leaf

A company is an organization made up of people, with two main operational purposes: to achieve its mission and to generate continuous profits. Therefore, a company is a form of organization where a group of people achieves a common mission through profit. The primary goal of operating a company is to fulfill its mission. Some people may view profit as the mission, but the results often contradict this belief.

Why is that? One reason is that if you set your goal as profit, what you ultimately achieve can only be below or at that target, which means not making a profit; another reason is that if the sole purpose is to make money, then what distinguishes your company from another?

If there is no distinctiveness, how can you gain recognition from your team and the outside world? Without people's recognition, how can your company be considered successful?

The reason companies can become one of the most successful forms of organization is, from an external perspective, due to the market trading mechanism, which allows goods and labor to be exchanged efficiently among companies, employees, and buyers. Without a market mechanism, there would be no such organizational form as a company. From an internal perspective, it is because modern corporate systems have established processes and data iteration mechanisms.

A company is composed of living individuals, and all processes and projects are designed and executed by people. If you cannot manage people well, you will certainly struggle to manage tasks. So how should you manage people? We previously discussed the process of "recruiting, training, utilizing, and retaining" talent, starting with "recruitment."

During recruitment, two key points should be emphasized: first, examine the person's values; their values must not conflict with the company's values. Managers cannot force someone to accept the company's values after they join, so it is essential to exclude those whose values are vastly different during recruitment, as the saying goes, "People with different paths do not conspire together."

Second, assess whether the person recognizes and can proficiently use logic. Logic is an important means of communication between people. If someone lacks logic, it becomes difficult to communicate smoothly with others. The talent you recruit also needs to be "cultivated." You need to help them develop good work habits, and one of the most important habits is to think while practicing and iterating repeatedly. If you want to cultivate talent, you need to give them enough space to express themselves; do not let them merely execute tasks, but allow them to practice independently, discover mistakes, and iterate on their own. In terms of "utilizing people," you should focus on the big picture and let go of the small details. A manager's role is to identify and coordinate key conflicts; the higher the level of management, the fewer conflict points should be focused on. This "few" does not mean ignoring details but rather consolidating many details into one point.

When utilizing people, the responsibilities, rights, and benefits of each position must match strictly. We have mentioned this before: with power comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes rewards and punishments. Having power without responsibility can lead to abuse of power; having responsibility without power can result in an inability to push things forward. If power and responsibility are not linked to benefits, employees will lack both motivation and pressure. Elimination is a last resort; reaching this point indicates that there must have been problems in the previous steps, whether it was lax selection, insufficient training, or unclear rewards and punishments. Additionally, talent loss indicates issues in the utilization process, likely due to unclear rewards and punishments. Of course, utilitarian rewards and punishments are fundamental, but they are not everything; often, spiritual rewards and punishments are equally effective.

Managing people is not just about managing individuals; it is also about managing the collective. The primary task of managing a collective is to find direction and determine what should be done. In a team, only the manager has the most comprehensive information, so only the manager can decide the team's development direction. After pointing out the direction, the manager also needs to provide tools for the team. Broadly speaking, tools include logical tools and thinking frameworks, as well as methodologies for rapid trial and error and iteration, and operational systems like business systems and office systems. The saying "A worker must first sharpen his tools if he is to do his work well" holds true; good tools can help the team fully utilize their capabilities and achieve results with less effort. Therefore, it is wise for managers to invest their energy in developing tools.

When you upgrade from being a department or team manager to the owner of the entire company, the fundamental conflict between you and your employees will be about profit distribution. Employees contribute the majority of the labor but cannot obtain the full value created by that labor. From their perspective, this is the root of all unfairness. However, from your perspective, the situation looks different.

Learning requires time; the learning period for newcomers in the workplace is generally around three years, and even those who grow quickly need at least two years. Therefore, under normal circumstances, you should consider changing jobs only after accumulating at least two years of experience. Based on my recruitment experience, resumes of those who change jobs within a year or less are usually filtered out immediately, which is also the screening standard for most companies, as such resumes are considered obviously flawed. During the two or three years of the learning period, you need to update your resume every six months to see if you have made progress during that time. If there are many updates to your resume, it indicates progress; if there is little to update, it means you have not improved much in the past six months and need to work harder; otherwise, you may be eliminated in your current company. Just like in school, treat every six months as a semester, and every resume update as a final exam to test your value, allowing you to identify and solve problems in a timely manner.

What are the basic skills needed in the workplace?#

It is communication, and in this skill, you are still a student.

1. Master basic skills – learn to ask questions (think before acting)

—— How to ask questions

～～ First, clarify the work elements

～～～ First: Why do this?

～～～ Second: Where does this work fit within the entire project, and who are the upstream and downstream contacts?

～～～ Third: What does success look like for the leader?

Next, if the task is simple, just get started; if it is complex, first make a plan, then predict the outcome, and promptly communicate your plan and prediction with the leader before executing the plan.

—— Who to ask questions

～～～ If you encounter business-related issues, consult colleagues who understand that area.

～～～ If you encounter process or contact-related issues, consult your direct supervisor.

～～～ If you face cross-departmental communication issues, first try to communicate yourself; if it fails after two attempts, seek help from your leader.

When you are not very familiar with everyone, you can ask different colleagues for different questions, as everyone's time is limited.

2. Use all means to discover those willing to help you.

Proactively find those who excel in business or have extensive industry experience and are particularly knowledgeable about the internal situation of the company.

Those with excellent business capabilities can answer questions and clarify doubts.

Those with extensive industry experience may not be outstanding in business but have high emotional intelligence and a deep understanding of the industry, providing useful advice on what you need to improve and how to develop in the future.

Long-term employees can provide a thorough understanding of the company.

～～ How to discover such people?

～ Internal experience-sharing sessions

～ Friendly colleagues encountered during cross-departmental communication

～ Quarterly and annual work reports

Emphasizing the phrase "hired" raises the question: who hired them? It is the management, implying that I am supported by the management, and you should cooperate with my work. When I heard this response, I found it classic, so when I encounter similar issues, I would repeat this phrase, and it almost always serves as a "wake-up call." You see, my communication skills improved this way.

When learning, approach it with humility, respecting the seniors in the workplace as teachers; if you respect them, they will respect you in return. You can regard colleagues who joined at the same time as classmates; you are not in a competitive relationship. Never view those around you as rivals; the level of your chosen rivals determines your own level. If your rivals are all around you, then your perspective is limited. Only when your rivals come from competing companies can you claim to have a broader perspective across the industry.

Everyone in the company will have better opportunities for advancement, or even when changing jobs, they will have endorsements. From this perspective, your colleagues should be your partners rather than competitors. You share honor and disgrace, and the optimal strategy for interacting with each other is cooperation rather than competition. Delving into "office politics" is precisely the wrong choice.

The power of an individual, no matter how strong, is ultimately limited; everyone needs to fully utilize the power of the team, whether you are a manager or an employee. The biggest obstacle to a team's ability to perform is the lack of alignment in each member's goals; some people go east while others go west, resulting in a collective force that remains stagnant, turning the team into a disorganized crowd. Therefore, you need to constantly remind yourself: What is the company's goal? What is the goal of the team you are in? What is your personal goal?

Once the goals are clear, the remaining task is how to achieve them. In specific work, you will inevitably need to collaborate with others, and the biggest obstacle to collaboration is communication. Without communication, it is difficult to understand others' true intentions; if you cannot even understand each other's thoughts, how can you collaborate?

As for how to communicate, the most basic requirement is to engage in a logical manner. Data and examples are the basis for communication because only data and examples can be facts that both you and others might agree upon. Once your communication strays from these facts, the foundation of communication collapses, and even if you force the conversation, the result will be nothing more than talking past each other.

