When we are faced with an opportunity, whether we are fully prepared is a key question.
The occurrence of these two events triggered me to think about different depths of thinking about things, and I found that the depth of thinking is closely related to what we have gained. For example, when the teacher asked us to draw eggs every day, Leonardo da Vinci was able to delve into the problem and realize that the teacher was cultivating his ability to observe and express the shapes, lines, and changes in light and shadow of objects. And most of us will simply think of it as an egg, not a duck egg, because duck eggs are usually a circle larger.
Eventually, Leonardo da Vinci became a master of the arts, and we have nothing to gain from it. This suggests that if we want to make progress, we must learn to think deeply and always explore what is behind the egg.
Taking the personnel turmoil of Dongfang Selection as an example, if we just go with the flow and look at the problem from the perspective of corporate infighting and workplace intrigue, then at most we can only get some after-dinner conversations, and we will forget about these things later. Most people are far from really needing this knowledge, and they can't really understand the whole picture of events, so we can only make judgments based on our own emotional perceptions, and such judgments are often only superficial and similar to the opinions of others.
In addition, over-learning these specious gambling strategies can make us negative and suspicious, which may mistakenly hurt the good people around us, so it is not a good choice not to learn.
Of course, there are also those who say that they are only speaking out of righteous indignation, and not to learn anything from it. They just wanted to vent their anger for Dong Yuhui. Of course, this is no problem, and I also like Dong Yuhui very much. Actually, I noticed him before he started to explode on June 9 last year and I believe he will come out on top, so of course I will support him.
However, it would be a shame if we could not learn anything from such a large-scale social event, or feel any significant changes from it. After all, this incident is considered a classic case in the history of business - tens of millions of people spontaneously participated and showed a high degree of solidarity and wisdom in just one day, and under the observation of tens of millions of people, brought down a company with a market value of 100 billion, and finally forced the company to sign a peace agreement. From the perspective of business competition, this business war involving tens of millions of people can be described as extremely explosive, and even Shuangwen ** dare not depict it so perfectly.
However, the significance of this event has gone beyond the limitations of the parties and enterprises, and it has a considerable degree of social significance, which is the underlying logic that we should explore. Therefore, it is better to interpret the incident from the perspective of "all parties running-in", rather than from the perspective of "confrontation between all parties". If we look at this incident from the perspective of the run-in of all parties, we can see that it is actually a collision between the old rules and the new era. Neither side of the business war is aware of this, which is what makes the problem so complicated all of a sudden. Recall a highly similar incident in the United States in 1985, when Apple ruthlessly fired its founder and soul Steve Jobs, citing the fact that he led three new product projects that had overspent on research and development, making the company's financial statements increasingly ugly. Why did Apple fire Jobs so ruthlessly?Because the logic of capital dictates that it must do so. What is the logic of capital?Therefore, all capital compulsorily requires the operators of enterprises to continuously expand their revenues, occupy more market share, and reduce operating costs and operating risks as much as possible to maximize the commercial value into cash. And Jobs just attracted this "trouble" in front of him and became a victim of the rules of capital. At that time, the word "fall" was used to report that Jobs was dismissed. Because he insisted on the principle that he must exceed the highest standards in the market, the R&D expenses of the new product line led by him were seriously overrun, and he could not be launched to the market because he could not meet his personal standards, which made Apple's cash flow quickly dry up, and the stock price continued to **, which directly annoyed the capital. You must know that "capital" is not a specific person, it represents a collective force that cannot be opposed. Even if you're the founder of a company, you're not up to the task. Because your opponent is not the person who votes against you now, he is only the spokesperson who represents capital, even if you replace him, the next person will still oppose you with the will of capital. In any case, finding ways to please capital is a reality that a company has to face, and only in this way will capital give you the opportunity to continue to exist and develop.
Therefore, Apple's board of directors decided to let Scully, the former president of PepsiCo, take over the helm of the company because Scully could prove that he had the ability to satisfy capital, and he was also invited by Jobs repeatedly. However, things turned out completely beyond the expectations of Apple and **. Although Apple's financial statements look good in a short period of time after Jobs' departure, in fact, this recovery is at the expense of brand image and product features, and must not be sustainable. Consumers quickly discovered that Apple's new products were no different from other companies, and even some products used outdated accessories to save costs, and as a result, consumers left. In just one year, Apple's reputation for the technology it won with its first-generation product has vanished. Over the next decade, Apple's situation deteriorated, and in the mid-90s, it was on the verge of collapse, only to re-hire Steve Jobs in 1997 and give him full decision-making power, which really unfolded the rise of a legendary company.
