Tip: Click the blue text above to follow 'FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting' for more insights on marketing and distributor internal management.

There are always some marketing managers who believe they are "distinguished" and "irreplaceable," and there are also business owners who think someone is "indispensable." This creates a psychological "game" between managers and bosses: "Can you leave me?"

As a result, we often see employees taking leave or vacations under various subjective and objective pretexts such as urgent matters, illness, or family reasons, using this as a "threat" to demand better pay, higher positions, and to elevate their status in the company and in the boss's eyes. Meanwhile, bosses continuously bring in new talent, cultivate newcomers, and put pressure on old employees to create a sense of urgency, showing that there are more and better options. Of course, there are also bosses who believe a particular person is very important and must be retained, but such cases are rare.

In reality, whether for employees, managers, or bosses, their actions are largely based on "strategy," because everyone knows a "harsh" fact: no one is irreplaceable.

In our daily work, we often see scenes like this: an employee privately says to you, "It's really boring, I don't want to work here anymore. I can't make money, learn anything, or enjoy the job." If you often hear someone say this, just take it with a grain of salt and make no comments. Often, it's just a strategy, and the ones who are least willing to leave are probably these people. They hope you will spread this "information" to the boss's ears, creating "external momentum" for them to get better working conditions and benefits.

These people have two purposes: one is to confuse colleagues in a "complex environment" by saying they don't want to work, implying they have no ties with anyone, thus staying out of "company politics"; the other is, of course, to gain the boss's attention. These people are usually capable and use this method to provoke the boss's recognition or a reassessment of their value.

These are smart people.

There are also those who completely believe they are "awesome," thinking they have worked hard and achieved much, and they try to show their value and status in the company everywhere. Such people won't have long on their laurels; they often show a lack of understanding of "company politics."

For employees, the company is also not irreplaceable. In state-owned enterprises, a grassroots manager might stay in the company for a lifetime, with no opportunity or desire to change jobs. But now, few are willing to work in one company for their entire career, or they simply cannot.

The reasons are not complicated. First, competition intensifies, companies face survival pressure, and business directions and strategic focuses constantly change. Second, due to these changes, the talent focus also shifts. Third, different development stages of a company require different types of talent. Fourth, from the perspective of career development, only a few rise from grassroots to top management, so others need to find alternative paths. Fifth, if employees are not promoted for a long time and do the same work every day, they may become bored and consider changing jobs.

In this sense, companies can also be "replaced."

Compared to employees choosing companies, bosses have much more room to choose employees.

A private business owner fired an employee and wanted to hire someone he thought was excellent, but this person complained about low salary or inconvenient location... The owner asked, "Should I do more to persuade him, like promising future raises or better benefits?" When this owner told me about it, I said, "No need to negotiate. The conditions are already on the table. If he wants to come, he can come, because these are already good conditions in the industry. He's not a rookie; there's no need to explain."

Because without him, you can find someone else. No one is irreplaceable. Moreover, you don't know how good he really is, and there's no guarantee he'll be better than others. Besides, if he's asking for this and that before even starting, he's clearly not a good "partner."

Regarding the concept that "no one is irreplaceable," do you think it means not valuing talent or not treating employees as the company's most important "asset"? Given the current situation and environment, my view is that employees are undoubtedly the greatest "wealth," because apart from their thoughts and wisdom, we have nothing else.

But companies must continuously develop and adapt to the environment. In most cases, we cannot change the environment, just as we cannot change the laws of nature.

Different stages of a company require different types of talent, similar to how we approach markets. In the startup phase, like early market development, you need bold, pioneering talent. In the growth phase, you need standardized management. In the mature phase, you need people to maintain and defend... So, each type of talent has its place, and it's not static. Therefore, no one is permanently irreplaceable.

For companies, normal personnel turnover is not a sign of being heartless or a trust issue. But be careful not to fall into the other extreme: "anyone can do it." If anyone could do it, we wouldn't need to select and motivate talent. It's precisely because individuals have different skills, expertise, and personalities that we need to treat them differently. That is the true essence of management.

Companies that think "anyone can do it" are like repetitive construction for GDP, building and then demolishing, never accumulating. Look at many companies today; they are in such a state. For many, going to extremes has become the norm.

"No one is irreplaceable" is to tell you that as marketing managers, you need to have the right mindset, treat your work as your own "career," creating value for the company and yourself, not just working for a paycheck. As for companies or bosses, you should establish a concept: the right person for the right job. In the long run, the company must be able to function without anyone, including yourself.

When a company has someone who is "irreplaceable," that's when the company hits a development bottleneck. Why? It's not hard to understand. The main issue is that company development and management are out of sync, meaning management lags behind the pace of development. This includes talent development, succession planning, and management and training of key position personnel.

Years ago, when we operated FMCG products, the regional market operation model was basically the general distributor or general agency model. Later, it changed to exclusive distribution in small areas, and then to two distributors per region. Of course, the final model was to resolve development contradictions and bottlenecks—so that no one becomes "irreplaceable." At the same time, some distributors would not "hang from one tree," and while distributing your products, they would also distribute related (not identical) brands, so they wouldn't be "replaced."