The value of work in all companies lies in relieving the leader's workload; what leaders want is "peace of mind." All your work should revolve around this core of making them "at ease."#

What does "peace of mind" mean? It means that when they look at your report, they find nothing needs changing; when they see your plan, they can directly let you execute it; when they read your email, they only need to reply with agreement; when you propose suggestions, the leader says, "Let's go with your plan"… Achieving this step means you are not far from a promotion or raise. Even if your current leader cannot promote or raise your salary, if you change jobs to another company, you can still achieve that goal.

In the workplace, besides the relationship with leaders, there is also the relationship with colleagues. If you are favored by your leader due to good performance, it may cause some colleagues to feel dissatisfied or even hostile towards you. What should you do then?

The best method is to "run away" as a strategy. Actively distance yourself from them; those who are focused on "internal strife" have limited perspectives. Competing with them only drags you into their familiar state, leading you into a quagmire of internal conflict, making it difficult for you to progress.

What if you cannot avoid these people? Then you must fight back; your retaliation must make the other party feel pain, ensuring they will not dare to provoke you again. Only then can you quickly break free from entanglements and focus your energy on enhancing your own value.

Finally, in the workplace, there is one red line you must never cross: never output negative energy. Regardless of how good your performance or relationships are, as long as you complain, all your efforts will be wiped out. Outputting negative energy is akin to "disrupting the morale," which could lead to severe consequences. While it may not cost you your head today, it could end your career in the current company. Conversely, if you are a source of positive energy, you will gain significant advantages; often, even if your performance is slightly lacking, this positive energy can help elevate your overall score because it shows you are "in sync with the company." Which leader does not wish for their subordinates to be aligned with them? As long as your work attitude is fine, even if your abilities are somewhat lacking, it can be tolerated because abilities can be gradually improved.

That said, if you truly cannot tolerate your current company and have reached a point of frustration, I advise you to change jobs quickly. However, even if you move to a new company, remember not to complain, even about your previous employer, as this will still be a significant detractor.

Meetings are the biggest enemy of time management; they are an extremely time-consuming communication method that should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.#

So, what situations are absolutely necessary?
There are only two: one is the need for large-scale information sharing, and the other is the need for collective decision-making.
Therefore, the principle of organizing meetings is that unless there is a need for large-scale information sharing or collective decision-making, do not hold meetings. Many companies suffer from excessive meetings because they fail to clarify the purpose of meetings, significantly reducing operational efficiency.

What common problems are often encountered during meetings? One is that data sharing meetings turn into data error-checking sessions, with errors in the report's data and logic emerging one after another, forcing participants to verify and check the data from various angles, moving work that should have been done in advance to the meeting. Another is that only two people discuss specific issues while others silently observe. A third is that various parties argue heatedly during the meeting, only to find that there is no decision-making mechanism or that the decision-maker is absent, resulting in no conclusions.

So how can these problems be avoided?#

For the first problem, participants should prepare adequately before the meeting to avoid data errors, content errors, and plan defects. If errors are still found and cannot be corrected immediately, then adjourn the meeting and reorganize it after corrections are made, rather than letting one person correct while others wait, which wastes time. For the second problem, the meeting organizer should design the agenda and topics in advance; once a topic concludes, those not related to subsequent issues can leave, rather than sitting there wasting time unnecessarily.

For the third problem, contentious issues should be discussed outside the meeting; identify the controversial points in advance and only bring the contentious items to the meeting for decision-making. The organizer should clarify who will make the decisions and how decisions will be made in advance with the relevant decision-makers. Most meeting decisions should be "formal"; decision-makers should have sufficient information before the meeting and a clear understanding of the meeting process, rather than improvising like cramming for a surprise exam.#

If you can address these three issues, your meeting can be called a meeting; otherwise, if everyone speaks without structure, it can only be called a gathering.

Efficient Communication#

The purpose of communication is to achieve cooperation and solve problems. This purpose determines that communication requires not only logic but also empathy; logic determines content, while empathy determines form, both of which are indispensable.
In fact, many problems do not have correct answers; there are only answers that both parties can accept after compromise.

Before discussing specific issues with others, what we first need is not logical deduction but the ability to empathize and sense the emotions of the other party. Empathy, simply put, is putting yourself in the other person's shoes and experiencing their emotions. The vast majority of communication failures occur not because the matter itself is complex or there are fundamental conflicts of interest but simply because emotional opposition arises, turning communication into a battle of wits and wills.

When you say east, they stubbornly say west; at this point, the other party is no longer communicating logically with you. In such cases, you need to pause the discussion about the issue and reflect on yourself to see if you are harboring negative emotions, as the other party's emotions may have been triggered by your negativity. You need to adjust your emotions first.

Only when your emotions are stable and you can calmly converse with the other party is it time for logic to come into play. People's logical abilities are often related to their level of education; while this is not absolute, there is a high correlation because the content of education is training in logic.

Why must communication be based on logic? Because communication between people, in a narrow sense, refers to verbal communication, and language can serve as a communication tool precisely because it unifies people's definitions of concepts and stipulates the connections between concepts. Only when your "apple" and their "apple" refer to the same thing can you start discussing apples; otherwise, if the concepts are not unified, how can you communicate?

Logic is one of the bonds connecting individuals. Therefore, in addition to adjusting emotions, we must also use logic to express our viewpoints and the evidence and reasoning supporting those viewpoints, which is commonly referred to as "making sense."

After adjusting your emotions and logically clarifying your viewpoints, you will enter the most difficult yet crucial stage of communication—guiding the other party's emotions. Each person's position and assumptions differ; for example, when discussing a vegetable salad, some may find it light and refreshing, while others may think it tastes like chewing wax. In such discussions, it is clear that reaching a consensus on whether the salad is "good" or "bad" is impossible, and many issues are similar to this, involving subjective feelings and values that transcend logic. Such issues have no rationale to discuss; persuading others to agree with your viewpoint is neither possible nor necessary. Since consensus cannot be reached, the only option is to compromise and arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome, or if the issue is trivial, to set it aside. For instance, those who enjoy salad can eat salad, while those who prefer steak can eat steak; everyone finds joy in their choices.

Whether the other party agrees to compromise often depends on their emotional state. If they are happy, they will be more willing to compromise; if they are unhappy, they will be less willing, and if they are angry, they may refuse to compromise at all, insisting on fighting to the end. In many cases, the other party's emotions may not stem from the issue itself but from unrelated matters, such as their favorite team losing, a pet being sick, or being stuck in traffic on the way to work. This means that before you discuss the issue, their negative emotions may already exist, and your discussion may only exacerbate those emotions. You might think that such emotions, which seem unrelated to you, should not be your responsibility to address, but your goal is to solve the problem, so any issues encountered on that path are your responsibility to resolve. So how do you resolve it?

You can try to understand why the other party is unhappy. If they express the reason, you can empathize with them, indicating that if you were in their situation, you would also be unhappy, showing that you truly understand their feelings. You might even share a similar experience, such as being late due to traffic and feeling criticized by your boss. This can quickly bridge the gap between you, making them feel like you are kindred spirits, and they may even think, "This person is not bad." At this point, you have already succeeded in half of your communication.

