Click the image for details Author | Liu Chunxiong Source | Teacher Liu's Forum (ID: liuchunxiong1964) The essence of workplace thinking is nothing more than: "Boss thinking is about the big picture; employee work is about standards and processes." Ways of thinking are more important than knowledge, because they determine the direction and method of knowledge application. Innovation in thinking is more important than innovation in knowledge; as long as there is innovation in thinking, new knowledge can be continuously generated. Innovation in thinking is an important but rarely studied topic. I once proposed in an article: "Think like an outsider, act like an insider." Now, I propose a new way of thinking: "Think from the boss's perspective, act from the employee's perspective."
Outsider Mindset Why can an outsider mindset lead to innovation in thinking? Because outsiders do not understand rules and boundaries, are unclear about habits and conventions, do not know the current state, and are unaware of taboos. And rules, habits, current state, and taboos are the biggest obstacles to innovation. In the marketing field, we always talk about "changing industries" rather than "changing jobs," because "changing jobs" might still land you in the same rules, habits, and taboos, while "changing industries" means moving to a different industry, which can break rules, conventions, and taboos. We find that breakthroughs in many industries occur because a few "outsiders" intervene and activate the industry, or a company breaks conventions and revitalizes the industry. In an era lacking marketing innovation, the value of "outsiders" may be more important than insiders. This is especially true for relatively closed industries; it is essential to attract talent from leading industries to inject vitality and activate the industry. Chen Yuxin, founder of Hope Group, proposed "always maintain an outsider mindset," which I think is a very good mindset. My experience serving in more than ten industries shows that cross-industry experience is very important. Because cross-industry experience itself is innovation and has been tested in other industries. Of course, many may argue that "different industries are like different mountains," but we always believe that "different industries share the same principles." Children's thinking does not count as innovation in thinking, because adults have all experienced childhood. I have noticed an important phenomenon: people with higher education generally have higher success rates, but the world's most successful entrepreneurs often have lower education levels. Knowledge can provide a platform for innovation, but it can also close the mind of the innovator. Adults are always afraid to ask questions that seem naive, but naive questions may go back to the most essential issues. In a company, I found that everyone's monthly plan included a promotion plan, so I asked all marketing personnel: "Why must we promote? What are the prerequisites for promotion? What is the essence of promotion? What is the purpose of promotion? What are the alternatives to promotion?" I found that many people looked at me as if I were an alien, because for those marketing personnel who are accustomed to promotions, these questions are too naive. But if you cannot even answer naive questions, how can you do promotion work well? I once worked in a hotel company, and for those "old hoteliers" who had established practices and issues, I always asked why. At first, everyone was very uncomfortable. Because they had become accustomed to not thinking about these issues, as their mentors had taught them that way. My advantage was that I never had a mentor to teach me. Gradually, the hotel managers learned to think about habits. In this way, a person without hotel management experience brought significant breakthroughs to the hotel. Innovation challenges naivety, and children's questions are exactly that. Why is Peter Drucker, known as the "master of masters," so respected? Because his thinking often starts from what people call "axioms." For example, what is a manager? The "axiom" is that those with "position and power" are managers. Drucker challenged the "axiom" and thus produced classic works. Great innovations usually start at the root of the problem. Children's thinking is often like this.
Think from the Boss's Perspective Now, my proposal "Think from the boss's perspective, act from the employee's perspective" is a new way of thinking, a manager's way of thinking, while most people think from their own perspective. "Thinking from the boss's perspective" more accurately means "thinking from the perspective of the boss or superior." Why emphasize "thinking from the perspective of the boss or superior"? Because everyone's work must serve or be subordinate to higher-level work; no matter how well an individual's work is done, it is worthless if it is not coordinated with the goals of the superior or boss. I emphasize "thinking from the perspective of the boss or superior" to view one's own work from the superior's or boss's perspective. "Thinking from the perspective of the superior or boss" means thinking about the content and value of one's work from their perspective. In addition to the work goals explicitly proposed by the superior or boss, one must also carefully understand the goals that the superior or boss has not explicitly stated, and serve the superior or boss in achieving higher goals in all aspects. For example, many marketing personnel believe that achieving sales volume is their work goal. In fact, this is only the minimum work goal for marketing personnel. When achieving sales volume goals, the boss's higher goals may be the discovery of new opportunities and new models, and secondary goals may include expanding new markets, upgrading weak markets, and building base markets. When superiors or bosses assign work tasks, they must have higher goals than the work tasks themselves, and sometimes even the superiors or bosses only have a vague sense of these goals. Only by thoroughly understanding these goals can one achieve the work goals while also realizing the superiors' or bosses' goals. Completing work goals will make superiors or bosses satisfied. Understanding the superiors' or bosses' goals will make them appreciate you. The people bosses promote are not necessarily those who complete tasks, but usually those they appreciate. It is common to see excellent employees complain that despite having the best performance, others are promoted, and it seems the superior is unfair. I want to remind them that the best performance usually proves that you are competent in your current position, but the people superiors promote are those who can accomplish the superiors' more important goals. As for what these goals are, only by thinking from the boss's or superior's perspective can you understand.
Act from the Employee's Perspective "Acting from the employee's perspective" is a way of thinking that better reflects the mysteries of management. It actually addresses the issue of what standards to use when requiring employees. General managers are accustomed to requiring employees to meet manager standards or excellent employee standards, which is a major misconception. Because most employees find it difficult to meet manager standards and excellent employee standards; if they did, the company would promote them. Therefore, employees must be managed as ordinary people, and management design must enable ordinary people to do well. This is "acting from the employee's perspective." If ordinary people cannot do something well, the most effective way is not to train and improve employees' abilities, but to design the work to be simpler. If you can "foolproof" employee work like McDonald's, then recruiting and managing employees becomes very simple. I often hear managers scold subordinates for being "stupid." If they were not stupid, could you be their superior? The premise of management is that "subordinates are stupider than oneself." Therefore, managers who scold subordinates for being stupid are actually stupider. "Acting from the employee's perspective" means taking "subordinates are stupider than oneself" as the management premise, and doing the work well under this premise is a test of whether the manager is "stupid." "Acting from the employee's perspective" does not require "high standards and strict requirements," but rather "low standards and strict requirements." "Low standards" means making complex work process-oriented, standardized, and procedural, so that subordinates who are stupider than you can easily learn. This article is not written for bosses, nor for ordinary employees. The most suitable readers are managers, who have the ability to think from the perspective of the boss or superior, because they themselves are "superiors"; of course, they also have the experience of thinking from the employee's perspective. "Thinking from the perspective of the boss or superior" is difficult, because without reaching the height of the boss or superior, it is hard to think from their perspective. But as long as you try, it is better than not thinking at all. Of course, I do not advocate that subordinates speculate on the thoughts of superiors or bosses, but rather tell everyone that the boss's thinking is about the overall situation. "Acting from the employee's perspective" is even harder. The result is that employee work becomes simpler, but the manager's work becomes more complex. Leaving simplicity to employees is normal, and leaving complexity to managers is logical. -END-