After learning self-management and goal management, what do I want to say to myself most?

The following information is reprinted for reference. Manage Yourself - Peter Drucker. This article is one of the most reprinted articles since the founding of Harvard Business Review. The author, Peter Drucker, has been teaching at Claremont Graduate University in California, USA, for a long time since 1971. This article was first published in 1999 and is excerpted from his book Management Challenges for the 21st Century (HarperCollins, 1999). This article has been abridged. We live in an era of unprecedented opportunity: if you are ambitious and smart, no matter where you start, you can reach the top of your career along the path of your choice. However, with opportunity comes responsibility. Today's companies don't care much about their employees' career development; in effect, knowledge workers must become their own CEOs. You should carve out your own niche within the company, know when to change paths, and continue to work hard and deliver results over the course of a career that may last 50 years. To do these things well, you must first have a deep understanding of yourself - not only your strengths and weaknesses, but also how you learn new knowledge and interact with others, and also understand what your values ??are. , In what areas can you make the greatest contribution? Because only when all your work is focused on your strengths can you truly excel. The great men of history—Napoleon, Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart—were all good at managing themselves. This is largely what makes them great. However, they are rare geniuses. Not only do they have talents that are different from ordinary people, but they are also born with the ability to manage themselves, so they have achieved achievements that are different from ordinary people. And most of us, even those who are moderately gifted, have to learn the skills of self-management. We must learn to develop ourselves, we must know where to put ourselves in order to make the greatest contribution, and we must remain highly alert and engaged throughout our 50-year career—that is, We need to know when and how to change jobs. ○What are my strengths? Most people think they know what they are good at. In fact, the situation is that people only know what they are not good at - and even at this point, people often don't know clearly. However, if a person can make a difference, he can only rely on his own strengths, and he cannot achieve success if he is engaged in work that he is not very good at, let alone things that he cannot do at all. People in the past had no need to understand their own strengths, because a person's origin determined his status and career in life: the son of a farmer would also become a farmer, the daughter of a craftsman would marry another craftsman, etc. But now people have a choice. We need to know our strengths before we can know where we belong. The only way to discover your strengths is through feedback analysis. Whenever you make an important decision or take an important action, you can record your expectations for the outcome beforehand. After 9 to 12 months, compare actual results with your expectations. I've been using this method myself for 15 to 20 years, and every time I use it I get unexpected results. For example, the feedback analysis method helped me see that it is easier for me to intuitively understand professional and technical people, whether they are engineers, accountants, or market researchers. This surprised me. It also showed me that I had little sympathy with generalists who covered a wide range of topics. Feedback analytics is nothing new. Invented as early as the 14th century by a German theologian who would otherwise remain unknown forever, this method was adopted some 150 years later by the French theologian John Calvin and the Spanish theologian St. Ignatius. They all use this method for the spiritual practice of their followers. In fact, feedback analysis enabled their followers to develop a habit of always focusing on actual performance and results, which is why the sects they founded - the Calvinist Church and the Jesuits - were able to dominate Europe for 30 years. As long as we consistently apply this simple method, we can discover our strengths in a relatively short period of time (perhaps two or three years) - which is the most important thing you need to know. By taking this approach, you'll be able to figure out what you're doing (or not doing) that's preventing you from using your strengths.

