Thread Content
How do senior managers deal with bosses who abandon them once they achieve success? By Jing Suqi: Business development occurs in stages, and different stages require different skill sets. So once a company passes through one stage of development, should its veterans stay or leave? And if they do stay or leave, how should it be done? As a manager in a company, how should one view and deal with the situation where the company’s owner abandons those who have helped them? Please read this article. Since ancient times, \"destroying the bridge after crossing it\" has been a standard derogatory expression, and those who do such things have always been condemned, such as Zhu Yuanzhang, who set fire to the Celebration Tower. However, the concept of “breaking bridges after crossing the river” mentioned in this article is a positive term that is completely different from “getting rid of something once it’s no longer useful”. In fact, the phrase “destroying a bridge after crossing it” has a bad reputation only because, throughout history, many people who did this failed to do it properly, thus tarnishing this good phrase. Therefore, after achieving entrepreneurial success, the first thing a boss should consider is how to cut ties, as well as how to improve that ability to do so. “The phrase “breaking the bridge after crossing the river” is something that long-serving employees often mention in private during the startup process: “Hmph, just after we cross the river, the boss wants to break the bridge…” These words convey the great helplessness and sorrow of those long-serving employees. Yes, it is easy to imagine the sorrow and reluctance they feel at the thought of their home being demolished in the future. Naturally, the veteran officials have made contributions to the company, and at the same time they hold deep affection for it. Yet, as these old servants lamented their misfortunes and felt resentful, did they ever consider the real reason behind the boss’s sudden change of attitude? In fact, it’s a last resort for bosses to cut ties, as the real root cause is often found in the person whose relationship is being severed. For this reason, breaking ties after crossing the river is an inevitable, even necessary, action. Why must the bridge be demolished to cross the river? Why must the bridge be demolished to cross the river? In one sentence: For the development of the company. Only by breaking the bridge can the company move forward. If the bridge is not demolished, the company may hesitate and may end up going back on its steps. And in the fierce market competition, how can companies afford to stay in place or even look back? The motivation to cut ties in a timely manner: There are countless similar and homogeneous companies in the market, and these numerous firms compete constantly for market share on a daily basis. Therefore, a company in the vast ocean of the market is like a boat sailing against the current; if it does not move forward, it will fall back. After achieving success in entrepreneurship, the only way forward is to keep moving ahead. Generally speaking, the success of business entrepreneurship relies mainly on management skills; to continue growing, in addition to these skills, it is also necessary to strengthen managerial capabilities. Moreover, management itself also needs to be strengthened; otherwise, the company will surely be in a mess. A company without proper management is like a human body lacking calcium – it will suffer from rickets and cannot thrive. Whether it is to continuously improve operational capabilities or management skills, it is necessary to recruit new members. Even if a company does not grow and its existing workforce is not updated, it may not be able to maintain its current status. After all, human nature is lazy; without newcomers, the work enthusiasm of the older members will surely decline day by day, and this is known in biology as population degeneration. Therefore, it is inevitable for a company to dismiss long-serving employees and bring in new ones after achieving success in entrepreneurship. The consequence of not removing them in a timely manner is that, once the company succeeds in its entrepreneurial efforts, if those long-time contributors are allowed to remain in their positions for too long, it will pose a significant obstacle to the company’s development. It should be noted that the longer a person holds a position, the less willing they are to step down, and the more they desire to rise to a higher position. After all, one is already above ten thousand people, and only below one person! The temptation is dazzling. When issues accumulate to such an extent that tensions between the two parties intensify, they end up becoming enemies of each other. At this point, the boss has to be ruthless and \"kill\" these donkeys that refuse to lay down their burdens; he might even say viciously while doing so, \"I really didn’t want to be so harsh, but what you’ve done is simply too much!\" ” The consequences of missing the optimal timing for breaking ties are as follows: First, those \"donkeys\" that are \"eliminated\" leave the company filled with resentment, and may cause trouble for the company in the future ； Second, in a fit of anger, go to the competitor and turn the tables ； Third, by setting up their own businesses, they create additional competitors; in fact, these new companies often aim to compete directly with their former employers ； Fourth, if things become too tense, extreme actions are inevitable. Moreover, failing to make changes could lead to conflicts among senior employees, or competition among them; it might even result in the emergence of various factions within the company that fight against each other. Furthermore, the third possible outcome, in which nothing changes, is that the boss himself may be forced to step down by his loyal ministers! Looking back, one