Chapter 3 3

Effective managers value contribution and know how to align their work with long-term goals.He would ask the question: "What can I contribute to substantially improve the efficiency of the organization?" He emphasized personal responsibility. Focus on making a contribution.This is the key to increasing productivity.This kind of work efficiency can be manifested in the following two aspects: 1) manifested in one's own work, including the work content, level, standard and influence; 2) manifested in the relationship with other people, including superiors, colleagues, subordinates ; 3) It is manifested in the use of management methods such as meetings and reports.

Most managers have a tendency to overemphasize the things under their control. They often just bury their heads in hard work, but don't care much about the results of their work.They are very worried that their unit or their superiors will make them "disadvantaged", and they especially care about some powers that they "should enjoy". In this way, the work efficiency is often compromised. Every time the person in charge of a large management consulting company accepts an entrustment from a new client, he always spends a few days talking with the senior management personnel of the entrusting unit one by one.He would talk to them about the job, the institution and the people and history of the institution.Then he will ask (of course, usually not so straightforward); "What do you think you should do to be worthy of the salary that the company pays you?" Department" or "I am in charge of the company's sales".However, many people replied: "There are 850 people under me who need to be managed." Only a few people answered: "My job is to provide information to managers so that they can make correct decisions." What new needs will the product have." "I have to prepare relevant information for some decision-making issues that the president will face."

If a person only knows how to work hard and only emphasizes some of the power he has, then no matter how proud he is of his title and position, he is just a subordinate.On the contrary, if he values ​​contribution.If he is responsible for the results of his work, no matter how low his status is, the work he does conforms to the actual meaning of "top management", and he should be a "top management" because he can be responsible for the operating performance of the entire organization . Emphasizing contributions allows managers to shift their attention from their narrow departments, professions, and skills to the business performance of the entire organization.Make him pay more attention to the outside world.Only the outside world is where benefits arise.A manager may have to reconsider his skills, expertise, role, and the relationship between his department and the organization as a whole and its goals.Therefore, managers must also treat clients or patients as their own clients.

They are treated as customers, because the products of the institution (whether it is a valuable product, or government policy, or medical service) are all for them.After such a consideration, managers may have many different ideas from the past about what they should do and how to do it. This happened a few years ago at a sizable US government scientific research agency: the old director of the agency's publishing department retired, having worked at the agency since its founding in the 1930s.He is neither a scientist nor a formally job-trained writer.The publications he presided over were often criticized by leaders for their lack of academic standards.The new director is a scientific writer and versatile.As a result, the published publications immediately took on a new look, with high academic standards.Surprisingly, however, the scientific communities that had been the main readers of these journals no longer wanted to read them.A well-respected scientist at the university who had worked closely with the institution for many years finally told the institution's administrator: "Your former director wrote for us, and your new director treats us as The 'object' for writing articles."

When the old director was there, he asked himself: "What specific contributions can I make to the institution?" The answer he got was: "I can use my own work to let young scientific workers from outside understand our institution and make them Get interested in the organization and attract them to come and work for us.” So when he introduced the organization, he focused on the main issues.Focus on key decisions, even some major debates within the organization.Because of this, he often came into direct conflict with the agency's executive director.But the old guy never budged.He always said: "The criterion for testing the success of our publications should not be whether we like it, but how many young scientists want to work in our institute because of reading our publications."

Asking the question "What can I contribute?" is really about tapping into the untapped potential of your work.What is considered outstanding performance on many occasions is often a very small fraction when compared with the contribution that can be made if the full potential is realized. The agency department of One Family Commercial Bank of America is a profitable, albeit tedious, business.The Department registers the buying and selling of securities in various companies and acts as a transfer agent for stock transfers.And charge a service fee.It also takes care of the filing of the register of shareholders, the regular distribution of dividends, and many other such day-to-day matters.These jobs demand a high degree of precision and efficiency, but little imagination.

