Introduction Why hasn't the "loyalty first" doctrine adopted by many companies led to prosperity, but instead to chaos? Is scientific corporate management based on "value exchange" or "personality exchange"? Why did some ancient emperors distrust the talents selected through rigorous examinations and prefer to use the eunuchs around them? This article is reposted from: Laomiao Tears Apart Marketing First, let's have a thick bowl of chicken soup for the soul. More than a decade ago, when Mengniu was soaring to success, just like Ma Yun today, there was a lot of chicken soup attributed to Niu Gensheng. The thickest of them all was this one: "Those with both virtue and talent should be promoted exceptionally; those with virtue but no talent should be cultivated; those with talent but no virtue should be restricted; those with neither virtue nor talent should never be employed." It sounds so correct, and the parallel structure is quite imposing. This chicken soup was widely promoted by numerous corporate training programs and training institutions represented by Chen Anzhi. In short, it means: loyalty is more important than ability, character comes first, and ability second. Some even made the soup thicker by saying "character first, attitude second, ability third." Many bosses and leaders find this very agreeable. But it's useless. Over the years, no company has been seen to thrive by adhering to the "loyalty (character) first" doctrine; on the contrary, many have ended up in chaos. No matter how thick the chicken soup, it cannot withstand scrutiny. Let me tear it apart piece by piece for you. The primary problem is that this chicken soup isolates and even opposes the two factors of "ability" and "character." In fact, there is a significant correlation between them. No one's talent comes out of thin air. 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 expertise in their position is itself suspicious in terms of character. The correlation with negative qualities such as laziness, idleness, and indulgence is extremely high. A side evidence is that the improvement of education levels can greatly reduce crime rates, as fully demonstrated by both domestic and foreign 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 represent ability, and crime does not represent low character, but the correlation is extremely high. The key factor is that talented people are more inclined to engage in fair "value exchange" with the enterprise. "If you can rely on your talent to make a living," there is no need to engage in shady dealings. On the other hand, those without talent, in order to pursue more value, find it easier to use means such as "showing loyalty, deceiving superiors and subordinates, and flattering" than to improve their professional skills. This is a "personality exchange." Those who cheat on exams are more likely to be poor students than top students. Similarly, talented people have a higher cost of "doing evil," while those without talent have a lower cost. If a talented person is found to have done evil, the value of their talent will be greatly discounted, while those with low talent face much less risk. Laomiao once saw a deputy general manager of a certain 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 actually President X's intention." The implication was that they should take sides, and being on his side meant being with the boss. The subordinates were all terrified and expressed that President X would live forever and Vice President X was healthy. The team's "execution (fake) capability (enthusiasm)" was greatly "improved." In his book "The Effective Executive," Peter Drucker proposed five habits that effective managers must possess: 1. Make good use of limited time; 2. Focus on contribution and work performance; 3. Make full use of people's strengths; 4. Concentrate on a few major areas and establish effective work order; 5. Make effective decisions. These five habits are directly or indirectly related to ability, and have nothing to do with the "character" advocated by the current chicken soup. If it exists, it has its rationality. Why do various absurd theories like "loyalty is greater than ability" and "character is greater than talent" prevail in corporate management? Why did some ancient emperors distrust the talents selected through rigorous examinations and prefer to trust the eunuchs around them? This still needs to be traced back to the fundamental patterns of human behavior. Humans are social animals and also competitive animals. It is human nature to be wary of others' competitiveness. Therefore, people often say that even if an incompetent person does bad things, they are not as harmful as a capable person (which is not necessarily true). When a person shows exceptional ability, their leader or boss will, on the one hand, appreciate them, but on the other hand, involuntarily become wary. On the other hand, talented people usually engage in "value exchange" with the enterprise, using their abilities to serve the enterprise in exchange for personal benefits. Therefore, they will think independently, have different ideas, and appear "disobedient." Those lacking talent have insufficient value and often choose "personality exchange," using subservience and diligent service to gain trust. They give up thinking for themselves and carry out the leader's instructions regardless of right or wrong, thus appearing "loyal and obedient," "strong in execution," and "wolf-like" (hehe). As the saying goes, "Doing ten good things for the leader is not as good as doing one bad thing with the leader." Such people are always favored by 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 enterprise lacks a scientific management and incentive system, it will inevitably lead to "personality exchange" overpowering "value exchange," and those without talent will eliminate those with talent. For talented people who adhere to "value exchange," they have many alternatives and usually avoid competing with incompetent people who adhere to "personality exchange" in an unscientific system. Due to the lack of scientific management, many enterprises inevitably slide toward management based on "personality exchange." Here, "loyalty," "character," "dedication," and "obedience" are advocated, but the ability matching the position is uniquely not advocated. A friend wrote the following comment based on years of management experience: "Those who still keep in touch with the boss after leaving are those who were 'capable but disobedient.' Because they pursue fairness and value returns during employment, and when they don't get fair returns, they resign, and there is no need to become enemies. Those who are disappointed, resentful, or even hateful towards the boss after leaving are mostly those who were 'obedient but incapable,' because they gave more, endured more, and had fewer alternatives." You might think, "I can reuse talented people and also keep 'a dog or two' around me, ready to bite when needed. That's not bad, at least there's no big harm." This is the ancient imperial art of controlling people, but in modern corporate management, it is too young, too simple! Once a person without talent gains a foothold in an organization, they will try every means to maintain and consolidate their position. Because the status they obtained through "personality exchange" has low replicability and poor alternatives, they will definitely manage it painstakingly. If you think they will improve their professional abilities to become valuable, you are greatly mistaken. Their usual choice is to kidnap the leader through subordinates (public opinion), use the leader to bully others, use distributors (suppliers) to blackmail the company, and use company policies to bribe distributors (suppliers). The harm is often enormous. An enterprise that values loyalty is often filled with lies, fake passion, and is riddled with factions and complex corporate politics. Those who are talented but do not adopt the "personality exchange" rules are marginalized and regarded as "low EQ." However, the incompetent cannot be truly loyal; they merely adopt "personality exchange" and have poor alternatives, 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 most difficult to assess, and there are many who use the guise of "character" and stand on the moral high ground to do evil. 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 imperial arts. In the imperial era, people had no choice, so the imperial arts of controlling people were effective. But now the game pattern between talent and enterprises has fundamentally changed, even to the point where the roles are reversed. Isn't it naive and ridiculous to cling to those things? Relatively speaking, Cao Cao's "promote only the talented" and Steve Jobs's "one talent is worth a hundred fools" sound more reliable. -END- The best FMCG distributor learning platform in China Focuses on providing professional, practical, and applicable 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 salespeople | 015 Internet, brands | [Long press QR code to follow]