List of high-quality authors In the past few days, Dong Yuhui's small essay incident has rushed to the hot search.
At the beginning, everyone was just arguing about the ownership of the "Oriental Selection Small Composition", but with the fermentation of events such as "Dong Yuhui stopped broadcasting", "CEO Dong Yuhui chooses one of the two" and "Oriental Selection CEO Sun Dong's live broadcast response", it has intensified.
Yu Minhong stood up in time, "As the chairman, I have leadership responsibility."
In addition, he personally apologized to Dong Yuhui, admitting that there were big loopholes in the company's management, saying that he lacked professionalism and CEO Sun Dongxu was "not mellow enough".
At the same time, he also expressed his gratitude to netizens and fans for their love and support, "Without the support of fans and netizens, Dongfang Selection would have been wiped out long ago."
Yu Minhong's attitude of facing up to corporate problems, sincere explanations, and taking the initiative to take responsibility not only brought this first-class turmoil to an abrupt end, but also reflected the overall responsibility of the older generation of entrepreneurs.
But if we rethink this turmoil, the leader of each team should reflect on the internal friction of the team. If the internal friction of the organization is severe, even the largest enterprise is at risk of collapse. 
The internal friction of the team is mostly due to the emergence of a group of "pseudo-executives" in the organization.
They seem to be working hard, but nothing is going on. As a result, the team becomes more and more confused, more and more anxious, and expends energy on meaningless things.
The grievances and dissatisfaction of team members need an outlet to accumulate to a certain extent. And this is also the fuse of this matter.
So, how to identify pseudo executives is an important topic for every enterprise, and it is also the topic we want to discuss in today's article. 1. 4 characteristics of pseudo-executives1.Love to perform
What is the favorite thing for pseudo-executives to do?
Meeting. Meeting. Meeting.
One thing that can be solved by simple communication is to bring other people together and have a meeting.
If it can be solved by holding a meeting, a meeting will be held. If the problem cannot be solved by holding a meeting, hold several more meetings.
Moreover, the so-called "meetings" of pseudo-executives are usually impromptu or fruitless meetings.
For example, if you are immersed in work, the leader suddenly says, "Let's go to the conference room and have a small meeting."
On a whim, I summoned a group of people to a meeting, only to find that the content of the meeting had nothing to do with the work of some people.
Fruitless meetings, tirade, endless, all nonsense. What can be explained in 1 minute should be explained in at least 5 minutes when you go around.
It seems to say a lot, but in fact it does not make any valuable suggestions or conclusions.
The end result is:They brush up on their presence, but a lot of employees' time and energy is wasted, resulting in overtime to do what really needs to be done.
With this way of thinking, to lead the team and manage the organization. The organization would become a team that was physically weak and doping-dependent.
And after the incident of Dong Yuhui's small essay was on the top of the hot search, Sun Dongxu, CEO of Dongfang Selection, did not control the matter internally in time, and when the internal negotiation did not reach an agreement, he launched a live broadcast response.
This also made the majority of netizens joke that "there is a meeting at work, and there is a meeting to buy things after work".
In fact, as a senior executive, if there is a crack in the inside, you should control things internally, let alone make the "internal contradictions" public.
Yu Minhong's voice took the initiative to admit the problem of management loopholes, but instead created space for his own organization to internalize and let things be properly solved internally.
2.I didn't think about it, it was all about experience
Pseudo-executives, usually reflexive management, without thinking, let alone innovation.
What is reflex management?
To put it simply, blindly talking about experience and not closely integrating the present.
For example, if you're the boss of a company and you've recently hired an executive, and you're talking about how I did it before and how good the results were. I can't help but talk about my industry qualifications and professional experience.
Of course, it is good to have experience, and without project experience, it is difficult to become an executive directly.
But without taking into account the latest realities,If you only talk about experience, that is empiricism.
How much has the market environment changed?How much has the industry environment changed?How much have consumer trends changed?How much difference is there in the capabilities of the personnel?What is the difference in resource endowment?
Empiricists, without deep thought, are in a hurry to talk about the past, make judgments, and make suggestions.
They're going to have some mantras. For example, why do you want to do so much, just one word - do!
At first glance, this statement is quite true.
But we savor it carefully, what is the subtext of this sentence?- Why use your brain when you can do something?
Thinking about it, I was in a cold sweat.
The executives you need are there to help you do things, or even make up for your shortcomings.
A pseudo-executive who only knows how to execute, like a staff officer, takes the initiative to demote himself to a warrior. A warrior is of course indispensable, but that's not what he's supposed to do.
The more senior managers need to learn and Xi, the more they need to update.
Pseudo-executives are too lazy to think about details, too lazy to gain insight into the current situation, too lazy to learn Xi management knowledge, and too lazy to update management practices.
In most cases, pseudo-executives rely on some of the carrot-and-stick experience they have accumulated in the past as grassroots and middle managers, combined with hearsay information, out-of-context speculation, and uncontested obedience.
