In terms of people management, middle and low-level managers are the key
. Many business managers think that they have the responsibility to answer questions for employees, so they often take care of everything. There are two disadvantages in doing so: first, human energy is limited, and in the face of a huge staff base and various specific problems, it is difficult for managers to solve all the problems thoroughly while being exhausted; second, there is no grass growing under the big tree , if the managers do everything by themselves, the subordinates will lose the opportunity to grow and exercise, which is not conducive to the healthy development of the organization.
Therefore, what business managers should do is to arrange troops and let the person in charge who knows the front-line business of each department best perform specific management tasks. From this point of view, on the subject of people management, middle and low-level managers are the key factors.
”Historical Records” records that Liu Bang and Han Xin had a classic dialogue, which is translated into vernacular as follows. Liu Bang asked: “If I go to war, how many soldiers can I bring?” Han Xin replied: “Your Majesty can only command a hundred thousand.” Liu Bang asked back: “What about you, how many soldiers can I bring?” Han Xin replied: “The more the better.” Liu Bang laughed and said, “Since you are stronger than me, why are you still captured by me?” Han Xin replied, “Your Majesty, you are not good at leading troops, but you are good at leading generals. That’s
why I was captured by Your Majesty.” What managers need to do is to be a “leader”, and entrusting the “leadership” to those who are good at doing things will get greater rewards. The truth is the same throughout the ages. Of course, although decentralizing power to middle-level and grass-roots managers can reduce the difficulty and complexity of the work of managers and improve management efficiency to a certain extent, if they want to achieve reasonable mobilization of all departments and teams in the enterprise , there is a very important premise: business managers must be capable, and at the same time, there must be a certain number of middle and low-level managers.
A top-heavy enterprise has a high-quality strategy but lacks the necessary execution ability; while a top-heavy enterprise has strong execution ability but lacks strategic vision. Although these two states are not ideal, the enterprise can barely survive. However, it is difficult for enterprises with weak trunks and weak middle management to survive. Therefore, in an enterprise organization, the management of people is the key, and the quantity and quality of middle and low-level managers are the key among the keys.
Having been engaged in business operation and management for more than 20 years, one of my biggest experiences is that the mistake of employing people is the biggest mistake, that is, all mistakes are not as big as the mistake of using the wrong person. Therefore, how to build a team of middle and grassroots managers with both integrity and ability is a key topic that must be studied by the top leaders and executives of enterprises. In order to truly build a strong team of middle and grassroots managers, corporate executives must step down in person and establish a dedicated management and training system. Of course, in the process, enterprises can also use the consulting services provided by experienced external consulting teams to improve their corresponding capabilities.
The key point is the mechanism.
Establishing a sound management mechanism and an effective assessment mechanism is a common method or tool to promote and motivate teams and employees to achieve business management goals and improve employee capabilities and organizational efficiency.
There are two ways to improve employee capabilities and organizational efficiency:
one is to establish a sound management mechanism. A sound management mechanism is equivalent to a work guide for cadres. From what angle? What specific management methods are used? According to what standard? According to what process? These questions can find accurate answers in the management mechanism.
Take Skyworth Group as an example. As a product manufacturing enterprise, the procurement of raw materials and parts will directly affect the final quality and price of the product, so the management of the procurement department is very important. However, purchasing managers are usually served by experienced senior purchasing personnel in the department. Although they are very familiar with the actual purchasing business, they have neither experience nor skills in management. In order to help them better complete the management work, Skyworth Group has developed a special management mechanism for the purchasing department.
The mechanism clearly stipulates that the procurement work of the enterprise is made by the supplier management committee in a unified manner, and the procurement manager is responsible for the specific implementation. In other words, the procurement manager does not need to consider the issue of supplier selection during the management process, but only needs to guide and supervise the specific implementation of the procurement personnel. If there is a problem that cannot be solved by itself during the implementation, the purchasing manager can seek advice from the supplier management committee. As for the specific procurement rules, processes and evaluation standards, Skyworth Group has also elaborated and stipulated in the supplier management system. Purchasing managers can restrict and supervise the specific work of purchasing personnel according to established standards and procedures.
It can be seen that establishing a sound management mechanism, clarifying the specific actions and implementation standards of management work, is the basic method to improve the efficiency and ability of individuals and organizations.
The second is to establish an effective assessment mechanism. If the management mechanism is the work guide for cadres, then the assessment mechanism is the magic sword for the implementation of management work. With KPI (key performance indicators), in specific work, employees can be motivated and managed to a large extent.
