This article is reposted from: FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting Management (kxpjxszyzxgl) Why can't bosses "let go of the process and only demand results"? Can a manager's "hold me accountable" really prevent the boss from intervening? Dialogue: Is it all the fault of interference? Author: "Why did you leave ×× company?" Manager: "Oh, don't mention it. That boss... I was executing the established plan step by step, and suddenly the boss jumped in and started giving orders, not understanding the situation and directing blindly. The more you don't want this, the more the boss interferes, making it impossible to work. So I chose to leave." Author: "How do you usually handle such situations?" Manager: "Since the boss wants to interfere and manage, then I won't manage. Otherwise, if something goes wrong, whose fault is it?" Author: "Are you doing this to prove the boss is wrong? Waiting to see the boss make a fool of themselves?" Manager: "Let the facts speak. I do this to teach the boss a lesson so they won't interfere in the future." Author: "After the boss suffers a loss, do they learn the lesson?" Manager: "If only they would learn! That's the bottleneck of ×× boss. That's why ×× company can't grow big." Author: "So what do you think the boss should do? Should the boss not manage after deciding to let you do it?" Manager: "Right! Since the boss arranged for me to do it, they don't need to manage; just wait for the results." Author: "What if, when the time comes, the expected results are not achieved, and there's a major mishap? What should be done?" Manager: "Hold me accountable!" — At this point, the manager often appears very principled. Author: "Hold you accountable for what? What can be asked?" At this point, most managers are at a loss for words. But some managers might reluctantly answer: "I guarantee with my personal integrity." Then I joke: "Can personal integrity be written into a contract as a guarantee?" Dialogue: Why does the boss interfere? Author: "Have you thought about why the boss interferes?" Manager: "Distrust! On the surface, they trust, but in reality, they are defensive, tracking, and interfering everywhere." Author: "What do they distrust about you?" Manager: After thinking, answers: "Two things. One is distrust in ability, and the other is worry that I might do something underhanded. But mainly it's distrust in ability." Author: "Why is there distrust in ability?" Manager: "Most bosses think they are the smartest and most capable themselves!" Can the boss not interfere? Good character does not mean no need for restraint. Regarding trust in character, many bosses agree: when professional managers reach a certain level, they generally have no major character issues. But having no character issues does not mean they don't need restraint and supervision. The difference between good and bad people is that good people consciously abide by institutional restraint and supervision, while bad people actively exploit loopholes in systems and supervision, or even undermine them. Ability needs conditions to be demonstrated. Trust in ability is always a concern for bosses. However, in actual operation, whether past abilities can be demonstrated in a new environment remains to be tested. A professional manager who performed well at Company A may not necessarily perform well at Company B; at least when you first parachute into a company, you won't immediately be in your element; you need time to adapt. So even if the boss gives you full authorization, there must be a process of tracking and protecting your authority. A manager A parachuted into a company with assets of 1 billion as president. On the first day, the boss announced that all company affairs were under A's management, but in fact, the boss was interfering behind the scenes. This is not simply distrust in A's ability, but a protection of A, and also a responsible attitude towards the company. Imagine a large enterprise where the chairman suddenly stops managing and hands over to a parachuted manager who is unfamiliar with the place—wouldn't that be a joke? When a manager enters a company in a weak position, if the strong boss doesn't help behind the scenes, support you, and see you off, you will definitely stumble. Some managers say: if the boss doesn't trust me, why not just not announce that I'm in charge? I say if they don't announce you're in charge, you won't even get nominal support, so how can you be legitimate? So when the boss publicly announces and then interferes behind the scenes, it is actually a responsible approach. What is the real reason for the boss's interference? Why does the boss interfere? From the above analysis, it seems to be the boss's distrust of the professional manager, which seems to be the boss's problem. But from the professional manager's perspective, there are also two major reasons. First, professional managers themselves have communication barriers In reality, many managers don't know how to communicate with the boss, or don't communicate with the boss, meaning they are only professional but not professional in the broader sense; they only know how to do things, not how to handle people. These managers are mostly from technical backgrounds or from foreign companies, skilled at doing things but not good at interpersonal relationships or not paying attention to them, leading to two major misunderstandings. First, they think communicating with the boss is unnecessary, especially in private enterprises where efficiency should be pursued, and this kind of thing shouldn't be done. This is reflected in some managers who communicate well with subordinates but don't communicate with the boss, thinking that the boss hired them at a high salary to do work, and there's no need to spend so much effort on things unrelated to