To Do Business, We Must Listen To What Zhou Hongyi Says And Believe It Will Work For You.

Listen to Zhou Hongyi and talk about something.

In China's Internet circles, no one will not know that Zhou Hongyi, the "fighting madman" who is "not agree with one another", has created his kingdom after another battle. However, there is also anxiety and worry behind him.

1, product, organization and management make me very anxious.

Over the years, I have not been worried about the market value and the "old" problem, but I have anxiety about products and organizational and managerial anxiety.

You can use "painful Metamorphosis" to describe your feelings in the past year.

The so-called market value is only a stage of a company. I hardly ever see stock prices. I can do well in safety. This company is valuable to society. We can not live without it. Isn't it good? Why do we need all companies to meet one standard?

I am very clear about the external environment. We should go at our own pace and not be upset by our opponents.

The media and the industry see how others are worrying about you.

In the past one to two years, I was thinking, maybe I was too greedy.

In fact, on the one hand, I am not as greedy as the outside world, but on the other hand, compared with an entrepreneurial company, I still try to do too many things.

This leads us to many things, and the pressure principle is not enough.

I can't resist this impulse to make new products.

I realized that when the company was on this scale, many problems that made me anxious were, in the final analysis, human problems.

In the past, I didn't really care about human nature, nor did I have high EQ.

In the past, I believe Jobs said that A-class talents are not afraid of challenges, and you can not even consider each other's self-esteem.

But the reality tells me that a lot of people curse you and scold him severely.

There are others who challenge you so much that he hates you.

Really?

I wonder why people are not so simple as they imagined.

I used to think much about things and think little about human nature, so I used to treat people in my own way.

I am very strict with myself and have many challenges. I am not afraid to admit my mistakes.

But many people are not. They can not accept this attitude either.

The size of the team makes it more difficult to solve this problem. When I am 60, I can ask you to converge. But when the 6000 people are in a lot of ideas, I can't drive everyone away.

I have a gap with Ma Yun.

If ratio

But he probably knows more about leadership and human nature.

So Ma can manage bigger business.

Sometimes I wonder, "what kind of person do I want to be? Do I continue to be the first product manager in the industry? Or do I have to change myself?" I have no answer to this question.

I suddenly fell into this serious thinking, for example, I was thinking recently, there are two kinds of Leadership: one is "strong type", the leader is very capable, everything has an idea, the following people do as long as they follow, and the other is "govern by doing nothing". The weaker the leader, the better the growth of the underneath.

Since the reason is right, then I will think about which way to go. Really, don't laugh. It's a big problem for me.

In today's business world, telling the truth is not to be seen.

Now the message is big and the purpose is to give everyone confidence and confidence in the team.

In turn, everyone should do some summarization and reflection. We still need to talk more, do more and spread more positive energy.

Of course, it is not without fear that honesty will be exploited by competitors.

For example, the experience of 360 intelligent hardware and the story of special machines are worth my serious consideration.

I do not think these are failures, but they must be profound lessons.

For example, I did not do a good product, but

I know why I didn't do it well. I'll do it again.

2, a good team is not more than three people at most.

Many people ask me, how many founders are there in the initial business team? I have started several times and have invested in many start-up companies. I suggest that two to three people are the best combination.

The Superman and Spiderman in American blockbusters are solitary heroes. In China's story, there are "seven heroes and five righteous", "Taoyuan three righteousness", and even "Liangshan one hundred single and eight will".

So, is it a very good person to lead a strong team like "Qin sweep Liuhe" to accomplish a pioneering success? Or let 4 or 5 or more people form a "best team in history" to fight the world? In my opinion, the first kind of difficulty is not small, because the hero in the world is hard to see.

The second is often too numerous to form a resultant force.

Therefore, we should find a balance in the middle.

First of all, a lonely hero, a person who monopolize the overall situation, is strong enough, but always "one word," a person's decision-making is inevitably biased, this team is also very difficult to succeed.

Just like a movie, everyone else is running a long way, and there is no good director to match with a screenwriter. If he is a star, then he is full of iron and he can not play several nails, and he can't make a good movie.

Secondly, is the more people the better? There are seven or eight co founders.

This will go to the other extreme and not conducive to the development of enterprises.

Because such teams often face two important problems that can not be ignored:

First, first plus plus is no more than two.

Such teams often tie strong people together.

Those who dare to start a business are generally more appetites.

But just like football matches, they are all big players, but no one is convinced by each other. The only result is losing.

Second, it is difficult to unify our views.

Lovers and husband and wife were tender at the beginning, but all kinds of problems appeared after the honeymoon period.

The same is true of entrepreneurship. After the start of a high spirit, the company will encounter more and more problems: whether to go to the left or to the right; whether to invest three or four; to do so or to do so; this is the adult propriety of every enterprise.

Even if everyone comes together for the same dream, the interests of everyone in these trivial little things are actually different.

At this time, if too many founders, the cost of communication will be too high.

The views are too inconsistent, lack of a backbone, conflict will be more and more, and finally, it is very likely to fall apart, everyone will be a company of their own.

Like an old movie "big wave sand", six good brothers joined the revolution together, but finally only a few people stuck to their ideals, some deserted, and some rebelled.

So I think a good founding team should have two people, not more than three at most.

These two to three founders are best able to form a complementary relationship in character and ways of doing things.

Some people are stronger, some are gentle, others are a little bit more open, some people are introverted.

It's better for them to have similar values.

This is what we call "gentleman and harmony".

But if two people are hot tempered, like two couples, every day, "needle tip to wheat" will surely fight.

3, tie employees and companies on the same chariot.

Building an excellent team is a problem that must be faced in the whole process of entrepreneurship.