This kind of mental inertia not only makes the team more and more tired and spends a lot of time doing useless work, but also leads to the blindness of the organization and the inability to see real feedback.
3.Refined egoist
Pseudo-executives are usually narrow-minded and self-interested.
When encountering problems, the black pot is thrown to subordinates;When you reap the fruits, you take all the credit for yourself.
When they initiate a thing, their starting point is not to focus on the overall situation, not for the good of the company, but more about their own gains and losses, their own risks.
Once a subordinate shows extremely high ability, the first thing they do is to suppress and fear being replaced.
In the long run, people with strong abilities naturally cannot tolerate the average and stupidity of the company, and can only choose to leave.
In the book "Parkinson's Law" published by the British historian Northgood Parkinson, it is proposed that there are 3 ways out for an incompetent manager.
The first is to apply for retirement and give up the position to a competent person.
Second, find a competent person to help you.
The third is to appoint two people who are lower than yourself as assistants.
For pseudo-executives, the first path will never be taken, and that will be to lose their treatment, status, and power.
The second way cannot be taken either, and capable people are likely to become their own opponents. Someone else did his job well, at that time, did the company still need him?
The third path is the most suitable path. Two mediocre assistants share his work, and he himself calls the shots, and no one can pose a threat to his power.
With the template of his superiors, his two assistants continued to appoint people of a lower level than themselves.
And so on, and so on, and the organization gradually becomes a bloated, overstaffed, conflicting, and inefficient system.
This is the Parkinson's law of tissue, also known as tissue paralysis. The growth capacity of such an organization can be imagined.
But as a manager, power, responsibility, and profit are equilateral triangles.
If you only focus on "power" and "profit" and ignore "responsibility", you are definitely not a qualified manager.
For example, you have never heard good words from someone else, who is doing a good job, who is making rapid progress. All I heard were questions, what mistakes did so-and-so make yesterday, and what did so-and-so not do well today.
Instead, he talked about his achievements and credits, one, two, three, four, five, and listed a lot.
Don't hesitate to let him go immediately. A person who doesn't care about the interests of his colleagues and the team can still be expected to protect the interests of the company?
4."Manage Up".
The pseudo-executives don't want to really expand their territory, but are more worried about their jobs.
Don't dare to say anything different from your boss, don't dare to do the right but risky things, and try to cover up your weaknesses and mistakesreported the good news but did not report the bad news, so that almost all the superiors were kept in the dark......
In the end, the company will invest in vain and even miss opportunities.
Two, four-in-one, is the real executive
So, aren't there any "real executives" we need?
The Chief Organizational Officer's definition and measurement of "true executives" can be found at:Those who can lead the No. 1 position and the senior management team internally and represent the company's competitiveness externally in their field.
In other words, even if a person has the job title of CXO of a large company, but does not meet these two items, he may not be a real executive. At the same time, in a small company, people who are young in important positions may also be real executives.
What are the benefits of such a definition?
It gives executives the dynamics of time and space: what used to be a real executive may not be (if it does not represent the company's competitiveness);If you are a real executive in this company, you may not be in another company.
The core characteristic of a true executive is that the responsibilities and roles are four in one. What does that mean?
To use a formula, true executives = operators + professional technicians + managers + leaders.
When needed, you can do simple and repetitive tasks (operational duties) yourself
When needed, it is also necessary to do professional things such as planning and design (professional and technical duties);
Not only do you have to do it yourself, but you also have to take people to do it (management duties);
It's not just about coordinating management, it's about exploring directions (leadership responsibilities).
From the perspective of the characters, to use an analogy:
A real executive often has to be a sapper and a sniper (operator, professional technician);Operation, professional technology, management, and leadership, is this a high requirement?In many cases, you have to become a squad leader (front-line managers: you have to bring people to work together);
It is also necessary to be a company commander and instructor (coordinate goals and actions, develop key talents, guide others to lead the team, and do ideological work);
It is also necessary to be a regimental commander (setting goals and tactics, improving organizational skills, and participating in strategic conspiracy).
The requirements are really high.
However, a company, whether in the entrepreneurial period, the rapid growth period, or the second entrepreneurial period, the breakthrough period of change, and to achieve product innovation, technological innovation, management innovation, the requirements are already very high.
In other words, this "four-in-one" requirement is determined by the responsibility they have to bear, not by someone deliberately embarrassing them.
Only true executives can make a good company.
Third, the real senior management team,
There are 3 decisive factors that make a differenceA good organization should not only avoid the existence of pseudo-executives internally, but also be able to make executives cooperate to play a 1+1 3 effect.
In the past, there was a saying: one Chinese is a dragon, and several Chinese together become worms;One Japan is a worm, and several Japanese together become dragons.
In fact, it is said that Chinese like to dismantle the platform together, are not good at cooperation, and are not good at building teams.
