Your Lack of Success Is Precisely Because You Can't 'Fight on Paper'

Source | Teacher Liu's Forum (ID: liuchunxiong1964)

A major company boss often invites experts to give lectures. But after the lecture, he would tell the employees: "Listen to the experts, but don't do what they say."

Some people don't understand this. If you're not going to do what the experts say, why invite them?

Experts may be good at "paper talk" (theoretical discussion) but not skilled in practical matters. Those who are practical can turn the experts' "paper talk" into practice.

We can require those who are practical to understand "paper talk," but we don't necessarily need to make experts who are good at "paper talk" understand practical matters.

Those who are both good at "paper talk" and understand practical matters are not just experts; such people exist but are rare.

I deeply admire the boss who said that. He became a big boss because he understood such words.

"Paper talk" originated with Zhao Kuo and flourished with Ma Su's loss of Jieting.

Teacher Jin Huanmin has a viewpoint: Ma Su's loss of Jieting was not Ma Su's fault, but Zhuge Liang's.

Ma Su was an excellent staff officer. Zhuge Liang's "Seven Captures of Meng Huo" was influenced by Ma Su. He was a formidable strategist.

Zhuge Liang's mistake was putting a staff officer in command on the front line. He made a strategist engage in "frontline" work.

Those who talk on paper are not wrong; those who misuse them are wrong.

In fact, when Liu Bei made three visits to the thatched cottage, Zhuge Liang set the plan of "dividing the world into three parts." At that time, Zhuge Liang had not undergone practical combat tests, and "dividing the world into three" was also "paper talk." But before Zhuge Liang came out of seclusion, why did Liu Bei's generals, who were skilled in battle, always lose repeatedly?

Jiang Baili was a great military strategist and strategist in the Republic of China era.

Some say that the concept of "protracted war" was first proposed by Jiang Baili. In 1937, Jiang Baili expounded his strategy against Japan in "On National Defense," which can be summarized in three points: First, trade space for time; "win or lose, just don't make peace with it." Second, fear not being swallowed whole, but fear being nibbled away; wage a total war of resistance. Third, open the battle in Shanghai, use geographical conditions to weaken the Japanese offensive, stop the Japanese at the second line (Hunan) to form a stalemate, and create a long-term battlefield.

After the outbreak of the "July 7th" War of Resistance, Jiang Baili often said: "Even if we can't win, we must fight; if we lose, we retreat, but we still fight; five years, eight years, ten years, we must persist in fighting; no matter what the situation, even if we lose everything, it doesn't matter. The most important thing is not to compromise with them. Final victory will be ours. If you don't believe it, you can watch with your eyes open; we will all see it, unless you are a short-lived ghost."

However, it is said that this famous military strategist never won a battle when he personally led troops.

Yet this military strategist with "no victories" served as the principal of Baoding Military Academy and the Army University, and was successively hired as chief of staff or advisor by Zhao Erxun, Duan Qirui, Yuan Shikai, Li Yuanhong, Wu Peifu, Sun Chuanfang, Tang Shengzhi, Chiang Kai-shek, and others.

I think those who hired Jiang Baili were not fools. Jiang Baili's story tells us: who says that those who talk on paper must be able to lead troops in battle? "Paper talk" has become a profession.

Perhaps we always expect the emergence of heroes who are both capable in civil and military affairs, wise and brave.

Setting aside those professionals who specialize in "paper talk," let's talk about the marketing field.

Philip Kotler, who wrote "Marketing Management," is called a "marketing guru" by Chinese marketers, which surprised him. In fact, to those who know him well, Philip Kotler is not as wise as his younger brother Milton Kotler, who is better at combining with Chinese practice.

I often do marketing training for companies, and I always ask who the trainees are. If the boss participates, I talk more about "abstract" things; if it's frontline salespeople, I try to be as practical as possible, with the best practical tips. If the audience is mainly distributors, I often ask, "Just answer questions."

I tailor my approach to the audience. The higher the level, the more inclined to talk about "abstract" things. In some people's words, that's "paper talk."

Marketing is a practical science, so of course it must solve problems. But solving problems alone is not enough; to develop, you really need to know a bit of "paper talk."

"Paper talk" is not nonsense. Some people are not only not practical, but they don't even have the qualification to talk on paper. Just ignore such people; there's no need to waste words.

Furthermore, "paper talk" should be divided into levels.

The first level of "paper talk" is talking about methodology. From method to methodology, this is an elevation.

