Private Enterprise Internal Management Research / Pan Wenfu
The world is contradictory, and so are people. Most of the time, a person's thoughts and actions are not aligned, and they are also contradictory.
In this contradictory world, bosses are no exception; they are a complex of contradictions. On one hand, they complain that business is hard, but on the other hand, they resist change. At least, 90% of bosses actually do not want change.
When I say that 90% of bosses do not want change, many people might jump up and argue, because on the surface, many bosses do express a desire for change, and they spend money on various training courses to learn how to change. For this reason, they buy learning cards worth tens of thousands from training companies, fill their office bookshelves with training CDs, pay hundreds of thousands for XMBA programs from various dubious universities, and many hire consulting firms. Aren't these all evidence that bosses are trying to change?
In fact, shouting slogans and showing attitude is one thing, but actually taking action is another. Most bosses just complain, read books and listen to lectures with a superficial understanding, and then start with enthusiasm but quickly cool down. In the vast majority of companies that claim to be changing, the actual implementation is mostly half-finished projects. They start with great fanfare, but soon fizzle out, leaving only a trace of change. The change has not succeeded; the change project has already died.
Regarding these three questions, if you ask a hundred bosses, about 90% will answer this way. However, when change enters the implementation stage, when it encounters resistance, or when it requires real investment, or when the boss needs to lead by example, it quickly stalls or stops. The superficial reasons might be: it's the peak season, no time; we're short-staffed, we'll start when everyone is here; or sales pressure is high, we'll wait until this period passes; or there are family matters, we'll do it later. In fact, at the root, it's still that the boss does not want change deep down!
Why don't they want change? There must be reasons. The most common ones are as follows:
- Inability to Accept Self-Negation This is the top reason. Chinese people have very high self-recognition, so high that they think they are the best in the world, or even destined to be emperors. Especially bosses, who believe they are geniuses or just one step away from being geniuses. When recalling their entrepreneurial history, words like "far-sighted," "immediate decision," "go for broke," "seize the moment," and "override objections" frequently appear. At the root, they are constantly proving and emphasizing how smart, decisive, visionary, and capable they are, which led to today's success. So, how could the boss have problems? If I had problems, how could I have come this far? How could I have built such a big business? Moreover, I, the boss, am not an ordinary person; others are mortals. How can mortals understand my grand strategy? As for these so-called problems, they are intentional... I am playing a big chess game... ordinary people don't know...
However, the reason for change is to negate the existing system, or even discard it. Without breaking, there is no building. The existing system was created by the boss, so negating the current system is, to some extent, negating the boss, or saying that the boss is stuck in his ways, outdated in thinking, and obsolete in technology.
Chinese people do not admit mistakes, and successful bosses even more so. They will not admit that they are at the end of their rope. But to truly accept and implement change, one must admit mistakes, acknowledge one's incompetence or backwardness, negate some current thoughts and practices, overturn some things the boss personally established, and even negate some key points of past success. This creates a contradiction with the boss's deep-seated high self-recognition (or even self-inflation). Most bosses cannot accept comments that their thinking is outdated or that their skills are no longer sufficient. Only a very few bosses can think through this issue, openly accept reality, admit mistakes, and look for reasons within themselves. Most bosses cannot get over this psychological hurdle, so they will not truly accept change.
- Not Considering the Whole A company is an organic whole. Various departments, positions, and even tasks are more or less interconnected horizontally or vertically. In a big sense, it's like pulling one hair and the whole body moves.
When conducting company change, it is necessary to fully consider the company's integrity and the interconnections between various tasks. However, small bosses often do not rise to the level of holistic thinking. They like to address issues as they come, focusing on one or two points, and believe that the company as a whole has no major problems, at most one or two issues. To change, they only need to adjust these one or two points. As a result, when they start the change, even if they only touch a part, they quickly find that many aspects are involved, and various resistances appear. It's like pressing down a gourd and the ladle floats up; it's hard to push forward, so they give up.
No matter which part of the company is adjusted, it must be considered and designed from the whole, fully taking into account the interconnections between tasks. When designing the adjustment strategy and sequence, it is necessary to combine the relationships, groundwork, support, response, and even cover between tasks. The complexity of this design exceeds the capabilities of most bosses.
- Not Wanting to Clear Old Accounts The reason bosses want change is definitely because there are many problems in the company. However, it takes more than one cold day to freeze three feet of ice. Many current problems are often caused by accumulated historical issues. Strictly speaking, to truly achieve rectification, these historical issues must be thoroughly cleaned up, classified, and resolved, ensuring that the burden is dropped and the company can move forward lightly.
However, bosses often do not want to revisit these old accounts. They think the past is past. Some historical issues, once mentioned, make the boss uncomfortable. They adopt an ostrich policy: out of sight, out of mind. Why bring them up now? Moreover, if these historical issues are brought up, they will cost money to solve. Money! And those old matters have been around for so long; they probably have no impact on the present and future, so don't touch them. Some bosses even insist that our company has no historical issues at all; the history is clean!
Since the boss is unwilling to face or admit historical issues, and even more unwilling to spend costs to solve them, subordinates have no need to proactively bring up these matters and cause trouble for themselves. Everyone keeps quiet, pretending not to see.
