It's more effective to command by doing

When leaders direct their subordinates' work, "doing command" is more effective than "standing command" in mobilizing their subordinates' enthusiasm. "Dry command" is a silent command. This kind of command is even more effective and powerful than the voice and text command. This kind of power does not depend on the power in the hands of the leaders, nor on the force of coercion, but on the exemplary leading role of the leaders themselves and the style of hard work. This is a kind of power of prestige and the most sacred command.

In the history of just national wars, if the commander personally fought, it would greatly boost the morale; if the commander personally fought, it would be even more extraordinary. If this personal expedition is not only to supervise the battle, but also to kill the enemy in person, the soldiers will be able to sacrifice their lives and forget their death. They will be invincible and will fight for the personal fighters.

As a leader, if he is just "standing command", there will be an invisible distance or even a gap between him and his subordinates, and the command will lose its power or even fail completely. In particular, leaders who have little task of "adjusting" can not "stand and command". Just imagine, in a unit of more than ten or even dozens of people, the director of "little luobotou" there only gives orders and doesn't do it himself. Will his subordinates support him and get close to him?

The influence of "doing command" on subordinates is the greatest in two situations: one is to choose the hardest work to do with subordinates when the leader has the heaviest burden. This is self-evident. The other is that leaders can take part in some very ordinary labor, such as cleaning, binding documents, sorting newspapers, or some surprise activities. In terms of division of labor, these jobs belong to subordinate staff, but you should never think that they have nothing to do with you. When you have time, or "take advantage" to help subordinates do these things, you will give subordinates a sense of self-respect, make them feel that you value his work and respect his personality. At the same time, you will give subordinates a sense of intimacy, so that they feel that you have no shelf, approachable and willing to work under you. On the other hand, if you mechanically look at the division of labor between yourself and your subordinates, if you don't take part in some surprise activities when you are free, or even don't bother to do some "little work", your subordinates will feel that it's not good to work under your hands. Even if you are still working under your hands, you are just temporarily dawdling around, waiting for the opportunity to change jobs.