What is the similarity with the "event" of Oriental Selection?First of all, the commonality of these two incidents is that they were both provoked by capital, which aims to get rid of factors within the enterprise and pursue its own interests. Jobs violated the principle of profit and realization of capital, while Dong Yuhui violated the principle of profit, realization and risk of capital at the same time. **When interviewing the new management of Le Rong Zhi and even the decision-makers of New Oriental, they all mentioned that Dong Yuhui had opposed products that pushed up profits, insisted on focusing on agricultural and cultural products, and adhered to the long-term development route, which violated the requirements of capital's pursuit of profits and realization. Secondly, because Dong Yuhui himself is the representative of the Oriental Selection brand and has won the attention and support of consumers, this violates the requirements of the capital to share channel risks and reduce personnel risks. The combination of these three points makes capital have to make the choice to weaken Dong Yuhui's personal color.
In this case, the management of Oriental Selection and the decision-making level of New Oriental can only find a balance between the short-term and long-term development routes, which not only meet the short-term needs of capital, but also protect the development path of the company's long-term assets. Despite the difficult situation, they are struggling to maintain the stability of the business.
Therefore, there is no necessary connection between this incident and the question of whether Dong Yuhui is "a master of high merit." First of all, it should be clear that Dong Yuhui himself does not intend to replace anyone's position;Secondly, the decision-making level will not hand over the selection of Dongfang to the completely idealistic Dong Yuhui. Everyone's role is determined, so there is no such thing as a "shock master". This is the first thing we need to understand.
And, one only has to look at what happened to Steve Jobs to know that this is not a question of whether it is a shock or not at all. Jobs himself was the founder and chairman, and no one could shake his position, but he was eventually abandoned by capital. So, the key issue is the willingness of capital.
This is the first common denominator between the two events.
The second common denominator is that both events ended in the failure of the capital's attack.
This phenomenon is understandable, as both attacks went against the wishes of another important player in the market, the consumer, and were eventually countered completely.
Fortunately, due to the different industries in which it is located, Dongfang Selection can connect with consumers in real time and receive market signals very quickly, without waiting for a long product development, launch and feedback cycle like Apple.
As a result, Dongfang Selection was able to realize its mistake in just two days and quickly adjust its strategy, instead of having to suffer for years after a bad decision like other companies, which not only caused itself pain, but also wasted valuable time.
The succumbing of capital to the market is the second common denominator of these two events.
Although the above two points are important, the most critical point lies in the third common point - these two events occurred in the transition period of change in different eras, representing the emergence of economic logic in the new era.
This is also where we should really understand and benefit from this incident.
A change in the logic of the economy.
Newsstar Agency.
Why Apple fired Jobs, we've already talked about it.
So, why did Apple dare to fire Jobs?
The fundamental reason is that Apple still uses the thinking of the industrial age when assessing the coming technological era, and does not realize that the changing times require people like Steve Jobs.
What is the economic logic of the industrial age?
To put it simply, it is to rely on scale effect and standardization to achieve core competitiveness.
In the industrial age, a company's core competitiveness depended on its ability to produce more and cheaper products to meet the basic needs of the greatest number of consumers.
In order to achieve this goal, enterprises not only need to establish huge production lines, distribution networks and market channels, but also need strict quality control and cost management systems.
In the age of technology, people's needs for products are no longer limited to functionality and performance, but more focus on the story, emotion and value behind the product. Guan Fuzi said: "Cangli knows etiquette and etiquette", that is, when the basic food and clothing problem is solved, people will naturally have higher spiritual needs. And we are in the midst of a transition from the era of functional needs to the age of spiritual needs. This time, the events of the Oriental Selection also took place at the turn of the old and new eras.
It turns out that it is precisely because of this philosophy that Steve Jobs has achieved great success in his ventures after leaving Apple, and once again led Apple to a strong recovery and rise. Steve Jobs knows what the economic logic of the technological age is, which is simply differentiation and personalization. In this era, the core competitiveness of an enterprise depends on whether it can produce products that are more distinctive, more valuable, and more able to lead the needs of users. In order to achieve this goal, enterprises must be at the forefront of the market, gain insight into changing demand trends, innovate product concepts, and pursue the ultimate products. It is precisely these strengths that Jobs firmly believes in the trend of this era, so he chose to confront the original board of directors of Apple and never compromise.
