The Past And Present Of Mao Style Management

The economist has recently written that Mao style management can only succeed for a while, and it is impossible for enterprises to have long-term stability.

I think that Mao style management will not die out in the commercial society, nor will it have short-term vitality.

If we use some Mao style management skills in the Western managers, most of them are unconsciously "think alike". Then, in today's China, many entrepreneurs absorb and learn from Mao style management is completely conscious and deeply rooted in the bone marrow.

Among them, the famous losers, such as Mou, and more successful ones, such as Ren Zhengfei, the ups and downs, the Shi Yuzhu on the "journey", and so on.

Among the three followers of Mao's management, Shi Yuzhu has recently been on the cusp of the media.

Like the attitude of the economist towards Mao style management, many of China's mass media people also have a sense of suspicion for Shi Yuzhu, and he is astonishing, but not admired, for his performance.

Whether it is brain platinum, golden partner or online travel "journey", the products created by Shi Yuzhu are not quite in line with the definition of "good products" in the minds of wise men. Their marketing means are more like those of the street fighter who are struggling with death.

But at the beginning, Mao Zedong's guerrilla tactics, in the view of the Kuomintang generals who had been educated by western style, were also the means of "bandit".

However, there is no such thing as war.

In military terms, we are doomed to win or lose in terms of heroes and commercially alike.

Both the British economist and many commercial media in China are more or less entrusts with the expectation of the intellectuals to the commercial society, that is, a group of meritocracy and mission oriented business heroes. They speak lofty and live elegantly, as they say in the textbook, they will manage the business with high efficiency and infinitely. They also love to follow the new concept of environmental protection, human nature management, corporate social responsibility and so on.

Unfortunately, this elitist management is like the upright martial arts in the martial arts novels. After practicing, it can be "invincible", but most of the imitations will only become mediocre for life.

The commercial society will never be inseparable from the so-called grass-roots business class.

They may not have a higher education, no degree in MBA or EMBA, and they will not be full of foreign words and speak with philosophical aphorisms.

They have only one aim to make money, so that they can take all means within the scope of law-abiding, including those which intellectuals think are very "low tastes".

The Western proverb, "the business of a businessis business" is the ultimate duty of a businessman.

As the Economist magazine has to admit, Mao style management, though it may violate all management textbooks, even though it is more like the "evil martial arts" depicted in the novel, will still be popular among grassroots businessmen.

To accurately evaluate Mao's management, it is necessary to avoid a misunderstanding in the Chinese public: mixing business ethics with social ethics.

Actually, the former is a special kind of professional behavior norm.

A typical example: lawyers are also businessmen. Their professional ethics require them to hide and defend their bad guys. This professional ethics and daily behavior ethics are completely against each other.

In China, because business spirit has not yet been universally understood by the public, especially the intellectual elite, when people evaluate business behavior, they often apply social ethical standards, which of course will make people laugh and cry.

For example, there are many intellectuals who always feel that letting businessmen advocate Mao style management will have the danger of restoring the very "left" trend of thought.

In swordsman novels, the "evil" martial arts are practiced only by bad guys.

But in real society, any businessman has a dual character. His character in society can not be equated with his commercial character.

Bill Gates is a wonderful example.

This gentleman can be said to be merciless in his business tactics. He is regarded as a greedy devil by many competitors and dissatisfied consumers.

But at the same time, he is also the world's greatest philanthropist, a modest and modest gentleman who lives without desires.

Similarly, a person who advocates Mao style management in commerce may still be a staunch defender of personal freedom and human rights in politics.

This is the ultimate limitation of Mao style management, in the division of business and politics.

Even for Mao Zedong himself.

Mao Zedong has repeatedly proved that he is a military genius. His management ability has been invincible in the war. But he regretted that he used the same management skill to govern the country.

The reason is that military and commercial are single objective businesses. The former is to win, and the latter is to make money.

Mao style management advocates unity of thought and dedication, and is quite suitable for working together to achieve a single goal.

To govern a country involves many different objectives, which need to reconcile different interests and are more suitable for democratic and decentralized management.

Therefore, if we can always regard Mao style management as an effective option in business, we should permanently abandon some unfashionable mode in politics.