At the same time, you will also see areas in which you are not particularly capable. Finally, you will also learn what areas you are not good at at all and cannot achieve results. Based on the feedback analysis, you need to take action in several areas. First and foremost, focus on your strengths and put yourself in places where those strengths can shine. Second, strengthen your strengths. Feedback analysis will quickly show where you need to improve your skills or learn new ones. It will also show you where you have gaps in your knowledge—gaps that can often be filled. Mathematicians are born, but anyone can learn trigonometry. Third, discover any prejudice and ignorance caused by arrogance and arrogance, and overcome it. Too many people, especially those with specialized skills, tend to be dismissive of knowledge in other fields, or think that smart minds can replace knowledge. For example, many first-class engineers are at a loss when it comes to things related to people, and they are proud of this - because they feel that people are too chaotic for the clear engineer's mind. In stark contrast, HR professionals often pride themselves on not knowing even basic accounting knowledge or quantitative analysis. However, if people remain complacent in such ignorance, it is tantamount to self-destruction. In fact, to make full use of your strengths, you should work hard to learn new skills and acquire new knowledge. Another point, just as important, is to correct your bad habits. The so-called bad habits refer to those things that will affect your work effectiveness and performance. Such habits are quickly reflected in feedback. For example, a planner may find that his wonderful plans fall through because he failed to follow through. Like many talented people, he believed that good ideas could move mountains. But it is the bulldozer that really moves the mountains. Creativity is just a guide for the bulldozer, so it knows where to dig. The planner must realize that once the plan is done, it is not done. Next, they must find people to execute the plan and explain it to them. They must make timely adjustments and modifications before putting it into action. Finally, they must decide when to discontinue the plan. . At the same time, feedback will also reflect which problems were caused by a lack of courtesy. Courtesy is the lubricant of an organization. Friction occurs when two moving objects come into contact with each other. It is a natural law, not only for inanimate objects, but also for humans. Politeness is actually very simple. It is nothing more than saying "please" and "thank you", remembering other people's names, or greeting each other's family. But it is such inconspicuous details that enable two people to get along harmoniously, no matter what. Do they have a crush on each other? Many smart people, especially smart young people, don't realize this. If feedback analysis shows that a person repeatedly fails when it comes to things that require the cooperation of others, it probably means that this person behaves poorly—that is, he lacks good manners. Comparing expectations with actual results will also reveal what you can't do. Each of us has many areas in which we know nothing and have no talent, and in which we fall short of even mediocrity. People, especially knowledge workers, should not try to complete jobs and tasks in these areas. They should waste as little energy as possible on areas in which they are incompetent, because going from incompetence to mediocrity requires much more effort than going from first-class to excellence. However, most people, especially teachers, but also organizations, are obsessed with turning low-ability people into qualified ones. In fact, they might as well spend their energy, resources and time on developing competent people into outstanding ones. ○How I work It’s surprising how few people know how they get things done. In fact, most of us don’t even know that different people work and perform differently. Many people are not working in the way they are accustomed to, which of course leads to inaction. For knowledge workers, "How do I work?" may be more important than "What are my strengths?" Just as a person's strengths are the same, a person's way of working is also unique. This is determined by the person's personality. Whether personality is determined innately or cultivated, it must be formed long before a person enters the workplace. Just as what a person is good at and what he is not good at is a given, the way a person works is basically fixed. It can be slightly adjusted, but it cannot be completely changed - and certainly not easily.

And just as people are more likely to achieve results by doing what they are best at, they are also more likely to achieve results if they do their best work. Often, a few common personality traits determine how a person works. Am I a reader or a listener? First of all, you need to figure out whether you are a reader type (used to reading information) or a listener type (used to listening to information). Most people don't even know that there are readers and listeners, and very few people are both readers and listeners. Even fewer people know which type they are. However, there are some examples of how harmful such ignorance can be. Dwight Eisenhower was a darling of the news media when he served as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. His press conferences were famous for their unique style - no matter what questions the reporters asked, General Eisenhower answered them calmly and fluently. Whether he is introducing a situation or explaining a policy, he can explain it clearly in two or three concise sentences. Ten years later, when Eisenhower became president, the same reporters who had admired him now openly looked down on him. They complained that he never answered questions directly and instead talked endlessly about other things. They always laughed at him for answering questions incoherently, ungrammatically, and ruining standard English. Eisenhower obviously did not know that he was a reader rather than a listener. When he served as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, his aides sought to ensure that every question from the media was submitted in writing at least half an hour before a press conference. In this way, Eisenhower fully grasped the questions asked by reporters. And when he became president, two of his predecessors were listeners—Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Both presidents knew they were listeners and both liked to hold tell-all press conferences. Eisenhower probably thought he had to do what his two predecessors had done. However, he never even heard clearly what the reporters were asking. Moreover, Eisenhower was not an extreme example. A few years later, Lyndon Johnson botched his presidency in large part because he didn't know he was a listener. His predecessor, John F. Kennedy, was a reader-oriented person. He recruited some outstanding pen writers to serve as his assistants and asked them to write him a briefing before each face-to-face discussion. Johnson left these men behind, and they continued to write notices. But he obviously couldn't understand what they wrote. However, Johnson had performed exceptionally well before when he was a senator, because senators must first be listeners. Few listeners can become qualified readers through hard work - either actively or passively, and vice versa. So someone who tries to move from a listener to a reader suffers the fate of Lyndon Johnson, and a person who tries to move from a reader to a listener suffers the fate of Dwight Eisenhower. None of them can develop their talents or achieve anything. ○How do I learn? To understand how a person works, the second point that needs to be clarified is how he learns. Many first-rate penmen were not good students—Winston Churchill being one example. In their memories, going to school is often a complete torture. However, few of their classmates have such memories. They may not have much fun in school, and the biggest pain in going to school for them is boredom. The explanation for this problem is that people who are good at writing generally do not learn by listening and reading, but by writing. This has become a rule. The school doesn't let them study in this way, so their grades are always bad. All schools follow this learning philosophy: There is only one right way to learn, and everyone must follow it. However, for students whose learning styles are different from others, being forced to learn the way they are taught in school is hell. In fact, there are probably six or seven different ways to learn. People like Churchill learned by writing. Others study by taking detailed notes. For example, Beethoven left many essay notes, but he said that he actually never read them when composing. When asked why he kept writing them down, he is said to have replied: "If I don't write them down right away, I'll forget them all soon. If I write them down in a little notebook, I'll forget them all." I will never forget it and never need to look at it again. "Some people learn by doing. Others learn by listening to themselves talk. I know a company general manager who turned a small, mediocre family business into an industry leader. He is a man who learns by talking.

