As a manager, first answer a few questions:
- How do you view the claim that management suppresses human nature?
- Which is more important, ability or attitude?
- Does your company tell employees that the company is their home?
- Is it really the employees' fault when they lack execution? With these questions in mind, let's think about common management problems. 1. What is management? Chen Chunhua, an entrepreneur, professor, and expert, well explains what management is in her book 'The Common Sense of Management'.
Management is making subordinates understand what is most important.
Management does not discuss right or wrong; it faces facts and solves problems.
Management is about managing tasks, not people.
Management is aligning organizational goals with personal goals.
Management is empowering frontline employees and enabling them to use resources.
Most management problems in enterprises arise because they haven't figured out what management is and why it is needed. Without understanding these two points, your management strategy is going in the wrong direction. Why do enterprises need management? There are two main reasons:
- To be responsible for performance
- To serve business operations Once you understand what management is and why it is needed, you can see how ineffective and naive some conventional management practices are. Here are two examples. First: Making employees guess your intentions, even using their 'insight' as a performance criterion. This is somewhat ridiculous. Imagine in war, shouldn't leaders directly tell subordinates how to fight? If they rely on insight and guessing, it would be too late. This phenomenon is essentially due to poor communication and managerial dereliction. As a manager, instead of having people spend time deciphering your thoughts, it's better to have them focus on their work. Second: Turning meetings into criticism sessions. Trying to prove others wrong is common in management, but focusing on others' mistakes is useless and even reduces enthusiasm. Instead, focus on solving problems. How to address the issue is the purpose and focus of management. Management is not about suppressing human nature; it's not about fixating on someone's shortcomings. It's about discovering strengths and matching personal abilities with positions. If exploitation, suspicion, and political games become more prominent in management, then the enterprise's management has problems. 2. Evaluating 'hard work' and 'attitude' is fundamentally wrong In management, which is more important: contribution or hard work? Ability or attitude? First pair: Contribution vs. Hard work Most would choose contribution. Management requires performance and results, while hard work doesn't necessarily produce good results. If someone can solve a problem in one hour but you take five hours, the manager won't think you're great; they'll think you're inefficient and have ability or attitude problems. If your effort doesn't contribute to the company's performance, it's cheap and needs reflection. Second pair: Ability vs. Attitude Some might choose attitude, but I tell you: in management, ability outweighs attitude. When ability is lacking, attitude is used to compensate. Why do I say this?
We all know the story of 'blowing the yu' (pretending to play). Because the evaluation standard was attitude—looking like you're playing well—those who couldn't play exploited the loophole and got by. What use is such a good attitude? What would truly capable people think? Teams need doers, not performers. Moreover, attitude is not easily measurable, and a bad attitude isn't necessarily bad. For example: When you propose a solution, if someone raises objections, you should be happy because that person has their own ideas and courage. Think of the story of Emperor Taizong of Tang and Wei Zheng. What you evaluate is what people focus on. When you evaluate hard work and attitude, people will show those, but they don't directly produce performance. This management and evaluation approach is kind from a human perspective, but for the company, it wastes resources and greatly reduces evaluation efficiency. Hard work and attitude are causes; contribution and ability are effects. Evaluation should not put the cart before the horse. 3. The company is never a home Why is the company never a home? First: Their essence differs. A home is bound by emotion; family members give unconditionally. A company's contributions are self-interested; whether training or promotion, it always considers return on investment. Second: Their purposes differ. A home is a place of belonging and happiness, while a company's ultimate goal is profit. So from the comparison, we see that company and home can never be conflated. Promoting 'company as home' is essentially to 'fool' you: when money is insufficient, use emotion to compensate. If the company were truly a home, it wouldn't lay off employees, because a home never expels its own. But for survival and growth, layoffs are inevitable.
The correct relationship between company and employees should be based on a contract: you give me benefits, I create value for you. We maintain contractual spirit and rules. Promoting 'company as home' culture and loyalty to the company undoubtedly places both parties in an unequal position. 4. Execution is stimulated by systems Whenever business development is hindered and employees lack passion, managers often blame employees' execution and try to improve it through training, motivation, and brainwashing to make them more passionate. When employees' work status has problems, on the surface it's the employees' issue, but fundamentally it's the company's organizational system problem. Simply improving employees' execution is treating symptoms, not the root cause. As our Party proposed during the revolutionary war: the slogan and action of 'overthrowing landlords and distributing land' attracted countless people to join the revolution.
It was also the implementation of the household contract responsibility system with self-responsibility for profits and losses that brought hope to rural agriculture.
Under the 'big pot' system and collectivism, where doing work doesn't guarantee rewards and not doing it has no real loss, the decline in execution across the organization is inevitable. To have employees create value, improve execution, and achieve organizational goals, at least three things are needed: First, ensure fairness: everyone is equal before the system. Treat company veterans and the boss's relatives equally to maintain credibility. Second, create a better environment and atmosphere for 'Lei Fengs' (selfless contributors) in the organization. Not just material rewards but also spiritual recognition. If those who do work are exploited or ostracized, who would want to work? Finally, combine personal goals with organizational goals. Seeking benefit and avoiding harm is human nature. Don't just talk about the company's goals; if they don't align with personal goals, problems will arise. Employees aren't fools; they need to earn a living. Another tricky issue in organizations is dealing with organizational vitality, tumors, and factionalism. Here are three suggestions:
- Organizational goals outweigh personal goals. When evaluating performance and goals, assess not only personal goals but also organizational goals. Emphasize organizational goals, downplay individual influence, cultivate organizational spirit, and combine personal and organizational interests.
- Rotate key positions and dismiss when necessary. Long-term engagement in one task can lead to complacency and conservatism. An outsider leading may be more effective than an insider. Of course, removing tumors and troublemakers is also vital for maintaining organizational vitality.
- Cultivate successors to keep the organization vibrant. One person's strength is limited; the organization's strength is unlimited. Talent flows, but the organization remains. Zhuge Liang was smart, but his intelligence couldn't last forever. Cultivating the next Zhuge Liang is a key consideration for enterprises. A mature enterprise is never a one-man show; it's a group of people, a group of warriors. As seen in 'Journey to the West', Liu Bang's team, and Liu Bei's team, these teams share common traits: complementarity and goal orientation. A good organization consists of a few outstanding individuals leading a group, with development prospects. It enables the latter group of ordinary people to unleash their potential and achieve great things through their own abilities. Summary
- Why management is needed: Management is responsible for performance and serves business operations.
- What management is: Management is solving problems, unleashing human nature, and aligning personal goals with organizational goals.
- Management pitfalls: Evaluating hard work and attitude, promoting 'company as home' instead of establishing contractual spirit, and lacking good systems so execution is just empty motivation that fades quickly. Source: Marketing Inn