The core competitiveness of an enterprise at the bottom is to be serious, persistent, and thorough, and if you do these six words, you will definitely succeed. "Long-termism" is a good concept. We must think clearly about the essential issues behind any concept, otherwise, it is possible that the views are right, but in practice they are wrong, so some views need to be understood in specific scenarios. Of course, there are also constant, that is, essential and regular things in management science and management practice, so what is the essence of long-termism? What doesn't change in a changing business scenario? Thinking about this question will help companies understand the value and significance of long-termism in management.
First of all, it is necessary to clarify the three concepts of strategy: strategic direction, strategic logic, and strategic action. Strategic direction represents the choice of business, and represents the main battlefield of your choice. If the main battlefield you chose at the beginning was originally very "thin", with little space or a red sea market, then doing business focus may be a dead end. The direction is wrong, isn't the focus looking for death? This is a question of strategic direction, and the correct direction is the premise of long-termism. If we choose a promising direction, on the one hand, you can make money and have the capital to do long-termism, and on the other hand, you have a customer value base that adheres to long-termism. As another example, there are many companies in China, especially those in third- to fifth-tier cities, that have begun to diversify at a young age. As I said before, the diversification of many enterprises is "pseudo-diversification", which is not diversification in the real sense, because it actually has no main business, and it is a life or opportunity type to do a lot of things, and there is no future when it is done. Therefore, we must adhere to long-termism under the premise of the correct strategic direction, otherwise it is just a wrong direction, and all trial and error are basically sunk costs. But if the direction is right, trial and error is a kind of accumulation. Define these three concepts: strategic direction is business choice
Main battlefield selection; Strategic logic is how to win the main battlefield, which is the thinking of positioning, value proposition, strategy, core competitiveness, etc., which can also be called business logic, which is how to win this battle; Strategic actions are based on what key measures are used to implement and achieve the above two issues clearly.
Long-termism aside, clarifying these three concepts also has practical implications. There is a phenomenon: the boss thinks that his strategy is very clear, but the people below think that the strategy is not clear - many realities are indeed that the boss has proposed a direction, or even only a plausible concept, but the strategic logic and strategic action of how to do or achieve success have not been thought through, not fully considered, clarified ideas, and reached a consensus. At this time, there will be a situation: it may be that there is a problem with the direction, but the entrepreneur thinks that there is a problem with the execution; It is also possible that the direction is right, but there is a problem with the execution, but everyone is denying its direction. This is mainly the failure to distinguish between strategic direction, strategic logic and strategic action, and then to clearly define it at one level at a time. The harm of this phenomenon is not that a few concepts are not clarified, but that if the enterprise does not find the real problem, the problem will always not be solved, delay time and waste resources, and the strategic direction is the first essence of "long-termism".
The second essence of long-termism is what does long-termism really mean? How to land? There are three key points embodied in the long-termism in business practice: the first is the business portfolio; the second is core competitiveness; The third is organizational skills. Why is long-termism reflected in these three aspects of business practice?
Business Portfolio ——It is "eat in the bowl, look in the pot, plant in the field", many companies just seized an opportunity and made a product very successfully, and then forgot whether the product can still make money in the future, and any kind of product will enter the saturation period and enter the recession period. The product has a life cycle, if the early stage is not prepared, that is, around the so-called second growth curve, the third growth curve to prepare, and so the main industry into a red sea, into the stock market recession period when the growth is gone, the recession begins to appear. Once there is a problem with growth, just like "poor and lowly couples mourn everything", growth declines and mourns.