should remember that the people in these startup teams are the ones who are closest to us, most intimate to us! Otherwise, we wouldn’t have started a business together. But if it ends with mutual hatred, whom can one blame? One can only blame the boss for not cutting ties in a timely manner after going through the startup phase. What will happen if the bridge isn’t demolished properly? The principle of letting go of the old and embracing the new, as well as the warning from the frog-in-a-pot story, are understood by many business owners; therefore, after achieving success in their ventures, they begin to deliberately or inadvertently cut ties with those around them. But some managers simply don’t know how to do this properly; as a result of poorly managed transitions, conflicts arise between new and old employees. This not only increases the company’s operational costs and leads to internal strife, but it also accelerates the company’s decline. Before tearing down the bridge, we must first realize that while the arrival of new members is necessary for the company and its owner, it represents a challenge to the existing veteran employees. Those polite words of welcome reflect people’s social attributes, while when faced with external stimuli, human reactions are first driven by natural instincts and reflexes, and only secondly by social attributes. Therefore, the older people are inherently not welcoming to newcomers, and friction and adjustment between the new ones and the existing older people are inevitable – and this is where the risks lie. The friction between new and experienced employees manifests in several aspects: first, the breakdown and further division of powers lead to psychological resistance among them as well as conflicts at work ； Secondly, due to different working methods, the older employees rely on their experience, while the newer employees rely on their freshness of approach ； Thirdly, due to differences in experience, the more experienced staff rely on authority to make decisions, while the newcomers rely on rules and regulations ； Fourth, due to different ways of thinking, entrepreneurs tend to rely on visual thinking when addressing problems, while newcomers primarily use logical thinking. Look, the purpose of hiring new employees is to bring in fresh energy, but if not handled carefully, it can end up putting them in opposition to the existing employees. If the boss fails to handle this properly at this time, he will either drive away the new employees or offend the senior staff; in such a case, the company will face difficulties not only in terms of development but also in simply surviving. Therefore, if the bridge is not dismantled properly, at the least the boss will face criticism, and in the worst case, the entire company could collapse. It is evident that the ability to dismantle bridges is also an important indicator of a company’s leader’s competence. How to dismantle the bridge after crossing the river? First, the existing employees need to be categorized. Veteran employees who get involved in entrepreneurship hold various attitudes toward the company’s development, their capabilities vary, and some even need to reconsider their roles. Therefore, different bridge-breaking methods should be employed depending on various mental attitudes, levels of ability, and characteristics. As the leader of a company, at the stage when the business is first established, one should consider comprehensively which key members can continue to play a role in the company’s further development and which cannot. For those entrepreneurial contributors who can no longer further advance the company’s development, it is necessary to arrange for them to leave the company as soon as possible; in other words, the ties with them should be severed promptly. And for those long-serving employees who can advance to the next stage of the company’s development, there is also the issue of rearming themselves. For those who are talented and ambitious, new opportunities should be created for them. As for those loyal officials who have ideas and the ability to build something on their own, subsidiaries should be established for them, or separate joint-stock companies should be formed, allowing them to hold key positions in these new companies and go on to create further new enterprises. In fact, although only one person could take charge in the initial startup team, there was more than just the boss who wanted to be in charge. Even if at the beginning of the venture only the boss was able to take charge, or wanted to take charge, over time these entrepreneurs developed their skills and a desire to make decisions; they also wanted to experience what it’s like to be a boss. At this point, as a boss, it is important to understand the mental state of each member of the startup team, and to try to meet their desires rather than suppressing them, as suppression can lead to serious problems. The new businesses established should complement existing ones, rather than being in competition with them. Because in a competitive relationship, everyone knows each other’s weaknesses, which can easily lead to conflicts; this factor should be taken into full consideration when establishing new businesses. Therefore, if corporate leaders have the means to do so, they should proactively create pathways for these capable individuals, at least by providing them with relatively independent work that satisfies their desire to take on leadership roles. Of course, for those who have only desires but no ability, giving them a chance would actually be harmful to them. Those who are talented but lack ambition should have their minds reshaped before being used in a startup team. Not everyone in such a team has ambitious goals; many possess extensive experience in entrepreneurship and certain skills, yet they do not wish to start their own business. Perhaps one feels they aren’t