This article is from WeChat official account:Man and God work together (ID: tongyipaocha), author: people and gods work together, the title picture comes from: Visual China
1. Efficiency Organization and Elite Organization
When studying the management capabilities of listed companies, I will divide companies into two categories:
The work process of a type of company is very clear, like those large-scale production-driven companies, sales-driven consumer goods companies, as long as the organization system is designed in advance and the incentive mechanism is used, the passing score can be achieved; if the following factors are superimposed : The leaders of the company have personality and charisma, the management is relatively professional, and the employees’ treatment is at least 20% higher than that of their peers, so the management’s ability can at least reach a good level.
The other types of companies are more troublesome, such as R&D-driven companies, companies that focus on cultural products, expert-organized companies, and some highly innovative companies. Their work processes should not be fixed, and even the work results of many employees are difficult to evaluate. The relationship between employees is more important than the relationship between employees and products, so they pay more attention to work initiative and creativity. Let’s put it this way, Most people with a high absolute number of per capita salary and a high proportion of highly educated people fall into this category.
The first type of enterprise is called an efficiency organization, because enterprise management always revolves around improving efficiency. Therefore, their management capabilities can be quantified, such as unit cost, management expense rate, turnover rate, and so on.
The second type of enterprise is called an elite organization. The management of the enterprise always revolves around improving the creativity of employees, so it is difficult to quantify. Elite organizations are highly dependent on people’s ideas and cooperation. Money is not necessarily useful, and people often backfire.
For example, two innovative pharmaceutical companies have listed companies. A company’s R&D expenditures, the proportion of researchers and the absolute number of them all surpass those of B company, and A company also has great academic leaders. But the final result is that B’s project is advancing steadily every year, but A’s pipeline is full of tall and large projects, and in the end it “does nothing”. Most of the differences are differences in management levels.
The reason why elite organizations are difficult to manage is that managers are far more complicated than management processes.
When making investments, I often avoid companies with elite organizations, but when doing business research, these types of companies arouse my interest because they often put forward new perspectives on traditional management.
2. The ideal state of an elite organization
Why don’t you think about a question, what is the ideal management state for an elite organization?
Three characteristics of this type of company:
(1) In the face of various new problems, no one has given a standard answer;
(2) Most problems require the collaboration of the entire team, but it is impossible to distinguish the responsibilities of each individual;
(3) Only know the final result of a task, but no one knows whether they are doing it right or not, nor can they judge who contributed more.
So, the best state of an elite organization should be:
I encountered a problem, everyone contributed their ideas, and finally the problem was solved.
In other words, there is a group of smart brains in the team. Everyone holds a salary higher than that of their peers without the pressure of a high salary; there is no pressure, but everyone can do their best to contribute their abilities.
After reading this, everyone will think it is impossible. People have selfish desires. It is the nature of most people to work less and take more money. Without the constraints of the system, how can it be possible for everyone to “try their best to contribute their abilities”? Moreover, if a person’s ability is not enough to stay in such a place, what mechanism is there to eliminate him?
This is the way to think about problems. We know what the best state is, and we also know what the status quo is. Then we can consider how to get as close to this standard as possible. We can achieve less than 100 points, but at least 80 points.
From this ideal state, there are three obvious differences in management from an efficient enterprise to an elite enterprise.
3. The first point: a sense of identity
Try your best to contribute your abilities in a state of no pressure-The premise of this state is the mission of the team”Sense of identity”.
What if there is a sense of identity?
First of all, some people are naturally prone to a sense of identity with the group, manifested as trust in the collective, willing to participate in collective action, regard the honor of the organization as important as the individual, and even willing to give up part of their personal interests for the benefit of the organization.
Some people are not born with this kind of “organizational identity”(If you read the above and think this is a flicker, then you probably belong to this Class). There is nothing wrong with this kind of people, but in an organization, the latter will affect the former and make the former lose their sense of identity. This is to be discerned when recruiting.
Of course, most people don’t have a clear tendency toward “organizational identity”. At this time, organizational culture is more important.
However, organizational culture is often seen as a brainwashing tool in China, and most employees say they don’t feel it.
When I was investigating a company, some investors would suggest that the company adjust its profit and move the profit from a relatively high quarter to a lower quarter to make the growth smoother. This is a relatively common accounting operation.
But once, the chairman categorically refused, saying: “You want the company to be honest and trustworthy, and you want us to adjust profits. Isn’t this contradictory?”
Don’t do to others what you don’t want. The biggest problem with Chinese corporate culture is that the boss hopes to use organizational culture to build employee identity, but he thinks that he is an exception and can not be restricted by corporate culture.
An organization with a sense of identity must have a corporate culture that the boss himself truly believes in, even if he knows that it will harm his interests, he still has the right to do things, not “I don’t believe but I believe in every day” and “I know you don’t believe it, but I still act like I believe you believe it every day.”
Corporate identity is to find a group of suitable people and use practical actions to let everyone share the following beliefs:
(1) We are a group of people who pursue high standards.
(2) The goal pursued by the team is also my goal.
4. The second point: a sense of trust
Trust is the daring to expose one’s weaknesses to others, and toTell others about your needs.
Speaking of this, some people must think of the “trust back throw” in the development training, which is to let people fall straight back and be caught by a colleague on the side.
