This is a classic article, one of the most reprinted in Harvard Business Review history, published in 1999 by the late 'father of management,' Peter Drucker. It is long, but worth your time and effort to read, understand, and reflect on yourself.
This article is about 12,000 words and takes 20 minutes to read.
We live in an era of unprecedented opportunity: If you have ambition and intelligence, no matter where you start, you can climb to the top of your career along the path you choose.
But with opportunity comes responsibility. Today's companies don't manage their employees' careers; in fact, knowledge workers must become their own chief executive officers. You should carve out your own place in the company, know when to change your development path, and work hard and achieve results over a career that may last 50 years.
To do these things well, you first need a deep understanding of yourself—not only your strengths and weaknesses, but also how you learn, how you work with others, what your values are, and where you can make the greatest contribution.
Because only when all work is approached from your strengths can you truly excel.
Historical greats—Napoleon, da Vinci, Mozart—were adept at self-management. This is largely why they became great. But they were rare geniuses, with extraordinary talents and an innate ability to manage themselves, which led to their extraordinary achievements.
Most of us, even those with some talent, must learn self-management skills through study.
We must learn self-development, know where to position ourselves to make the greatest contribution, and remain highly alert and engaged over a 50-year career.
NO.1 What Are My Strengths?
Most people think they know what they are good at. But usually they are wrong. More often, people only know what they are not good at—and even then, they are often mistaken.
However, a person can only achieve by building on their strengths. Working in areas where you are not strong will not produce results, let alone things you cannot do at all.
In the past, there was little need to know your strengths, because birth determined your status and occupation: a farmer's son would become a farmer, a craftsman's daughter would marry another craftsman, and so on. But now people have choices. We need to know our strengths to know where we belong.
The only way to discover your strengths is through feedback analysis. Whenever you make a key decision or take a key action, write down what you expect will happen. Nine to twelve months later, compare the actual results with your expectations.
I have been using this method for 15 to 20 years, and every time it brings unexpected insights.
For example, feedback analysis showed me that I intuitively understand technical professionals, whether engineers, accountants, or market researchers. This surprised me greatly. It also showed me that I have little resonance with generalists who dabble in many fields.
Feedback analysis is not new. It was invented in the 14th century by a German theologian who would otherwise have remained obscure, and about 150 years later it was adopted independently by French theologian John Calvin and Spanish theologian Saint Ignatius.
They both used it for the spiritual discipline of their followers. In fact, feedback analysis instilled in their followers a habit of focusing on actual performance and results, which is why their orders—the Calvinist Church and the Jesuits—dominated Europe for 30 years.
If we consistently apply this simple method, we can discover our strengths in a relatively short time (possibly two or three years)—and this is the most important thing you need to know. After using it, you will know which things you are doing (or not doing) that prevent your strengths from being realized.
At the same time, you will see areas where you are not particularly strong. Finally, you will learn where you are completely incompetent and cannot produce results.
Based on the insights from feedback analysis, you need to take action in several areas.
First and foremost, focus on your strengths and place yourself where they can be leveraged.
Second, work on improving your strengths. Feedback analysis will quickly show you where you need to improve skills or learn new ones. It will also reveal gaps in your knowledge—gaps that can usually be filled. Mathematicians are born, but everyone can learn trigonometry.
Third, discover and overcome any biases and ignorance caused by arrogance. Too many people, especially specialists, disdain knowledge from other fields or believe that a bright mind can substitute for knowledge.
For example, many first-rate engineers are helpless when it comes to people-related matters, and they take pride in this—because they think people are too messy for a well-ordered engineering mind. In stark contrast, human resources professionals often pride themselves on knowing nothing about basic accounting or quantitative analysis.
But if people are complacent about such ignorance, it is tantamount to self-destruction. In fact, to fully leverage your strengths, you should actively learn new skills and absorb new knowledge.
Equally important: correct your bad habits. Bad habits are things that undermine your effectiveness and performance. Such habits will quickly show up in feedback.
For example, a planner may find that his brilliant plans come to nothing because he fails to carry them through. Like many talented people, he believes that good ideas can move mountains.
But what actually moves mountains is a bulldozer; ideas merely show the bulldozer where to dig. The planner must realize that completing the plan is not the end; he must then find people to execute it, explain it to them, make timely adjustments before implementation, and finally decide when to stop.
