Let Employees "Obey" Management

Marketers are the most difficult group of people in the enterprise. Throughout all enterprises, no matter how advanced they are, no matter how backward they are, they can not really handle sales management well, let alone salesmen "obey" management. The so-called "obedience" is true obedience rather than false obedience. The so-called "false obedience" is a set of face-to-face sets, or a set of practices on the lips.

The study found that if the sales staff are required to obey, they are closely related to the following management links.

A lot of enterprises think that the management of salesmen can be built on the management system of the system, such as the need to have very strict management processes, strong execution capabilities, and more scientific incentives, etc. on these bases, marketers will walk on our prescribed lines. If we exceed the prescribed limits, we will punish him accordingly. Similarly, if they can fulfill the tasks according to our requirements, we will reward him.

This form of carrot and stick has become the customary method of business management and sales team, and is also the marketing management we usually understand.

However, under this logic, how many marketers really obey our management?

Or how many situations can we really carry out "strict" management according to the so-called management norms?

Unfortunately, few companies can really make salesmen "obey" management.

曾經有這樣一家公司，他的銷售人員并不是很多，大概有50多人，而且公司人員的流動性不是很高，隨著工作時間的增常，他們發現這些銷售人員已經越來越“疲塌”，遲到、假帳、懶散、怠工等等情況時有發生，為此他們采取了各種強有力的管理措施，包括：加強管理制度、加強獎懲激勵、甚至開除等，但是他們發現，無論什么樣的管理方式對他們的刺激性并不大，制裁了、處罰了之后仍然這樣，即便是表面上改正了，但是骨子里面仍然沒改，這些銷售人員心理非常明白，公司再怎么治理也不可能把他們全“殺”了，太過分了我們就不干了，面對這樣的局面，多數情況下公司會采取有所顧忌的管理，而這又會增強銷售人員的肆無忌憚。

This is a typical substitution problem. In view of this situation, we helped them recruit a large number of new employees, and trained them strictly, and then sent them to work. At the beginning, the old employees did not care much, but after a while, when they found that the company was determined to introduce new employees and saw the rapid growth of new employees, it was virtually a fatal pressure on them. The source of the pressure was "substitutable".

Soon, all systems were well implemented.

From the above example, we can see that substitution is the premise of management and the premise of any management system.

A better system, method, and process must be built on the basis of staff replacement, which is not substitutable and what kind of management is powerless.

A person's obedience to management must also be built on an alternative basis. A person who can not be replaced can hardly be asked to be effectively managed, let alone "obey" management.

Many of our enterprises are not good salesmen, and sales personnel lack of substitutability is closely related, because good salesmen are hard to find, so they are more fearless to destroy the company's rules, do not obey the company's management, so in order to manage a team, everyone's substitutability is a prerequisite, no matter how excellent he is, the same.

In order to do this, it is very important to have the ability to manufacture sales personnel quickly. That is to say, if you don't work hard, people will replace you at any time. Only in this way can he really understand what management is and what is obedience. On the basis of such facts, he can be truly managed.

As for managerial cadres, we find that once a cadre thinks that he can not be replaced, all kinds of possible bureaucracy and corruption will create a company. The so-called legal system will be replaced by man's rule. And we find that there is a common characteristic of excellent companies in dealing with managers, that is, they can be replaced. Of course, they have also paid a heavy price for the irreplaceable. In practice, the normalization of enterprises is started from professionalism. Besides the professionalism, the core of professional managers is substitutable. Shareholders can not be replaced, but professional managers can be replaced. Therefore, they are easier to manage than shareholders, and such management is of great significance. The alternative is for ordinary employees.

"Identity" is a must, and under the premise of not understanding, few people can obey management. Only those who are managed need to truly recognize the necessity of being managed, so that they can obey management obedient.

There used to be a company dealing with health care products, and they had nearly 3000 salesmen in the country. For the management of marketing team, the company adopted a centralized management method that strictly controls heavy penalties. Whatever the problem is, it is the company's policy.

On the issue of company performance appraisal, the company still adopts such a way. In order to be effective in stimulating, the company has made a lot of preferential policies after careful deliberation, but the result is that no matter what kind of assessment method, there are always many people dissatisfied.

Managers are very angry, they think: these people no matter what kind of way, they will not be satisfied, so do not have to manage whether they are satisfied with, according to the company's decision to finish.

The results can be imagined.

We have raised this question to the enterprise. Whether the performance appraisal and incentive policies are our ruling mace or our tools to unite people's hearts is definitely not a single one, but a combination of the two.

Do we have the courage to allow ordinary employees or general managers to participate in the design of incentive assessment?

The senior managers have never dared to think about this problem. They will not believe in their bones. The general management cadres can work out a more equitable incentive way. If they are involved, the result will be a very unfavorable situation for company management.

This mentality is bound to exist as long as leaders are, but the implementation proves that our concern may be superfluous. After a arduous struggle, the company has extensively explored the performance appraisal scheme among the general staff, and the result has not led to the one-sided situation of the leading staff. Many suggestions are very constructive, and the measures that have not been recognized have now been widely recognized.

It has been greatly improved since then.

This matter shows that any management measures, if employees are involved, will enhance staff's understanding of the system and measures and enhance their executive power.

Simple coercion will only backfire.

Performance appraisal is one of the most important management systems of a company. If the opening of this project can achieve good results, the openness of other management systems will result in better results.

Therefore, another key element of obedience to management is the understanding and recognition of employees. If any management, whose starting point is only to safeguard the interests of the ruling class, is derived from the dictatorship of the ruling class, then he will not be able to win wider recognition and will not be able to "obey" a wider range of people.

Winning recognition is also the key factor to get "obedience"!

Based on the above analysis, we can see from the above analysis: the foundation of 1. management is substitutable; 2. can not be replaced by people who can not manage; 3. therefore, one of the goals of excellent enterprises is that all people can be replaced.