Management, Why Do We Need To Return To Classics?

What we call classics will pcend time and space and pcend all human wisdom.

I often say that the world is changing.

Today's

This is a very important topic.

In the course of my research, I find that in China, many people try very hard at all kinds of new things.

Interpersonal training in 1940s was seen as the key to organizational success.

In 50s, Drucker's theory of management by objectives was regarded as a new way to solve management problems. We felt that as long as the goal was reached, all problems could be solved.

Down the road, although the goal has been achieved, many problems have not been fundamentally solved.

So decentralization has become the best way. We believe that everyone can have a platform, which can give the platform and rights, and does not solve more problems.

Entering the 70s, we saw the corporate strategy...

Because of the development of technology in 90s, more and more new methods are emerging one after another.

By twenty-first Century, management innovation theory was leading the change.

All these are very important. For Chinese enterprises, all management theories and methods need to be faced and accepted.

Moreover, these are basically tested by our enterprises.

But what's the result? Let's look at two sets of data first.

According to statistics, in 2005, the total number of China's top 500 was 8.7% of the total 500 of the world's total, and we were the 4.4% of the average labor force output in the United States.

The electronics industry is the most powerful industry in China. Its total profit is only 2 billion 930 million US dollars, equivalent to 24 of the IT70 in the world, with a profit margin of 2.5%.

And TOYOTA made 4 to September in 2006, that is, the two quarter, the profit is 71 billion 200 million yuan.

Even our GDP input and output ratio is much bigger than that of India.

These data are intended to tell you that our gap is actually very large. What is the reason?

What role can management play?

The fundamental reason is that our management has problems, and we can not maximize the effectiveness of people and organizations.

For a person, organization is very important. Why can't Chinese people organize? Mr. Lu Xun said that we are scattered. Why is China such a state? The most fundamental reason is that I do not think it is human nature, but we do not know how to organize it.

Everyone is absolutely willing to play a role in nature, but the organization does not give him a platform.

We have not been able to understand what role our management plays.

I chatted with some friends and found that the fundamental problem in management is that the industry is doing this now. It is based on experience, but the industrial conditions have changed, but we are still doing the market by experience.

Just like I am a teacher.

In college, it is easy for us to be a teacher. When we talk about one subject, students change year by year.

It can't be taught in the company like this.

Because the company always sits there, and what I say must change.

In a sense, our experience can not solve the problem. Are we really deciding whether to manage people? Are our people really deciding whether to manage or manage their own characteristics, leaving every single person's thoughts, and where our efficiency comes from? What is the logic of management? These are the problems we encounter today, which have led to the cruel results of our reality.

Our efforts

In fact, we have made a lot of efforts.

First, we all know that enterprises should remain flexible.

But the most important thing for companies to remain flexible is to have a leading position, but our leading position is very fragile.

We may be very good this year, but not next year.

To maintain flexibility and keep ahead, the most important thing is to have the ability to lead the market and customers.

{page_break}

The second effort is to learn from benchmarking enterprises.

The reason why our enterprise is very difficult is that we can not find out our own mode and management culture. If this is not found, we can only learn a benchmark for a period of time, and can not solve the fundamental problems.

The three of our efforts is to learn to outsource, that is, what we can do, what we can not do, we have to choose outsourcing very clearly.

Outsourcing is right, but the important thing is that when we do outsourced, the time and cost have not been reduced, and some enterprises have set up a department inside, and then spend more energy to do it.

You can't outsource when your own synergy is not resolved.

The fourth effort is to cultivate our core competencies.

In fact, many people do not know what core competence is.

To put it simply, it is to turn your thoughts into reality.

The most important thing is not to have this idea, but to become a reality. This part is called core competence.

I think Chinese enterprises still lack ideas today. Almost all our ideas are right.

The fifth effort is that we have been carrying out enterprise pformation.

At this level, I do not think there is a mistake.

We have always thought that a lot of Japanese enterprises are worth learning, but in the process of learning, we are not learning but creating.

China has "created" everything that it brings. I admire the Chinese people's "innovative ability", such as process reengineering, many enterprises are using creatively, but the effect is not good.

In fact, when we do business process reengineering and pformation, we do not pay attention to a very important thing, that is, process needs system, it is not a theory, process is a language, is a way of thinking, is everyone's behavior habit, you can change this.

Why can't we do these things? Because we don't know what the most basic thing is.

So this time when the publishers put forward the concept of returning to the classics, I admire it very much. Because the direction of this effort is right, we have been right from the theory of human relations management to the theory of management innovation. We have introduced all these management theories, but there is one key problem that has not been done, that is, the basic understanding of management theory has not been done.

The publication of classical works is a solution to the basic understanding of management, which is what I have always wanted to return to the basic level.

When I was teaching the course of organizational behavior, I found it difficult and why? Because when I was in class, the students would come over and ask, "can you help me adjust my structure," Chen said? "Why do I say why? What do you mean by the structure of your business?"

So when we are learning all these latest theories, we encounter two difficult problems: one is the basic foundation, the other is the lack of understanding of origin.

Many of China now is epistemology rather than source theory.

If we don't understand the concept of origin in this sense, our efforts at the later stage will be useless. We recognize the changes of the world, but we do not know the origin.

When we were engaged in business administration education, we encountered two difficult problems. First, we did not explain anything in the original theory, and taught all of our theories to all of us. So did you find that the most unusual part of China is that all professional managers have the boss's head, because all he wants to learn is what the boss wants to learn.

The second is that all employees have the idea of managers, that is, every layer of our knowledge is beyond the source.

But when your basic understanding of management is not enough, everything behind is of no value, so you must know what the most basic meaning of management is.

