"Big companies do things and small companies behave themselves" is regarded as a wise saying by many professionals. Employees in small enterprises, in particular, often regard dealing with interpersonal relationships as an important means to obtain job opportunities and benefits. Similarly, for small business owners, it is also important to handle the relationship between internal employees. The boss of an advertising company complained to me that his employees, especially business people, are too mobile, and there are often contradictions between employees, and they have great opinions on each other. The whole sales team is not United enough and lacks cohesion. Many small businesses have such problems. Managing people is a profound knowledge. Each manager may directly manage only a few people, but when these people with different personalities and experiences get together, many complicated things will evolve. The factors that can unite the team are not only dogmatic systems such as consistent goals and organizational discipline, but also the environment is more important. If you want to shape people, you must first create the environment. I asked this boss: What would you do if a salesman of your company knocked on the door of your office and reported to you that another salesman was actually running a customer's business conflict with him? The boss replied: you know the situation clearly. Whoever runs first or who is most sure will be his. Then I asked the second question: What would you do if the employee who knocked on your office door reported to you that another employee used his working time to go out for private affairs, which affected his work? He said: If that's the case, I will definitely deal with those who violate the discipline, or at least criticize education. The boss's answer seems to be no problem, and so do many business managers. But this practice reminds me of primary school students. When I was in primary school, many people had this experience. In class, they did some little tricks or things that violated discipline, and were "reported" to the teacher by other students, so they were called to the office by the teacher for criticism. What were you thinking when you walked out of the office with your head down? I feel that I have done something wrong. Will I correct it later? I don't think so! And probably wondering who reported me, let me know that I will beat him up, or I will stare at him for an opportunity to report. This is what we often call "tattling". Employees sometimes report to their leaders, but most of the time they are rationalized under the title of "reporting work" and "making suggestions". Of course, there is nothing wrong with employees reporting business problems or colleagues' problems to their leaders, but how the people who listen to the report deal with them will directly affect the atmosphere of the team. Take the first question just now as an example. If a salesman reports a business conflict to you, you can call another one immediately to find out the situation, and then award the business to one of them according to what you think is fair. This will definitely affect another person's mood, because they don't agree with what you think is fair. If this happens frequently, the first thing employees think of when they encounter contradictions and problems is to report to the leader, and you will have endless "lawsuits". The way I encounter this problem is: if you report to me, I will ask you first, have you communicated with another colleague? If not, then go back and communicate with him first, and you can discuss the solution. There is no way to come to me again. In fact, many similar problems are unilateral statements made by both sides of the contradiction, and their basic nature is "small report". The purpose of the report is to hope that you can help him make the other person give up. Most contradictions can be reconciled, and communication is the only way to solve problems and contradictions. Don't just let employees communicate with you, but encourage employees to communicate with each other. Perhaps they discovered after communication that the original contradiction was just a misunderstanding. The process of employee communication is also a negotiation process. For both parties who solve problems better, they can be rewarded together; If you can't solve the contradiction, you can come forward again. After a long time, it will create an atmosphere of harmony and mutual trust, rather than an atmosphere of "gossiping". Similarly, for employees who report others' "abuse of power for personal gain", don't immediately strike the table and ask the parties for criticism, education or punishment. This will inevitably cause some employees to "hold a grudge", which is not what a mature manager should do. As a manager, you must have a long-term vision, and sometimes it is not necessarily a good thing to talk about things. When you encounter such a problem, the first thing you should think about is whether this is an accidental phenomenon or an existing problem, whether it is not perfect in the formulation of some systems, and what kind of systems or regulations should be used to avoid this phenomenon. As a manager, you must take some responsibility for any bad phenomenon inside. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but sometimes the opportunity to make mistakes is given by managers or systems. How to prevent employees from making mistakes is what managers need to consider, not just punishing those who make mistakes. This is the real "right things, not people". Employees who make serious mistakes will of course be dealt with accordingly, but they must not be based on another employee's "small report". It is necessary to slowly guide employees to reflect. The problem is "about things, not people", and managers deal with "things" more than "people". This is long-term management.