Mu Sheng: A quick win plan for the management of winter

All business owners want a "quick win" in management, especially Chinese business owners. The so-called "quick win" refers to the ability to achieve quick results, it is best to act today, tomorrow will be effective, better is to invest in this second, the next second will be effective.

The problem is that management is a slow variable, so for a long time, the bosses of Chinese companies have neglected management. Their reason is also very simple, it is nothing more than to focus on management, and naturally choose to ignore management. However, operation and management are more like two sides of the same coin, the idea of management has been implemented in management, and the management system supports the intention of operation. For bosses with a high cognitive level, they are inherently the same thing.

At present, more and more Chinese business owners are beginning to pay attention to management, not because they suddenly understand the importance of management, but because they hope to reduce costs through "management" when increasing revenue through "management" is blocked.

Since the idea of "quick wins" is deep-rooted, the first thing they think of is naturally to reduce the organizational structure, reduce the staff, reduce the salary, and so on. For a period of time, it is natural to reduce costs and improve efficiency, which seems to have achieved great results. However, this method is obviously not sustainable, and too rough movements can also cause internal injuries to the tissue.

In the cold winter of the economy, it is difficult for us to ask the bosses not to pursue a quick win in management. Therefore, we might as well ask, is there really a "healthy quick win"?

Option 1: Refine the tissue instead of compressing it

The so-called compression weave can be thought of as forcibly compressing the volume of an object with a press. The so-called refining organization is to eliminate the redundancy of the organization through various means, leaving "real gold". The two seem to be the same, but in fact they are very different. Forced compression, although simple, but really not afraid of destroying the internal structure? Refining an organization, although complex, is the only way to make a business healthier.

Wang Anshi's change of law also knows that it is to remove redundant officials, redundant soldiers, and redundant expenses, and the ancients still know that through refining to remove redundancy, many of our current bosses are "stamping machines" with simple thinking.

The following are opportunities to refine your organization:

• Is there a phenomenon that the business keeps telling a story but doesn't realize it? Which ones to stick to and which ones to give up?

• Are there redundant nodes in the process? Are there any nodes that are too lightly loaded?

• Is there a part of the function that does not create business value? Are there any establishments that are too lightly loaded?

• Is there a phenomenon of low staff efficiency in the department? The GAP of the reasonable value of the human efficiency distance is where the redundancy lies.

• Is there a phenomenon of overload in key positions? The GAP of the reasonable value of the labor quota is where the waste of the post lies.

• ……

Is there really room for organizational refinement? There must be.

How big is the space? It depends on the level of organizational design of the enterprise.

In most enterprises, HR, as professionals, does not lead the organizational design, even if some companies add OD (organizational development) positions, HR still cannot lead the organizational design, because this is the territory that many bosses like to do by themselves. Non-professional people do professional things, the consequence must be to leave all kinds of problems, these "cognitive poor (can be called GAP1)", is an opportunity for organizational refinement.

In addition, the strategy is dynamic, the business is evolving, and the organizational design needs to be adjusted in due course. However, the organizational design is inert, and it is difficult to flexibly match the needs of the strategy and the business. This "time gap" (which can be called GAP2) is another opportunity for organizational refinement.

Option 2: Evaluate performance instead of a big pot of rice

In the cold winter, bosses often complain that employees can't perceive the cold of the market, but the question is, apart from their own passionate speeches and slogans, what opportunities do employees have to perceive the cold? After all, no matter how cold it is outside, isn't the salary still paid?

Passing on the chill through layoffs can only serve as a short-term deterrent to those who have not been laid off. Passing on the chill through salary cuts is mostly just a silent face. At the end of the day, those who stay don't think that hard work will make their pay "go back", they will only think that hard work, or even hard work, will keep their jobs. But we can't help but ask, will there be no chance for enterprises in the economic winter? Doesn't the effort of employees lead to business results? Apparently not!

The organizational state that bosses need is that employees strive to produce value, and then decide who is up and down, who is going and who stays, who is poor and who is rich, according to the size of the value. This is not a requirement of the cold winter, but a general requirement of enterprise management. It's just that in the past, enterprises were drowsy in the rapid development and forgot to carve management; In the cold winter, this has become the only confidence for the company's sustainable survival. Customers may disappear, but the organizational ability to keep winning customers won't either.

One of the most important tasks to build this organizational capability is performance appraisal. Specifically, the strategy should be decoded into performance indicators, and then a strong appraisal should be conducted, so that there is no controversy, and it is also the most able to retain and motivate those who are truly valuable to the enterprise.

In this regard, does the company have a chance of "quick win"? It's so much. According to the "Research Report on Human Resource Effectiveness of Chinese Enterprises" released by Musheng Consulting for several consecutive years, the real incentive index of Chinese enterprises in the past few years has been around 5%, that is to say, the total performance score of 100 points has fluctuated by about 5 points, which is basically an average score. Taking it a step further, without serious scoring, it is very likely that these so-called performance indicators have nothing to do with strategy at all. Everyone asks themselves, how many companies have carried out rigorous strategic decoding from strategy to execution, from the front office to the middle and back office?

Plan 3: Make changes instead of grasping cadres

When many enterprises are hindered in their business, the first thing they think of is to beat the cadres. Their reason is that one soldier will be a nest of bears. This is indeed the truth, but we must consider the feasibility of "beating cadres". Cadres are good at disguise, they have been around the boss for a long time, and they know the boss's preferences very well. Therefore, passing on the cold in the cold winter and calling on the cadres to take the lead is actually not very useful, because most of them will act as if they feel the cold.

To put it bluntly, the cadres have come to where they are today, and decades of workplace experience have shaped their thinking and behavior patterns. For the way of "beating", they have long been immune. I remember a company I coached, the boss knocked on the annual meeting and said that some executives were "fake executives", but several executives were not shocked. After the meeting, I tried to ask a few executives for feedback, and everyone told me that "it wasn't me" and that "some people should have been criticized a long time ago." But the funny thing is that the boss revealed to me in advance that these people were among his criticisms.

Even if some cadres are highly conscious and willing to change through hard work, it is difficult for them to change their team. Jia Yi, Fan Zhongyan, Zhang Juzheng and others are conscious enough, right? Capable enough, right? But did they succeed?

Therefore, the best "quick win" is to make changes at the institutional level, which is to make changes. Only when the boss takes the lead in initiating changes and revising the system, under the strong authority of the organization, can good cadres take advantage of the momentum and carry out team rectification. On the other hand, if the boss only criticizes the cadres, let the cadres put pressure on the team separately. Isn't that the same as passing on the pressure? And which cadre wants to be this bird?

When has it been, and are you still playing tricks? If you want to win quickly, you don't want to change the status quo, but as long as there is a peanut, you won't get drunk like this.