There is an old saying in China, called "the soldiers of iron camp."

I believe that when someone in the team leaves, there must be many leaders who use this phrase to console themselves.

But I think this is misleading because he regards the relationship between camp and company (soldier) as a simple employment relationship.

For the entrepreneurial team, if every employee takes his job as a job only as a tool to support his family and solve his financial problems, then the camp will never be beaten, but papered.

From another perspective, a company's most valuable asset is not a concept, nor a grand plan, but an excellent entrepreneurial team.

So,

In the final analysis, is there an excellent team?

How to build an excellent team, I think the key is to grasp three points.

First, we must not aim at making money, but we must have a certain degree of idealism.

I have worked in the Internet industry for more than 10 years, and I never see a team that can get together to solve financial problems to finally succeed.

On the contrary, such a team is easy to be disappointed if it suffers setbacks, or if the outside world has greater temptation of real interests, the team will easily fall apart.

Not long ago, I asked the human resources person to help me to make a statistical survey, and to see which colleagues I had worked with for more than 10 years, 8 years or more or more than 5 years ago.

I felt very sorry when I saw the list. If I told them at that time, come out to do it with me. When we get rich, we will have a big bowl of wine, eat meat and divide the gold in large scale. I do not expect that they will cooperate with me for such a long time.

On the contrary, our goal is to make cattle Internet products to make people's Internet life more convenient and safer. With this goal, we can persevere.

Second, we must have an incentive mechanism to bind everyone's interests together.

To build a team, I don't want my employees to run around with money simply because there are so many speculators.

But I have to consider the financial problems for my staff.

In today's society, even an idealist, we must always support our families and live a decent and dignified life in the society.

Moreover, entrepreneurship is a healthy and burning youth.

For those who are willing to compete with enterprises, they can not just talk to them on the lips, but sign agreements so that these young people can share the future benefits together.

Otherwise, there will be no future for wealth gathering.

360 from the very beginning, the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) started. The initial employee stock ownership ratio reached 40%, and the last few rounds of dilution reduced to 22% before the listing.

This proportion is the highest in today's Internet Co.

I think the stock option system can tie the interests of the team and the interests of the company.

These are done well and idealism is the best way to do ideological work.

Third, solve the problem of old and new alternates, leaving part of the benefits for the future.

It is certain that enterprises will take a detour and encounter setbacks in the course of their growth.

At this time, there will be team members who do not agree with the future direction of development or leave because of the temptation of greater practical interests.

Similarly, different stages need different talents and different professional skills. Only when new people come in, can enterprises have a future.

I have never seen a team moving towards success.

The best way to solve this problem is to encourage the system.

360 every year, it will maintain 5% of the total share capital, and issue options for employees with outstanding contributions.

Design is conducive to attracting talents, and tightly linking the interests of new people with the future of the enterprise.

The value of this enthusiasm is far greater than the value that has been diluted. This is what I said "leaving part of the benefits for the future".

4, most afraid of becoming a giant but big company disease.

More than 20 years ago, the computer was still a sophisticated thing, far from the public.

Today, mobile phones are popular. People are watching mobile phones every day when they are free.

Internet is precisely because of the mobile Internet has really changed the world, changing the way we all think, work and life.

In the new era, the structure and management mode of enterprises should also change.

I don't know what it will be like, because no one else has ever done so.

But one thing is for sure. It must be flat. It must be products and users. It must be small and beautiful.

Flattening is to reduce administrative levels and change the traditional Pyramid structure to two levels, up to three levels.

Small and beautiful is to decompose the team into numerous small teams, and divide them according to the classification of projects or businesses. The personnel are flexible and combined, the project starts quickly, and can respond quickly to the needs of the market and users.

Now many Internet Co have begun such an attempt. Ali is constantly splitting up and has now been divided into 25 business units.

Tencent has divided R & D into numerous project groups. Through continuous competition, it has also achieved its own innovation and self subversion.

Flat and small and beautiful are in line with the needs of rapid technological upgrading in the Internet age and the need for small and fast running products.

When there were only a few dozen people in the company, I could hear everyone's voice.

Now we have 6000 people.

What I most fear and hate is that 360 has not yet become a giant but has caught a big company.

Therefore, we urgently need such small teams to break the bottleneck.

Moreover, these small teams can also change with the project at any time. If a good product idea is put forward, it can be reported. If it is good enough, it can be directly approved by me or Qi Xiangdong.

A creative person can build his own team.

Including our recently released smart key, a group of young people in the company put forward in the internal competition, I feel very good, immediately let them go to the horse to do.

I also hope that more young people will emerge in our company to become product leaders, from product owners to business leaders, and be able to be responsible for their products and businesses like a small CEO.

In the future, 360 of these small teams may no longer distinguish between wireless or personal computers, each team can do cross platform products, and every business is not a single team.

As long as we have better products and better ideas, we support them.

This will no longer require the approval of big strategy and grand pformation plan. Maybe a small team's product will be pferred directly from mobile phone to earphone, and the whole company will directly enter the future of wearable Internet.

Companies do not rely on one or two founders to get around.

The more intelligent a man is, the more limited his bandwidth and experience are.

Good decision makers should regard the company as their own product, innovate and adjust the structure on the company's products, speed up the flow of information, speed up the decision making, and cultivate more small chief executives in the company to produce more products and business leaders.

How to create better soil for employees in this era, so that we can truly innovate and dare to think, will not be bound by some stereotypes, how to enable everyone to learn to do better products to experience, and how to make users close to users. This is the primary consideration of adjusting the organizational structure.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that in today's era, the value criteria for evaluating employees, evaluating teams and evaluating companies should always be whether they can make valuable products to users, which is also the 360 most valued.