Preface: Execution is one of the eternal themes in enterprise management. Regarding execution, what roles and functions should different levels of personnel in an organization play? Setting aside profound theories, one aspect of execution is consistently doing simple things well. How can we consistently do a small thing well? I would like to share some of my thoughts with you. Some people use a story to illustrate the differences between Chinese and Western cultures: If you train a German or Japanese person to wipe the table six times a day, they will do it; but a Chinese person will start by wiping it six times, gradually think five or four times is acceptable, and finally, when the leader is not around, simply stop wiping it altogether. Because this story is vivid and somewhat satisfying to tell, it has become widely circulated. Like many other stories, it sells the idea that Chinese people have low quality. When we acknowledge the low quality of employees, we consciously or unconsciously attribute much of the responsibility to them. For management, our purpose is action, not just knowledge. We cannot expect enterprises to change society, but enterprises genuinely face the problem of how to manage these people. So, is it that Chinese people's lack of dedication and low quality are innate? Is the root of low quality the so-called "bad roots" of Chinese people? Is the poor execution in Chinese enterprises due to cultural differences? Is wiping the table six times a day really that easy? Thinking about these questions, I find them interesting, so I would like to share some of my insights. Wiping the table six times a day actually contains two levels of meaning: first, knowing—the goal is to wipe the table six times a day, and we need to do it; second, doing—having certain methods and means to ensure it is accomplished. I think for many of us, including many managers and entrepreneurs, there is no problem in terms of cognition; Chinese people have never lacked wisdom. The key lies in the aspect of doing. Why is our organizational execution particularly poor, and why is employee execution particularly poor? Is it a difference in people? I chatted with a friend in Germany about Germans. In our impression, Germans are almost rigidly rule-abiding. I asked him if that was true. He told me that middle-aged Germans are indeed very serious and very old-fashioned; it is these people who truly carry Germany's development. My friend is a cynic and a lazybones, but after arriving in Germany, he changed completely; he seemed to sleep less and became more diligent. He told me about his part-time jobs in Germany. Working part-time in Germany is not easy; everything is precise and clear, like clear soup and white water. If you try to slack off and get caught once, you are fired, and it is also written into your work permit. My friend's experience already illustrates the reasons for the execution gap. He also personally experienced the phenomenon of "oranges grown in Huainan are oranges, but in Huaibei they become trifoliate oranges" (i.e., the same person behaves differently in different environments). What determines this outcome? My view is: institutions. It is institutions that make our organizational execution poor, employee execution poor, and even wiping the table six times a day unattainable. So, what are the institutional differences between enterprises with strong execution and those with weak execution? Let us still use the example of wiping the table six times a day to illustrate the institutional reasons for execution differences. First aspect: Understanding the value of wiping the table Every work operation actually has a certain value, but the evaluation of the value's magnitude directly affects the perception of the operation's value. For mature foreign enterprises, after decades or even a century of accumulation, the perception of operational value is very clear and distinct. Therefore, whether to do something is based on long-term practical cognition and is very firm, such as wiping the table six times a day. This firm cognition is concretely implemented into work through systems, norms, training, and punishment. Simply put: wiping the table six times a day is a very important task for the company. If you take on the responsibility for this task and cannot do it well, you are not qualified to work in the company. Long-term adherence to the system produces a culture of responsibility and execution, which continuously influences subsequent employees. What about the situation in domestic enterprises? Some say: Chinese enterprises are like rabbits; they must eat while running. To put it nicely, it is frequent change; to put it bluntly, it is "orders changed in the morning and reversed in the evening." This is one of the important characteristics of Chinese enterprises. Due to a lack of long-term management accumulation and operational value analysis, most Chinese enterprises do not clearly know which operations are critical. They treat many problems like campaigns—doing them for a while, then stopping. On the other hand, because most enterprises are in the development process, there are too many problems to solve while running, and the technical difficulty of solving them is high, making it difficult to determine which problems must be solved, which operations must be adhered to, and which standards must be implemented. Because of this, when it comes to a specific operation, it is sometimes emphasized and sometimes ignored; it cannot be persistently maintained, standards cannot be clarified, inspections cannot be frequent, and these tasks cannot be normalized. To put it nicely, it is "spiral upward"; to put it bluntly, it is "a lazy donkey turning