At the same time, feedback will reveal problems caused by lack of courtesy. Courtesy is the lubricant of an organization. It is a natural law that two moving objects create friction when they touch—not only inanimate objects but also humans.
Courtesy is simple: saying "please" and "thank you," remembering names, or asking about family. These small details allow two people to work together harmoniously, regardless of whether they like each other. Many smart people, especially young ones, do not realize this.
If feedback analysis shows that a person repeatedly fails whenever cooperation is required, it likely means that person's behavior is inappropriate—that is, lacking courtesy.
Comparing expectations with actual results also reveals what you cannot do. We all have areas where we are completely ignorant and untalented, where we cannot even reach mediocrity. People, especially knowledge workers, should not attempt tasks in these areas. They should minimize the energy wasted on areas where they are incompetent, because going from incompetence to mediocrity requires much more effort than going from first-rate to excellent.
NO.2 How Do I Perform?
Surprisingly, few people know how they get things done. In fact, most of us do not even know that different people work and perform in different ways.
Many people work in ways that are not their natural style, which naturally leads to underachievement.
For knowledge workers, the question "How do I perform?" may be even more important than "What are my strengths?"
Like strengths, a person's way of performing is unique. It is determined by personality. Whether personality is innate or developed, it is certainly formed long before entering the workforce.
Just as what you are good at and not good at is fixed, your way of performing is largely fixed. It can be slightly adjusted but cannot be completely changed—and certainly not easily.
And just as people achieve results by doing what they are best at, they also achieve results by working in the way that suits them best.
Typically, a few common personality traits determine a person's way of performing.
Am I a reader or a listener?
First, you need to figure out whether you are a reader (you absorb information by reading) or a listener (you absorb information by hearing). Most people do not even know there are reader and listener types, and few are both. Even fewer know which type they are.
But there are examples that show how harmful such ignorance can be.
Dwight Eisenhower, when he was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, was a favorite of the press. His press conferences were famous for his unique style—no matter what question reporters asked, General Eisenhower answered calmly and succinctly. Whether briefing or explaining policy, he could do so in two or three concise sentences.
Ten years later, when Eisenhower became president, the same reporters who had once admired him openly despised him. They complained that he never answered questions directly but rambled about other things. They mocked his answers as incoherent, ungrammatical, and a corruption of standard English.
Eisenhower clearly did not know he was a reader, not a listener. When he was Supreme Commander, his aides made sure that every question from the media was submitted in writing at least half an hour before the press conference. Thus, Eisenhower had full command of the questions.
But when he became president, his two predecessors were listeners—Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Both knew they were listeners and enjoyed freewheeling press conferences. Eisenhower probably thought he had to do what his predecessors did. But he never even heard what reporters were asking. And Eisenhower was not an extreme case.
A few years later, Lyndon Johnson ruined his presidency largely because he did not know he was a listener.
His predecessor, John Kennedy, was a reader. He gathered excellent writers as his aides and required them to brief him in writing before any face-to-face discussion.
Johnson kept these aides, and they continued to write briefings. But he apparently could not understand what they wrote. However, Johnson had been outstanding as a senator, because senators must first be listeners.
Few listeners can become competent readers through effort—whether active or passive—and vice versa. Therefore, those who try to convert from listener to reader will suffer the fate of Lyndon Johnson, and those who try to convert from reader to listener will suffer the fate of Dwight Eisenhower. Neither can develop their talents or achieve results.
NO.3 How Do I Learn?
The second thing to understand about how you work is how you learn.
Many first-rate writers are not good students—Winston Churchill is an example. In their memory, school is often sheer torture.
But few of their classmates share that memory. They may not enjoy school, but for them the greatest pain is boredom. The explanation is that people with good writing skills generally do not learn by listening or reading but by writing—this is a rule. Schools do not allow them to learn this way, so their grades are often poor.
All schools follow the same principle: there is only one correct way to learn, and everyone must follow it. But for students who learn differently, being forced to learn the school's way is hell.
In fact, there are probably six or seven different ways to learn.
People like Churchill learn by writing. Others learn by taking copious notes. For example, Beethoven left many notebooks, but he said he never looked at them when composing.