If the rationale is clear, and emotions are well-guided, but you still cannot reach a consensus, what could be the reason? This involves another understanding you need to establish: not all problems require a conclusion, or rather, beyond your perceived agreement or disagreement, there are two other conclusions: one is "unsolvable," and the other is a "pseudo-problem." For example, regarding whether the salad is good or not, the correct answer is clearly neither "good" nor "bad," but "unsolvable." Just like in math, "unsolvable" does not mean there is no answer; it means the problem itself is unresolvable. In our understanding, we usually believe that problems must have solutions, overlooking the possibility of "unsolvable" answers. Therefore, when your communication stalls, you should re-evaluate whether the issue is indeed unsolvable. This is crucial; it can prevent you from wasting valuable time on unsolvable problems. As we discussed in "How to Train Logic," a "pseudo-problem" refers to a question that contains contradictions or (implied) assumptions that do not hold, such as asking which is more, one pound or one foot? This question is fundamentally flawed, yet if you attempt to answer it, the result will inevitably be a stalemate. Thus, you need to be vigilant about these pseudo-problems and develop the ability to identify them; once identified, promptly terminate the discussion to avoid wasting time on meaningless arguments.

Communication requires wisdom; on one hand, it requires the ability to identify pseudo-problems or conclude that the answer is "unsolvable," and on the other hand, it requires the wisdom to reach emotional reconciliation with the communication partner. The former can be traced logically, while the latter pertains to emotions.

Urging#

Strong individuals share a common trait: they are often good at "urging." Do not underestimate the word "urge." Think about it: when you identify a problem, clarify a goal, propose a solution, determine an executor, set a delivery time, and specify deliverables, what comes next? Should you just wait for the problem to be solved? Trust me, your plan is likely to be delayed or even abandoned. Without pressure, there is no motivation, and what you need at this point is "urging." So how do you urge?

First, how to urge subordinates. When urging subordinates, focus on the task, not the person. Do not rely on people to urge; rely on the plan. You can break down the plan as detailed as possible, ideally having a deliverable result every day. Spend 10 minutes at a specific time each day for a brief meeting where subordinates report their work progress. If there are delays, they should clearly explain why, what the solution is, how many days they expect to be delayed, the impact on the overall plan, and what help they need. This way, you can keep track of progress without causing resentment among subordinates. If there are delays caused by subordinates, you will receive feedback promptly, allowing you to identify issues and take measures to mitigate losses and catch up on progress.

Second, how to urge peers. You still cannot rely on people to urge; you need to rely on mechanisms. The method is similar to urging subordinates, but you can hold a weekly meeting and involve both your leader and their leader, and if necessary, invite higher-level leaders to participate. Weekly, report work progress, highlighting overdue items and explaining to leaders how many days these delays will push back the overall project. If the delays are due to your reasons, you should provide a remedy; if they are due to others, let them propose a remedy. If they do not cooperate, leaders will usually step in to coordinate.

Finally, how to urge leaders. Many may wonder, isn't it always the leaders urging me? Why should I urge the leaders? Yes, leaders also need to be urged; if you do not urge them, it indicates that your upward management is lacking. Leaders have many resources that can significantly reduce the difficulty of completing projects. If you can utilize these resources to improve the project, why not?

Therefore, when making plans, be sure to involve the leaders. The most important resource is management resources; some things you say may not work, but when leaders say them, they carry weight. Since the project is led by you, you must ensure its quality and quantity, even if the leader "drops the ball," you must persist. As the project leader, you must have the determination to take charge and handle all obstacles in your path, including those for which the leader is responsible. Thus, when it is time for the leader to sign, urge them to sign; when it is time for the leader to speak, urge them to speak, and promptly report project progress to the leader. For important matters, even if it is just a sentence, make sure to communicate it clearly in person. Are you worried that doing so will make the leader dislike you? Rest assured, the leader will be pleased; with you as a "reminder," they will not need to constantly remember to urge you but will wait for you to urge them, saving them a lot of worry.

Additionally, for external partners, urging Party B can refer to urging subordinates, while Party B urging Party A can refer to subordinates urging leaders. Partners of equal status naturally refer to peers urging peers.

Reporting#

Regular meetings, quarterly reviews, year-end summaries… there are many forms, but they can be summarized in one core statement: "In the shortest time, clearly explain what you have done and how you plan to proceed," and the purpose of saying this is singular: "to request resources."

Here is the general format for reporting.

First, report quantitative indicators. Why report quantitative indicators? Because the standards for judging "good or bad" vary from person to person, but data is objective; if you see 100, others see 100 too, with no dispute. Therefore, quantitative indicators are the most efficient means of communication. You can start by presenting about three core indicators; do not present too many, as that indicates insufficient summarization ability; nor too few, as that makes your work seem too thin. About three is just right. With these indicators, the tone of the entire report is set.

Second, break down the quantitative indicators.

Core indicators are often too general, only allowing the leader to understand whether the overall situation is "good" or "bad." However, leaders want to know not just this but also where things are good, where they are bad, and more importantly, what you plan to do about these strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, you need to break down and explain the core indicators, providing leaders with more detailed information.

Next, you must explain "what I have done," which is crucial. For indicators that have been completed well, list the specific work you have done; it is precisely because you accomplished points one, two, and three that you achieved today's results. For indicators that did not perform well, although the results are unsatisfactory, you should still report with the mindset of "I did my best," allowing the leader to see that you have indeed made sufficient efforts, even if the results have yet to show. However, you must not stop at emphasizing difficulties and explaining reasons; instead, you should link each "not done well" to the subsequent "what you plan to do" in your plan. When discussing what you have done, intersperse examples, as merely stating data or listing what you have done makes it difficult for leaders who are unfamiliar with the actual situation to form an intuitive understanding of your work in a short time.

The advantage of examples lies in their detail, making them vivid and specific. If you represent a team, find a team member's story to highlight as a typical case, preferably one that can move people to tears; such examples are impactful and can easily earn you extra points. If you are only representing yourself, you need to be more thoughtful; do not boast about yourself, as no one likes someone who brags. However, you can praise users or partners, using their related stories to reflect on yourself. For example, if you are in operations, you might say you want to thank a certain programmer, as it was their close cooperation and all-nighters troubleshooting that ensured the system ran smoothly. Although you are praising a programmer, the leader will certainly recognize your hard work and contributions. Limit the number of examples to two; first establish your shining image with a positive example, then conclude with a negative example to show your deep understanding of shortcomings. Of course, the key is to lead into "what you plan to do next."

Since you have a deep understanding of your shortcomings, the next step is to propose solutions for these shortcomings, which is your plan moving forward. Now the question arises: since you already know you did not do well, why did you not improve earlier? Is it because you lacked the ability to solve this problem under current conditions? If you cannot solve it now, will you be able to solve it in the future? Therefore, at this point, you should seize the opportunity to request resources from the leader while reporting. Whether it is the unmet indicators, ineffective solutions already taken, or the painful lessons from examples, all serve as groundwork for this step, indicating that "this matter is important, I have done my best, and now I need the leader's support."

Finally, clearly explain how you have performed, how you achieved it, where you did well, where you did poorly, what you plan to do next, and what support you hope to receive from the leader. This way, your report becomes a complete report. Of course, not every report needs to be this complete; in daily reports, you can simplify as appropriate based on the situation. If you only have one minute to report, then just state what support you hope to receive. Throughout the report, pay attention to one point: focus on the matter at hand, do not dwell on personal gains and losses, and avoid unnecessary emotions. The principle you should adhere to is that good performance is the team's achievement, while poor performance is your responsibility.

Leaders must clarify their statements#

Can mastering reporting ensure effective upward management? Not necessarily; communication is two-way. You need to ensure that leaders listen to your report while also providing you with instructions.

Regarding leaders' instructions, many people may wonder why leaders often do not clarify their statements. This is a key issue; if you cannot understand what the leader is saying, how can you execute? So how can you understand what the leader is saying, or how can you ensure that the leader clarifies their statements?

