions of the leadership.

Management, the leadership to subordinates to convey information, called "information transfer", different companies, there are different information transfer path design, there are formal path, there are also informal path. The party that transmits the information is called "information source", the party that receives the information is called "information receiver", and the path of transmission is called "channel". For example, the leader of the old king and subordinates Ma talk, the old king is the "source of information", Ma is the "information receiver".

1, information distortion

Leaders due to personal language expression ability is not strong, improper use of words, or the use of some should not have gestures, etc., in the conveyance of information, it is easy to cause information distortion.

For example, when the leader said, "We have some employees who usually look quite capable, but when it comes to the critical moment, there is always a problem", and then he was thirsty and wanted to drink water, he subconsciously glanced at the water fountain. And Li just stood next to the water fountain, we all see the leader in the speech, eyes looked at Li, naturally will be associated with "so Li is the leader said that person ah! That's how distorted the message is!

2, information omission

Any information is a variety of background, a variety of related parties, as well as the causes and consequences; if only talked about a certain point in the source of information, it is an information omission, and information omission will result in a misinterpretation of the information.

For example, the leader said, "I went to the headquarters for a meeting last week, and the leaders from the headquarters said that our project is good in terms of construction quality! Subordinates mind consciously think that "our project has been the headquarters of the affirmation", in fact, is not the case, the headquarters of the leadership of the original words are "your project, in addition to the construction quality is quite passable, you say, there is a little bit of which reached the headquarters of the requirements? " Communicate this incomplete information, it will cause extreme distortion of information.

3, different understanding

Even if the information is not distorted, there is no omission, the leader is the information "unchanged" conveyed, due to the receiver and the source of the information is understood differently, but also will produce a lot of difference.

For example, the leader said, "In order to improve work efficiency and grasp the big data on the front line, we decided to on-line nail system, which is an important step in the standardization of our sales process," while the staff will think, "In the future, we have to go to visit the stores in the wind and the rain, and take pictures, send positioning, which is not monitoring us and forcing us to go. Isn't this monitoring us and forcing us to leave?!"

Summary:

Through the above analysis, we understand that, in the process of information transfer, due to the distortion of information, information omission, coupled with a different understanding of the subordinates can not really understand the content of the leadership, is a very normal situation. If the leader likes to talk like gold or express improper language, the subordinates will be more difficult to completely and thoroughly understand the meaning of leadership. This is not the leader in the "pretense of sophistication" or "insinuation", in fact, the leader is also very eager to subordinates to understand his true meaning, and then immediately go to the implementation of the action to achieve the purpose he wants, but due to the constraints of the information transmission channels and methods. It is very difficult for a leader to ensure that the information is not distorted and not missing!

The second problem: Leaders don't want their subordinates to know their true intentions, usually because they want to protect their subordinates' initiative, or test their decoding ability.

Subordinates did not understand the speech of the leader, and directly asked the leader, but the leader did not carry out additional explanations and explanations, but threw a sentence "you think for yourself", which is the most commonly used way of leadership in the workplace, the use of this way, usually means that the leadership:

1, in the protection of subordinates initiative

Some things, the leader himself is not a complete program or mature ideas, he just has an "idea" only, as for this "idea" how to transform into concrete action, the leader himself is not sure, he is eager to The first thing you need to do is to listen to your subordinates, so that they can take the initiative.

Then, the leader will tend to speak "vague", and then let the subordinates take the initiative to "think", so that the subordinates to open the brain, to provide creative programs.

For example:

The leader said to Wang, "Help me to do a program, and your previous design program is a little different, to be a bit of encouragement, quickly go to do it, let me look at the end of the day.

When Wang heard this instruction, he was actually confused, what do you mean by "a little motivation"? How much encouragement? In which place a little motivation? What does the boss really want? If you ask your boss at this time, the boss will definitely look deep and say "think for yourself".

This is a typical example of a boss who has an "idea" but no plan of action. He needs to protect the initiative of the subordinates, deliberately said very vague, and then let the subordinates to play smart, take the initiative to do.

2, test the decoding ability of subordinates

Almost all leaders like to test subordinates, because the test subordinates is also an important aspect of the subordinates "counseling", only to know which subordinates in which areas of weaknesses in order to target the reinforcement of the leadership how can we know which subordinates in which areas of weaknesses? Weaknesses? The only way to do this is to conduct a "test".

And "protect the initiative of subordinates" is different, "test the decoding ability of subordinates", the leader has a very complete methodology, program and point of view, he intentionally said "fuzzy! "The reason for this is to "test" the subordinates.

For example:

The leader said to Wang, "Help me to make a program, to be a little different from your previous design, to be a little encouraging, go and do it, let me see before work."

