Have been busy lately with events and especially anchoring one with mutliple organisers and secretariats event. It's tougher than I thought - the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth" is so true.
So "Are 2 heads really better than one?"
I mean more feedback is good because you have more options, but there should be only one decision-maker. However, being in the Asian context, great ideas often become compromise(s). And I'm guilty of that because everybody contributes. Either that, if I insist I would be called "too domineering". Aiyoh, very kan-kor cho lang!
So "Are 2 heads really better than one?"
I mean more feedback is good because you have more options, but there should be only one decision-maker. However, being in the Asian context, great ideas often become compromise(s). And I'm guilty of that because everybody contributes. Either that, if I insist I would be called "too domineering". Aiyoh, very kan-kor cho lang!
I feel that the ultimate objective of a meeting is to make the best decision out of the various suggestions. But often what happen?
- No conclusion.
- No conclusion.
- No follow-up.
- We try this and try that... in fact ALL options.
- And lastly, assuming that someone else will take care of the matter; or better still -- the problem will disappear into the thin air.
- And lastly, assuming that someone else will take care of the matter; or better still -- the problem will disappear into the thin air.
The more people there are on one job, the longer it will take. Personally, I find it more effective to just work with one organiser, whom I can turn to for decision making.
The ideal scenario would be to have a leader, who knows what he/she wants; and the ka-kia, who knows what needs to be done.
1 comment:
Two heads are not just better than one but two good heads are better than one.If we have two bad heads it as good as nothing but if we have one good head then better.So two good heads are better than one.
Post a Comment