First, you need to determine whether the leader did not express themselves clearly or if you failed to understand. Ask other colleagues if they understood; if no one else understood, it indicates the leader was unclear. If the leader was unclear, you need to further assess what caused them to be unclear: is it a willingness issue, an ability issue, or a cognitive issue? If the leader keeps urging you after assigning work, it indicates they still want to get the job done, so there is no issue with willingness. This leaves cognitive or ability issues. A cognitive issue means they genuinely do not realize they have not communicated clearly; if you indicate you did not understand their instructions, they will try to clarify from various angles, which means their cognition is fine, leaving only the ability issue. For willingness and cognitive issues, you are powerless; if you encounter such a leader, you may need to plan early and seek other options. However, if it is just an ability issue, you should still make an effort to help the leader clarify their statements.

How to help the leader clarify their statements? First, you need to realize that the information between you and the leader is asymmetric; typically, the leader has more information while you have less. For them to help you understand, they need to first share the information they possess until it reaches a level where you can discuss the issue. However, many people do not recognize the issue of information asymmetry; they naturally assume that if they know something, others should know it too. Therefore, when others are confused due to information gaps, they fail to realize this.

In the face of such a leader, you need to guide them to share information first; once your information is aligned, you will naturally understand.

So what if you still do not understand even after the information is aligned? This issue may arise from differing assumptions about the goals. For example, you may believe the goal of this project is to improve performance, while the leader's actual goal is to promote the company's brand. If your goals differ, no matter how you communicate, it will only lead to confusion; you will struggle to understand why the leader insists on doing something that seems like a losing proposition, while the leader will wonder why you cannot grasp such a simple matter. In such cases, you need to clarify the project's goals with the leader. Once you both agree that the project is aimed at promoting the company's brand rather than improving performance, you can then communicate on the same wavelength, allowing you to understand what the leader is saying.

Once the goals are unified, the next step is logical deduction. Theoretically, once the assumptions are established, the conclusions from logical deduction should be unique, but this is only in an ideal situation; in actual work, logical deductions can also go awry. We have previously discussed that logical ability is a higher-level skill, and not everyone has received good training in logic. Most people's logical abilities are not strong, and insufficient logical ability can lead to errors in their deductions, which need to be identified and corrected by someone with stronger logical skills. At this point, the logical skills you have trained can come into play. Of course, while correcting the leader's logical errors, you need to apply the communication principles mentioned earlier and use necessary techniques, which have already been shared and will not be repeated here. After correcting logical errors and arriving at the correct conclusions, will you fully understand the leader's instructions? Not necessarily, as there may still be differences in the paths to achieve that goal. For example, the leader may want to spend 1 million yuan to directly purchase online traffic for exposure to promote the company's brand, while you believe that the 1 million yuan should be used to create a series of content to gain sustained traffic for brand promotion. At this point, although you and the leader advocate different paths, there is no clear superiority between the two; choosing either path may yield the same probability of achieving the goal. The concern is that if the leader wants to go east while you want to go west, the combined force will cancel each other out, making it impossible to achieve the goal. In this case, you can gently propose your suggestion, but remember that the final decision rests with the leader. If the leader wavers between the two paths, you need to support them in making a choice quickly; most of the time, even if they make the wrong choice, it is better than being indecisive. Because even if they choose incorrectly, you can still adjust the direction through frequent reviews and rapid iterations, but if no decision is made, you will not know who is right.

Emotions#

Someone once asked me how to handle work pressure and emotional control when feeling overwhelmed. Before addressing emotions, you should first ask yourself how these emotions arise. Is it because you saw something, heard something, or thought of something? After seeing, hearing, or thinking about these things, you will inevitably focus your attention on them; even if you do not want to, these matters will linger in your mind. Moreover, you tend to think negatively, such as worrying about losing your job due to poor project performance, fearing that others will look down on you for your mistakes, or wondering if your work troubles will never improve… The more you think, the more disheartened you become, ultimately feeling hopeless about life. Yet even so, you still feel a sense of injustice and want to improve, leading to suppressed emotions. In fact, the process of emotional arousal is similar for everyone: first, external stimuli trigger your emotions, then you notice this stimulus. If you do not control your attention and let it wander, it will naturally focus on desires, and when you believe your desires cannot be fulfilled, emotions arise. What desires are typically unfulfilled?

First is the desire for survival, such as worrying about being fired and losing your livelihood; second is vanity, such as fearing being looked down upon by others. If you analyze the desires that lead to your emotions, you will find they generally fall into these two categories.

Since you have identified the causes of your emotions, addressing them becomes straightforward: simply shift your attention from the desire for survival and vanity to other aspects. For instance, if you worry about being fired due to poor performance, it is better to focus on how to improve performance rather than worrying about it. The attention of a person is limited; you cannot focus on too many things at once. If you focus on the desire for survival, you will only be anxious about your job security, which may lead to worse performance, as the saying goes, "What you fear will come true." When you shift your focus to improving performance, that worry will naturally fade, allowing you to concentrate on achieving results, which is both a fundamental and effective solution.

However, you should not merely wait passively for emotions to arise; instead, you should take preventive measures. This requires you to predict the direction of events, envision various potential outcomes based on current conditions, and devise contingency plans for the worst-case scenarios. When you immerse yourself in the scenario and predict the future, your emotions will naturally be rehearsed within that context. If one day a certain situation truly occurs and it does not exceed your expectations, you will be able to remain calm.

Of course, in most cases, when you can predict the worst-case scenario, it is unlikely to happen.

Goals#

Regarding goals, ignore distractions outside of the goals. Fewer goals lead to fewer desires; fewer desires naturally lead to less anxiety. For example, while others may be "slacking off" at work, you may want to work hard to improve yourself, but you might worry that your colleagues will think you are not a team player. What should you do? At this point, ask yourself what your goal is: to improve yourself or to be seen as a team player? The answer is the former. Since being a team player is not your goal, do not worry about what others say; just focus on achieving results and improving yourself.

Of course, even if you have only one goal, you may still experience anxiety about whether you can achieve it. For instance, you may want to work hard, but worry that if your performance is poor, it will prove your incompetence. Your concern arises from not having thought through your long-term goals. If you only focus on short-term goals, you will be anxious. How can you clarify your long-term goals?

You can ask yourself: Why do I want to achieve good performance? To get promoted. Why do I want to get promoted? To earn money. Why do I want to earn money? To live. Why do I want to live? To explore the wonders of the world and satisfy my curiosity.

Does this goal seem more ambitious than just making money? Next, you may ask how to explore the world. The answer is through learning and practice. If you can achieve good performance through learning and practice, that in itself is part of exploring the world. After going around in circles, you seem to return to the "starting point," but the difference is that when you view achieving performance as part of "exploring the world," you will feel more at ease. You will think that after achieving good performance and earning money, you will still explore the world through learning and practice. Since you are already doing this, why rush? In this way, you will no longer be anxious.

Secondly, adopt the mindset of "not causing trouble and not fearing trouble." Among these, "not causing trouble" is relatively easy; by being cautious and prudent, you can avoid most troubles. The key is "not fearing trouble." How can you avoid fearing trouble?

As the saying goes, "Preparation leads to success; lack of preparation leads to failure." This means that before something happens, you should envision various possible scenarios in your mind and prepare contingency plans for each scenario. If the situation is too complex, you can use tools to simulate it. For example, the mind map shared earlier is a suitable tool for simulations. During the simulation process, you need to continuously ask yourself, "How will I respond if a certain situation occurs?" When the situation does occur, your contingency plan will have measures in place, allowing you to be "unafraid of trouble."

A person who is well-prepared for a goal cannot help but feel empowered.

