Lao K said: 80% of management problems are implementation problems.
If it is an exaggeration, I am afraid that 99% of management problems are implementation problems. However, I don't have any real statistics, so I'll borrow Paredo's law (80 20 principle) to play a role.
Any enterprise, as long as it has not just been established, even if it has been established for a year and a half, will more or less save some systems and set certain rules. It does not matter whether these systems or rules are scientific and reasonable, whether they are fair, just, open, humane, or ......It doesn't matter,As long as it is a system, first assume that it is reasonable, and then look at the implementation
When the implementation is in place, the effect can be reflected and evaluated. Reasonable system implementation produces reasonable results. The unreasonable system has produced unreasonable results, which is the credit of the implementation in place.
If a reasonable system is not implemented properly, you may get a bad result, which is normal.
But it is hard to imagine that an unreasonable system that is not implemented properly will get a good result.
Therefore, when the results are not good, we must not say that the system is not good at every turn, but more to review the problem of implementation, let alone become an excuse for not implementing it.
Many managers have soft ears, and their subordinates are unwilling to implement the rules, so they say that the system is not good, and then they go to change the system. After changing for a long time, I repeatedly considered, discussed, and revised, thinking that it was almost over, and it was promulgated and implemented, and in less than three months, the feedback came back or that the system was not good, why was it bad?"You see, it didn't work out as expected," ......Then change the system.
Every day is to change the system, change back and forth, change from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, and revise the system year after year, with no end.
Standardized management, first of all, is to be carried out with iron discipline and strictly. It doesn't matter if the system is not perfect, first fix the implementation for a period of time (such as at least three months), summarize the problems in the implementation process, and then change the system in a targeted manner, and then implement it for a period of time, and then improve it (not to tear down and start over).
In this way, the system will become more and more perfect, and the implementation will become more and more effective. Haier has a "thirteen articles", one of which is said to be "it is strictly forbidden to defecate in the workshop", but even so, it is simple and even a little low-level thirteen, Haier has become the flagship of China's home appliances from this starting point.
Therefore, it is important not to expect the system to be flawless and impeccable from the start.
Many business leaders are perfectionists, and they must have written the system perfectly, taking into account all aspects, but in the end, they found that it was not the same thing at all.
Many small and medium-sized enterprises like to learn from and copy the institutional norms of large enterprises, which actually complicates simple management. The more complex the system, the more problematic it is to implement.
Large enterprises can afford to toss and toss, and can afford high management costs;For small businesses, the lower the management cost, the better.
If you're a manager, remember to keep your eyes on enforcement and not be too skeptical about the system.
It is easy to reform the system, but it is difficult to implement it in place. It is better to revise a system in three months and persist in implementing it for one year than to come up with a system today and overthrow it tomorrow. Some leaders also call it "iteration".
The product needs to be iterated so quickly, the system is so changed, the people's hearts will fall apart, and the company can't stand it!
Welcome to follow, share, what ideas, welcome to leave a message, interactive exchanges.