The so-called methodology is to discover patterns from methods, then elevate and summarize.

Some people do well in one place but not when they move to another. This is because they only understand methods, not methodology, and haven't correctly summarized the patterns.

Some people do well in one industry but fail when they switch industries. This is because they only understand "different industries are like different mountains," not "different industries share the same principles." They still don't understand methodology.

Some people do well in a certain period, but when the environment changes, they don't know how to adapt. Eventually they fall behind and are eliminated. This is also a lack of methodology.

Let me boast a bit. I've worked in many industries. Before becoming a consultant, I didn't understand these industries. But I might quickly understand them more deeply than those who have worked for years, and I can guide them.

How did I do it? The answer is simple.

Step one: First, find "best practices," i.e., discover those who do well;
Step two: Summarize the patterns of "best practices," i.e., methodology;
Step three: Based on the patterns, evolve more methods, and then guide others.

With methodology, isn't it simple?!

The second level of "paper talk" is talking about theory.

When it comes to theory, many people get dizzy. Some say that learning so much theory is useless.

Whether theory is useful depends on whether you know how to use it and whether you have the ability to use it. At least those classic theories, I think, are useful. Don't mention those fake theorists.

How to judge whether a person understands theory? I generally have two criteria:

One is to explain the logic behind the theory. A theory may be just a conclusion, but behind the conclusion there is logic. Logic is more important than the conclusion. All theories must be "logically self-consistent."

Two is the preconditions for the theory to hold. All theories are valid only under certain premises; there is no universal truth, especially in the social sciences. Understanding the preconditions allows you to apply flexibly according to environmental changes, not to recite theory mechanically.

This is what it means that theory is dead, but people are alive. The key to flexible application is understanding the applicable conditions.

Talking about theory is like talking about having a solid foundation in martial arts. If methods and methodology are the moves, then theory is the internal energy. Without internal energy, moves have no power; they are just fancy footwork.

When chatting with many big company bosses, we generally don't talk about practical combat; we talk about everything under the sun. Some say it's abstract, some say it's practical.

The abstract and the practical are in levels, in realms.

The third level of "paper talk" is talking about essence and philosophy.

Teacher Jin Huanmin gave me many books, such as "Das Kapital," "In Defense of Deng Xiaoping," and Boston Consulting Group's "Perspectives on Corporate Strategy." When we chat, we don't talk much about serious matters; we worry more about the ancients.

Anyway, on my bookshelf, there are over a thousand books, and I've basically read them all. Mainly philosophy books, history books, and also management, economics, and psychology books. There are few marketing books and even fewer reference books.

Talking about philosophy and essence is not easy, try it if you don't believe. You need to have a high enough level, you need to have enough foundation, and you also need to find an opponent. None of these is easy.

I always remember a saying: If you only read marketing books, you can't do marketing well.

The father of marketing is management, and the mother is psychology. There are also grandparents and great-grandparents. To learn a subject well, you need to trace back three generations. The further back you go, the less practical it seems. But the less practical it seems, the more decisive it ultimately becomes.

"Paper talk" is not just for the idle or those with leisure; it's not a pastime.

Methods solve immediate survival problems. "Paper talk" solves ideological problems, direction problems, future problems, and development problems.

Whether it was the Red Army's counter-encirclement campaigns, the Long March, the War of Resistance, or the War of Liberation, Mao Zedong wrote a large number of articles. Some of these solved method problems, some solved methodology problems, and he also wrote several philosophical articles in his spare time.

During the War of Liberation, there was a saying: Su Yu was good at fighting, Mao Zedong was good at writing articles.

Su Yu fought "god-like battles," and Mao Zedong's summaries became the guiding military thought. This military guiding thought certainly has a place in history because it solved the theoretical problem of "defeating the many with the few."

Mao Zedong became the leader of our army because he was better at summarizing than others. For example, the "Ten Military Principles" have always been very useful to me in my field.

Su Yu's methods were summarized by Mao Zedong into methodology and theory.

Mao Zedong's "On Contradiction" and "On Practice" are philosophical articles, but they were aimed at criticizing empiricism and dogmatism.

Empiricism manifests as rejecting theory; dogmatism manifests as theory not being combined with practice.

In fact, in China's marketing circle, empiricism and dogmatism are still our major enemies.

We praise those who are pragmatic and hardworking, but please don't reject "paper talk"; we appreciate those who talk on paper in a principled way, but after all, marketing is a practical science.

-END-