When asked why he wrote things down, he reportedly said, "If I don't write it down immediately, I forget it in no time. If I put it in a notebook, I never forget it and never have to look at it again." Some people learn by doing. Others learn by hearing themselves talk.
Am I a reader or a listener? How do I learn? These are the first questions you should ask yourself.
But these questions are clearly not enough. To manage yourself well, you also need to ask: Do I work well with others, or do I prefer to work alone? If you do have the ability to cooperate with others, you must also ask: In what kind of relationships do I work with others?
Some people are best suited to be subordinates.
A good example is General George Patton, the great American hero of World War II. Patton was a senior officer in the U.S. Army. However, when someone proposed him for an independent command, General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff and perhaps the most successful talent spotter in American history, said, "Patton is the best subordinate the U.S. Army has ever produced, but he would be the worst commander."
Some people work best as team members. Others work best alone. Some are exceptionally talented as coaches and mentors, while others are incapable of being mentors.
Another key question is: How do I achieve results—as a decision-maker or as an advisor? Many people perform excellently as advisors but cannot bear the burden and pressure of decision-making. Conversely, many people need an advisor to force them to think before they can make decisions, and then they execute quickly, confidently, and boldly.
Incidentally, this is why the number two in an organization often fails when promoted to number one. The top position requires a decision-maker, and a strong decision-maker often puts a trusted person in the number two position as an advisor.
An advisor may be excellent in the number two role, but when moved to number one, he fails. He knows what decisions should be made but cannot accept the responsibility of actually making them.
Other important questions for self-knowledge include:
Do I perform well under pressure, or do I thrive in a structured, predictable environment?
Do I perform best in a large company or a small one?
Few people perform well in all environments.
I have seen more than once people who are very successful in large companies but do poorly in small ones. And the reverse is also true.
The following conclusion is worth repeating: Do not try to change yourself—you are unlikely to succeed. But you should work to improve your way of performing. Also, do not take on work you cannot do or cannot do well.
"Do not try to change yourself—you are unlikely to succeed. Work to improve the way you perform."
NO.4 What Are My Values?
To be able to manage yourself, the last question you must ask is: What are my values? This is not a question of ethics. Moral principles are the same for everyone. The test for a person's morality is simple. I call it the "mirror test."
At the beginning of the 20th century, the German ambassador to Britain was the most respected diplomat among all the great powers in London. Clearly, he was destined for high office, at least as foreign minister if not chancellor.
However, in 1906, he suddenly resigned rather than preside over a dinner the diplomatic corps was giving for King Edward VII. The king was a notorious womanizer and made clear what kind of dinner he wanted. According to reports, the German ambassador said, "I don't want to see a pimp in the mirror when I shave in the morning."
That is the mirror test.
The ethics we respect require you to ask yourself: What kind of person do I want to see in the mirror every morning? What is ethical behavior in one organization or situation is also ethical in another. But ethics is only part of a value system—especially for an organization's value system.
If an organization's value system is not acceptable to you or is incompatible with your own, you will feel frustrated and ineffective.
A person's way of performing and strengths rarely conflict; in fact, they complement each other. But sometimes a person's values conflict with their strengths. A person may do something well—even quite well and successfully—but it may not align with their value system.
In such cases, the work may not seem worth devoting one's life to (or even too much effort).
If I may, let me insert a personal story.
Years ago, I had to choose between my values and a job I was doing very successfully. In the mid-1930s, I was a young man working in investment banking in London, and I was doing very well. The job clearly played to my strengths.
But I did not feel I was making a contribution as an asset manager. I realized that what I valued was the study of people. I thought that spending one's life making money and dying as the richest man in the cemetery was meaningless.
At the time, I had no money and no job prospects. Despite the ongoing Depression, I quit. It was the right choice. In other words, values are and should be the ultimate test.
NO.5 Where Do I Belong?
A few people know early on where they belong.
For example, mathematicians, musicians, and cooks usually know by age four or five that they will become mathematicians, musicians, or cooks. Physicists typically decide their career in their teens or even earlier.
But most people, especially talented ones, do not know where they belong until after their mid-twenties.
By that time, they should know the answers to the three questions discussed above:
What are my strengths?
How do I perform?
What are my values?
Then they can and should decide where to invest their energy.
Or they should be able to decide where they do not belong.