This situation continued until one day an acting vice president of the new director of a large New York bank asked the question, "What can the agency contribute?" It is extremely useful for the agency department to have direct contact with the senior financial executives of the client unit, and the "purchasing decision power" for various services of the bank is in their hands.Of course, the work of the agency department itself must be done well first.But, as the new vice president sees it, the division has enormous potential to attract customers to the bank's various services.Under the leadership of this vice president, the agency department, which was originally only good at registration, has now become the sales department that has done the most successful sales work in the whole bank.

If a manager can't ask himself "What contribution can I make?", then he will not have lofty goals in his work, and he may even get the goals wrong, and he is not easy to use the word "contribution". make a narrow understanding. It is not difficult to see from the above two examples that the word "contribution" has different meanings in different occasions. different meanings.The general organization's requirements for effectiveness are often manifested in the following three major areas: direct results; establishing new values ​​and reaffirming these values; cultivating and developing the talents needed for tomorrow.If any one of these three aspects is lacking in effectiveness, the organization will decline or even collapse.Therefore, if managers want to make some contribution, they must work hard in these three aspects.But among these three, which one is the most important and which one is second depends on the manager's own situation, his status and the needs of the organization itself.

In general, the immediate results of an institution are always apparent.For a business, direct outcomes are economic outcomes, such as sales and profits.For hospitals, it is the care and treatment of patients.However, even if it is a real result, it is not always very clear. The example of the vice president of the bank agency department mentioned above is a good illustration.If the manager himself does not know what the immediate results are, then there is nothing to talk about. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the UK National Air Corporation is an example.The government manages these airlines as commercial enterprises, but these airlines are a means of British national policy and maintenance of the unity of the Commonwealth, and at the same time they have been largely the funds for the survival and development of the British aviation industry source.The airlines were caught between different ideas of these three immediate outcomes, none of which were achieved in the end.

The direct results are always the most important. The survival of the organization needs these direct results, just like the nutrition in the human body needs calories.However, institutions also need to be committed to some values ​​and need to reaffirm them repeatedly, just like the human body needs vitamins and minerals.Organizations must have their own propositions and ideas, otherwise there will be chaos and paralysis, and the organization will disintegrate.In the case of an enterprise, a commitment to values ​​may mean strengthening technical leadership.It may mean finding the right products and services for American families, or it may mean helping those families get the best quality products and services at the lowest prices.

The commitment to value muscle, like other outcomes, is not always clear. The USDA has for years been influenced by two fundamentally opposing values: the desire to increase agricultural productivity, and the desire to strengthen "family farming" and make it the backbone of the nation's agriculture.Commitment to the previous values ​​has led to the development of agriculture in the direction of industrialization, and the development of American agriculture in the direction of highly mechanized and large-scale commercialization.Commitment to the second value projected a sense of nostalgia in favor of an unproductive agricultural proletariat.Because the agricultural policy vacillates between these two different value commitments.Significant amounts of money have been spent so far with little success. Finally, managers' contributions are subject to attrition, and institutions are largely a means of overcoming this limitation.If an institution cannot sustain itself in the long run, it means failure.Therefore, the organization must provide talents who are good at management for the future, must enrich the personnel training fund, and constantly update its human resources.Our next generation should be able to inherit our hard work style and contributions.And on this basis prepare a "higher" baseline for their next generation. If an organization only pays attention to maintaining the achievements it has made today, and is only satisfied with seeing problems today, it will lose