Why hasn't the 'loyalty first' theory adopted by companies led to prosperity, but instead to chaos? Should scientific corporate management adhere to 'value exchange' or 'personality exchange'? Why did some ancient emperors distrust talents selected through layers of examinations and prefer to use eunuchs? Let's start with a thick bowl of chicken soup. More than a decade ago, when Mengniu was soaring, like Ma Yun today, there was much chicken soup attributed to Niu Gensheng. The thickest was this one:
"Those with virtue and talent are promoted exceptionally; those with virtue but no talent are cultivated; those with talent but no virtue are restricted; those with neither virtue nor talent are firmly rejected." It sounds so correct, and the parallel structure is quite imposing. This chicken soup was widely promoted by numerous corporate internal trainings and training institutions represented by Chen Anzhi. In short: loyalty is more important than ability, character first, ability second. Some even boiled it thicker: "Character first, attitude second, ability third." Many bosses and leaders found it very agreeable. But it didn't work. Over the years, no company that adhered to the 'loyalty (character) first' theory has thrived; instead, many have ended up in chaos. No matter how thick the chicken soup, it can't withstand scrutiny. Let me tear it apart piece by piece. The primary issue is that this chicken soup isolates and even opposes the two factors of 'ability' and 'character'. In fact, they are highly correlated. No one's talent comes out of nowhere. A talented person is more likely to possess some excellent qualities, such as being more diligent, more self-disciplined, and more ambitious. At the same time, a person who has received higher education or has struggled in society for many years but has no ability in their position is itself suspicious in terms of character. The correlation with negative qualities such as laziness, idleness, and indulgence is significant. A side evidence is that the improvement of education levels can greatly reduce crime rates, as fully demonstrated by both domestic and international data. The ancients said, "The son of a wealthy family does not die in the market." Hugo said, "Build more schools, and you will need fewer prisons." Admittedly, education level does not equal ability, and crime does not equal low character, but the correlation is high. The most critical factor is that talented people are more inclined to engage in fair 'value exchange' with the company. 'If you can rely on your talent to make a living,' there is no need to do sneaky things. Those without talent, to pursue more value, find it easier to use means like 'showing loyalty, deceiving superiors and subordinates, and flattering' than to improve business skills. This is a 'personality exchange'. Those who cheat on exams are more likely to be poor students than top students.
Similarly, the cost of 'doing evil' for talented people is high, while for the untalented it is low. If a talented person is found doing evil, the value of their talent will be greatly discounted, while the risk for the less talented is much smaller. Lao Miao once saw a deputy general manager of a company viciously say to his subordinates, "I am just a dog of President X. Whoever I am told to bite, I bite. Don't think I go too far sometimes; it's all President X's intention." The implication was to take sides: being on his side meant being with the boss. The subordinates were terrified and expressed that President X would live forever and Deputy President X was healthy. The team's 'execution ability' was greatly 'improved'. In his book 'The Effective Executive', Peter Drucker proposed five habits essential for effective managers: 1. Make good use of limited time
** **
2. Focus on contribution and work performance
** **
3. Make the most of people's strengths
** **
4. Concentrate on a few major areas and establish effective work order
** **
5. Make effective decisions. All five are directly or indirectly related to ability, and have nothing to do with the 'character' advocated by current chicken soup. If it exists, it has its rationality. Why do various absurd theories like 'loyalty over ability' and 'character over talent' prevail in corporate management? Why did some ancient emperors distrust the talents selected through layers of examinations and prefer to trust the eunuchs around them? This still needs to be explained from the fundamental patterns of human behavior. Humans are social animals and also competitive animals. It is human nature to be wary of others' competitiveness. So people often say that even if an incompetent person does bad things, they are not as harmful as a capable person (which may not be true). When someone shows exceptional ability, as their leader or boss, on one hand you appreciate them, but on the other hand, you involuntarily become wary. On the other hand, talented people usually engage in 'value exchange' with the company, using their abilities to serve the company in exchange for personal benefits; therefore, they think independently, have different ideas, and appear 'disobedient'. In contrast, those lacking talent have insufficient value and often choose 'personality exchange', using subservience and diligent service to gain trust, giving up independent thinking, and following instructions regardless of right or wrong, thus appearing 'loyal and obedient', 'executive', and 'wolf-like' (ha). Such people are always favored by leaders. 