Those who know they cannot do well in a large company should learn to refuse a position in one. Those who know they are not suited to be decision-makers should learn to refuse decision-making roles.
General Patton (who probably never knew this) should have learned to refuse an independent command.
Equally important, knowing the answers to these three questions enables a person to accept an opportunity, an invitation, or an assignment with equanimity. "Yes, I will do this. But I will do it in my own way, with my own characteristics, organizing it this way, handling the relationships involved this way. This is what I should achieve within this time frame, because this is who I am."
A successful career is not planned in advance; it happens when people know their strengths, work styles, and values and are prepared to seize opportunities. Knowing where you belong can turn a diligent, capable but otherwise ordinary person into an outstanding performer.
NO.6 What Should I Contribute?
Throughout history, most people never had to ask: What should I contribute? They were told what to contribute, either by the nature of the work (as with farmers or craftsmen) or by their master (as with servants).
In the past, most people were subordinate and did what they were told, which was taken for granted. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the emerging knowledge workers (the so-called "organization men") expected the personnel department to plan their careers.
Then, by the late 1960s, no one wanted to have their career planned by others. Young men and women began to ask: What do I want to do?
And the answer they heard was, "You are on your own."
But this answer is just as wrong as the organization man's obedience to the company. Those who believe that doing their own thing will lead to contribution, fulfillment, and success generally achieve none of the three.
Nevertheless, we cannot go back to being told what to do. For knowledge workers, they must ask a question never asked before: What should my contribution be?
To answer this, they must consider three factors:
What does the current situation require?
Given my strengths, my way of performing, and my values, how can I make the greatest contribution to what needs to be done?
Finally, what results must be achieved to make a significant impact?
Consider the experience of a newly appointed hospital administrator. This was a prestigious large hospital that had coasted on its reputation for 30 years. The new administrator decided his contribution: within two years, establish a standard of excellence in an important area of the hospital.
He focused on the emergency room, which was large, visible, and chaotic. He decided that every patient entering the ER must be seen by a qualified nurse within 60 seconds. Within a year, the hospital's ER became a model for all American hospitals, and within two years, the entire hospital was transformed.
As this example shows, it is not possible to look too far ahead—and it is not even particularly effective. Generally, a plan with a time span of more than 18 months is difficult to make clear and specific.
Therefore, in most cases we should ask:
In what areas can I achieve results that will be visible within the next year and a half?
How can I achieve such results?
Answering this question requires weighing several factors.
First, these results should be difficult to achieve—to use a current buzzword, they should have "stretch." But they should also be within reach. Setting a goal that cannot be achieved, or can only be achieved with minimal probability, is not ambition; it is stupidity.
Second, these results should be meaningful and have an impact.
Finally, results should be visible and, if possible, measurable. Once you have determined the results to be achieved, you can then formulate a course of action: what to do, where to start, how to begin, what the objectives are, and within what time frame.
NO.7 Responsibility for Relationships
Few people achieve results by working alone—except for a few great artists, scientists, and athletes.
Whether you are a member of an organization or an independent professional, most people must cooperate with others, and cooperate effectively.
To manage yourself, you need to take responsibility for your relationships. This includes two parts.
First, accept the fact that others are individuals like you.
They will insist on expressing their own personalities. That means they have their own strengths, their own ways of doing things, and their own values. Therefore, to be effective, you must know the strengths, work styles, and values of those you work with.
This sounds easy to understand, but few people actually pay attention.
A typical example is a person who habitually writes reports—he developed this habit in his first job because his boss was a reader. Even if the next boss is a listener, this person will continue writing reports that are certainly ineffective.
The boss will then think the employee is stupid, incompetent, and lazy, and certainly cannot do the job well. But this could have been avoided if the employee had studied the new boss and analyzed his work style.
Bosses are not just titles on an organizational chart or a "function." They are individuals with the right to work in the way that suits them best. Those who work with them have the responsibility to observe them, understand their work style, and adapt themselves to the boss's most effective way of working.
In fact, this is the secret of "managing" your boss.
This method applies to everyone you work with. Everyone has their own way of doing things and has the right to work in their own way, not yours. What matters is whether they can achieve results and what values they hold.
As for work styles, people differ. The first secret to effectiveness is to understand the people you work with and depend on, to leverage their strengths, work styles, and values. Work relationships should be based on both the work and the people.
