Let the system take care of it, instead of always having to do it yourself!

Thread Content

System management is a systematic approach aimed at helping employees become better versions of themselves; the formulation and implementation of systems are essentially processes of shaping people. Why establish a system? It is because there are irregularities or issues in certain aspects, and it is necessary to clarify the behavioral requirements for everyone. The habitual behaviors that people used to consider normal need to be changed, and actions must be taken in accordance with the established rules. No one likes to be constrained; systems themselves represent such constraints on people, causing discomfort and even harming the interests of some individuals. I used to take shortcuts to get to work, but now you want me to take the main road, which is much further – that’s not feasible at all! Especially for people in a country accustomed to freedom and laxity, managers must think carefully before establishing any rules: can these rules actually be implemented, and do they have the confidence and determination to ensure their proper enforcement? If it’s difficult to implement this system and one isn’t very confident about it, it’s better not to establish it at all; there’s no need even to mention it. Otherwise, it will only embarrass the managers and reduce their authority. Self-reflection: How well is your team system implemented? ★Are there any leaders who fail to follow through? After a system is established, leaders demand that others follow it, but often fail to do so themselves ； Or middle and senior management does not comply while only requiring ordinary employees to do so. Over time, as a result of this downward influence, no one followed the rules anymore, and things returned to the situation where \"managing people is exhausting.\" ★Is there any non-execution caused by focusing on light processes and neglecting results? Because the system itself may be unreasonable; if it is implemented, there are all these audits and signatures required, which is very troublesome ； It doesn’t matter if it’s not carried out as long as the result is the same; the supervisor will be just as pleased and may even praise the subordinate for being \"smart\" and \"doing a good job\". Over time, everyone ignored the process and focused only on the outcome. In fact, the process is essential for the result, and the result is inevitable from the process. Without processes of prior and ongoing control, good results will not be achieved. Even if there are good outcomes, they may be accidental and individual. And once there are no good results, it’s too late to look back at the reasons, because from managers to employees, a habit of focusing only on outcomes and not on the process has taken hold. ★Is there non-compliance resulting from inequality before the system? In some companies, the top leader can \"conveniently\" fail to enforce the rules. When senior managers violate these rules, the top leader, given that he himself has not followed them either, chooses to turn a blind eye. When middle-level managers break the rules, the seniors also find excuses to justify their behavior. For some employees, considerations such as personal relationships lead to the decision to let such incidents go unaddressed, and this pattern continues, resulting in a widespread failure to enforce the rules. Is everyone in your company or team treated equally under the rules? Abandon the culture of familiarity and establish a culture of strangeness. As a business leader or department manager, have you ever encountered a situation where your subordinates call you \"big brother\" or \"brother\"? If so, this \"culture of familiarity\" will render the team’s rules and regulations meaningless. Why? Since you and your subordinates are like brothers, even if they make some mistakes, you just turn a blind eye and let it go. Why do they call you the big brother? There is only one purpose: he wants privileges, wants to be above everyone else, to act outside the rules, to hold a special position within the team and act in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, when managers follow the \"mass line\" and blend in with the people, treating their subordinates as peers, the result is that when subordinates make mistakes or violate rules, their supervisors feel reluctant to enforce consequences and let it go. The consequence is that subordinates become overreaching, ignore the rules, act in a frivolous manner, and overall team management falls into a state of near-control loss. What if we don’t do this? Things become much easier then. We are in a working relationship, a contractual relationship; we handle matters professionally, doing things as they should be done. We get paid to do our work, follow the rules and regulations. Why? Since my elder brother isn’t here, I have to be careful; otherwise I’ll get punished. This is the \"culture of strangers.\" Therefore, whether it is a boss, general manager, or department head, to lead a team effectively, one must abandon the \"insider culture\" and establish a \"stranger culture,\" not leaving any room for those who try to take shortcuts or be clever in improper ways; this way, the implementation of rules becomes much smoother. System management is fundamentally about being responsible for employees. Skilled managers understand that system management is like tightening screws – it requires a lot of effort, but as long as one persists and keeps going, tightening them, and enforces the rules strictly from the start, the team will develop a mechanism for operating automatically in accordance with those rules ； If it isn’t tightened enough, air will gradually seep in, the walls of discipline will come apart, the team will lose oversight from rules, and the atmosphere will deteriorate further. Shang Yang believed that: \"When imposing punishments, if the penalties for minor offenses are severe, then minor offenses will not occur; and if the penalties for serious offenses are light, then serious offenses will not happen. This is what is meant by using punishment to eliminate punishment, and in this way, the problem can be resolved.\" (\"Shang Jun Shu·Jin Ling\") In other words, institutional management must make good use of penalties; if severe punishments are imposed for minor crimes, then such minor crimes will cease to occur, and serious crimes as well will not happen. In this way, penalties can be used to prevent further offenses, thereby achieving the goal of getting things done without having to resort to penalties at all. Managers who are afraid of offending others are like \"water\" – weak and powerless; they dare not or do not want to address subordinates who violate the rules, always being polite. Employees also think such managers have a gentle temperament and even somewhat appreciate them. However, over time, some employees developed a tendency to despise the system and disregard rules; eventually, they committed unforgivable serious mistakes, were fired, or even resorted to illegal activities, \"dying in the process\"” ； Strict and harsh managers are like \"fire\" – blazing fiercely and merciless; they dare to take action and enforce rules, leaving no room for employees to be negligent even in the slightest. Over time, everyone develops a good habit of abiding by regulations, avoids making small mistakes, and prevents major errors, thus ensuring a safe life. The saying \"Hitting is love, scolding is care\" reflects this same principle: strict institutional management is an expression of love and responsibility toward employees. On the other hand, being lenient toward subordinates’ violations of rules is a form of encouragement and indulgence; small mistakes by subordinates can lead to bigger problems, which is essentially the greatest harm and a sign of irresponsibility towards those employees.