Attributes of Bad Companies#

"Bad companies" is a highly subjective label with no unified standard. However, based on the feelings of pain, hope, and value from people, they can generally be categorized into two types: those that are currently difficult to endure and those that have no hope for the future. Based on the experiences of my colleagues and myself, I have listed several common attributes of bad companies for your reference.

Low starting salaries, slow salary increases, or even no salary increase system at all.
Using salary to gauge an employee's perception of a company is likely the least controversial. A company with weak salary competitiveness essentially has poor profitability. Alternatively, it may simply lack ambition, being content with just getting by and having no motivation to expand its business. Low starting salaries and slow salary increases are not sufficient conditions for a company to be deemed bad on their own, but together, they almost inevitably lead to a pessimistic salary outlook. For most ordinary people, salary levels and future salary expectations are still significant factors in career choices. Companies that meet the criteria of "low + slow" should be approached with caution.

Prioritizing personal relationships over work: severe internal strife, numerous factions, management focused on internal battles, and employees merely occupying positions without contributing.
Internal strife is almost a common characteristic of all bad companies; in fact, it is a common cause of the downfall of all dynasties throughout history. A company with a severe internal strife atmosphere allows petty individuals to take advantage of the chaos, benefiting from it, but it exhausts ordinary employees, especially those who value realizing their worth. The onset of internal strife often signifies the end of a united entrepreneurial phase; if a team’s atmosphere of unity deteriorates, it usually foreshadows decline. Because companies plagued by internal conflict rarely have the potential for self-healing, internal strife is the worst attribute—it causes employees to suffer while also signaling the company's demise.

What kind of company visibly displays "internal strife"? It would be one that adopts slogans like "First be a good person, then do good work" as part of its culture. The older generation of entrepreneurs likely created this phrase in an environment where state-owned enterprise employees had job security for life. At that time, a company was primarily the smallest unit of society and only secondarily a market entity. It was difficult to fire poorly behaved employees, and one had to accept the existence of various types of employees. The primary responsibility of company managers seemed to be maintaining stable interpersonal relationships within the unit. Thus, the saying "First be a good person" emerged. However, a reliable rule is that where there is emphasis, there is likely a problem. A modern company's culture that places significant importance on "first being a good person, then doing good work" often indicates a factionalized internal environment and management focused on internal battles. It is hard to say whether the older generation of employees brought about internal strife or if internal strife gave rise to this well-meaning phrase; in any case, I personally find these six words quite distasteful. In a vibrant company, everyone should focus on doing their jobs well; those who are solely concerned with personal relationships are parasites in modern enterprises.

Teams#

1. High efficiency, simple and smooth processes.

2. Many benchmark employees. These employees are not only proactive and hardworking but also humble and diligent; being around them makes you feel ashamed if you do not work hard.

3. The team approaches project communication with a problem-solving mindset, and employees cooperate seamlessly, rarely engaging in disputes.

Bad Company Teams

1. Engaging in disputes, shirking responsibility, and low efficiency. Managers waste a lot of time on communication and coordination, and employees often have poor temperaments.

2. The team lacks a sense of purpose, fears taking responsibility, and spends each day just getting by.

3. The team complains a lot, does not work diligently, and focuses on pointing out others' faults.

Leadership#

Good Company Leaders

1. Clear directives with no unnecessary chatter.

2. Take responsibility for their decisions. When subordinates make mistakes, leaders can represent the department and take responsibility while asking subordinates to improve.

3. Provide clear promotion goals for subordinates and help them outline the path to achieve those goals, filling their work with passion and a sense of accomplishment.

4. Encourage employee innovation and provide more opportunities for them to make mistakes.

Bad Company Leaders

1. Love to hold meetings. Frequent meetings without control over frequency and outcomes.

2. Cannot take responsibility for their decisions. They like to blame and punish employees but do not guide them to improve.

3. Undermine employee confidence to maintain their authority.

4. Require absolute obedience from employees.

Owners#

Good Company Owners

1. Have a long-term, clear company plan and can communicate it simply to management.

2. Are grateful and value corporate social responsibility.

3. Place employee satisfaction in a position of importance.

Bad Company Owners

1. Focus on immediate corporate interests, taking one step at a time.

2. Distrust subordinates, only trusting their relatives.

3. Love to boast and do not value facts.

Benefits#

Good Company Benefits

1. Consider employee perspectives when providing benefits, such as training, learning, and industry exchanges.

2. In addition to providing basic welfare guarantees according to national regulations, they can also offer unique company benefits.

3. Employee income is competitive in the market.

Bad Company Benefits

1. Lack of benefits and essential guarantee mechanisms. For example, not providing social insurance for employees or only providing work injury insurance, focusing solely on reducing costs.

2. Find ways to cut employee wages, leaving them feeling insecure.

3. Do not create more learning opportunities for employees.

Corporate Culture#

Good Company Culture

1. Employees genuinely identify with and execute the culture.

2. Corporate culture influences employee behavior and sets a good example.

3. Employees take pride in the company.

4. Simple, actionable, and sustainable.

Bad Company Culture

1. Shouting slogans and going through the motions. Everything is for external appearances, with inadequate internal understanding of corporate culture.

2. Lack of a sense of ritual, mechanically executed.

3. Employees superficially agree but internally reject or even scoff at it.

4. Overly complex, difficult to implement, and not deeply rooted in employees' hearts.

Every employee hopes to work in a good company, but what constitutes a good company varies from person to person. The best company is the one that suits you best. Therefore, all roads lead to Rome; regardless of the type of company you are in, you must clarify your direction and strive toward your goals!

Executives are all "organizational people."

In middle and lower management, you can say, "I am talent," "I am an individual." But executives are all "organizational people," not just individual entities.

Executives must accept the evaluation of long-term organizational results. You are tied to the organizational ship. When you retire, how will you evaluate your contributions? The results and value created by the organization you served are the primary standards for assessing executives.

Executives are accomplices in the first position; many key decisions made in the first position, although you may not be the initiator, at least you have tacitly approved or even conspired in those decisions.

True executives must possess a sense of social responsibility. If you are in middle or lower management, you may not have enough power or ability to make an impact. However, executives still have significant influence over many important decisions for the company, whether it is what products to make, what services to launch, or how to treat employees. Therefore, many of their decisions must carry a sense of responsibility toward society.

The Social Responsibility of Executives#

How is a true executive's social responsibility reflected? At least in the following three aspects:

Holding back the boss from going bad.

Although "the arm cannot twist the thigh," you can still hold back a bit. Many CEOs still feel the influence of executives; executives should not underestimate their power.

Companies can be categorized into four types: excellent companies, good companies, companies needing improvement/observation, and bad companies.#

The core leaders of a company cannot connect with young employees. In terms of ability, it is challenging for senior management to connect with grassroots employees; on the level of principles and concepts, if middle and lower-level employees have not experienced these matters, it is also difficult for them to understand these principles. However, on the level of life perspectives, core leaders can establish genuine connections with young employees. Despite the significant hierarchical gap, our definitions of success in life are the same.

Regarding the value of life perspectives for true executives, allow me to quote a line from Max Weber to help you understand: "These people are filled with a special sense of voluntary consciousness toward work."

The Biography of Elon Musk#

Hiring a large number of people to complete a complex task is a mistake. In problem-solving, the number of people is meaningless; two ignorant individuals are not better than one. On the contrary, they often slow down progress and significantly increase costs.

A company is a group organized to create products or services, and its quality depends on the employees and their excitement about creation. I truly want to commend a large number of super talented individuals. I just happen to be the spokesperson for these companies.

Zhang Yiming#

For an organization, it is necessary to clearly convey and continuously refine the standards of excellence. Ambiguity and confusion are essentially sacrifices.