The second part of relationship responsibility is communication responsibility.
When I or others start consulting for an organization, the first thing we hear is about personality conflicts. Most of these conflicts arise because people do not know what others are doing, how they work, what contributions they focus on, and what results they expect. The reason they do not know is that they do not ask, and so they remain ignorant.
This failure to ask is more a matter of history than human stupidity. In the past, people did not need to tell anyone what they were doing.
For example, in a medieval city, everyone in a district practiced the same trade. In the countryside, as soon as the ground thawed, everyone in the valley planted the same crop. Even if a few people did something different, they worked alone and did not need to tell anyone what they were doing.
But now, most people work with others who have different tasks and responsibilities. A marketing vice president may have come from sales and know everything about sales, but know nothing about things he has never done, such as pricing, advertising, packaging, and so on.
Therefore, those doing these jobs must ensure that the marketing VP understands what they are trying to do, why they are doing it, how they will do it, and what results they expect.
If the marketing VP does not understand what these high-level, knowledge-based professionals are doing, the fault lies mainly with the latter, not with the VP.
Conversely, the marketing VP's responsibility is to ensure that all his colleagues know how he views marketing: his goals, how he works, and what he expects of himself and each of his colleagues.
Even if some people understand the importance of relationship responsibility, they often do not communicate enough with their colleagues. They worry about being seen as intrusive, stupid, or nosy. They are wrong.
Because we see that whenever someone goes to a colleague and says, "This is what I am good at. This is how I work. These are my values. This is the contribution I plan to make and the results I expect," the response is always, "This is very helpful. But why didn't you tell me sooner?"
And if the person then asks, "What do I need to know about your strengths, your work style, your values, and your planned contribution?" the response is similar—in my experience, without exception.
In fact, knowledge workers should ask this question of everyone they work with, whether subordinates, superiors, colleagues, or team members. And every time they ask, they get the answer: "Thank you for asking. But why didn't you ask sooner?"
Organizations are no longer built on force but on trust. Trust between people does not necessarily mean they like each other; it means they understand each other. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for people to take responsibility for their relationships.
This is an obligation. Whether a person is a member of a company, or a consultant, supplier, or distributor, he needs to take this responsibility for all his co-workers. Co-workers are those colleagues he depends on and those who depend on him.
NO.8 The Second Half of Your Life
When most people did manual labor, there was no need to worry about the second half of your life. You just kept doing what you had always done. If you were lucky enough to survive 40 years of hard work in a factory or on a farm, you could enjoy the rest of your life doing nothing.
But today, most work is knowledge work, and knowledge workers, after 40 years, can still contribute, but they are just bored.
We hear a lot about the midlife crisis of managers, and the word "boredom" appears frequently.
At 45, most managers reach the peak of their careers, and they know it. After doing the same work for 20 years, they have mastered it.
But they learn nothing new, contribute nothing new, and get no challenge from their work, so there is no satisfaction. Yet they still have 20 to 25 years of career ahead. This is why managers, after managing themselves, increasingly develop a second career.
There are three ways to develop a second career.
The first is to throw yourself completely into a new job. This often requires only moving from one organization to another.
For example, an accountant in a division of a large company becomes the CFO of a medium-sized hospital.
But more and more people are moving into completely different careers.
For example, a company manager enters the government cabinet at 45; or a middle manager leaves after 20 years, goes to law school, and becomes a lawyer in a small town.
Many people have limited success in their first career and then switch to a second. Such people have many skills and know how to work. They also need a community—because children have grown up and left, leaving an empty nest. They also need income. But most importantly, they need challenge.
The second way to prepare for the second half is to develop a parallel career. Many people have a successful first career and continue in it, full-time or part-time, or even as consultants. But in addition, they start a parallel activity, usually in a nonprofit organization, taking about 10 hours a week.
For example, they may take over the administration of a church, or chair the local Girl Scouts council. They may manage a shelter for abused women, serve as a children's librarian at the local public library, or sit on the school board.
The third method is social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs are usually people who have been very successful in their first career. They love their work, but it no longer challenges them.
In many cases, they continue to do their original work, but spend less and less time on it. At the same time, they start another venture, usually a nonprofit activity.
