Helping with Adventurer Party Management - Chapter 357

It was originally a wine press, or perhaps a juice extractor.

It had once applied pressure using thick wooden screws, but Gorgoro’s modifications had changed it considerably.

First, the number of wooden screws used to apply pressure to the printing surface had increased — from one to four. With just one screw, you could only print small pictures, so they likely added more screws to accommodate the notebook-sized images I had requested.

It may seem like a simple idea, but this improvement allows the Baron’s detailed copperplate prints to be reproduced on a larger scale.

In fact, I believe this will have a significant impact on the art world.

At the moment, there’s no talk of pursuing that direction, but it might be worthwhile to discuss it with the Baron and Jilboa, who are planning an expedition to observe the man-eating titans.

◇　◇　◇　◇　◇

“I’m heading out for a bit!” Sara’s team called out as they left the company.

The general policy had been decided, and their first step was to investigate the documents.

In this regard, Sara’s team — who had participated in the previous deacon training — clearly had an advantage.

Meanwhile, the other team seemed stuck in a prolonged discussion.

There are typically two reasons why meetings drag on without a clear decision.

First, there are often too many participants who are not decision-makers — people who, like critics, share their opinions but are not willing to make choices or take responsibility.

While hearing a variety of opinions can be necessary at times, it’s best to separate those with decision-making authority from those without.

However, with a small three-person team, this shouldn’t have been an issue.

For that reason, instead of working together as a group of six, we split them into teams of three.

Oddly enough, once a group exceeds four people, freeloaders often emerge in decision-making.

Constructive discussions are generally effective with up to eight participants. Organizations that consistently make sound decisions are usually structured with groups of about that size.

The second reason discussions drag on is when there’s simply not enough information to make a decision.

A brilliant leader or entrepreneur may be able to determine the right direction with minimal information, but that’s not the case for ordinary people.

It’s natural to gather enough information — at least enough to decide whether to go left or right — before setting off.

When information is lacking, discussions that seem to go in circles are often not a sign of indecision, but of concern.

Rather than endlessly worrying, the best approach is to get on your feet and gather information firsthand.

Balancing decision-making and information gathering is challenging.

If you’re too decisive, you risk relying too much on intuition; if you’re too cautious, you risk accomplishing nothing.

Through trial and error, each organization must find its own optimal balance.

Since people in large organizations tend to lean toward caution, managers often create systems that encourage decisiveness — such as reducing group sizes and promoting those who make bold decisions to leadership roles.

Watching the other team continue their lengthy discussion, I could tell they were bringing up some solid points — yet much of it felt like a rehash of what they had already heard.

Well, it’s only the first day. It might be interesting to see how the results differ between the team that took action and the one that didn’t.

By fostering some healthy competition, each team can reflect on their own actions more clearly.

Often, observing how others operate reveals insights you might miss if someone simply explains it to you.

How many such insights can they gather?

The growth of these impromptu officials will depend on that.