Helping with Adventurer Party Management

Where does the first momentum go?

Claudio's team has gone completely backwards.

Q&A is followed by a lecture.

Since slapping them is not the purpose, you need to choose how to speak carefully.

"First, I want to rate it from a good point of view.

The team now had a good attitude in arguing throughout the three days. First of all, a hypothesized attitude to streamline investigations by testing it is an important idea that also leads to more efficient work.

Besides, I also had a good view of my professionalism as a priest, the legal aspect. When there is a legal basis for what powers the status of deputy has in the first place and how it is stipulated in the nobility law, ecclesiastical law, it is easy to act even when it actually enters the territory.

Besides, it's good to have come to question your intentions to yourself, the person who gave you the assignment. Instead of just taking what you're told, it's a praiseworthy behavior as an organizer to be able to stop and think about what they're thinking. "

As we line up what we need to evaluate, the light also returns to the team's face-to-face eyes.

I guess I was surprised because in highly competitive organizations and those where OJT is at the centre, it is normal for education to begin by denying it.

Unfortunately, in small households like ours, we need to carefully raise a small number of people on hand in a short period of time, because we cannot have the luxurious choice to kick down a large number of talent and scowl up only those who have crawled up.

We can't afford to scold the darkness and let it rot or get lost.

No matter how unsuccessful the job is, there is always something good or successful.

If you deny it headlessly because it fails as a result, you won't be able to get your word after that.

Well, since this education is to some extent one of the aims of having failed experiences, it does not nurture autonomous officials by alleging only shortcomings and atrophying their actions.

The source of that policy, by pointing it out first from a good point of view, is that they had an attitude to listen to.

"Next, that's the challenge. I haven't been able to do it now, but I would like it to be improved from the next time.

First of all, it's the order of explanation. Be the first to give an overview of the conclusions. I'll give you my reasons later. I'm the one getting the explanation this time, but the information I want is the information and the basis for making decisions and decisions. As you know, I'm busy because I work both in the shoe business and as a substitute. So I want you to be concise in your explanation.

One more thing, when you can't determine the value of the information during an investigation, I want you to collect the amount anyway. How to value and rank information will be given later in the lecture. Don't waste any time at first. It's good to argue and set the direction. But if you don't know what you're up to, go after the quantity. It's only after that that we follow quality. "

That's all I pointed out.

Claudio and the others, who stood by how criticized they would be after the fire melted explanation (presentation), clapped out, "That's it?" He has a face.

There is also an intention that there is a short way to improve.

Narrow down what you point out as something to improve.

Ideally you should point out three points in many, if possible only one.

That's not psychology either, I like technical theory.

Humans, if we can improve by next time to the extent that we have just been pointed out, there will be no difficulty.

If only one point can be improved by next time, I have to think of it as a big deal.

"... somehow, you do it in an unusual way"

And, says Claudio.

"Yes! Kenji is different!

and sarah says with her chest stretched.

Is that a compliment?