Why don’t companies have a chief of staff?
Editor’s note: This article is from the WeChat public account “ People and God work together ” (ID : Tongyipaocha), the author works together.
Why doesn’t the company have a chief of staff?
Do you have any misunderstanding about the chief of staff?
Readers who like to watch war movies must be no stranger to the position of “Chief of Staff”, including the “Chief of Staff” at the top level and the “Chief of Staff” at the grassroots level, as if the chief of staff of the enemy army is “Hu Staff” The chief of staff of our army is “Little Zhuge.”
Looking at it literally, the staff seems to be a staff-like officer who provides advice to the chief. In fact, this is only a small part of the chief of staff’s duties. what?
Readers familiar with the military history of Europe and Japan will definitely find that the role of the chief of staff and the commander are equal, and even in certain special periods, the chief of staff may not execute the commander’s decision and go to a higher level. report.
Furthermore, one of the “innovations” of management with Chinese characteristics is “military management”, but in practice, few companies have set up roles like “staff”.
Recently, I read some military books, and suddenly I got a sense of some phenomena in business management, which started from the role of “staff”.
Why was there no chief of staff in ancient times?
It is one-sided to understand the staff as a “military division”. In addition to the “provide information for the chief” mentioned earlier, its greater role is a process of strategic to tactical transformation, so the role of staff was ancient It does not exist in war.
Let ’s think about it. If the commander decides to siege the city, he will definitely go directlyOrder “So, so and so, give you 10 days, take 30,000 horses, rush to a certain place, surround the city, do not let a person alone.”
If you are reading a novel, a picture will appear in the reader’s mind. 30,000 horses emerge from the army, walk a distance, and surround a city, as if the enemy army is a puppet army.
The actual battle is much more complicated. Which way to go? Walk during the day or at night? Army all the way or soldiers divided in two ways? What if the enemy finds it? Should other troops cooperate to interfere with the enemy? How to get around the enemy? Where is the target where there are mountains and rivers? …
These are the differences between strategy and tactics. Tactics are made up of a set of specific commands that can be executed. Any mistake in small details may be fatal.
But these generals can only control strategy, but not specific tactics, because ancient warfare often did not even have an accurate map, and they could not be arranged too thin at all.
What’s more troublesome is the underdeveloped communication. It is almost impossible for the two parties to contact each other more than ten kilometers away. The battlefield changes rapidly. If everything needs to be arranged by the commander, it becomes a veritable blind command.
There are many reasons why fighting in the Song Dynasty was not possible. One of the reasons is that the emperor did not trust the general and sent eunuchs to serve as supervisors. All combat plans and specific tasks were written and issued by this person in advance. Can’t adapt to the situation, why not be undefeated?
So the command systems for warfare in the ancient times were very rough, and the combat instructions were just an arrangement in principle. The specific time and place method is entirely dependent on the generals who are in the team who are experienced and adaptable. They will be out and the king ’s fate will not be affected. “
What about the cooperation between the troops? Relying on the tacit understanding formed through long-term cooperation in peacetime training and combat-so good warfare are “home army” such as “Yue Family Army” and “Qi Family Army”.
![Are there any misunderstandings about]()
The same is true of the early West, and they have a small population and a smaller war, and wars of hundreds of thousands of people like China rarely occur.
The role of the staff was born during the recent wars in Europe.
In the Napoleonic era, there were tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of large army battles. There were more types of weapons, types of services, and formations. Western people are more logical and rational, and they do n’t think it is a warYes, there are too many random factors. There must be a special person to turn the commander’s strategic intention into a series of executable tactical tasks. The most important role in the modern military, the staff, was born.
So the greater role of the chief of staff is to “transform strategy into tactics.”
How did the Chief of Staff appear?
The staffing system originated in Germany. There is a sentence in the German army: “Smart and lazy people are suitable as commanders; smart and diligent people are suitable as chiefs of staff; stupid and diligent people can be Soldiers. ”
Why is the commander “smart and lazy”?
Let’s imagine that if you are the top commander of the front line, you now want to intersperse the enemy from the middle and split it into two pieces,
As long as you understand this, the only thing left to do is to give an order to express your strategic intentions. Next, based on the feedback from the implementation, one is to decide whether this strategy should be changed, and the other is to decide how to fight in the next stage.
This is not much different from the highest commanders in ancient times, so tactical warfare will soon become outdated, but strategy books like Sun Tzu’s Warfare can be used from ancient to modern times.
But modern war is different from ancient war. After all, the granularity of management is much finer. The responsibility falls to the “smart and diligent” chief of staff, who is responsible. Turn the commander’s strategic intent into a series of specific military orders that can be executed. —— A certain army reached a certain place within a certain time, and a certain army at a certain time directed to some In the direction of movement, the XX army is responsible for interfering with the enemy forces. During this period, the XX army must keep its position, so the staff department is the army’s “command system”.
Let’s take the Battle of Waterloo as an example, and see what happens if the chief of staff fails.
At that time, Napoleon’s thought was: “It is impossible to let the British and General forces meet, so a member will be required to block the General forces, but our army is not strong enough, so we must return at any time to support the main battlefield.” span>
This is the strategic intent. It sounds easy to understand, but the problem is that the leader may not say such concise words. He may also articulate his own thinking process. It will also involve some details, such as specific requirements on how to surround the general army, and these The details are likely to be contradictory, and may be contrary to the actual situation on the battlefield, and may hurt the execution of the grand strategy.