Core competitiveness——Since the 2008 international financial crisis, many companies have lived in pain, but we have also seen many companies live well. Any enterprise that is alive and well has several characteristics: first, the business chosen is in the new outlet of the times, such as around the high-speed rail industry chain, there may not be much problem. Second, although it is a stock business and a traditional industry, it has been transformed and innovated based on customer pain points or industry pain points. Third, there is no change, neither the tuyere nor the transformation of the business model, but the original business has formed the core competitiveness, which is the so-called champion or industry champion concept, focusing on a subdivided industry, continuous improvement, continuous investment, and forming a core competitiveness in this field. Those who have core competitiveness will not live too painfully. Most of the enterprises that shout pain do not have core competitiveness, because they forgot to build core competitiveness when they made money in the past. Anyone who says that they can give advice to companies that are living in pain now, so that enterprises immediately "don't hurt", is basically nonsense. Why? Because all the pain now is basically that there is no investment and accumulation in the core competitiveness in the past, and this just takes time and needs the long-termism we are talking about. This "pain" of enterprises is a problem that must be solved by time, unless it is an innovation of business model or finding a new outlet field. If you say that you have a "trick" in the original logic and the original field, and then solve the problem immediately, this is absolutely nonsense. Speaking of which, when it comes to OEM companies, I thought that OEM companies were very general, but in fact, OEM companies are living very well. A few years ago, the author went to the Northeast Hosiery Park, and the owner of the Hosiery Park took the author to visit the hosiery workshop, pointed to the hosiery machine and asked, what is this? I thought it was a brain teaser, but I couldn't figure it out, and then said, isn't this a hosiery machine? He said: This is not a hosiery machine, it is a money printing machine, you see 5 cents, 5 cents, 5 cents all the time printed like this. At this time, I learned that some OEM companies live very well - no brand, no research and development, no marketing, not even product design, only manufacturing capacity, and the order is a money printing machine, which can make money. But the problem is that if you don't build your core competitiveness in time, you will only be powerless if the situation changes. After the international financial crisis in 2008, how many OEM companies died in the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta? In the past, it was very cool to make money when it was an OEM company, but it had no brand, no channel, no technology, and even no product capabilities, so the environment changed, the orders were gone, and it couldn't do anything. Because it wants a brand without a brand, without a channel, and some even have no product capabilities, only manufacturing capabilities, ......Therefore, enterprises must build core competitiveness.
Organizational skills——The first is to understand the importance of organizational capacity, and the second is to understand the long-term and systematic nature of organizational capacity building. How to understand the meaning of organizational competence? How to form the core competitiveness of enterprises? Assuming that technology is the core competitiveness, without technology, will talents have the core competitiveness of technology? After the technical talents come, if there is no good management mechanism to stimulate their fighting spirit and stimulate their creativity, will the core competitiveness of the company's technology be there? If we can't form an organizational system for technology research and development, can we ensure the precipitation and continuous improvement of technology research and development capabilities? In this sense, the talent echelon, management mechanism and organizational system are the core components of organizational capabilities. Behind the core competitiveness is supported by organizational capabilities, and it is difficult to form core competitiveness without strong organizational capabilities. Therefore, the building of the core competitiveness of enterprises should fall on the construction of organizational capacity in the final analysis, and the construction of organizational capacity needs to adhere to long-termism.
The same is true for corporate culture, for example, if an enterprise does not have a talent echelon, the mechanism will fail, and it will not be possible to replace people. In the final analysis, many management problems are people's problems, and if you want to ensure that the company's people are suitable, you actually need to start the layout early. For example, it is necessary to recruit a large number of people, to let these people go to the "battlefield", and then to do a good job in the evaluation and distinction mechanism, to distinguish those who can win battles, dare to challenge, have the ability to learn, and have a certain sense of the overall situation; excellent squad leaders are the reserve of platoon commanders, excellent platoon commanders are the reserve of company commanders, and so on, so that a talent echelon is slowly formed. After the echelon of talents, unsuitable people should be replaced. This is a long-term process of "seedling-growth-survival of the fittest", so it is impossible to hope that this matter will be solved in one year.