the ability to adapt to the new environment.in many human activities.The only eternal law is change. Therefore, an enterprise that is only satisfied with today will find it difficult to survive in the ever-changing tomorrow. When managers can emphasize making contributions, it will be a powerful motivator for talent development, because they will always try to meet those requirements.Managers who aspire to contribute can also help those with whom they work to see the future, thus raising the standard of their work. The new director of a hospital presided over his first hospital meeting, thinking that a difficult matter had finally been resolved satisfactorily. Unexpectedly, a colleague suddenly raised a new question: "If Nurse Bryce was around , will she be satisfied with this solution?" The debate resumed, until a new, more aggressive solution was agreed upon, and the debate subsided. The dean later found out that Brian was a nurse who had worked in the hospital for a long time. She was not a successful nurse, and she had never been a manager.However, whenever a decision to care for a patient comes down to her When visiting the ward, Nurse Brian would always ask, "Are we doing our best to help the patients?" Because the patients under Nurse Brian's care were in good condition and recovered quickly, the whole hospital became more and more successful over time. Beginning to adopt the so-called "Brian's principle", I have learned to ask myself the following question: "In order to implement the purpose of running the hospital, are we doing our best and making our greatest contribution?" Even though Nurse Ryan had retired ten years ago, the demands she made of herself still mattered to those who were above her professionally and in position. A commitment to contribute is a commitment to be effective.Without this commitment, managers are failing in their responsibilities and playing tricks on the people they work with, thus costing the organization's work. The most common failure in a manager's job is an inability or unwillingness to adapt to the demands of a new position.If a manager is only satisfied with his old working methods.Then he must fail.The reason is simple: the expression form of the work results is different, and the relative relationship (importance) between the two aspects of the performance of the work has also changed.So his contribution should also change accordingly.A manager who does not understand these changes will do the wrong things in the wrong way, even though he is doing exactly what he has been doing in the past, and has been successful in the past. This is the reason why many able Liyin often did not do well when they came to work in Washington (that is, the US government agencies) during World War II.Washington is a "political institution", and those who used to do things their own way suddenly find themselves a "pinion" in this "big machine".Feeling very unaccustomed to this.However, there are also many people who have no political experience and have never worked in a law firm with more than two people, but they use their actions to prove that they are effective managers in Washington.Robert Hold? B? Sherwood is an effective director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, he also wrote a book on how to use power effectively.It was called "Roosevelt and Hopkins", and the book had far-reaching influence, but he himself was originally just a playwright, and his original "institution" only had a desk and a typewriter. Those who could make a difference in Washington during the war valued making a contribution.Because of this requirement.They can adapt to new jobs.In order to make appropriate adjustments to the three value aspects of different jobs.Those who fail often work very hard, but they fail to challenge themselves or feel compelled to adapt to new job demands. An old man who became the president of a large national retail chain store at the age of 60 can be said to be an outstanding success story.The man had been the second in command of the major chain for more than 20 years, content to work under another extroverted, aggressive boss who was many years his junior, and never expected to one day be himself. will be president.However, his boss passed away suddenly, so this loyal deputy was promoted to the position of president. He used to work in finance, and he is very good at numbers, such as cost system, procurement and inventory, allocating funds for new chain stores, customer flow research and so on.As for personnel issues, he often only has vague abstract concepts.But when he suddenly became president, he asked himself, "What can I do that no one else can do to change the face of the company?" He concluded that the truly significant contribution is to train future employees for the company manager.The company has always been proud of its policy of training managers. "But," argues the new philosophist, "the policy itself is not an effect, my contribution is to make the policy actually work." Since then, three