At this time, the importance of the chief of staff becomes apparent.
The former Chief of Staff of Napoleon was Louis Alexander Bertier. It had been with Napoleon for a long time, so that some soldiers simply regarded Bertier as “Napoleon’s wife”. He particularly understands the way he thinks and speaks, and always extracts the most core strategy from the complicated information-not only to prevent the convergence of Yingpu, but also to come back to support at any time.
But he died before the Battle of Waterloo. His successor, Marshal Sirte, is very experienced in combat, but the problem is that he does not understand the strategy, or is not used to Napoleon’s way of speaking, and does not understand Napoleon What are you thinking.
People from the grassroots have an “excellent” quality. They also need to understand if they don’t understand, and they don’t know how to execute, so Sirte has issued two self-phases based on his understanding of Napoleon. Contradictory commands:
First, Marshal Grushi should expel the generals as soon as possible;
Second, Marshal Grusch wants to support the emperor.
General Grushy fainted at the first hearing. What the hell did I do? So he chose a more specific “deport general forces as soon as possible”. As everyone knows, the French main battlefield has repeatedly lost, but he led the brigade to circle around not far, which became one of the important reasons for “Waterloo”.
You can see that the staff post is not just a “military division”. It is not only necessary to understand the commander ’s strategic intentions, but also to have actual combat experience, and to understand the difficulties that the troops may encounter when implementing tactics Make an executable tactical plan, as long as any mistake in understanding the strategy and transforming tactics, it will become “Hu Hushen.”
![Are there any misunderstandings about]()
I know so much about the military, so I wo n’t say, but then I wonder, why is there no such role in the modern enterprise management as “converting strategy into tactics”?
Why doesn’t the company have a chief of staff?
From strategy to tactics, and corresponding to company management, it is “company strategy to specific implementation”, This is also a matter
The staffing system originated in Germany. There is a sentence in the German army: “Smart and lazy people are suitable as commanders; smart and diligent people are suitable as chiefs of staff; stupid and diligent people can be Soldiers. ”
Why is the commander “smart and lazy”?
Let’s imagine that if you are the top commander of the front line, you now want to intersperse the enemy from the middle and split it into two pieces,
As long as you understand this, the only thing left to do is to give an order to express your strategic intentions. Next, based on the feedback from the implementation, one is to decide whether this strategy should be changed, and the other is to decide how to fight in the next stage.
This is not much different from the highest commanders in ancient times, so tactical warfare will soon become outdated, but strategy books like Sun Tzu’s Warfare can be used from ancient to modern times.
But modern war is different from ancient war. After all, the granularity of management is much finer. The responsibility falls to the “smart and diligent” chief of staff, who is responsible. Turn the commander’s strategic intent into a series of specific military orders that can be executed. —— A certain army reached a certain place within a certain time, and a certain army at a certain time directed to some In the direction of movement, the XX army is responsible for interfering with the enemy forces. During this period, the XX army must keep its position, so the staff department is the army’s “command system”.
Let’s take the Battle of Waterloo as an example, and see what happens if the chief of staff fails.
At that time, Napoleon’s thought was: “It is impossible to let the British and General forces meet, so a member will be required to block the General forces, but our army is not strong enough, so we must return at any time to support the main battlefield.” span>
This is the strategic intent. It sounds easy to understand, but the problem is that the leader may not say such concise words. He may also articulate his own thinking process. It will also involve some details, such as specific requirements on how to surround the general army, and these The details are likely to be contradictory, and may be contrary to the actual situation on the battlefield, and may hurt the execution of the grand strategy.
At this time, the importance of the chief of staff becomes apparent.
The former Chief of Staff of Napoleon was Louis Alexander Bertier. It had been with Napoleon for a long time, so that some soldiers simply regarded Bertier as “Napoleon’s wife”. He particularly understands the way he thinks and speaks, and always extracts the most core strategy from the complicated information-not only to prevent the convergence of Yingpu, but also to come back to support at any time.
But he died before the Battle of Waterloo. His successor, Marshal Sirte, is very experienced in combat, but the problem is that he does not understand the strategy, or is not used to Napoleon’s way of speaking, and does not understand Napoleon What are you thinking.
People from the grassroots have an “excellent” quality. They also need to understand if they don’t understand, and they don’t know how to execute, so Sirte has issued two self-phases based on his understanding of Napoleon. Contradictory commands:
First, Marshal Grushi should expel the generals as soon as possible;
Second, Marshal Grusch wants to support the emperor.
General Grushy fainted at the first hearing. What the hell did I do? So he chose a more specific “deport general forces as soon as possible”. As everyone knows, the French main battlefield has repeatedly lost, but he led the brigade to circle around not far, which became one of the important reasons for “Waterloo”.
You can see that the staff post is not just a “military division”. It is not only necessary to understand the commander ’s strategic intentions, but also to have actual combat experience, and to understand the difficulties that the troops may encounter when implementing tactics Make an executable tactical plan, as long as any mistake in understanding the strategy and transforming tactics, it will become “Hu Hushen.”
I know so much about the military, so I wo n’t say, but then I wonder, why is there no such role in the modern enterprise management as “converting strategy into tactics”?