However, Scully, who emerged from the success of the industrial age, was not able to lead Apple on the path of the technological age. This is not for his personal reasons, but rather that the corporate structure itself in the industrial age tended to have business units at its core, each with its own balance sheet and the need to operate according to pre-set goals and targets. In this environment, innovation is often seen as a risk rather than an opportunity, as it inevitably disrupts existing processes and makes costs and sales uncontrollable, which directly impacts revenue management and profit expectations. As a result, industrial-age companies are more inclined to maintain the status quo than to pursue change.
Because of this, Apple's board of directors and investors naturally believe that Jobs is an irresponsible leader, and the company needs a professional manager who can operate steadily, improve efficiency, reduce costs, and increase profits.
So they chose Scully, a business leader recognized as successful under the economic logic of the industrial age, to replace Steve Jobs.
However, people are rarely able to completely put aside their past successes and accept a new set of rules from scratch. Scully, who succeeded in the industrial age, was ultimately unable to lead Apple into the technological age.
To understand the economic logic of the technological age, it is simply differentiation and personalization. In this era, the core competitiveness of an enterprise depends on whether it can manufacture products that are more distinctive, more valuable, and more able to lead the needs of users. To achieve this, companies must stay ahead of the market and create products through insight into changing demand trends, innovative product ideas, and efforts to pursue the ultimate in products. These are precisely the strengths of Jobs, and he firmly believes in the trend of this era, so he chooses to firmly confront the original board of directors of Apple and never compromise.
In the end, Jobs's philosophy led him to great success in the startups after leaving Apple, and once again led Apple to achieve a strong recovery and rise of the company.
At the time of the transition between the old and the new era, the incident of Oriental Selection was staged again. What is conversion?It is to shift from the era of functional needs of products to the era of spiritual needs. Although it's not that people don't value the functionality and performance of a product, their need for a product is no longer limited to that, but more about the story, emotion, and value behind the product. It's no longer enough to live with a quality product, people need to find a sense of belonging and identity in the product. For example, two years ago, Hongxing Erke generously donated 50 million yuan to help areas affected by floods despite its financial constraints. This action was well received by the whole network, setting off a wave of "wild consumption", which successfully revived the brand, as people found their own identity and sense of belonging in the brand. Similarly, JD.com's help measures in the face of disasters have also touched many netizens and won a large number of loyal fans. In addition, Dong Yuhui and Dongfang Selection achieved great success last year, attracting the hearts of 30 million fans in just one year, because they injected spirit and warmth into their products.
Based on excellent humanistic qualities and mature value thinking, Dong Yuhui carefully excavates the unique value of each product, so that consumers not only have an in-depth understanding of the product itself, but also understand the humanistic, geographical and historical knowledge behind the product, and transform the purchase of products from economic behavior to psychological experience. It is this concept that makes the products selected by Dongfang go beyond the scope of commodities and become symbols of culture, education, emotion and lifestyle, turning consumers into partners with a common spiritual pursuit, and consumers also regard this pursuit as a part of their soul and put their efforts.
It is precisely because of this that when the former management of Dongfang Selection attributed the problem to the "fan circle culture", it angered many people who were not fans of Dong Yuhui but stuck to their spiritual world, and as a result, the battle situation was one-sided. In other words, people are actually fighting for their own spirit, and they can spontaneously stand guard in front of the spiritual fortress without organizing mobilization. That's why we really need to understand the underlying logic of events.
So, what does understanding this logic teach us?I think the most important thing is that this event vividly proves that personal value is fully reflected and that dedication can be duly rewarded. As long as we study hard and think hard, there will always be someone who is willing to pay for us, and we don't have to worry about hard work getting nothing. Unlike previous eras, entrepreneurship doesn't require many resources in the spiritual age, but rather your creativity, ideation, and inspiration. As long as you have these, the times will always provide you with a stage. I really hope that you will put in enough effort to seize the opportunity that day.
Secondly, it also teaches us a truth, in this new economic era, we should give more soul to our work, and operate ourselves as a brand, rather than treating our work with the old routines and ways of the past. Even if it's just a pebble in the middle of the river now, you have to strive to be the most unique one, waiting for the choice of the times.
Thirdly, we must learn to cooperate and share, because only by learning to share experiences can we truly open our hearts to the spiritual needs of the people around us and customers, and can we keenly discover new changes, so as to make our products more infectious. Indeed, in this era where spiritual needs are paramount, only sincerity can move people's hearts.