This time, the leader of the program in fact, they have been largely designed, the reason why he also still let the small king to do, he just want to see the small king on the leadership of the comprehension of the leadership, and their own ideas of the difference between how big. If Xiao Wang asked him, he would still say "you think for yourself".

Many bosses like to test their subordinates in this way, clearly they have a clear view and ideas, but they have to say very vague, let the subordinates to do, and then look at the subordinates to compare the practice and their own design in advance whether or not they are the same, so as to test the ability of each subordinate's ability to comprehend and understand.

Summary:

Whether it is to protect the initiative of subordinates, or to test the decoding ability of subordinates, the leader shows that "speech is more fuzzy", and then seldom carry out too many explanations, and always let the subordinates "think for themselves! The difference between the two is that when "protecting the initiative of subordinates", the leader himself really does not think clearly, and there is no molding program and point of view; and "testing the decoding ability of subordinates", the leader is always "more vague speech", and then seldom give too much explanation, always let subordinates "think for themselves" and "do it first". The difference between the two is that when "protecting the initiative of subordinates", the leader really doesn't think it through, and doesn't have a well-formed program or viewpoint; while "testing the decoding ability of subordinates", the leader has his own well-formed program and viewpoint.

The two problems are different, but the way to deal with them is much the same. Leaders always speak in innuendo and do not understand, and directly ask and say that you think, and how to deal with it? Insist on three actions:

Leaders speak more ambiguous, "innuendo", in the end is the leader in the "protection of subordinates initiative", or leadership in the "test subordinates decoding ability! "In the real world, it's hard to tell the difference.

In fact, there is no need to distinguish between the two, because the response is basically the same, is to minimize the "distortion and omission of information", as long as you have enough information, comprehensive enough, the natural understanding of the leadership will be the deeper, the more you can deliver the results that the leaders want most.

My suggestion: stick to the three actions:

1, think about the fundamental purpose

Leaders are usually busy at work, basically there is no time for "chatting", and each of their speeches has a purpose! Therefore, as a subordinate, when listening to the leader's speech, in addition to listening to the "content of the speech", what should be done is to "think about why the leader wants to say these words", he wants to achieve what purpose?

Only if you want to understand the purpose of the leadership speech, the content of the leadership speech to be able to more in-depth understanding, otherwise, it is impossible to listen to the "strings outside the voice" and "outside the meaning of the words".

2, think about the context

Understanding the leadership of the speech, must be combined with the context, the so-called context, that is, at what time, under what circumstances, what people are present, in order to a thing, the leadership of the attitude and tone of voice said the words. Only a deep understanding of the context, in order to accurately understand the true meaning of the leadership speech.

For example, the leader said, "Wang is really stupid!" Is it derogatory? Not necessarily! It may be in an activity, the leader said with a smile, "Doing business is definitely a hand, if you say to engage in this aspect of sneakiness, Wang is really stupid!

3, immediate feedback

After listening to the leader's speech, no matter understand the meaning of the leadership, can not directly ask the leadership of what it means, but to use the immediate feedback, the leadership of the speech of the feedback.

We go back to the previous case:

The leader said to Wang, "Help me to do a program, to be a little bit different from your previous program, to be a little bit of encouragement, quickly go to do it, let me look at it before the end of the day".

What Wang didn't understand is that what Wang should have done was to respond with the "immediate feedback" technique.

For example, "Leader, for this new program, my understanding is that in the form of the program, add one or two collective activities to mobilize everyone's enthusiasm; and in the design of the content, add interactive elements, I wonder if I understand correctly."

Be immediate, direct, and give feedback! Leaders like to comment on the rightness or wrongness of feedback; leaders don't like to explain it to their subordinates!

Summary:

When the leader's speech is ambiguous, as a subordinate, you should immediately think about what the fundamental purpose of the leader's speech is, and do your best to restore the real context of the time, to give yourself more information, and if there is any doubt, do not take the doubt back, but immediately, directly, to give feedback, and then let the leader comment on whether your feedback is right or wrong. You can get more information from the leader when they comment on your feedback!

Final Summary

It is normal for leaders to speak inaudibly, and there is no need to be overly nervous, let alone suspect that the leader is insinuating that if you ask the leader directly, and the leader says that he or she will let you think for yourself, the problem is that you don't understand the three actions for responding to a leader's speech.

Leadership speech, as a subordinate, to think about the fundamental purpose of the leadership speech, restore the real context of the leadership speech, at the same time unclear content, timely feedback, rather than trying to make the leadership "to speak a little more clearly.

Some leaders do like to speak briefly and vaguely, mainly to protect the initiative of subordinates, or to test the decoding ability of subordinates. However, in terms of the actual workplace, the leader's ability to express himself is also a need to improve, many leaders speak upside down, and like to "change the order", which makes the subordinates can not understand what he wants to do, and naturally can not do efficient implementation!