Cao Cao'S Leadership: The Core Strength Of Sheep And Lions

The leadership level of supervisors is most directly reflected by subordinates.

In the commercial war, competition between the two sides is often very delicate. One side seems to be extremely powerful, and the other side seems to be vulnerable. But in a blink of an eye, the situation will be radically changed.

The weak can become strong, and the strong can become weak, and the leaders who decide this change are the leaders of both sides.

Just like letting a sheep lead a group of lions, the lions will become sheep sooner or later. But if a lion leads a group of sheep, the sheep will become lions sooner or later.

The most classic "strong and weak change" case of Cao Cao's learning leadership is in the early Three Kingdoms, that is, the pformation of power between Yuan Shao and Cao Cao.

It is Cao Cao's advisor, Guo Jia, who first saw this trend.

He believes that Cao Cao's strength is not as good as Yuan Shao's, but in the long run, Cao Cao will be able to swallow Yuan Shao because he has ten defeats and ten wins. Cao Cao has the qualities necessary for a good leader.

　　所以他鼓勵曹操說：“紹有十敗，公有十勝，紹兵雖盛，不足懼也：紹繁禮多儀，公體任自然，此道勝也；紹以逆動，公以順率，此義勝也；桓、靈以來，政失于寬，紹以寬濟，公以猛糾，此治勝也；紹外寬內忌，所任多親戚，公外簡內明，用人惟才，此度勝也；紹多謀少決，公得策輒行，此謀勝也；紹專收名譽，公以至誠待人，此德勝也；紹恤近忽遠，公慮無不周，此仁勝也；紹聽讒惑亂，公浸潤不行，此明勝也；紹是非混淆，公法度嚴明，此文勝也；紹好為虛勢，不知兵要，公以少克眾，用兵如神，此武勝也。

There are ten wins in public.

As a leader, Cao Cao can learn from his leadership skills and strive to improve himself and become an invincible position.

Specifically, the above ten elements are: nature, common sense, vigorous and resolute, good people, virtuous behavior, sincerity, honesty, subordinates, listening and speaking, strict system, and good business.

The subordinates are the only criteria for testing leadership. Elephants are invisible. Brilliant leaders are good at desalting themselves, and do not deify themselves. They strive to strengthen the strength of the whole organization. They are good at unifying the goals of the organization with their employees' goals, instead of simply turning them into figures.

In the specific work, leaders should focus on the following four points: formulate vision and strategy, develop trust relationship, create a sense of responsibility and mission culture, cultivate and motivate subordinates.

In this way, we can improve our leadership and lead our enterprises to move forward.

How can you test if your leadership is effective?

Experience tells me that the only criterion is leaders' subordinates to see if they are strong enough and confident enough.

Only when sheep have become "lions" can leadership be effective enough.

Specifically, there are four criteria for judging whether the 1. subordinates can handle their affairs in their own way and whether they have a sense of freedom within their responsibilities.

When 2. subordinates are different from their superiors, can he still be creative and decisive?

Do the 3. subordinates have a sense of identity and a sense of mission towards their work and their long-term value?

Are 4. subordinates confident enough to constantly challenge themselves?

KFC, KFC staff and two secretaries, I have been in contact with KFC employees for a long time, and I am very impressed with their leadership performance.

I found that when the restaurant operation encountered problems, KFC employees often spontaneously organized, or even directly called the leadership to the meeting, this time there is no leadership and staff points, everyone expresses their views; after the solution is immediately dispersed, and then quickly implemented, the efficiency is admirable.

KFC employees have considerable freedom in their own fields, and they dare to make their own opinions when they differ with their superiors. This shows that the employees are confident enough and have been given a strong sense of responsibility. The "flock" has become a "Lion Group".

Another example is my assessment.

I have employed two secretaries, and I have seen the weakness of my leadership from the performance of the first secretary.

I accepted an invitation from a school before giving lectures.

The day before the departure, I asked the secretary if she had sent the lecture notes to the sponsor. She told me that I had sent the express two hours ago, and that it would arrive in half an hour under normal circumstances, so the lecture should have arrived.

The same thing happened to my second secretaries. The answer is quite different.

When I asked whether the lecture had been sent to the sponsor, she told me that two hours ago, she had confirmed with the sponsor that the other side had already received the express.

It seems that this matter is not related to me. It should be caused by the gap between the two secretaries. In fact, the performance of the staff just reflects the change of my personal leadership.

First of all, the first secretary is very likely to be indifferent to what I am engaged in and do not have the corresponding sense of mission, so it doesn't matter whether the delivery is delivered or not; secondly, I have problems in the details of my work, and my actions may have a direct impact on her.

So when I made progress, my subordinates also had subtle changes.