business. Second, they think the boss should proactively communicate with the manager. They think that since the boss hired them at a high salary, it means they are better than the boss, and communicating with the boss lowers their status. This is a mindset issue, and if the mindset is problematic, problems will definitely arise in work. Experience tells us: in private enterprises, you should pay more attention to communicating with the boss, because during the growth and development of private enterprises, many information channel mechanisms have not been established or are chaotic. If you don't proactively communicate with the boss, the boss cannot obtain information at all. Second, there is a lack of legal restraint mechanisms for professional managers Due to the imperfection of our legal mechanisms, current market-oriented enterprises have no constraints on professional managers at all, while state-owned enterprises have quite strong constraints on cadres. Therefore, from a management perspective, private enterprise bosses are in a relatively weak position compared to state-owned enterprise managers. Out of the need for risk control, bosses frequently interfering in subordinates' affairs has become a common occurrence. How should managers respond to boss interference? Once the real cause is found, it's easy to handle. The specific solution I call the "Slow Four Steps" because each step cannot be rushed; it must be done gently, like the slow four-step dance. Step One: Proactively communicate with the boss before doing things Managers should not only communicate with the boss about business matters but also non-business matters. Don't look down on those miscellaneous things, because they may have an inexplicable relationship with doing your job well. For example, the boss wants the manager to do something like uprooting a big tree, but if you don't clear the soil around the roots, you can't pull it out. Of course, some managers think the boss should handle these trivial matters for them, so they can do their work cleanly. Think about it: the boss hired you at a high salary to get things done and make money, but the boss has already spent money to hire you. You should be doing things for the boss; why should the boss do things for you? If the boss could handle these things, why would they hire you? So these basic communications should be done by the manager, and if necessary, you can ask the boss to help you complete them. So "dig the pit first, then pull the tree" is the principle for professional managers. Digging the pit is about handling people; pulling the tree is about doing things. If you handle people well, things will naturally be accomplished. Step Two: Turn your decisions into the boss's decisions Many professional managers pride themselves on being straightforward, daring to speak up for what they think is right, and forcing the boss to agree with their views. This is like forcing a cow to drink water by pressing its head down. There are three outcomes: either the cow directly kills you; or after drinking, it kills you; or the cow, being strong, breaks free and runs away. Regardless of the outcome, the manager fails. In fact, the solution is simple: do everything possible to turn your decision into the boss's decision, and turn your viewpoint so that the boss says it, making the boss the decision-maker. Once the boss makes a decision, the boss will definitely mobilize various resources to facilitate the matter. If it's the manager's decision, the resource support will be far less, especially for newly appointed managers who will inevitably face the embarrassment of insufficient resource support. This is an art of communication, an art of dealing with people, and the best way to prevent the boss from interfering midway. Some managers often think: since the boss spent money to hire me, they should listen to me. That's wrong. If the boss spends money to hire you and listens to you, they've hired a master—how could that be? We should understand it this way: the boss spent money to hire you, so naturally you should listen to the boss, which conforms to fair market transaction principles. But this doesn't prevent you from contributing wisdom. You must contribute your wisdom, let the boss make the final decision, and then you execute it. Step Three: Proactively maintain dynamic communication with the boss In reality, many managers think: once the boss has made a decision, there's no need to communicate with the boss during the process; the boss just waits for the result. But this is like asking you to take care of someone's child for three months without allowing the parents to ask anything—wouldn't the parents be anxious? Often, the boss not only wants results but also pays attention to the process, placing great importance on it. If you deliberately hinder the boss from interfering, the boss will only want to interfere more. Why does the boss need to pay attention to the process? It's simple: things change, and the boss has the right to know the progress of things to adjust in time. Especially in small enterprises, bosses pay close attention to small matters because every small matter could affect the survival of the enterprise, and every small mistake by a manager is ultimately paid for by the boss. Moreover, because the enterprise is small, in many cases, the boss cannot afford to pay for employees' mistakes. So managers should pay attention to timely communication with the boss about the progress of things, and when problems arise, let the boss make decisions promptly to ensure the boss is informed. Especially for parachuted managers, because the boss is not familiar with your style, you need to let the boss know the progress of your operations. Even if the boss is very confident in your work, or explicitly says they don't have time to pay attention, you