How to maximize efficiency

When I know that Hua Zhang wants to publish classics of management, I would like to recommend for these handwriting, not to say how I feel about myself. I want to tell you what I have learned. I want to talk about Taylor's principle of scientific management first.

{page_break}

Prior to the publication of Taylor's book, management was based on experience, and only when Taylor arrived, did management become science.

Taylor's contribution is not merely turning management into science. Management can be changed into science because it can be duplicated, and experience can not be duplicated.

Why can Taylor convince everybody? Because it turns management into science.

Our management is the first to solve the problem of labor production. Why did I talk to you before? China has learned so many things. The problems we encountered are rather less productive. This is the lack of efficiency in labor. In 1911, Taylor explicitly told you that if you want to achieve efficiency, you can do these 4 things: scientific elements, staff selection, training and development, frequent communication with employees, and equal responsibilities and responsibilities for managers and employees.

I often hear some bosses say that efficiency is not enough, is it time to raise wages? They think that raising wages can change the efficiency of labor. I generally enjoy the rise in wages, so I told him to rise first, and then I told him that the wage increase had nothing to do with this matter.

What does efficiency have to do with? Taylor should have told you very early, but we didn't study him.

Another boss said my company is not efficient enough. Mr. Chen, please wash your brain, because maybe I will brainwash.

I told him after washing, it was still useless.

Because when the employee's head was cleaned, he found that the real reason was not him, but the boss's division of labor was unclear.

China has made so many years of effort. It is very important for us to invest in management, but we do not care about its output.

In fact, this is the problem he needs to solve, so I suggest that we must seriously study and understand Taylor's definition of management.

Therefore, we should encourage everyone to learn the most basic things, learn from the source, instead of learning things that are not available in the original condition, which is impetuous in the learning in recent years.

So I see a lot of people are very nervous, because they always tell me, Mr. Chen, after listening to your class, can I make money tomorrow? If I say that, I will make money. Why do I tell you? Making money depends on yourself, but the basic things must be understood.

Taylor solved the problem of labor efficiency.

But there is another problem that has not been solved. When labor efficiency reaches a certain level, people will become alienated and instruments, just like Chaplin's modern times, because the modern age is the age of industrialization, which is the era of highly efficient labor. Chaplin played the man who was screwing the screw cap, and finally he became stupid. He saw that the circle must be twisted, which in fact affected human nature.

So management is going to solve this problem, so we met with fardo. He said that a person's efficiency is limited, can he let a person release at a limited efficiency and let more people release efficiency together, so he has studied the efficiency of the organization, so I would like to recommend it. The reason why it is recommended is that it can tell us clearly what the efficiency of the organization comes from.

In fact, it has 14 very clear management principles. These 14 very clear management principles tell us that the 4 basic problems of the whole administrative organization or organization management should be: Division of labor, grade and function process, organization structure and control scope.

He answered a clear question: what kind of situation is the most efficient organization? This requires two conditions, one is the level of specialization, the other is the decentralization system, which is also very difficult for me to feel today.

Because most of our enterprises do not understand that decentralization is equal to specialization.

If the professional level of this person is not enough, it is even more terrible for you to decentralize power to him.

Many of our enterprises are willing to improve their professionalism but do not decentralization.

Finally, I would like to talk about "the management of William frost". In fact, this book has not been published yet.

First of all, because she is a woman, I think I should make a communication with a female writer, because I think the books written by women are rather troublesome. People say that the books written by women are not very good, so the books I write are always not good enough. When women write books, the logic is a bit strange, but it is this person that I would like to suggest that you go to see, because she solved another problem in our management, that is, where the human efficiency comes from.

In fact, the most basic concepts in our management should fall into efficiency. How can we solve the problem of everyone's efficiency? We can feel it in this book: people oriented; people exist in the organizational environment, not in the society; the key activities in interpersonal relationships are inspiring people; motivation is team oriented; through the collective can both meet individual needs and achieve organizational goals; individuals and organizations want to get the maximum output with minimum input, all of which make us understand that personal efficiency comes from creating opportunities, organizing the environment, meeting the needs and exploring the potential.

This classic book will give you a comprehensive annotation.

{page_break}

With these three books, we can clearly know what management is, and management is to improve efficiency.

These classical classics actually answer the most basic questions of management.

So in our management, the question you want to answer is very simple, that is, one problem is efficiency, and efficiency must be three efficiency: labor efficiency, organization efficiency and human efficiency.

So when you are engaged in management, you are solving these three efficiencies. The order of these three books is exactly the order of management, which is to solve labor efficiency first, then to solve organizational efficiency and human efficiency. When this sequence is reversed, you will find that management is invalid.

Because the efficiency of human beings is the condition of payment, and the condition of payment is the need for organization to have labor efficiency.

Many people say that management can also make money, but in fact it is not. Management is the solution to efficiency.

When efficiency is really solved, many problems can be solved.

To understand these classic works, we need to clarify their essence. Management is to step by step. It must be the first one to lay a solid foundation. If there is no output of labor productivity, it is impossible to have organizational efficiency.

The biggest problem we face today is that when the reform and opening door is opened, the whole world is talking about personal efficiency. But we don't know that their first two efficiency is finished. We think we should do our own efficiency today. So 20 years later, everyone is highly efficient, everyone has unlimited dreams, but we have no labor efficiency and organizational efficiency.

So I am very supportive of the idea of returning to classics. If all of us can think back to the most basic questions, all of our problems may become very simple. So in this sense, the management problems raised by these classic masters still exist; the management experiences they summed up are meaningful; the management logic they are studying is very common; the management methods they create are still effective.

Finally, I share with you all the words I have always liked: "every failure person knows the way to succeed. Only the successful people really do it". I believe these classic things are understood by many people, so the most important thing is for each one of us to do it.