times a week, when returning to the office after lunch, he would drop by the personnel department and take eight to ten files of young managers at random each time.Back in the office, he opened the first file, browsed through it, and hung up the phone to the person's superior. "Mr. Robertson, I'm the president of the company and I'm calling you from New York. You have a young man on your staff named Joe Jones. You recommended him to do some new product development work before ten o'clock. So that he can get some of these With all your experience, why haven't you acted yet?" After speaking, he put down the phone. Then, he typed up the second file and called a manager in another city; "Mr. Smith, I am the president of the New York headquarters. I know you have advised a young man named Dick Rowe people to do a job where they can learn about inventory management. I noticed that you not only said that, but you did it. I want to tell you that you put a lot of emphasis on developing young people, and I am very happy about that.” He only worked as president for a few years, and later retired from the factory.But today, more than ten years later, those managers who have never known him in the past all attribute to him the great success and development of the company in the past ten years. Robert McNamara often asked himself the question, "What can I contribute?" This largely explains why he was so competent and effective as Secretary of Defense.When President Kennedy transferred him from Ford Motor Company to the Cabinet in the fall of 1960 to accept this most difficult job, McNamara was mentally unprepared. When McNamara was at Ford Motor Company, he had been in charge of the internal affairs of the company, and he could say that he knew nothing about politics.At that time, he let his subordinates do all the matters related to liaison with Congress.But only a few weeks after he took office, he realized that the understanding and support of Congress is inseparable from being a good defense minister.therefore.He forced himself to do things that he was not used to: improving the relationship with the Congress, developing personal friendship with some influential members of the Congress, and mastering some bead-holding skills in the open and secret struggles in the Congress.He cannot yet be said to have achieved complete success in his dealings with Congress.But he certainly has done better than any of his predecessors in the past. McNamara's story suffices: The higher a manager's position, the more the outside world will play a role in his ability to contribute.Generally speaking, no one in an organization can do a better job of improving relations with the outside world than managers. Perhaps the biggest problem among American university presidents today is their preoccupation with such matters as internal management and fundraising.In some well-known universities, few principals are willing to keep in touch with students, even though students are "customers" in the university.The alienation of students from the administration naturally became the main factor of student dissatisfaction, and it was this factor that caused student riots similar to those at UC Berkeley in 1965. It is especially important for a knowledge worker to focus on contribution, because only in this way can he really contribute. Knowledge workers do not produce "things", they create ideas, information and concepts.Furthermore, knowledge workers are usually professionals.In fact, his work can only be effective when he has learned how to do it well, when he has acquired some kind of specialized knowledge.However, the area of ​​expertise itself is narrow and does not directly lead to results.The work output of one professional can only really produce results when combined with the work output of other professionals. Our task is not to train generalists, but to make professionals and their expertise more effective.That is to say, the professional must consider who will use his work output in the future, and must let the user know and understand what situations so that they can better use the professional's work output. At present, there is such a popular view: people in society can be divided into two categories: "scientists" and "ordinary people".Ordinary people are required to learn some scientific knowledge, understand some scientific terms and scientific tools.This may not be difficult.However, in my opinion, this classification may only be suitable for the situation a hundred years ago.In today's large modern institutions.Almost every staff member is an expert with profound professional knowledge.Each uses its own scientific tools, each has its own area of ​​interest, and each has its own set of jargon.Besides, now the categories of science are becoming more and more detailed. If a physicist wants to understand the research field that another physicist is engaged in, he may find it very difficult. Like a biochemist, a cost accountant is a "scientist" in that he has his own field of expertise, his