'Character' is actually a mass-produced product packaged by these incompetent people, sold to bosses and leaders. 'Liking to hear good words' and 'liking others to obey' are human nature. If the boss does not pay special attention to this, and the company lacks a scientific management incentive system, it will inevitably lead to 'personality exchange' overpowering 'value exchange', and the incompetent will eliminate the competent. For talented people who adhere to 'value exchange', there are many options for retreat, and they usually avoid competing in unscientific systems with the incompetent who adhere to 'personality exchange'. Due to the lack of scientific management, many companies inevitably slide towards management based on 'personality exchange'. Here, they advocate 'loyalty', 'character', 'dedication', and 'obedience', but not the abilities matching the position. A friend wrote this comment based on years of management experience: "Those who still keep in touch with the boss after leaving are usually those who were 'capable but disobedient'. Because they pursue fairness, they seek value returns during employment, and if they don't get fair returns, they resign, without needing to become enemies. Those who are disappointed and resentful towards the boss after leaving are mostly those who were 'obedient but incapable', because they gave more, endured more, and had fewer options." You might think, I can reuse talented people and also keep 'a dog or two' around to bite when needed; it's not bad, at least no big harm. This was the ancient emperor's art of controlling people, but in modern corporate management, it's too naive! Once a person without talent gains a foothold in an organization, they will do everything to maintain and consolidate their position, because the status they obtained through 'personality exchange' is less replicable and has fewer options, so they will definitely manage it carefully. If you think they will improve their business skills to become valuable, you are greatly mistaken. Their usual choices are: kidnapping leaders through subordinates (public opinion), using the leader to bully others, using distributors (suppliers) to blackmail the company, and using company policies to bribe distributors (suppliers). The harm is often enormous. A company that values loyalty is often full of lies, false passion, and factionalism, with complex corporate politics. Talented people who do not adopt the 'personality exchange' rule are marginalized and seen as 'low EQ'. However, the incompetent cannot be truly loyal; they just adopt 'personality exchange' and have fewer options, and they cannot be cultivated. The essential purpose of management is to improve operational efficiency, and the ability matching the position is the foundation of effective management. This thing called 'character' is the hardest to assess, and many who use the guise of 'character' and stand on the moral high ground to do evil are not few. Chairman Mao taught us, "The human factor is the first." I hope our current managers and business owners will abandon the 'character theory' and 'loyalty theory', introduce a professional human resource management system, use the core abilities matching the position as the main benchmark for evaluating talent, use incentive systems to stimulate their performance, and use management systems to prevent them from doing evil. Only then can corporate management ensure basic health; otherwise, it is easy to rot to the core. Don't learn from the art of emperors. In the era of monarchy, people had no choice, so the emperor's art of controlling people was effective. But now the game between talent and enterprises has fundamentally changed, even reversed. Isn't it ridiculous to cling to those things? Relatively speaking, Cao Cao's 'promoting only the talented' and Steve Jobs' 'one talent is worth a hundred fools' sound more reliable. -END- The best learning platform for FMCG distributors in China Focusing on providing professional, practical, and actionable tutorials for enterprises and distributors Committed to helping Chinese FMCG distributors grow rapidly The most professional and practical knowledge base in the FMCG industry Reply with the red number below to get the corresponding content Reply with number 1 to view the complete knowledge base | 001 Excellent article selection | 002 Distributor market operations | 003 Terminal visit management | 004 Sales supervisor skills | 005 Sales improvement techniques | 006 Channel expansion | 007 Managing distributors | 008 Distributor development | 009 Distributor internal operations management | 010 Team management | 011 Efficient distribution techniques | 012 Sales manager's eighteen skills | 013 KA operation methods and strategies | 014 First lesson for new sales | 015 Internet, brands | 016 Distributor B2B transformation | [Long press QR code to follow]