As a manager, it's not about your years of experience or being the most capable person on the front line—that's for senior technical staff. As the right hand of the boss, what matters most is having advanced management thinking: look deeper into every issue, think from the big picture, and be good at learning and discovering...
Fines are useless For a low-level supervisor, fines are useful. For a senior manager, fining subordinates is useless. Because subordinates are not machines, especially when you are not supervising employees doing specific work but rather lower-level managers, the effect of fines is very low. Everyone seems to think that after a fine, the other party will definitely take responsibility because they fear being fined. But this is just assumption! A senior manager must understand that what you think and what others think are two different things. What you think is OK, subordinates often think is not OK. With fines, many subordinates think, "Fine, I'll pay the fine. I've paid it, what more do you want?" They don't take the lesson to heart at all.
There is no distinction between democracy and harshness Democracy, in fact, means following the opinions of the majority; harshness means following the opinions of the minority. On the surface, democracy seems safer, but it's not necessarily so. You must accept the fact that the majority are foolish, and the smart are always the minority. So if a senior manager believes that management should be democratic, basically, he can't accomplish anything. But if a person is harsh in everything, he also can't accomplish anything. So a senior manager should have a reserved temperament. He should understand that some things should be brought to the table in a democratic manner, while some things should be kept in mind and done secretly.
Talented people are those who are disobedient If a person is very obedient, that person is basically useless. Only truly capable people will argue with you; this is an unchanging law for thousands of years. Truly capable people have pride. They are not afraid of being fired because they have talent and can easily find a job elsewhere. A senior manager doesn't need to worry about the everyday obedient people, because such matters can be easily handled by low-level managers—it's just following procedures, what's the difficulty? The difficulty for a senior manager is to win over these truly capable people. This is the main task.
Look deeper into any issue A person who sees an apple and only thinks it's an apple is a frontline employee. A person who sees an apple and thinks, "Whose apple is this?" is a low-level supervisor. A person who sees an apple and thinks, "Why is this apple here?" is a senior manager. A person who sees an apple and thinks, "Is this apple worth money?" is the boss. A senior manager should be good at interpreting the meaning beneath the surface. Why are all employees afraid of you? Why are all employees very close to you? Appearance and truth are often completely opposite. Be good at thinking.
It's hard to be a good person It's actually very simple to be a bad person. Only those without ability become bad people. Those with ability try to be good people. Being a bad person has no worries; you shout at everyone, force employees to work, it's just a matter of being ruthless and having a loud voice. If your senior manager is such a "bad person," be careful that he might ruin the company because talent will leave. Be wary of such incompetent and arrogant people. A senior manager is good at being a good person. It's hard to be a good person because if you are good to one person, everyone wants you to be good to them too. Bad people don't have this worry; if you are bad to one person, everyone thinks, "Don't be bad to me." So being bad is simple.
Be good at thinking from the big picture A senior manager must always understand that when things come to you, they are always big problems, difficult to solve. Although they may seem simple on the surface. Because below you there are low-level managers, and low-level managers don't easily report problems upward because you will question and blame. So when making any decision, a senior manager should consider multiple factors. Why do it this way? Is there a more appropriate method? If the company has regulations, why didn't the low-level manager follow them and instead reported upward? Is the regulation not in line with reality? What are others' views on this matter? All these need consideration, not just following the book. That's the way of a stupid manager.
Must be good at learning and discovering This is not only a requirement for senior managers but also for grassroots managers. The difference is that a senior executive is like a person sitting in the middle of a row in a movie theater; if he gets up to go to the bathroom, everyone beside him has to stand up, while the person at the edge can go without disturbing anyone. The reason is simple: the position of the executive determines the impact of his actions. Back to the point, if a grassroots manager lacks learning ability and cannot discover subordinates' strengths in time, the impact may not be too great; perhaps he can still lead the team to victory. But as a senior manager, if you lack learning ability and the ability to discover the strengths of employees or subordinates in time, the impact on the team will be fatal. For a team or company to develop long-term, a positive and optimistic attitude is essential. And discovering subordinates' strengths in time is a good way to convey a positive attitude. It might just be a simple sincere compliment that moves subordinates to tears. When Liu Bei put Adou on the ground and said to Zhao Yun, "This child almost cost me a great general," that one action and one sentence earned Zhao Yun's loyalty for 50 years. Why not do it?