can use a more convenient means to communicate with the boss, letting the boss understand and grasp the overall progress. Step Four: After the boss suddenly interferes, actively cooperate and do things constructively The boss has been actively supporting and promoting this matter, and you are also going all out to push it forward. Suddenly the boss decides not to do it, or changes direction, or the boss hasn't paid attention to what you're doing and suddenly interferes, which you see as blind direction and nonsense. What to do? This is like a division commander in battle when the army commander suddenly comes to the front line to command. What should the division commander do? The only thing is to actively cooperate, otherwise the battle cannot be fought. Enterprises are like armies in battle. The correct approach is that when the boss interferes midway, the manager should first consider cooperating with the boss. If the boss's interference is correct, then follow the boss's opinion; if the boss's approach is indeed wrong, even nonsense, then seriously and tactfully communicate with the boss to get the boss to accept your correct opinion; if the boss still insists, don't be discouraged, change methods to communicate; if all methods are exhausted and the boss still doesn't turn back, still don't be discouraged, but through your own efforts, minimize the negative effects of the boss's wrong approach. This is doing things actively and constructively. As the saying goes, "In the midst of great chaos, true heroes reveal themselves." When the boss gives you a difficult problem, it's exactly the time to show your heroism. It's an opportunity to challenge yourself and achieve yourself. Why treat it as a difficulty or problem? Why don't foreign experiences work? Some managers who have worked in foreign companies always cite foreign practices, but when they actually implement them, they don't work. Why? There are probably two reasons: First, in foreign companies, you never really come into contact with the true boss, only with superiors who are also professional managers, so the level of attention to things and the responsibility for results are different. In private enterprises, you face the real boss, the ultimate bearer of enterprise responsibility. Only the person who owns the flesh knows where it hurts. Second, foreign companies are mostly long-established and mature, with relatively complete corporate systems and established team immune systems, so information collection, decision-making, transmission, execution, feedback, and correction are all relatively perfect. Even if the boss doesn't care, the system and team can correct themselves. So managers who have worked in foreign companies should never easily apply foreign practices to private enterprises. Can the boss hold anyone accountable? In fact, as professional managers think, it is unrealistic to not allow the boss to interfere and only wait for results. Especially for a parachuted manager, if the boss doesn't care or ask, it's hard to get results. What if the boss can't wait for results? Hold the manager accountable? In foreign companies and private enterprises, you can't ask anything... If the enterprise goes bankrupt, the manager can leave quietly, but the boss may find no one to turn to. If the enterprise is gone, why ask you? What can be asked? Of course, in state-owned enterprises, it's easier: you can give party or administrative discipline, remove from office, or sentence to prison—there are many things to ask. But in market-oriented enterprises, it can only rely on the boss's personal judgment and control of risk. Do you think the boss can not interfere? Did the boss really interfere? Boss interference is understood from the manager's perspective. In fact, from the boss's perspective, there may be no interference. It is normal for the boss to pay attention to internal affairs; it's part of their job. How can it be called interference? When a manager doesn't let the boss interfere in what they are doing, that is truly "interfering" in the boss's affairs, showing misplacement and overstepping. After all, if you're not the boss, you don't know what ultimate risk means; after all, employees are only transmitters of responsibility, not the ultimate bearers. Especially for managers who are "smashing the territory," the boss must solve it thoroughly and cleanly, not allowing them to gain momentum. Of course, if not, when the boss delves into the manager's normal affairs, they should also pay attention to propriety and method. Industry Consulting Management (kxpjxszyzxgl) Reply with the following keywords to categorize and read related professional articles: Sales Supervisor, Second-Tier Management, Regional Manager, Distributor Management, New Channels, City Manager, Competition, 2015, Manufacturer-Dealer Game, Product Stagnation, Terminal Visit Management, Route Management, Deep Distribution, Internal Management, Sales Skills, Profit Improvement, Recruitment, Distribution, Daily Management, Team Motivation, Trade Promotion, Sales Misconceptions, New Product Launch, Township Market, New Product Pricing, Sales Target Achievement, Forcing Orders, Market Visit Inspection, Baijiu, Beer, Sales Increase, Agency Products, Cross-Region Sales, KA, Terminal Merchandising, New Market, Market Operation, Learning, Book Recommendations, Inventory Management, Sales Novice, Consumer Promotion, Execution, Old Products, Expired Product Handling, Model Market, Investment Promotion, New Media, Distributor Development, Performance Appraisal, Assessment, Annual Planning, Shopping Guide, Morning Meeting, Display, Transformation, Inventory Pressure, Holidays, Distributor Cost Control, Channel Operation, Marketing Theory and Laws, Brand Truth, Order Meeting, Team Management, Training, Debriefing, Debriefing Report.