a millstone." Everyone can evaluate how many things in our organizations are repeated in such cycles without progress. In such an atmosphere, it is easy to form a speculative culture that continuously influences new employees. Second aspect: The speculative cost of not doing or doing poorly Employees who do not work hard must pay the cost of not working hard. Not doing incurs the cost of not doing; doing poorly incurs the cost of doing poorly. The level of speculative cost directly determines the degree of effort of employees (including management) and, to a large extent, determines the strength of execution. In relatively mature foreign enterprises, the cost of employees not working hard or doing poorly is enormous. First, in a relatively complete social security system, the pressure of being unemployed is relatively high, especially for those who are accustomed to overdrawing the future. Once unemployed, although there is insurance that meets basic living security, the overall quality of life will drop sharply. Second, between different companies, information about employees' work is relatively transparent, so a bad record in one company will seriously affect the next job opportunity. Taking my friend's experience as an example, he had a 90-hour work permit per semester, and each hour he could earn about 10-15 euros (if this wage level is normal, it would be higher than the average wage of ordinary German workers). However, for each job, the employer would conduct non-public evaluations of his work performance, and these evaluations would affect the number of work permits he could get next semester and the difficulty of finding work. Also, if he worked illegally (low-paid work without a work permit) and was caught, his work permit would be permanently revoked. Under such a system, the cost of speculation is not just short-term, immediate loss of income, but also long-term, future losses. It is impossible not to work hard. What is the situation in our enterprises? First, due to the immaturity of the human resources market, personnel mobility is quite disorderly. Many enterprises lack systematic, effective human resource evaluations and verification of relevant resumes, which is why there are so many small ads for making fake certificates everywhere. In such a system, poor performance in a previous job does not affect obtaining a new job. Therefore, employees tend to favor short-term behavior over long-term considerations. For example, in many enterprises, employees' embezzlement of company property is a concentrated manifestation of short-term behavior. The maximum opportunity cost is just changing places and changing companies. Second, in our institutional arrangements, there is a lack of discussion on opportunity costs. In an organization, there are many things that need to be done and must be done, but at the institutional and incentive levels, there is a lack of effective means to ensure these things are implemented. More often, we just say what to do, but we do not check whether it was done or to what standard. Even if we check, the intensity of inspection and handling is far from covering the benefits brought by speculation, so inspection is still a mere formality. Third, there is a lack of clear work standards and effective incentives. In many enterprises, people or leaders are the standard for doing things, and the leader's opinion is an important basis for employee performance evaluation. In this state, a large number of employees and middle managers who like to guess the leader's thoughts will emerge. They turn work mistakes or deficiencies into excuses that leaders like to hear or can accept, achieving large outputs with very small inputs. These are the "smart people" and "swimmers" in many enterprises. Of course, we cannot deny the value of leaders to the organization. Many enterprises succeed precisely because of the leader's "wise autocracy." However, the leader's value to the enterprise cannot replace the standard for doing things. Only when the standard is based on things rather than people can employee speculation be reduced. This is the first level of significance. At the second level, only by institutionalizing and structuring the leader's abilities can there be work standards suitable for enterprise development. At the third level, with clear work standards, there can be effective assessment and incentives. Therefore, performance assessment must be a "top leader project"; otherwise, the role of assessment will be greatly diminished. Once the constraint of assessment is lacking, speculation will become a culture. Third aspect: Understanding inspection Regardless of the work standards, if there is no inspection of the process and no verification of results, the standards are difficult to close the loop; standards exist only in cognition, not in actual work. That is why someone said the famous saying: "Employees only do what leaders inspect." Inspection has a cost, and to a certain extent, the cost is uneconomical. Without effective and cost-reasonable inspection methods, inspection becomes empty talk. In mature enterprises, inspection is a normal institutional practice, and people are accustomed to being constrained by the system. My friend told me an example of taking a train in Germany. On German trains, there are no ticket inspectors, and there is no ticket-checking process at the platform. However, during the journey, an old lady with a basket will come to check tickets. Once a fare evader is found, there is strict punishment. If they do not comply, the police are called immediately, and the fare evader can be prosecuted on the grounds of fare evasion. Of course, we do not know how such a system was established, because