own assumptions, his own concerns, and his own jargon.By the same token, market researchers, computer experts, budget officials in government agencies, and psychiatrists in hospitals are all scientists.If these people want their work to be effective, they must first make themselves known to others. Intellectuals have a responsibility to make themselves known to others.Some professionals believe that ordinary people should and can make the effort to understand them.Some even think that as long as there is a small number of professionals who can talk about it, it will be fine.These thoughts reflect a very uncivilized arrogance.It is in a university or a research laboratory that such an attitude (unfortunately common today) renders the professional useless and renders his knowledge a pedant.If one is to be a manager, or if one is to be held accountable for one's contributions, one must make one's "product" (that is, one's knowledge) available to others. Effective managers know this because they all have a psychological drive to do their jobs better, to know what other people need, find, and understand.They will ask questions like this to people inside the organization (including their superiors, subordinates, and especially colleagues from other departments): "In order for you to contribute to the organization, what do you need from me? When do you need me? In what form and by what means are these contributions to be made?" If cost accountants can proactively ask such questions, then they will find that some data that is obvious to them at a glance may be completely unfamiliar to some managers who need to use these data.They will find out immediately.Some data that are very important to them are useless to production personnel; while some data that are rarely published and rarely seen are urgently needed by agricultural production personnel every day. If a biochemist working in a pharmaceutical company is willing to ask this question, he will understand immediately; if he wants clinicians to use his research results, then he must first learn to express himself in a language that clinicians can understand research results, rather than just using a large set of biochemical terms.Besides, whether clinicians are willing to use a new compound drug in clinical trials also determines whether the research results of biochemists have a chance to become a new drug. A scientist working in the government sector who values ​​contribution very much will soon realize that he has to explain to decision makers what a certain research and development work can bring about, and he will feel compelled to do those general tasks. The last thing scientists want to do is to predict the outcome of a scientific inquiry. The only meaningful interpretation of the word "generalists" is that a specialist can relate his narrow field of knowledge to the entire world of knowledge.A few people may be proficient in several scientific knowledge, but this does not mean that they are generalists, they are just experts who are proficient in several scientific knowledge.A specialist in several sciences may be as narrow-sighted as a specialist in only one.Managers who aspire to contribute do relate their narrow domains to the whole.He himself may not be able to integrate the knowledge of several fields, but he will soon find that he must fully understand the needs, directions, limitations, and cognitive abilities of other people, otherwise his work results will not be appreciated by them. use.Even if this is achieved, it will not necessarily thrill him with the richness and variety of knowledge, but it will save him from the arrogance of the learned man, which destroys knowledge. , so that knowledge loses its perfection and validity. In an organization, managers who think they have "management talent" often do not have good interpersonal relationships; while managers who pay more attention to making contributions in their own work and relationships with others can always maintain good relationships. relationships, and therefore, their work is productive.This may be the only correct definition of a good relationship.Nice words, warm feelings don't mean much, and they can often mask unkindness, especially in a work- or task-dominated environment when work isn't progressing.On the other hand, as long as all parties involved are able to achieve results and progress in their work, then occasional harsh remarks will not affect good interpersonal relationships. If I had to name three people who did a particularly good job with people, I would name the following three: General George C. Marshall (rd. Kuang Marshal[], U.S. Army Chief of Staff; Alfred P. Sloan (A1f?e4s1.an), President of General Motors Corporation of the United States from the early 1920s to the mid-1950s; Nicholas Drestadt (NMh01as DTe Qing tadt), Sloan During the Great Depression, he built the most successful legendary Dirac luxury car in American history. If it weren't for his early death after World War II, he might have been a general manager