He had a habit of summoning all top managers to his office once a week and speaking to them for two or three hours. He always raises policy issues, offering three different views on each issue. But he rarely invites his colleagues to comment or ask questions; he just wants an audience to listen to him. This is how he learns. Although he is an extreme example, learning through talking is by no means an uncommon method. Successful trial lawyers learn in the same way, as do many diagnosticians (myself included). Of all the most important self-knowledges, the easiest is knowing how you learn. When I ask people, "How do you study?" most people know the answer. However, when I asked: "Do you adjust your behavior based on this understanding?" few people answered "yes". However, the unity of knowledge and action is the key to achievement; if there is no unity of knowledge and action, people will do nothing. Am I a reader or a listener? How do I study? This is the first question you have to ask yourself. However, these issues alone are obviously not enough. To manage yourself well, you also need to ask questions like: Can I work well with others? Or do you prefer to go it alone? If you do have the ability to cooperate with others, you still have to ask this question: In what relationship do I interact with others? Some people are best suited to be subordinates. General George Patton, the great American hero during World War II, is a good example. Patton was a senior general in the U.S. Army. However, when it was proposed that he serve as an independent commander, General George Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army and probably the most successful commander in American history, said: "Patton is the best man the United States Army has ever produced, but he will become Worst Commanders “Some people work best as team members. Others work best alone. Some people are exceptionally gifted as coaches and mentors, while others are incapable of being mentors. Another key question is, how can I achieve results – as a decision-maker or as a consultant? Many people would do well as consultants but are not equipped to handle the burden and pressure of decision-making. In contrast, many people need advisors to force them to think before they can make a decision and then execute it quickly, confidently, and boldly. Incidentally, this is why the number two person in an organization often fails when promoted to the number one position. The top position requires a decision-maker, and a strong decision-maker often puts the person he trusts in the second position as his adviser. The consultant is often very good in the second position, but when he is moved to the first position, he is not good. Although he knows what decisions should be made, he cannot accept the responsibility for actually making them. Other important questions to help you understand yourself include: Do I perform well under pressure, or am I comfortable in a routine, predictable work environment? Would I work best at a large company or a small company? Very few people work well in every environment. More than once, I have seen people who were very successful in large companies but had a hard time switching to small companies. The reverse is also true. The following conclusion is worth repeating: Don't try to change yourself, because you are unlikely to succeed. However, you should strive to improve the way you work. Also, don't take a job that you can't do or can't do well. ○What are my values? To be able to manage yourself, the final question you have to ask is: What are my values? This is not a question of ethics. Moral principles are the same for everyone. The test of a person's morality is simple. I call it the "mirror test." At the beginning of the 20th century, the German ambassador to Britain was the most respected diplomat of all the major powers in London at that time. Obviously, he is destined to take on important responsibilities, if not as Prime Minister of his country, at least as Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, in 1906, he suddenly resigned, unwilling to host a dinner hosted by the diplomatic corps in honor of King Edward VII of England. The king was a notorious pervert and made it clear what kind of dinner he wanted to attend. According to reports, the German ambassador once said: "I don't want to see a pimp in the mirror when I shave in the morning." This is the mirror test. Our ethics require you to ask yourself: What kind of person do I want to see in the mirror every morning? Behavior that is ethical in one organization or situation is ethical in another organization or situation. However, ethics are only one part of a value system—especially an organization’s value system.

