Case: Company A is a city-level distributor for a nationally renowned dairy brand, with annual sales of around 20 million yuan. In July last year, due to the dairy brand company's sales organization adjustment and regional distributor changes, Company A lost its agency rights. Its annual sales plummeted from 20 million to 5 million yuan. The distributor had built his fortune from 20,000 yuan to a million thanks to this dairy brand. Although heartbroken and tearful, he carried out a smooth handover with the new distributor out of gratitude.
However, three months later, some situations left the distributor puzzled. With fewer people and vehicles, management should have been easier, right? The finance, internal affairs, and warehousing staff were previously busy, but now with fewer tasks and same salaries, work should be lighter. Yet the opposite happened: warehouse products suffered abnormal damage, and inventory counts were unclear. Finance and internal affairs staff complained constantly, and departments blamed each other for work errors. Efficiency was low. In short, problems seemed everywhere.
In response, the seasoned distributor held a department head meeting. Attendees included sales department (two supervisors), finance, internal affairs, and warehousing heads. A rule was set: each department had mutual supervision obligations, and to address issues like non-cooperation and passive work, each supervisor must issue at least two penalty notices that month; otherwise, 100 yuan would be deducted from their salary for each missing notice. This was to promptly identify and solve problems, enhance cooperation, and reduce errors. What was the result?
By month-end, except for the assertive finance supervisor who issued one penalty to the sales department and one sales supervisor who issued two to himself, no other department issued any notices. Did the agreement have a deterrent effect? Clearly not; privately, complaints continued, mutual accusations persisted, and internal friction was huge. When the boss angrily insisted on fines, all department heads agreed without objection. Could it be that salaries were so high that a 100-200 yuan fine didn't matter? What effect can an execution without process have? The distributor fell into thought: I managed dozens of people, so why can't I manage just over ten? Where's the problem?
In reality, prosperity can mask flaws. The real reason the boss couldn't manage a dozen people after managing dozens is that huge sales previously masked internal friction and diluted management conflicts. With sales plummeting, problems once considered minor became intolerable. Is it too late for the distributor to reform management now? Extending this, aren't many distributor enterprises with a dozen or so employees, especially in FMCG, tolerating problems that might become unbearable at any time? Why do they fail to change when busy, and find it hard to change when not busy? Isn't it common for a shrewd boss (not shrewd enough to reach this scale) to formulate various management systems that end up fizzling out? Of course, we can't ignore family-style management, as most enterprises of this scale have family members involved. Completely avoiding it isn't realistic in China's current context. Although progressive and open-minded distributor bosses want to break free from family management, they may intentionally keep family away from company affairs but can't let go of their own signing authority. Many have written deep analyses on this. I want to add: are there other crucial factors hindering the execution of management systems in distributor enterprises?
Through years of contact with distributor enterprises, I believe the distributor boss's 'core beam' mindset is a key factor constraining their development. (Treating core employees as the company's main beam, which cannot be missing; replacing it is risky. It can support the company even if crooked or thin. Everyone wants the best beam, but it's too expensive. It's enough for one's own house. In a storm, as long as the beam doesn't collapse, you might weather it.)
In such enterprises, there are usually one or two non-family 'outsider' supervisors who are core to the company, playing indispensable roles. Since the boss's relatives usually occupy finance and warehousing, these outsiders are mostly in sales. Sales is the lifeline of a distribution business. Generally, the sales head is the core of the enterprise. But is the core in sync with the company?
In enterprises of this scale, except for bosses with exceptional charisma, few employees share a common vision with the company. Just as when Masayoshi Son stood on a stool and told employees about entering the world's top 100, they thought he was crazy, employees care more about tangible money. Some bosses themselves don't know what the future holds or what they want to become. So they can only make employees work for the present, giving up the future. This seemingly intangible thing plants seeds for the failure of many management and sales systems.
For small and medium distributor enterprises, a core employee may do the work of several people. I believe most bosses have told core supervisors: 'I allow you to make mistakes, but not the same mistake. Making this small mistake today can prevent bigger ones in the future.' The implication is: I value you, so work hard to deserve it, and don't make mistakes again. But implications remain implications; they keep making different small mistakes.
If the company makes an error, they can find a hundred reasons to prove they're not at fault. Of course, many core supervisors are willing to take responsibility, but the key is whether bosses notice that supervisors keep taking responsibility for different mistakes, yet the company often pays the price. Because the company can't do without them, at least for a certain period, so bosses demand 'better not make the same mistake.'
In such enterprises, there's an interesting situation: supervisors outnumber soldiers. Some departments have only one person, but that person is a supervisor with no subordinates. Small enterprises are generous with titles. The total number of supervisors exceeds grassroots employees. These supervisors are friends on the surface, which is why Company A's penalty rule failed. Supervisors' words and actions become employees' behavioral guidelines; if supervisors make mistakes, employees think they can too. 'Anyway, leaders can take responsibility, so they can cover for me. If all else fails, I can cozy up to the leader, laugh it off, and it's over. Doesn't the leader still need me to work?'
On the other hand, few employees don't want their company to do well. Bosses want supervisors to improve, supervisors want subordinates to improve, subordinates want supervisors to improve. Everyone wants others to change, but the biggest flaw is forgetting to improve oneself. Thus, around the 'core beam' mindset, problems arise: imperfect or changeable systems due to core non-cooperation, unclear responsibilities, no performance assessment, and egalitarianism, all severely hindering enterprise development.
To change this situation, the urgent task is to improve the distributor boss's 'core beam' mindset. I propose three methods:
Clarify responsibilities, no excuses. For example, if finance is clearly responsible for providing sales data regularly, then there's no excuse for month-end or year-end busy reconciliation; it must be done unconditionally, reducing internal friction.
Establish rewards and penalties, implement promptly. The key is swift implementation. Bosses must make employees understand that their created value will be timely and reasonably rewarded, and losses they cause will be accounted for.
Master resources, identify key points. Afraid they'll quit? Then take control of resources yourself. 80% of sales come from 20% of customers. Master detailed customer resources, regularly contact the key 20%, and with products in hand, can the market fly away? (But how many bosses of this scale can do even this simple thing?)
The last paragraph is for so-called core employees: Hurry up and improve before the boss does, and strive to enhance your value for being used. Then you can continue to enjoy respect and relatively high salaries. Always remember: core employees are the ladder to the roof, not the beam. Learn to adapt to the boss, the company, and the market's weight. At critical moments, even without a ladder, you can still climb to the roof.
Reply with the following keywords to search and read related professional articles: Sales Supervisor, Second-tier Management, Regional Manager, Distributor Management, New Channels, City Manager, Competition, 2015, Manufacturer-Dealer Game, Product Slow Sales, Terminal Visit Management, Route Management, Deep Distribution, Internal Management, Sales Skills, Profit Improvement, Recruitment, Distribution, Daily Management, Team Motivation, Channel Promotion, Sales Misconceptions, New Product Launch, Township Market, New Product Pricing, Sales Target Achievement, Closing, Market Visit Inspection, Baijiu, Beer, Sales Increase, Agency Products, Cross-region Sales, KA, Terminal Merchandising, New Market, Market Operation, Learning, Book Recommendations, Inventory Management, New Salespeople, Consumer Promotion, Execution, Old Products, Expired Product Handling, Model Market, Franchise Recruitment, New Media, Distributor Development, Performance Assessment, Assessment, Annual Planning, Shopping Guide, Morning Meeting, Display, Transformation, Stock Pressure, Holidays, Distributor Cost Control, Channel Operation, Marketing Theories and Laws, Brand Truth, Order Meeting, Team Management, Training, Debriefing, Work Report.