For example, my friend Bob Buford founded a very successful television company, which he still runs. But at the same time, he created a nonprofit organization that works with Protestant churches, and it is also very successful. Now he has created another organization that teaches social entrepreneurs how to manage their nonprofit ventures while running their original businesses.
Those who manage the second half of their lives well will always be a minority. Most people may "stay the course," counting the years until retirement. But it is these few—the men and women who see a long working life as an opportunity for themselves and society—who will become leaders and role models.
There is a prerequisite for managing the second half: you must start acting long before you enter the second half. When people first realized 30 years ago that working lives were rapidly lengthening, many observers (including myself) thought that retirees would increasingly become volunteers for nonprofit organizations.
But that did not happen. If a person does not start volunteering before age 40, he will not volunteer after 60.
Similarly, all the social entrepreneurs I know started their second ventures long before their original careers peaked.
There is another reason to develop a second interest (and to do it early): no one can expect to go through life or work without encountering serious setbacks.
A very capable engineer missed a promotion at 45. Another capable professor at a small college realized at 42 that, even though she was fully qualified for a professorship, she would never get one at a major university. Another suffered a tragedy in family life: divorce or the loss of a child.
At such times, a second interest—not just a hobby—can play an important role.
For example, the engineer now knows he is not very successful at work. But in activities outside the company, such as managing church finances, he is successful. A person may have a broken family, but he can find a larger "family" in the community through his second interest.
In a society that worships success, having options becomes increasingly important. Historically, there was no such thing as "success." Most people expected to stay in their "proper place." The only mobility was downward.
But in the knowledge society, we expect everyone to be successful. This is clearly impossible.
For many people, avoiding failure is enough. But where there is success, there is also failure. Therefore, having an area where one can contribute, exert influence, or be a "big shot" is important not only for the individual but also for the family.
This means people need to find a second area—whether a second career, a parallel career, or social entrepreneurship—where they can have the opportunity to become a leader, be respected, and achieve success.
The challenges of self-management seem obvious, even basic, and the answers may seem self-evident, even naive. But self-management requires individuals, especially knowledge workers, to do things they have never done before.
In fact, self-management requires every knowledge worker to become their own chief executive officer in thought and action.
Looking further, this shift—from manual laborers who did what they were told to knowledge workers who must manage themselves—has also brought about profound changes in social structure.
Every society in history, even the most individualistic, has taken two things for granted (even if only subconsciously):
First, organizations outlive employees;
Second, most people never move.
Now, the opposite is true. Knowledge workers outlive organizations, and they come and go freely.
Thus, the need for self-management has sparked a revolution in human affairs.
At the request of many distributor friends, our platform's fourth B-end e-commerce inspection tour will be held from August 15-18, visiting Qianmi.com and Alibaba Retail Link in Nanjing and Hangzhou. Distributor friends interested in transformation can join us for on-site inspection:
Activity schedule: Time: August 15-18
August 15-18
Nanjing · Hangzhou 15th: Check in at designated hotel in Nanjing; 16th: On-site inspection of Qianmi.com, then high-speed rail to Hangzhou in the afternoon; 17th: Participate in the "FMCG Distributor B2B Transformation Exchange Summit"; 18th: On-site inspection of Alibaba Retail Link in Hangzhou;
Distributor friends interested in transformation are welcome to join us to learn and inspect on-site:
Organization format
- Company visit
- Actual market case visit
- On-site explanation
- One-on-one communication
Participating distributor friends only need to pay a 200 yuan registration fee.
Other expenses are self-covered.
Note: This inspection is limited to distributors.
Interested distributor friends can register by long-pressing the QR code below.
When adding, please note: "Fourth Registration".
Non-participants, please do not disturb.
Group photos from previous inspections:
3rd B-end e-commerce inspection group photo, from top to bottom: Yunbao Shangmeng, Weijie Chengpei, Wanshang Yizhan.
2nd B-end e-commerce inspection group photo, from top to bottom: Jinhuobao, Caiba, Yishang.
1st B-end e-commerce inspection group photo, from top to bottom: Piduoduo, Beiquan, Yishang.
-END-
The best FMCG distributor learning platform in China
Focusing on providing professional, practical, and applicable tutorials for companies 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 volume 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 | 016 Distributor B2B transformation |
[Long press QR code to follow]