in the 1950s The president of the car company. These three people have completely different personalities.Marshall is a professional soldier, serious, loyal, inarticulate, but endearingly shy; Sloan is an administrator, reserved and polite, but not easy to approach; De Gestadt is enthusiastic and interested Vigorous, it seems to have the tradition of craftsmen and craftsmen typical of Germany's "Old Heidelberg".Their different characteristics are: they are good at arousing the goodwill of those around them, and they are also good at inspiring others' dedication to their work.Although these three people have different ways of dealing with people, they all base their relationships (including relationships with superiors, colleagues and subordinates) on making contributions to their work.All three are able to work closely with others.Also often can consider others.They often need to make some key "personnel decisions."But they never worry about "relationships" because they take such decisions for granted. Valuing contribution alone provides four basic requirements for effective relationships: * communicate with each other; * Collaborate together; *self-improvement; * Develop others. 1.communicate with each other.Intercommunication has been a central task in management for more than two decades.No matter in the business world, the government administrative department, the army, the hospital, or in all important institutions, how to communicate with each other has always been a topic that people are most concerned about. As early as 20 or 30 years ago, we have noticed how much the staff of modern organizations need to communicate with each other, but there is a lack of sufficient communication.Twenty or thirty years have passed, but the work of communication has still not seen much improvement, but we finally understand why the promotion of communication with great fanfare has little effect. It turns out that we only regard communication as a top-down intention, such as the spirit conveyed by the management department to employees, and from superiors to subordinates.To know only the relationship The building is built on a top-down basis.It is impossible to truly communicate with each other.On this point, we can get confirmation from relevant communication theory and work practice.The more the superiors want to instill something in the subordinates, the more likely the superiors will misunderstand the meaning of the superiors, because the subordinates often only listen to what they want to hear with anticipation, and what they say to the superiors is often not comprehensive. To scrutinize and ponder. Managers who aspire to contribute, however, often demand that their subordinates strive to contribute as well.They often ask their subordinates such questions: "What contributions can we expect from you as a superior to our organization? What should we expect of you? How can we make full use of your knowledge and ability?" ?” In such an atmosphere, exchange and communication will become easy and possible. Once the next term has considered and put forward what he thinks he can contribute, the superior has the right and responsibility to make a judgment on whether his proposal is feasible or not. According to experience, the goals that subordinates set for themselves are often different from those of superiors.This is because subordinates and novices see things from a different perspective than their superiors.The more capable the subordinates are, the more willing they are to take responsibility for themselves, and the greater the gap between their perceptions and understanding of objective reality, opportunities and needs, and their superiors' expectations. Generally speaking, when this kind of disagreement occurs, it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, because a good and effective communication channel has been established between them. 2.Collaborate together.Emphasizing contributions facilitates horizontal communication and, therefore, makes horizontal collaboration possible. "Who needs to use my product and make it useful?" This question can help us see the importance of some people who are not related to the manager's area of ​​responsibility.It underscores the fact that an organization's effective work is actually done collaboratively by a group of people with different intellectual and technological backgrounds.These people have to get together consciously to work, and they often get together consciously according to the needs of the task or the needs of the development of the situation, completely breaking the limitations of the jurisdictional structure. Take, for example, the hospital, perhaps the most complex form of modern knowledge institution.Nurses, nutritionists, physical therapists, medical and x-ray technologists, pharmacologists, pathologists, and many other medical professionals must all work together on the same patient.This is a kind of conscious cooperation, and no one is consciously controlling and directing it.Of course, their