If an organization's value system is not accepted by them or is incompatible with their own values, people will feel frustrated and ineffective at work. Let’s look at the experience of a highly successful HR executive. The executive's company was acquired by a large corporation. After the acquisition, she was promoted to do the job she had done best before, including selecting talent for key positions. This executive was convinced that when it came to selecting people, the company could only hire from outside after it had eliminated all possible internal candidates. But her new company believes it should hire from outside first to bring in new blood. One thing to note about both approaches is that, in my experience, the appropriate approach is to do both. However, these two approaches are fundamentally incompatible with each other—on the surface, they are different policies, but in essence, they are differences in values. This shows that people in this company have different views on the following three issues: what is the relationship between the organization and its employees; what responsibility the organization should bear for employees and their development; and what is a person's most important contribution to the enterprise. After several years of frustration, the executive eventually resigned—despite her financial losses. Her values ??and the values ??of the organization just didn't mesh. Likewise, whether a pharmaceutical company achieves superior performance through continuous small improvements or through a few expensive and risky "breakthroughs" is not primarily an economic issue. The results of both strategies are likely to be similar. In essence, this is a conflict between two value systems. One value system sees the company's contribution as helping doctors improve the work they are already doing, and the other value system is oriented toward scientific discovery. As for whether a company's operations focus on short-term results or long-term development, this is also a matter of values. Financial analysts believe companies can do both. Successful entrepreneurs know better. True, every company must achieve short-term results. But in the conflict between short-term results and long-term growth, each company will decide which priorities it chooses to focus on. Fundamentally, this is a conflict of values ??regarding corporate functions and management responsibilities. Value conflicts are not limited to business organizations. One of America's fastest-growing pastoral churches measures success by the number of new converts. Its leadership believed that what mattered was how many Protestants joined the congregation. God would then meet their spiritual needs, or at least a sufficient proportion of the Protestants' needs. Another evangelical pastor church believes that what is important is the spiritual growth of people. This church slowly allowed those Protestants who formally joined the church but were not spiritually integrated into the life of the church to choose to leave. Again, this is not a question of quantity. At first glance, the second church seems to be growing more slowly. However, it retained a much higher proportion of Protestants than the first. In other words, its development is relatively stable. This is not a theological question, at least not in the first place, but a question of values. In a public debate, one pastor said, “You will never find the door to the kingdom of heaven unless you join the church first.” Another pastor retorted, “No, unless you first seek the door to the kingdom of heaven. Otherwise you don’t belong in the church. “Organizations, like people, have values. In order to be effective in an organization, an individual's values ??must be compatible with the values ??of the organization. The values ??of the two do not have to be the same, but they must be close enough to survive. Otherwise, this person will not only feel frustrated in the organization, but also unable to achieve results. A person's way of working and his or her strengths rarely conflict; on the contrary, the two complement each other. However, a person's values ??sometimes conflict with his strengths. What a person does well—even quite well, quite successfully—may not align with his or her value system. In this case, the work this person does does not seem worthy of a lifetime of energy (or even a lot of energy). If I may, please allow me to insert a personal story. Years ago, I too had to choose between my values ??and the work I was doing successfully. In the mid-1930s, I was a young man doing a very good job in investment banking in London. This job clearly plays to my strengths. However, I don’t see myself as making a contribution as an asset manager. I realized that what I valued was the study of people. I don't think there's any point in spending your life busy making money and dying as the richest man in the graveyard. I had no money and no employment prospects at the time. Even though the Great Depression was still going on at the time, I quit my job. This is the right choice. In other words, values ??are and should be the ultimate touchstone.

○Where I Belong A few people learn early on where they belong. For example, mathematicians, musicians, and chefs usually know they will become mathematicians, musicians, and chefs when they are four or five years old. Physicists often decide on their working lives in their late teens or even earlier. But most people, especially the very gifted, don't know where they are going to be until at least their mid-twenties. However, by this time, they should know the answers to the three questions discussed above: What are my strengths? How do I work? What are my values? They can and should then decide where to invest their efforts. Or, they should be able to decide where they don't belong. People who already know that they will not do well in a large company should learn to refuse to work in a large company. People who already know that they are not suitable to be decision-makers should learn to refuse to do decision-making work. General Patton (who probably never knew this) should have learned to refuse to assume independent command. Just as importantly, knowing the answers to the above three questions also enables one to accept an opportunity, an invitation, or a task with confidence. "Yes, I will do it. However, I will do it in this way according to my own characteristics, organize it in this way, and handle the relationships involved. This is what I am doing. Results should be achieved within this time frame, because that’s who I am. “Successful careers are not planned in advance, but come naturally when people know their strengths, how they work, and their values ??and are ready to take advantage of opportunities. Knowing where you belong can turn a diligent, capable but mediocre person into an outstanding worker. ○What contribution should I make? Looking at the history of human development, most people will never need to ask this question: What contribution should I make? Because their contributions are told by others, their tasks are determined either by the work itself (as in the case of farmers or craftsmen) or by their masters (as in the case of servants). In the past, most people were in a subordinate position, and it was taken for granted that they would do whatever they were told. Even as late as the 1950s and 1960s, the emerging knowledge workers (so-called “organization men”) looked to their companies’ personnel departments to help them plan their careers.