Of course, the trust that can be built through development training is nothing but a performance from subordinates to superiors. Although the approach is wrong, the truth is correct-in the process of building a sense of trust, both parties need to fully expose their weaknesses to the other in exchange for the other’s trust.
Compare the following two conversations between the boss and the subordinate:
Company A:
Boss: Xiao Zhang, why is the XX parameter missing in the proposal you submitted?
Subordinate: Ah… I thought that this parameter would not change the result.
Boss: Not this time, will you guarantee that it won’t be next time?
Subordinates: Sorry, I just added it. I always think that in most cases, this parameter will not change the result.
Boss: Don’t take it for granted, do things with a basis.
Subordinates: Sorry, I see…
Company B:
Boss: Xiao Zhang, why is the XX parameter missing in the proposal you submitted?
Subordinates: Because this parameter does not change the result.
Boss: Are you sure it’s always like this?
Subordinates: I’m not sure, do you have any other examples to the contrary?
Boss: I couldn’t think of it for a while, so I’d better add it and give some system redundancy…
Subordinates: Otherwise, I will let XX have a look, he is more exposed to this situation.
Boss: Okay, he is better at it. You can decide directly after discussion.
It is very obvious that Company A is an efficient organization. In order to maintain the efficient operation of the organization, the boss should show a high degree of self-confidence, become a person with no weaknesses, and be responsible for the results of everything, especially not allowing subordinates to question themselves decision.
But in this conversation, the subordinates obviously did not approve of the boss’s statement.Just to maintain the authority of the boss and have to admit mistakes, in this case, how can true trust be generated?
On the contrary, the conversations of Company B often occur in elite organizations (of course the ideal state), and neither side is particularly confident, even constantly Exposing one’s own cognitive blind spots is like exposing weaknesses to others in the “back of faith”.
Why expose weaknesses to strengthen trust? Everyone must have heard of a principle in interpersonal relationships. If you want to win a friend, the best way is to ask him for a favor.
Ask someone for a favor, isn’t it just exposing your weakness to others?
Dario’s “Principles” also has a “radical face reality” principle, which means that before making a complex decision, a person must give up his thoughts and listen to all information “aggressively”, especially It is opposing and negative information.
The principle of “radical facing reality” and the principle of showing weakness have the same results.
Showing weakness is not all that trust is formed, but it is definitely the most difficult step. From the two dialogues above, it can be seen that the most difficult thing to do is the “superior”. In such an elite organization In China, everyone is an expert, and few bosses are willing to confess their uncertainty.
But the management in an elite organization is not suitable for expert managers. This is the third point.
5. The third point: connected leadership
In successful efficiency organizations, expert leaders and authoritative leaders are more common.
The former is a technical expert, grasping the direction on major issues, quickly advancing projects at key nodes, and forming final opinions on complex issues to improve the efficiency of the enterprise; while the latter relies on authority to establish a coordinated operation organization Culture makes employees willing to sacrifice personal interests in exchange for organizational efficiency.
But in elite organizations, these two leadership styles are not necessarily suitable(If you are in a large company, this means The direct leader of the department, not the boss of the company).
Authoritative LeaderObviously it is not suitable for an elite organization, because it is not employees who can work together just by listening to the leaders;
Expert-type leaders are not necessarily suitable for elite organizations. Many expert-type leaders often have their own customary lines in their professions, which leads to inbreeding in their ideas and not open enough, which is not conducive to innovative results.
The leadership style most suitable for elite organizations is “connected leadership.”
The leader of the connected style is more like an organizer, organizing the most suitable resources together and letting them naturally produce a “chemical reaction” instead of deciding what to do. Apple’s Cook is a leader with a “connected style”.
The biggest advantage of a connected style of leadership is to maintain the team’s continuous innovation ability. Innovation in the modern sense is not to create a new product out of thin air, but to combine existing things into a valuable new product. The process of its production is often a group of smart minds in a relatively open and inclusive environment. In the process of mutual frankness and trust, mutual feedback and encouragement.
And this kind of team atmosphere will neither form spontaneously nor self-stabilize. It must be controlled by a leader with a connected style.
6. The miracle just happened
Finally, summarize the three requirements of “elite organizations”:
(1) Employees with a high sense of identity and corporate culture
(2) A sense of trust starting from showing each other’s weakness
(3) Leadership with connected style
At the time of writing this article, the second season of “Love, Death, and Robots” came out, but this sequel that has made everyone look forward to more than a year and twice bouncing votes, word-of-mouth hit the street, and the score quickly went from 9.4 Drop to 7.5 points.
It should be said that in the second season, the pictures are more refined, the story is more complete, the style is more unified, and the standard is more even-in fact, it is mediocre, and it has lost the rough but wild imagination of the first season.
This is how I understand it. The first season is like a group of people getting together. Everyone has a small budget, so there are no restrictions. There is only one condition, to make a favorite animation, not even the story. It needs to be complete, as long as you like it, and then 18 incomplete stories are organized together, The miracle just happened.
Have common hobbies, don’t shy away from your own weaknesses, do what you are good at as much as possible, and add a leader who is behind the needle. This is the ideal state of an elite organization.
This article is from WeChat official account:Man and God work together (ID: tongyipaocha), author: people and gods work together