In fact, any company has some historical issues, many of which do not automatically disappear with time. They will persist and even worsen, causing continuous interference with current and future work, and the cost of resolution will increase. From the perspective of change, if these historical issues are not cleaned up, even if new things are introduced during the change, they are easily dragged down and damaged, directly leading to the failure of the change.
- Trying to See Immediate Results In company change, whether it's internal management or external operations, it involves a series of tasks such as overall plan design, preliminary groundwork, establishment of change safety guarantees, batch introduction, mutual support, adjustment, and project fixation. Naturally, this takes a lot of time. If it rises to the level of overall company change, it takes at least a year. It's a bit like "illness comes like a mountain falling, and goes like silk being pulled."
After all, for a company with some operating history, clearing various accumulated factors takes time, changing employees' habits takes time, preliminary groundwork for some projects takes time, adaptation after introducing new things takes time, and subsequent fine-tuning and consolidation take time. Even a partial renovation of a department takes at least three months to half a year. The warehouse renovation projects I have taken on almost all took more than half a year to truly complete.
However, the smaller the boss, the more anxious they are. They wish everything could be done in a few days, or that new change measures would show results immediately. Or when the newly introduced measures do not show obvious effects, they either directly abandon them and restore the original plan, or increase the intensity of rectification, using strong medicine to try to achieve quick results. For example, regarding employee motivation and team spirit, bosses hope to solve the problem with a passionate training course. This is simply a joke.
The time cost of change and the anxious boss form a contradiction.
- Loss of the Ability to Endure Hardship from Entrepreneurship In a sense, change is re-entrepreneurship. Many tasks need to be started from scratch. Entrepreneurship is hard, but re-entrepreneurship is even harder because it requires not only hard work but also changing one's thinking. The core of the company is the boss, so change must start with the boss, and cutting flesh also starts with the boss.
Let's not talk about changing thinking; just the hard work alone is unbearable for many bosses. After all, once the business reaches a certain scale, the boss's quality of life greatly improves, and they gradually lose the ability and spirit to endure hardship. Laziness is amplified, and they are unwilling to go through the trouble again. Some bosses even think that entrepreneurship happens once; I've already done it, and I don't want to suffer a second time. At most, they give orders, spend money, and let employees endure hardship. Additionally, some bosses are older, and their physical strength and energy cannot bear the toil of re-entrepreneurship. So they simply don't change; the current state is fine. Or they simplify things: the boss doesn't bother with change, but finds an opportunity to sell the company, or hires a professional manager, pays them well, and lets that professional manager handle it.
- Waiting for "Opportunities" Some bosses do not want change because they are waiting for opportunities. What kind of opportunities? For example, the overall market environment improves, competitors are all knocked down by poisoned delivery, consumers' brains are addled, or employees suddenly have a conscience and become highly conscientious and self-disciplined.
Will such opportunities come? It's not completely impossible, but the probability is extremely low. For 99% of bosses, they probably won't wait for it. Moreover, even if such external opportunities exist, they are for those who are prepared, not for those who just wait.
Impact of Business Fluctuations Business progress is not a straight line but a wave line, with ups and downs. Business is sometimes good and sometimes bad, which directly affects whether the boss decides to change. When business is bad, the boss thinks the company has many problems and needs change! Just a few days after deciding to change, business improves, so the boss thinks it's important to focus on current business. The current situation looks good; there are no major problems. Some small problems will naturally be solved when the company grows bigger. The boat will straighten itself when it reaches the bridge. So the change can wait; we'll talk about it later...
Problems with the Change Method Itself Change is like treating a disease, not health care. Treating a disease requires analyzing the cause, designing targeted treatment plans, and advancing in a certain order.
Treating a disease requires appropriate medicine and treatment plans, and so does change. Change requires methods, and methods suitable for the company. Bosses often think too simply about this. They hope to solve problems with a few tricks. They often copy methods from here and there, taking what they think is good and advanced, and applying it all at once. They prefer to go straight to the point, fixing wherever there is a problem, without paying much attention to order or groundwork.
Treatment plans have a sequence, and so does change. First, the change plan must be designed based on the company's actual situation, and avoid taking an external plan and forcing it onto the company. Second, many tasks in change have a logical order: some are done first, some later. Generally speaking, safety-related tasks are done first, soft tasks in the middle, and hard tasks last. However, some bosses, at the start of change, immediately launch hard tasks like rules and regulations, performance assessments, and reward and punishment systems, without prior related work as safety guarantees and groundwork, causing the change to quickly fall into a deadlock.
When your company does not have enough energy to guide the market, you must adapt to market changes and maintain effective change to ensure that internal and external factors are matched. Of course, not changing is also possible. The boss can find many reasons not to change, which is like brewing a potion of self-deception. Drinking it feels good, and all kinds of pains and problems disappear, but in the midst of illusion, one gradually dies.
Author: Pan Wenfu
Originally a private business owner, he managed a family-owned distribution company for many years, during which he also served as a business manager and trainer for several production enterprises. His research focuses on internal management of small and medium-sized private enterprises, with main topics including personnel management, cost control, management backend construction, and the integration of retired military personnel into private enterprises. He continuously breaks down over 400 topics related to internal management of private enterprises and keeps updating his material collection and solutions.
-END-