This can also be fully reflected in sports competitions, Chinese are better at some individual sports, not very good at team sports, for example, Chinese are good at diving, table tennis, etc., not good at football and other sports. In essence, it is a lack of team building skills.
The core of team building is to divide labor under the premise of cooperation, and the purpose of division of labor is to cooperate and maximize overall interests. Everyone is on their own, giving full play to each person's strengths, and at the same time complementing each other, so that everyone's weaknesses play a role less, or even no role.
The ability of a team to give full play to its ability to fight in a group depends on the following three points.
First, a sense of belonging.
Belonging is a kind of heart-to-heart connection, which depends on principles and the recognition of values. This team is our own team, and there is a sense of mutual dependence and a sense of security between everyone.
Second, make positive contributions.
Everyone has to contribute to the team and the business. Contributing to success and achieving others is fundamental.
In fact, the requirements for people are very high, and the members of the team must have very strong self-discipline and self-drive. The team itself cannot be run by assessments.
A person who is too calculating is actually not suitable for a group, and it is difficult for a person who always feels that he has suffered a loss.
In the final analysis, the strength of a team lies in giving full play to each person's strengths, and at the same time complementing each other to form a whole.
This involves everyone doing some "invisible work", which is difficult to be evaluated. If there is no trust between everyone, everyone will do the work that is "easy to see", so who will do the work between the teams and the invisible work behind the scenes
There is a proven "experience" in team management that there should be no too big pay gap between team members. The difference between the highest and lowest pay in a member cannot be more than doubled, i.e., the minimum pay for a team member should be greater than or equal to one-half of the highest pay among team members.
If the income gap among team members is too large, the team member with the lowest income may lack "self-esteem" in terms of status, and a "dependency relationship" will be formed.
Moreover, there will also be dissatisfaction, especially people who have done a lot of behind-the-scenes work, but because the leaders don't see it. This will lead to contradictions in the distribution of benefits.
If this is the case for a long time, the trust between members will gradually break down. Just like the Dong Yuhui essay incident this time, assuming that the small essay is from the copywriting team, as a manager, you should appease the team in time and set up some material or spiritual reward systems.
Third, mutual trust.
Trust between the boss and the team members, as well as the team members themselves, is earned, as is the trust between the team and the workforce.
Behind authority is responsibility, everyone obeys you, trusts you, believes that you use power to take responsibility, and will not use power for personal gain. Of course, power and oversight come in pairs, and the greater the power granted, the greater the need for oversight.
The main reason why the construction of many enterprise teams has not been transformed into the achievements of enterprise development is that the boss of the team has not formed an effective authority, and everyone's efforts have not been twisted into a "rope".
The boss has no authority, and there is a lack of trust between everyone, so they don't dare to hand over their backs to you, for fear that someone will "stab you in the back". This kind of team can't "cohesion", they can't "roll in", and they can't work hard for results.
In normal times, it is difficult to see what kind of values a person upholds, and only when dealing with conflicts or contradictions, see what he puts in the first place and what he puts in the second place, and the person's true values can be revealed.
The value test of each member must be put in practice and must be run in after a certain period of time. When you don't encounter contradictions, especially when you don't encounter things that involve your own interests, you can't tell the difference.
The members of a team, the values between them must match, otherwise it will be more troublesome. The more capable people are, the more "harm" they will cause to the company if their values do not match.
Many enterprises still adopt "conservatism", especially in the high position, we must first choose people who match the values, the ability can be exercised, and the key to a person's ability lies in how the company uses him. These practices of enterprises make sense.
Fourth, all team issues
It all comes down to the boss's problemWhen a team is full of pseudo-executives, it is often the culture of the company and the number one who are wrong. This requires the top leaders not only to recognize real executives, but also to maintain self-cultivation
1.Introspective and self-driven
It is not easy to do self-examination, not only to experience the pride after the achievement, but also to constantly introspect, and at the same time to be self-driven, self-controlled, self-disciplined, self-reliant.
Excellent entrepreneurs must not be forced to do things, but more out of a kind of pursuit of something.
2.Respect differences
There must be different people in a team, but this difference is best a difference in ability and a convergence of values. A group of people with the same values and different abilities can do things well.
It is necessary to respect differences, respect everyone's ideas, and have different methods and paths.
3.Pursuit of excellence
Entrepreneurs can't tend to mediocrity, they always have to see the best and pursue the better. Even if you do your best, you have to think better.
4.Be willing to take on a challenge
The excitement of an entrepreneur is in the challenge, in the constant change. But for entrepreneurs: attribution is inward, the starting point for organizational and individual progress.
What is attribution inward?It's just that one thing comes out, first find the reason from yourselfAll the problems of an enterprise are, in the final analysis, the problems of the boss.
What to do as the boss?You should reflect on yourself, think about your own problems first, don't think about other people's problems first.
The biggest difference between those who can succeed and those who can't succeed is whether they can find the reason from themselves, and after finding the reason, it is easy to find a way.
Change yourself first, let yourself change first, the organization can change, and the team can change.