how to establish such a system is more valuable for our current management. What is the situation in most domestic enterprises? Some enterprises have no inspection at all, or they rely on trust. When the scale is small and the business volume is small, because all work is clear at a glance, trust can generate strength. But as the enterprise expands, the cost of speculation decreases, and without inspection, it will cause great waste of enterprise resources. Some enterprises know they need to inspect, but they do not know how to inspect, what to inspect, or how to apply the results. Or they feel that the cost of inspection is too high, it causes too many problems, and the benefits are poor, so they are unwilling to inspect. Such enterprises are often at a critical stage of development. If basic management and basic models are solved well, they will develop; otherwise, they will face huge management problems. There is also a very small number of enterprises that have a relatively complete inspection system, but the closure of the inspection system and the effectiveness of inspection work still need improvement. In a PDCA management cycle, inspection is a very important link and an important responsibility that every manager must bear. A leader who does not inspect subordinates' work is unqualified. Depending on the size of the enterprise, the proportion of time spent on this work varies, but the time spent inspecting subordinates' work should not be less than 20% of the work ratio. Enterprises with strong execution are those that have relatively strong inspection efforts and invest more costs in inspection. Although inspection is uneconomical at a certain stage, inspection and the application of inspection results are one of the most effective means to establish and implement systems. For organizations aspiring to establish systems, the initial cost of system building is necessary and important, because compared to the cost of building systems, the benefits of systems are enormous and long-term. Returning to our earlier argument, the difference in execution ultimately comes down to the difference in institutions. And who needs to bear the responsibility for institutional construction? My personal view is that it is the leaders and managers of the organization. As resource allocators, leaders and managers should invest more energy in the construction and implementation of systems. In the end, enterprises or organizations need two capabilities: operational capability and management capability. Operation represents more possibilities, while management directly points to efficiency. As two aspects of the same problem, operational capability and management capability are closely related. Institutions support the management capability of enterprises and also affect their operational capability. Here, I want to say a few words in defense of employees. In enterprises, how many bosses and managers truly care about employees' work, care about their work performance, and explore the deep reasons for poor performance? Borrowing a saying: "Low employee quality is not the manager's responsibility, but if employee quality does not improve, it is the manager's responsibility." Regarding the relationship between leaders and employees, I will discuss it in another article, so I will not elaborate here. For leaders or managers who want to improve organizational execution, I think the following suggestions can be used for reference:

  1. Operational value analysis is a task that every manager must continuously carry out. Once an operation is identified as valuable, there must be perseverance to adhere to it and effort to inspect it. Any organization's business is supported by a few key operations. The stronger the support capability of each key operation, the stronger the enterprise's skeleton. Without a strong business skeleton, there is a lack of basic capability for enterprise development, and organizational and process reengineering is simply impossible.
  2. In an organization, key business is supported by no more than 20% of key positions and key employees. This is a self-motivated group. Identify these employees and give them more praise and incentives. Of course, keep your eyes sharp and do not choose the wrong people; the people managers and leaders like are often not the key employees who play a critical supporting role.
  3. Review work standards and clarify them. Tell every subordinate the standards, preferably in written form, and post them on the wall. Of course, the most important thing is to first be the executor and maintainer of the standards, and always remind yourself not to be a destroyer of standards.
  4. When selecting employees, a sense of responsibility and personal morality are far more important than work ability. If you choose employees with strong ability but no sense of responsibility and lack of self-moral restraint, the manager's nightmare begins. A workforce with a sense of responsibility and morality is more likely to generate systems and implement them.
  5. Spend more time inspecting subordinates' work; this may be the most cost-effective management task. Wiping the table six times a day: it is not difficult, requiring a little persistence; it is not easy, the difficulty lies in the self-restraint of managers and leaders. In the end, the institutionalization capability, structuring capability, and execution of an organization are concentrated in the execution of leaders. "Problems lie in the first three rows, but the key is on the rostrum." Think about it carefully; it makes sense. -END- Selected Content Click the title below to read directly: [Line Sales Representative Practical Operation Guide (with full PPT download attached)]