cooperation also has a common purpose.And it must conform to the general plan of action, which is the doctor's treatment plan for the patient.At once In terms of organizational structure, these medical professionals belong to different professional departments, and each of them only operates in his own highly specialized field of knowledge.However, they must inform other relevant personnel of their operation results in a timely manner according to the specific situation and the patient's needs, otherwise, their efforts may only be counterproductive. In hospitals where contribution has been made a top priority, there is generally no difficulty in organizing such coordination and collaboration.In other hospitals, it is difficult to carry out such horizontal communication and spontaneously form a task-centered working group. Although the hospital pays attention to the role of various committees, it uses general meetings, announcements, Persuasion education and other means, trying to promote this kind of communication and cooperation. Today's institutions have an organizational problem, but some traditional concepts cannot solve this problem.Knowledge workers need to be proficient in business knowledge in their field and have the responsibility to make their work effective.Organizationally, they "belong" to a professional department, whether that is a biochemistry department or a nursing department in a hospital.From the perspective of personnel management, their training, files, evaluation and promotion are also managed by professional departments.But in terms of work, they must more and more participate in some special working groups, become a responsible member of the group, and cooperate with professionals in different fields around a specific task. Emphasizing contributions to work does not in itself solve this organizational problem.But it can improve the understanding of the task, and it can also promote communication between the upper and lower levels, which can help some institutions with poor organization to complete the task. The information revolution brought about by the development of computer technology has made communication among knowledge workers more and more important.How to "communicate information" has long been a difficult problem to solve.Since the information is processed and transmitted by someone, the information is often artificially distorted during the communication process, such as adding personal opinions, impressions, comments, judgments and prejudices.However, the computer revolution suddenly brought us into a new world.Most of the information now no longer needs to be processed or transmitted by humans.Therefore, in the communication process, we will not bring personal opinions, and the information of the status quo can be said to be pure information. Our task now is to establish the minimum necessary communication and exchange to ensure that we understand each other and understand the needs, goals, perceptions and methods of work of forces.And information alone won't help us solve this problem.Only through direct contact, whether in language or in writing, can the purpose of mutual communication be achieved. The higher the degree of automation of information processing.The more we need to create opportunities to communicate effectively, 3.self-improvement.Whether you can improve personally depends largely on whether you value making contributions. If a person wants to make some important contribution to the organization, he must first ask himself the following questions: "What kind of self-improvement do I need? What knowledge and skills must I learn in order to make the desired contribution? What strengths are there to take advantage of? What standards should I set for my own improvement?" 4.Develop others.Managers who pay more attention to making contributions will also push others to pay attention 自我提高，不论这些“他人”是他的下属，同事，还是他的上级。这样的管理者在制订工作标准时，他所考虑的往往不是个人的情况，而是任务的需要。这些标准一般说来要求很高，目标雄心勃勃，任务完成后影响也是很深远的。 我们对如何进行自我提高了解得并不多，不过有一件事已十分清楚：人们都是根据自己设定的目标和要求成长起来的，知识工作者更是如此。他们总是按照自己定下的目标和方向不断前进的。如果他们对自己没什么要求，那他们就只能在原地踏步，不会有任何发展。如果他们对自己的要求很多很高，那么他们就会发展成为能力特强的人，而且所花的时间和力气也并不见得比成就不明显的人更多。 开会、汇报、情况介绍是管理者开展工作的典型环境，也是他每天必须使用的工作手段。可是，即使他很善于分析和控制自己的时间，搞这些活动毕竟还会占去他很多的时间。 卓有成效的管理者对开会、汇报、介绍情况应该达到什么目的，心中可说是一清二楚。他们会问自己道：“我们为什么要开会?是为了决策?是为了要向有关人员介绍情况，提供信息?还是为了要理清下一步该怎么干的思路?”在每次开会、汇报或进行情况介绍前，他们会坚持先把会议的目的考虑清楚，并让与会者也都能知道。他们还会坚持让会议为他们所要作出的贡献服务。 在每次开会前，一个讲究效率的管理者总要先说说明会议所要达到的目的以及应该作出的贡献。同时，他还要设法让会议紧紧围绕着主题。他决不会让提供信息的会议开成为一种自由漫谈、人人可以高谈阔论的会议。certainly.他也决不会将献计献策的会开成由某个人长篇大 论发言的会议。相反，他会启发在座的每个人畅所欲言、献计献策。在会议即将结束时，他还会将会议所做出的结论与会前所宣布的会议宗旨联系起来。 当然还有其他一些使会议开得有效的办法，比如一个十分明显、但却常被忽略的办法就是：你可以主持会议，听取重要的发言；你也可以参加会议，并发表讲话。但你不能既主持会议，又高谈阔论。当然，最重要的一点还是要从一开始就把会议的注意力集中在贡献上面。 重视贡献可以帮助管理者解决面临的一个重要问题：可以让你在一团乱麻似的事务中理出轻重缓急来。以贡献为主就会给你一条安排事情的原则，使各项工作获得一种相关性。 重视贡献还可以使管理者工作中的另一个固有缺陷一—只关心机构内部的事务，过分依赖其他人——变成为力量的泉源。它可以造就一个能相互配合、共同协作的集体。 最后，重视贡献还可以防止只关心机构内部的事务。它能帮助管理者(特别是最高层管理者)将注意力从内部事务、内部工作和内部关系上转移到外部去，转移到可为机构出成效的地方上去。它会迫使管理者努力地去与外界进行直接接触，不管这些外界是指市场和客户，还是某个社区的病人，或是政府机关的各类外围组织。 因此，重视贡献也就是重视效率。