Organizational capacity building is not only a long-term project, but also a systematic project. Why? It is often seen that the crux of some problems does not come from the problem itself, but from systemic reasons. For example, when it comes to the question of "employees are not motivated", it is first and foremost related to winning the battle (it can be growth or high-speed growth, but it is necessary to solve the obstacles that support growth), and winning the battle is first and foremost related to the senior leadership team of the enterprise. For example, does the senior leadership team have pursuit, passion, and business ability to win battles, and if the senior leadership team is not good, how can employees have passion? On the other hand, if there is no large number of recruits, there is no distinction between people who can win battles, have ideas, and have a pattern through evaluation and distinction, and then the survival of the fittest, it is impossible to form a high-level leadership team with self-metabolism and combat effectiveness in the future. In addition, the breakthrough of enterprises from 0 to 1 has entered a period of rapid development, which is a period of concentrated construction of organizational capabilities, and the biggest difficulty in this period is the lack of system, and we must understand the characteristics of this period in order to better survive this period.
In the first entrepreneurial stage, the enterprise is a "small boat" method, relying on a few "chivalrous", and the power of the small boat system is human paddle, and the steering is also human paddle. But when it came to the "big ship" system in the second entrepreneurial period, the power was the engine, the transmission shaft, the hydraulic system, the power system, the electrical system, and even the communication system. Their management logic is completely different, what is the difference behind the two logics of "small boat" and "big boat"? This is similar to the difference between a hunter and a farmer. The "small boat" period was similar to a hunter, relying on accurate marksmanship, shooting a prey with one shot, and hunting for one season and hunting for the other three seasons before resting. This is not the case with peasants who farm the land, they must work hard, planting in the spring, hoeing in the summer, harvesting in the autumn and hiding in the winter. What is the difference between a farmer farming and a hunter hunting? Hunting is a single factor, and farming by farmers is a systemic factor. For example, it is not good if the seed quality is poor, the soil is not good if the seed is good, it is not good to apply fertilizer indiscriminately, it is not good to use pesticides when there are insect pests, and it is not good to loosen the soil or use too much fertilizer after several years of continuous cultivation, and it is not good if the land is compacted. Therefore, the organizational ability established by the enterprise after the second venture is not the ability of the hunter, but the ability of the farmer, which is a systematic ability, which needs to continue to take time to do.
Pattern and layout, long-termism can also be boiled down to these few words. Long-termism is a pattern, and pursuit, mind, and vision can all be interpreted by the pattern. If there is no pattern, there is no pursuit, it is impossible to build core competitiveness without pursuit, and it is impossible to build a good organizational ability without pursuit and mind, so the underlying factor that ultimately determines the height of the career is the pattern of entrepreneurs. Long-termism is layout. The so-called long-termism is to look at the present from the future, and to make a layout around long-term thinking, business portfolio is the layout, core competitiveness is the layout, and the construction of organizational capacity is also the layout. For example, if a company is recruiting fresh graduates, it must not be to solve the current problems, but to solve the problems of the future. If you can't form a talent echelon that can self-metabolism, every time you encounter something, you have to rely on recruiting people from the outside, and you don't know how capable the recruited people are. Therefore, the enterprise only has the best echelon, and the organization has stability, which is a kind of layout thinking.
Long-termism is "serious, persistent, and thorough". Long-termism is reflected in behavior as this six-word motto. Why? What is the core competitiveness of an enterprise at the bottom? It is "serious, persistent, and thorough", because 9999% of enterprises can't do this, so if there is a company that can really be serious, persistent, and thorough, it must be a successful enterprise, or even a great enterprise. Why is Huawei great? Everyone understands that Huawei's qualification system is not perfect, and there is still room for iterative improvement. The key is that they are more serious in their work, and the "Huawei Basic Law" is really implemented when it is enacted. There are a lot of corporate culture and "Basic Law", why is there only one "Huawei"? It is the people of Huawei who are serious, persistent, and thorough. It can be seen that, in the final analysis, all greatness lies in taking one's own things seriously, persistently, and thoroughly, and to be able to do this is to practice true long-termism.
Wen Xia screamed
Edited by Lu Jia
This article was published in the December 2023 issue of Chinese and Foreign Corporate Culture