Perseverance, perseverance, and more perseverance This is a topic that everyone with common sense knows: to succeed, you must be perseverant. However, the reason why most people just watch others succeed is that they only know they need perseverance but don't know how to be perseverant. If your worldview is correct but your methodology is wrong, you still can't achieve your goals. Everyone has a psychological tolerance limit; some have higher limits, some lower. How can you cultivate perseverance? It's simple: no matter how difficult the situation seems, no matter how desperate the predicament, you must try to find even a glimmer of possibility for a turnaround. Believe that this possibility is like water in a sponge; if you look for it, it's definitely there. Then expand this possibility through actionable plans, and the exit will appear. All of this depends on the manager's perseverance. Shi Yuzhu's beautiful turnaround is a perfect example.
Why not fine If your subordinates are grassroots employees, you should not only fine them but also fine them clearly and explicitly. But when you are in a senior management position, as a general manager with department managers as subordinates, you will understand the disadvantages of fines. If you are a child and make a mistake, your father will chase you around the street to hit you, but when you grow up, your father won't do that. Because your role and identity have changed. If your father still chased you around the street, you wouldn't be able to hold your head up.
Every department manager is no longer an individual; his honor and mistakes belong to the whole group. For a grassroots employee, small mistakes must be punished, and great achievements must be rewarded. For a senior employee, only major mistakes are punished, and small achievements are rewarded. This is a manifestation of the art of balance. Moreover, for a manager, either you don't punish him publicly, or if you do, you might as well fire him.
If a person can become your department manager, he must have strengths beyond others. And these strengths are hard to replace; otherwise, why would you make him a department manager? However, the higher his position, the more mistakes he may make. Because all problems in the department are his problems. If he makes a wrong decision, it's his problem; if execution is insufficient, it's his problem; if employees execute incorrectly, it's his problem; if employees don't cooperate, it's his problem; if employees are incompetent, it's still his problem. He bears all the problems of the department. If we really punished, none of us senior managers would get a salary.
Konosuke Matsushita had a code of conduct: he only scolded his managers in his own office. He would scold them mercilessly in his office. But outside the office, he treated them with respect, encouraged them in front of their employees, and made their employees proud of them. And he would work hard for that face.
A person's position determines his ability to bear punishment and honor. If you praise a department manager for being hardworking, he might just laugh it off. If you praise a grassroots employee for being hardworking, he might not sleep all night.
Many things in this world must have multiple standards.
If you still can't see this clearly, maybe you are still too naive.
Why are talented people disobedient?
Actually, this is simple. Just put yourself in their shoes. Why are talented people disobedient? Or appear disobedient? Because they have different opinions, that's all. Why do talented people always seem to have objections to your opinions? Because they may see the shortcomings in your views. If what they see is not as good as yours, how can they be considered talented? Can such people actually help improve your company? This is a question worth pondering.
A person who sees what you can't see and is willing to tell you, hoping you won't continue the mistake—that is a talented person. So he appears "disobedient" and lacking in execution.
A person who only sees what you tell him after you point it out—how can that be considered talent? How many people, how many obedient and highly executable people, are at a loss when faced with changes and difficulties? This is what I have observed over a long time. If you have such people under you, it's no different from fighting alone.
Actually, this can be clearly understood logically. It's just that people are too accustomed to accepting others' wrong ideas without thinking about whether the logic is flawed.
Many people may think that being able to do things counts as talent, but then talent would be everywhere. Zhuge Liang counts as talent, Zhang Juzheng counts as talent. What about bachelor's or master's graduates? They come out knowing nothing, talk big but are useless. How can they be considered talent? Talent is someone who thinks on the same level as you. If they don't think on the same level, they can't fully understand your ideas and won't see the shortcomings in your thoughts.
Editor's note: The editor has selected 1067 articles from nearly 1900 published on this official account, divided into 14 categories and 57 knowledge points, systematically organizing frontline marketing management content into a library for everyone's learning. From market to customers, covering practical combat and management, all are valuable. Follow the official account and reply with the number "1" to browse related content.