Joining us does not represent just this job. If, hypothetically, this endeavor does not succeed, upon joining us, you will find that there are many things in the world worth doing. It just depends on whether you have enough vision and passion.

Core competitiveness directly refers to our products, behind which are our technical systems, and behind the technical systems are our teams and culture.

Questions like "Why not eat meat porridge?"#

The managers of such companies must have their stable values. Companies have their brand values, and individuals have their personal brand values. Everything you do will ultimately settle into your personal cognitive brand.

Values are your long-term interests; do not violate your values for any benefit, as that would be the greatest harm to your personal brand.

Focusing solely on your own small territory and blindly shifting blame to others will not solve the problem. What companies need are managers who can step out of their "small hills" and solve problems from the company's "big hill." Only by standing at the company's height can you fully utilize limited resources and efficiently drive the entire company forward. If you only see yourself, you can only be an employee; if you see a department, you can be a manager; if you see a function, you can be a director; if you see a business line, you can be a vice president; only when you see the entire company can you qualify to be a partner.

Slacking Off#

Human nature's tendency to "slack off" is inevitable; even among those internet companies, how many can claim that none of their employees "slack off"?

As a manager, how do you handle "slacking off"? Allow everyone to "slack off," not just permit it but encourage it. However, "slacking off" must be done correctly; playing games or watching videos is a waste of life. I encourage everyone to do two things: think more and communicate more. What should you ponder? Ponder the business and your career. I even have team members update their resumes every six months; I won't mind if they send them out. Remember, the employees' abilities are the company's abilities; the most valuable asset of any company is always its people.

Some may worry, "Aren't you afraid they will leave after growing?" Those who are meant to leave will always leave. Being overly protective will only lead to a "forced fruit not being sweet." Instead, it is better to let them grow and then leave; that way, the company does not lose out.

As for communication, it manifests as casual conversation; it can be about anything, not necessarily business-related. From international competitions to children's schooling, you can chat broadly. Some may wonder if such casual chatting wastes time. The saying "Sharpening the axe does not delay the work of chopping wood" holds true; when team members become familiar with each other, they become friends, and the efficiency of cooperation among friends is incomparable to that among colleagues. Therefore, overall, this is not a waste of time; rather, it saves communication costs. If you can grow in a team while having many friends to chat with, would you still want to change jobs? If you can enhance employees' abilities while ensuring their stability, the benefits and cost savings derived from this far outweigh the time spent "slacking off."

The 996 Work Schedule#

The emergence of the "996" work schedule is due to managers failing to recognize the value of team energy and instead squandering it.

What causes this misunderstanding? It is because knowledge workers have become the mainstream in cities; they sit in offices daily without demonstrating the intensity of their work, giving managers the illusion that "Isn't it just sitting in the office for 8 hours? What does it matter if I sit a few more hours?" In reality, people often say the brain is a good thing; in fact, the brain is not only a good thing but also a luxury, especially rational ability, which consumes a lot of energy resources. Although the brain has rational capabilities, operating this ability is challenging. Why do classes have breaks? It is because the brain needs a recovery period after high-speed operation. The brain's work-rest rhythm, which has been followed since kindergarten, is often overlooked by many managers.

Additionally, the nature of some positions dictates that employees in those roles will inevitably work more than 8 hours. The most typical example is sales positions, where many can even be considered to have a 16-hour work schedule. For instance, if the first client is scheduled for an 8 AM meeting, the second for a 6 PM dinner, and after dinner, they go to karaoke until midnight, they might claim they worked from 8 AM to midnight, totaling 16 hours. Although it seems they worked 16 hours, the efficiency is extremely low, as they only met two clients that day. If sales performance does not meet expectations, what happens? Insufficient credit leads to excessive labor, so the sales department sends an email to the entire company, stating that all sales staff will work "996" for a quarter to boost performance, with the company owner's email prominently included in the CC. The owner replies with "United we stand, together we succeed!" Immediately, the telemarketing department follows suit, stating they will also implement "996" to support the sales department. However, the telemarketing department already operates in shifts, so their working hours will not change. Although the owner knows this, they cannot dampen the enthusiasm at this moment, so they simply give a thumbs up, and thus "996" becomes the norm, with other departments being swept along to express their support. At this point, it is no longer a matter of whether "996" is necessary but rather an issue of work ethic.

Besides the sales department, some departments have work characteristics that ensure employees will never finish their tasks, such as research and development. Demands are always scheduled a year in advance; what else can they do but work overtime? If they leave work on time, the next day the boss will ask, "The progress is good, no need to work overtime?" How should they respond? Programmers are typically well-educated and tend to be sensitive; they may feel their pride is hurt by the boss's comments, so they grit their teeth and decide to work "996" as well. However, the more they work, the more demands pile up, leading to an endless cycle of overtime. They do not get less work done but still face criticism, and after being criticized, they have hundreds of demands waiting to be launched, which they have not completed, so they can only swallow their pride and continue to work hard. The boss, worried that pressuring the R&D team will create negative emotions, changes strategies, starting to establish benchmarks, providing snacks for the R&D staff, taking photos of them working overtime, and sending out battle reports, elevating them. Consequently, other departments feel compelled to work overtime to show support. Although they may curse the R&D team countless times and complain that they are not contributing while dragging others down, they cannot voice their grievances and can only grit their teeth and join the "996" work schedule.

Since they are being coerced into working overtime, it means that during overtime, there is often nothing to do. Therefore, the person in charge will find ways to create work, arranging training, sharing sessions, and cultural activities. When there are no real tasks to do, they can only engage in "virtual work." However, if everyone is still not fully occupied, the team will become inefficient, gradually transforming from a once-vibrant team into a lethargic one, working at a slow pace, and even deliberately dragging their feet. Why does this happen? Because if they finish their work during the day, what is the point of working overtime at night? So they intentionally leave work for the evening. Before long, capable individuals will choose to leave rather than waste time "slacking off," while those who lack ability and cannot leave will remain and continue to "slack off." Thus, a once-efficient team is forced onto the path of collective "slacking off."

The "996" work schedule is a process where bad elements drive out good ones. As a manager, once you are caught in the vortex of overtime, the team will begin to waste energy. Capable individuals will leave to avoid wasting time, while those who lack ability and cannot leave will remain and start "slacking off," leading the entire team to become inefficient and disorganized.

You must understand one thing: a team cannot be idle; idleness leads to problems. Some individuals, lacking outlets for their energy, will delve into office politics. When they have no serious work to do, they will cause trouble. Once office politics take root in the team, morale will quickly dissipate; when morale is lost, it becomes difficult to lead the team.

Therefore, for your own good, the team's good, and the company's good, as a manager, you need to change your perception, cherish the scarce resource of "energy," and focus that limited energy on performance rather than wasting it on meaningless "996" work.

The Illness of Large Companies#

When it comes to inefficiency, many managers in large companies can surely relate. The decision-making efficiency of large companies is often lower than that of small companies, which is commonly referred to as "the illness of large companies." Why does this illness exist? Because management has bandwidth, and that bandwidth is limited. As a manager, you can only manage a certain number of people; once that limit is exceeded, managing one more person increases the difficulty exponentially, as you are not just managing that individual but also all the relationships associated with them. Therefore, typically, a manager should not directly manage more than 12 subordinates, and this is still for physically intensive roles; for mentally intensive roles, your management bandwidth shrinks even further. In fact, many top mental roles may only have one assistant assigned. For example, when I worked in algorithm and modeling at ASML, it was already quite challenging for the manager to understand my work content, let alone manage it.