More importantly, the assessment mechanism can also help cadres to more accurately judge the working ability of each employee in the team, so as to formulate personalized guidance and training programs in a more targeted manner to improve management efficiency. As for how to establish an effective assessment mechanism, it can usually be divided into three steps:
first, the company needs to formulate annual development goals based on its own profitability at the current stage, and adhere to the principle of balancing corporate benefits and employee incentives to design reasonable total prize money.
Secondly, cadres need to communicate the annual development goals set by the company to employees, so that they can claim their respective performance goals according to their own ability level. After that, the cadres should review the goals promised by the employees to ensure that they have a sufficient probability of being achieved, and then these commitments can be transformed into specific KPIs.
Finally, the enterprise needs to split the established departmental KPIs into monthly and quarterly, and conduct monthly and quarterly assessments on employees. At the same time, it is also necessary to split the annual bonus according to the way of splitting the annual target, and design a specific incentive method based on the comprehensive assessment system. Of course, for those employees with super high level and super ability, in addition to short-term bonus incentives, the company also needs to increase long-term incentive items, such as equity, options, dividend rights, etc.
Execution depends on assessment
When it comes to the assessment mechanism, two objects of assessment must be involved: organization and individual. The assessment of the two is organizational performance assessment and individual performance assessment.
Organizational performance refers to the quantity, quality and efficiency of an organization’s management goals within a certain period of time (such as a business cycle); individual performance refers to the work performance of a person in the organization, such as the completion of target tasks, key tasks, and personal performance. job performance results. Therefore, organizational performance and individual performance of employees are linked, and it is the key to ensure that the level of organizational performance is proportional to the personal performance income of employees. Only in this way can the enthusiasm and creativity of employees be fully mobilized.
The first problem that is likely to be encountered in business management practice is the ownership of the responsible department for organizational performance and individual performance assessment, that is, who or who is responsible for organizational performance and individual performance assessment. The second problem that is easy to encounter is that managers often confuse organizational performance with the personal performance of department heads, thinking that they are the same thing.
Generally speaking, after an enterprise develops to a certain scale, if the organizational structure is relatively complete, the operation department and the human resources department should be responsible for the assessment of organizational performance and individual performance respectively. It belongs to the Human Resources Department and is responsible for it. The advantage of placing the management and assessment of organizational performance in the operation department of the enterprise is that the organizational performance assessment is closely integrated with the operation of the enterprise, which is more conducive to the diagnosis of the daily operation and management of the enterprise and the adoption of corresponding management measures. In fact, it doesn’t matter who does this work, as long as it matches the organizational structure and development stage of the company. The key is not to confuse organizational performance with individual performance, because the two have different emphases.
The starting point of organizational performance appraisal is the overall performance of the organization, so no matter whether the object of organizational appraisal is the enterprise, its subordinate business unit, or the functional department of the enterprise, its appraisal index should preferably be a comprehensive and relatively strong benefit index. For a unit, the assessment indicator is profit or gross profit. The performance indicators designed for functional departments according to the nature of their work should also be comprehensive indicators related to performance. For example, the human resources department can refer to per capita output (income, output, profit, etc.), and the financial department can refer to return on investment and return on assets. , the operating department can be the asset turnover rate (including the turnover rate of key assets such as accounts receivable and inventory). Appropriately adding one or two key work indicators on the basis of comprehensive indicators constitutes the evaluation indicators of organizational performance.
For individual performance appraisal, in order to avoid too many indicators, a balanced scorecard is generally used to select an appropriate number (3-5) of indicators to set KPIs, such as sales performance, customer satisfaction, teamwork level, daily learning progress, etc. The KPI of the person in charge of a business unit or department is often closely related to the nature of his unit or department, so his personal KPI is also closely related to the organizational performance evaluation indicators of his organization. Individual indicators may be the same, for example, the comprehensive benefit assessment indicators may be the same. But it should be emphasized that the two should not be confused. Organizational performance is organizational performance, emphasizing the overall capabilities of the organization and performance results; individual performance is individual performance, emphasizing personal capabilities and key work completion results.
As for the application of organizational performance and individual performance assessment, they are also different. Organizational performance appraisal results are generally used in the organization’s incentive mechanism, and the appraisal results directly affect the year-end bonus or share dividend of the appraisal object (organization or team). The results of individual performance appraisals are generally used to evaluate individuals, and are directly linked to year-end (or quarterly, half-year) rewards, appraisals, and promotions.
Although the key to the management of enterprise employees lies in the cadres, as an enterprise organization, in order to improve the efficiency and ability of the team and individual employees, at the same time, it is necessary to use the management mechanism to clarify working methods and use the assessment mechanism to improve execution efficiency.
In terms of people management, middle and low-level managers are the key