In state-owned enterprises, there is a special "rule of the game", that is, the tenure system of senior executives.
Generally speaking, the leaders of state-owned enterprises, such as directors and general managers, are changed every three years. Some netizens joked that these executives are like a triennial "relay race".
When this system was formulated, it was like putting on a "time limiter" for the top managers of state-owned enterprises. The idea is very simple, it is to facilitate personnel adjustments, hoping to give new blood a chance to come in, avoid a person or a team from being at the helm for a long time, and turn the enterprise into its own "small kingdom".
But after a long time, everyone found that the disadvantages of the tenure system began to emerge slowly. It's like shoes that have been worn for a long time, and some places are starting to grind their feet. It makes people have to think: does this system also need to keep pace with the times and make some adjustments?
1. People are superficial
If an enterprise wants to go far, it must make long-term planning, such as a ten-year or twenty-year strategic plan.
However, after the implementation of the tenure system for senior executives of state-owned enterprises, they have to change their leaders every three years, which is dazzling and impetuous.
It's hard for executives to be productive in the short term, and there's no way to calm down and plan for the future of the business. In this way, as soon as the executives take office, they will be busy with results, and it is easy to rush for quick success, and take some means to pull out the seedlings to see their achievements to the maximum extent within the specified three-year period, but this is only temporary. As a result, good ideas and plans that require long-term planning and implementation to be effective have been put on hold. Businesses are like being tied hand and foot by a short-sighted gaze, and can only spin in place.
Therefore, this kind of "three-year change" tenure system really makes the company's executives "floating", and also affects the long-term development of the company.
2. Complaints
In addition, the executives of state-owned enterprises receive annual salaries, and whether the enterprise is profitable or loss, the performance obtained is a drop in the bucket for the leaders, and has little impact. As long as they survive the three-year term, their annual salary will be correct, and it will be very easy.
But ordinary employees are different, they get a monthly salary, and the salary level is directly linked to the quality of performance. If the company can't make money, we have to tighten our belts to get by, and it is these ordinary employees who are most affected. For example: the assessment has become stricter, the post is adjusted, the performance is not completed, the salary has to be deducted, and so on.
Moreover, the leadership changes every 3 years, and the employees of the enterprise are at a loss. I just got used to the rhythm of this leader, and when the next leader came, I had to adapt again. This heart is like riding a roller coaster, up and down, how can you still have the heart to work hard?
Everyone thinks about how to stand in line and how to move all day long, for fear that they will become "victims" if they are not careful.
We, the employees, are really suffering!
But on the other hand, if the executive tenure system is abolished, will it be possible to do it once and for all? Not necessarily!
At that time, senior executives may be more at ease without the pressure of tenure, and our ordinary employees may have a harder time.
To put it bluntly, it's an endless loop.
Let's look forward to the day when there will be a best of both worlds, so that executives are motivated, employees can also feel at ease, and everyone can happily do business together!