Suppose a company has 10,000 people, and on average, each person can manage five others. In that case, the company will likely have six or seven levels of hierarchy. If you also consider branches and subsidiaries, a company may have more than ten levels. You should have played the game of "telephone," right?

When ten people pass a simple word from the first person to the last, it often ends up being distorted. Therefore, in a company with ten levels of hierarchy, the information transmission decay is even more severe.

Thus, the illness of large companies arises.

Internet companies seem to do better than traditional companies in avoiding this illness. Why do I say this? First, because internet companies have highly systematized, online, automated, and intelligent processes, which greatly reduce information decay during transmission.

Second, many positions have been replaced by systems, allowing companies to reduce levels and achieve flatter management.

Third, many internet companies are still in their early entrepreneurial stages, having survived the brutal market mechanism of survival of the fittest. Their managers are keenly aware of the harshness of market competition, which keeps them humble and cautious, not daring to overlook any detail that could lead to the illness of large companies.

From the experiences of internet companies, we can find directions to avoid the illness of large companies by building systems to solidify processes and iterating on those systems to enhance automation levels. Of course, the last and most important point is to maintain a sense of reverence for management; there are no trivial matters in management. As long as you are in a management position, you must always stay alert and tread carefully, as if walking on thin ice.

Management#

Through this method of cooperation, a "1+1>2" gain is produced, which is the essence of management. In other words, power is also a form of transaction; the buyer is the manager, and the seller is the managed. The managed relinquishes part of their freedom to allow the manager to gain some power, and at the same time, the manager, having gained power, also bears the responsibility to provide benefits to the managed. Since it is a transaction, both parties must be equal; neither can be forced to buy or sell. You may wonder how management and being managed can be equal. This involves how you understand power.

Power and responsibility are opposing yet unified contradictions; they are two sides of the same coin, mutually dependent. There has never been absolute power without any responsibility, nor absolute responsibility without any power. Before the power contract is formed, both parties are equal, which goes without saying; even after the contract is formed, it stipulates both power and corresponding responsibility. From the perspective of the power-responsibility contradiction, both parties remain equal. If the manager's power is 1, then the corresponding responsibility is -1, and their sum equals 0; thus, the managed's power is 0, and their corresponding responsibility is also 0, resulting in 0=0, meaning the manager equals the managed.

Carrots are incentives, while sticks are threats; both exploit human weaknesses, namely greed and fear, to manipulate workers, which is contrary to the essence of management.

The law—quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes. What kind of quantitative change causes a qualitative change in the management role? The answer is the quantitative change in responsibility.

If on your first day managing one person, you help them earn 100 yuan, that person will be willing to obey your management the next day because they can continue to earn 100 yuan. If the next day you manage another person and help them earn 100 yuan, you then bear the responsibility of managing two people, each earning 100 yuan, thus gaining the power to manage two people. After a month, if ten people have become accustomed to earning 100 yuan daily under your management, their habitual reliance signifies that they have relinquished some of their freedom, and you have gained the power to manage these ten people. The quantitative change in your responsibilities leads to a qualitative change in your role, making you a manager.

Thus, the process of gaining power is essentially the process of assuming responsibility, and the manifestation of assuming responsibility is to ensure that the other party gains benefits.

Finally, you can assess your management abilities based on practice. The only criterion for judgment is whether you can continuously bring "benefits" to others. Of course, the term "benefits" is broad, encompassing immediate material benefits, long-term material benefits, and spiritual benefits. Immediate benefits include performance bonuses, work environment improvements, verbal praise, etc.—in other words, ensuring others "eat well" alongside you.

Long-term benefits include skill enhancement, promotions, and career development, essentially becoming a mentor in the workplace; after all, a momentary feast is not as satisfying as a long-term one. As for spiritual benefits, that depends on your own insights.

The Trolley Problem#

The benefits brought by the team represent the positive side of management, while "mercy does not govern soldiers" represents the negative side. Many people struggle with management precisely because they are too "merciful" to face the "trolley problem." What is the trolley problem?

A madman has tied five innocent people to the tracks, and an out-of-control trolley is heading toward them, about to run them over in a moment. Fortunately, you can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto another track, but unfortunately, the madman has also tied one person to that track. Considering the above situation, do you think you should pull the lever that determines others' fates?

Case: Would you choose to eliminate Old Wang?

The company is conducting year-end evaluations and must rate each employee's performance as A, B, or C. A is the highest, and C is the lowest. Each department must identify one annual C, and employees rated C for three consecutive years will be eliminated.

Your department has ten employees, and you are the department manager.

Old Wang was just transferred from another department last year. Since Old Wang joined, his work ability and results have not matched those of the other team members, so his overall score will rate him as a C this year.

Just as you are about to rate Old Wang as C, you suddenly realize he has already received two consecutive C ratings in his previous department. This means that if you rate him as C this year, he will be eliminated.

At this moment, you hesitate.

Old Wang has only been in the department for a year, has poor abilities and performance, and does not fit in well, but he has not made any significant mistakes. You also learn that Old Wang is the primary breadwinner for his family, with his wife unemployed and his child still young, making their life quite difficult.

Rating him as C essentially means terminating him, which puts moral pressure on you.

However, if you do not rate Old Wang as C, that C must go to another colleague, which is unfair to whoever it is.

Faced with this problem, if you were the department manager, how would you decide?

Would you adhere to the company's management system and rate Old Wang as C, letting him pack his bags and leave? Or would you give the C rating to another employee, sacrificing their interests to protect Old Wang?

When the trolley is approaching, would you pull the lever that determines others' fates?
This decision-making issue is a classic "trolley problem."

This reflects utilitarianism. Is "moralism" better, or is "utilitarianism" better?
In fact, there is no standard answer.

Moralism and utilitarianism are two different value systems; two different value systems lead to different choices.

Those who adhere to "moralism" may be more inclined to respect people and emphasize human rights; those who adhere to "utilitarianism" may be more inclined to make choices based on comparative values and benefits.

For managers, you are likely to face such trolley problems daily, constantly weighing whether to sacrifice the interests of some to ensure the benefits of the majority, such as during layoffs. If you cannot bear to eliminate underperforming employees, the company will gradually devolve into a situation where everyone shares the "big pot of rice," ultimately leading to collective unemployment. Therefore, for managers, the trolley problem should never be a dilemma; doing "evil" for the greater good of the majority is part of management, as the saying goes, "If I do not enter hell, who will?"

KPI and OKR#

How can you collaborate with employees in an equal and rational manner? The answer is what we previously discussed: "naming," which means aligning goals. A company's goals range from broad to narrow: mission, vision, phase goals, and annual budgets. Even the smallest goal—the annual budget—is merely a final number.

As a manager, how do you achieve this number? You need actionable steps. How do you obtain these steps? By breaking down the indicators in the annual budget, the sufficiently detailed indicators that emerge are KPIs, which are your specific tools for achieving the budget. When you achieve all the KPIs, you will have met the annual budget.

For example, if the revenue target for December is 20 million yuan, and you are the head of the sales department, this 20 million yuan sales figure is the KPI assigned to you. How do you achieve this KPI? You need to apply the data analysis methods discussed earlier to break it down. For instance, if the product price is 2,000 yuan, you need to sell 10,000 units. If the conversion rate from leads to sales is 1%, you will need 1 million leads. Thus, the KPI for achieving 20 million yuan in sales is broken down into two sub-KPIs: 1 million leads and a 1% conversion rate. You can assign the lead KPI to the marketing department and the conversion rate KPI to the telemarketing department. If they both meet their respective KPIs, you as the manager will also meet your KPI.

Why assign these two KPIs to two different departments instead of one?
First, because obtaining leads and telemarketing are entirely different tasks; as the saying goes, "specialization leads to expertise," so you should let professionals handle their respective tasks.
Second, if the same group of people is responsible for obtaining leads and completing telemarketing, there will be a lack of checks and balances, which can easily lead to corruption. For example, salespeople might privately sell some quality leads for personal gain. If they are also responsible for obtaining leads, those privately sold leads may never appear in the company's data. From the company's perspective, those leads never existed; even if you notice some anomalies through fluctuations in lead prices, you cannot catch these "termites" in action.

These two points lead to the two fundamental principles of KPIs:
The first is the simplification principle; you need to simplify the responsibilities of a department or position as much as possible, allowing them to focus on fewer tasks, thereby reducing the difficulty of work and making it easier to achieve KPIs.
The second is the separation of powers and responsibilities principle; you need to assign powers that could lead to "self-dealing" to different departments to create checks and balances.

So why not set the telemarketing KPI as 10,000 units sold but rather as a 1% conversion rate? Because the 10,000 units sold depend not only on the conversion rate but also on the number of leads, and telemarketers have no control over the number of leads. You cannot assign them responsibilities that do not match their powers; this is the third principle of KPI setting: the matching of powers and responsibilities.

For positions with singular goals like sales, as long as they adhere to the three principles of simplification, separation of powers and responsibilities, and matching powers and responsibilities, you can set clear KPIs for employees. However, some positions have more complex responsibilities, such as operations, which are responsible for the entire company budget. How should their KPIs be set?

This has always been a challenge. To address this challenge, we must introduce another goal system: the Objectives and Key Results (OKR) method. OKR first gained popularity at Google and has been around for 20 years. It has circulated several times in China and is still occasionally discussed today. What does this indicate? It does not mean it is particularly useful; rather, it is difficult to use. If it were as simple and clear as KPI, it would have been widely adopted long ago.

We can summarize that if you cannot even use KPIs well, you should not think about OKRs, as you are far from being ready to use OKRs. It is like basketball; if you cannot make free throws, you cannot expect to become a three-point shooter. Setting aside the halo of OKRs, objectively speaking, the vast majority of positions in most companies are actually more suited to KPIs rather than OKRs. For example, sales positions focus on sales volume, customer service positions focus on call volume, and so on. This type of singular work constitutes the majority of positions in most companies, which do not require OKRs.

In reality, only a few positions truly need OKRs, such as research and development. Why did OKRs rise at Google? Because most positions at Google are in R&D. The most practical reason they suit OKRs is that managers cannot set reasonable KPIs for them; the scheduling of system requirements is determined by them, and the demand side cannot comprehend technical matters, so any scheduling they do makes sense. How do you assess their performance? By measuring completion rates? They can simply schedule delivery dates further out to easily meet those targets. If you compress the schedule, they will launch with a pile of bugs. If you criticize them for having too many bugs, they will argue that you compressed the schedule, and they are not entirely wrong; this is indeed a contributing factor. In the end, the demand department can only suffer in silence.

I once heard a joke about a company that set a KPI for R&D based on code volume, and one programmer wrote "hello world" in 10,000 lines of code...

If you cannot set KPIs, you have no choice but to use OKRs, which is a forced decision. Even if OKRs are not as simple and understandable as KPIs, they at least do not seem foolish. Of course, OKRs do have an advantage; their key idea is to let executors set their own goals and encourage everyone to set challenging goals. They believe that achieving around 80% of a goal is optimal; if the completion rate is too high, it indicates the goal was set too low; if the completion rate is too low, it indicates either inadequate execution or the goal was set too high.

OKRs also assign the task of "setting goals" to the executors, allowing those who genuinely want to accomplish things to finally feel a sense of ownership. They transition from mere executors to self-managers, significantly enhancing work efficiency. It is important to note that positions like product development and operations are "creative" roles. What are the characteristics of such roles?

They act as multipliers rather than mere adders; their work impacts everyone, and their lower limits can be particularly low, easily becoming negative. Often, a single bug from R&D can nullify a month's worth of company performance. Conversely, their upper limits can be exceptionally high; sometimes, a significant version update in product development can help the company go public. Given the substantial and unpredictable impact of these roles, what can you do? The only solution is to stimulate their initiative, allowing them to set their own goals and find their own direction, and then work towards that direction.

Whether it is KPIs or OKRs, they are ultimately just tools. No matter how good the tools are, they only work effectively in the hands of those who know how to use them. Use KPIs where appropriate and OKRs where needed; the day you make the most of both is the day your team fully utilizes its talents.

About Money#

The goal of eliminating "small people" is to retain talent, and retaining talent often causes more headaches for managers than eliminating "small people." After all, the power to eliminate lies in your hands, while the choice of whether talent stays or goes lies with others. In reality, all you can do is try to avoid the causes of talent loss.

What are the main reasons for talent loss?

There are three main reasons: insufficient money, dissatisfaction, and lack of hope.

What does insufficient money mean? First, it refers to the necessities of life. If the money earned is not enough to pay the mortgage, then the person will certainly leave; they cannot just wait for you to stop paying the mortgage. Even if the salary is enough to cover the mortgage, if another company offers a higher salary, it still counts as insufficient money—not that it is not enough to spend, but that it is not enough to be attractive. How do you retain such employees? With money? In many cases, the budget is fixed, and you do not have the ability to raise salaries. Moreover, salary increases are never just about one person; if Zhang San gets a raise, Li Si will soon find out, and what will you do if Li Si demands a raise as well? Or, to take a step back, even if you manage to retain someone by raising their salary this time, they may soon receive a higher offer from another company. Remember, you can never be the one offering the highest salary in the market; there will always be someone who needs that type of talent more than you do, and they will offer a higher price.

Therefore, relying solely on money will not retain talent. What you can do is establish reasonable salary standards based on market value within the limits of your budget and determine promotions and raises based on the evaluation system. Unless absolutely necessary, do not break the system for one person; undermining a system for one individual is absolutely not worth the cost.

What does dissatisfaction mean? Consider how much time you spend dealing with work in a day. Besides the normal 8 hours of work, does the time spent commuting and during lunch breaks also relate to work? If you include overtime, colleague gatherings, and post-work reflections on work, the time related to work may even exceed 12 hours a day, which is nearly all your time outside of eating, drinking, and sleeping.

Thus, a happy workday equates to a happy day; an unhappy workday equates to an unhappy day. How many happy days can a person have in a lifetime? From this perspective, you should understand how significant the impact of "dissatisfaction" can be on a person. Compared to "insufficient money," addressing "dissatisfaction" is not constrained by budget. Therefore, as a manager, you should strive to create a friendly work atmosphere and foster harmonious relationships among colleagues. These can all be achieved without spending money; the key is to invest effort. If you can build a joyful team atmosphere and foster close relationships among members, they will naturally cooperate more effectively, leading to greater efficiency. A harmonious work environment is a crucial factor in retaining talent, as many people do not solely value money.

What does lack of hope mean? "Insufficient money" refers to the present, while lack of hope refers to the future.
People are future-oriented; it is fine if they do not have money now, as long as there is hope for the future, the difficulties of the present can be overcome. The less capable a person is, the more they focus on immediate, trivial gains; the more capable a person is, the more they look to the long term. Retaining less capable individuals is simple; just give them some immediate benefits. Retaining capable individuals is more challenging; you need to provide them with hope. Providing hope does not mean "making empty promises"; capable individuals can discern whether a manager is speaking empty words. They need genuine long-term benefits.

For example, opportunities for internal advancement, professional pathways within the industry, and tangible shares and options, etc.

To retain talent, as a manager, you need to avoid the three issues mentioned above as much as possible. When considering