cut out for it, or perhaps they want to move forward together with their comrades. What should I do? For such employees, companies should arrange for them to undergo training and further education, participating in various training programs, with a focus on training related to innovation and development within the company. The goal is to help these employees broaden their horizons, change their ways of thinking, and adjust their mental attitudes, so that they can actively cooperate with new employees in the company. If there is no change in mindset, it will be difficult to get these experienced employees to contribute to the company’s development, and they may even end up acting as a hindrance. Imagine, even if he is highly capable, if his mindset doesn’t change, if he feels uncomfortable around newcomers and is uneasy with the newly introduced rules and management methods, how can he keep up with the progress of the company? Those who still have potential should continue to be developed. Some senior employees, especially those who were part of the company’s founding, are facing a new stage of development for which their skills are no longer sufficient. Yet these individuals are willing to grow together with the organization and to learn new things; they have potential for development. Therefore, it is necessary to actively provide them with training to enable them to meet the requirements of the company’s new phase. While training in skills, it is also necessary to provide training for a change in mindset, so that these veterans first transform mentally into newcomers. Otherwise, even if he has the ability, he still won’t be able to move forward together with the company. For such employees, companies cannot let them just walk away. After all, an employee generally does not want to leave the team they have worked hard for; therefore, a person who is willing to move forward with the team should not be abandoned by the company. There must be no leniency toward those who are not motivated to improve. Among long-term employees, there may be some who have no potential for development and who subjectively lack the willingness to make an effort; in such cases, the company should arrange for them to leave. For the veterans who participated in the business venture together, appropriate dividend shares or stock options can be granted ； For those ordinary employees who were initially involved in the startup, certain economic compensation or emotional support should be provided, such as assisting them in finding suitable new jobs or positions. But in any case, the company cannot allow these senior employees to remain in positions for which they are not qualified. It’s not simply a matter of it being difficult to manage seniors as new employees; it’s also an issue that affects the working mood of other people. Ordinary companies don’t worry about those experienced employees who are capable, as such people don’t have to worry about making a living; it is rather the less capable veterans who have nowhere to go. Therefore, some companies hesitate to take action against these older employees in terms of management decisions. Once these employees stay, it will affect the work morale of other employees; they might even leave out of resentment, leading to a vicious cycle in which the less competent stay while the more competent leave. Therefore, smart companies prefer to allow these people to take paid time off rather than having them idle at their posts all day long. Remember, the poor performers won’t stay, while the excellent ones will surely go. How does a boss tear himself apart? It’s hard for a boss to fire someone; it’s even harder to fire oneself. If others don’t dismantle it, the impact is limited and gradual, but if the boss refuses to do so himself, the impact is widespread and immediate. As a boss, one can only keep moving forward in step with the company by constantly setting aside one’s own interests. First, the boss must recognize their own limitations; they too can, just like others, affect the development of the company. Therefore, one must also remove this own ‘board’ at any time, renovate oneself, and step onto the new bridge that the enterprise is about to cross. Secondly, managers need to keep learning actively*, acquiring new knowledge and enhancing their new skills. As a boss, whenever the company crosses a new bridge, one must first dismantle oneself, rearm oneself, and then build oneself on the new bridge. Once again, what should be done if the manager, despite making several attempts, still cannot meet the needs of the company’s development? At this point, the boss has two options: The proactive approach is to bravely reject oneself and not force oneself onto the new bridge. One must understand one’s own role properly. Even though you are an entrepreneur and the person in charge, you need to realize that you belong to the company, and the company does not entirely belong to you; you are just one of the key players within it. For the development of the company, one of your responsibilities is to find someone who can take your place; you are simply shifting roles within the organization. If you are suited to be a manager, then be one ； If you’re fit to be a leader, then be one ； If you can’t manage and lead a new company, then be a pure shareholder. But no matter what the boss does, remember one thing: never become an ordinary employee and go to the front line to do the work, but you can go there to gather information. If the boss goes to work on the front line, that will cause big problems. If one lacks the breadth of mind to make the decision to dismantle their own business, and if they are also unable to manage and lead a new enterprise, then there is another option: simply avoid expanding the business and keep it at a small scale. In this case, one can act as a mere owner-operator, without having to manage or lead anything, handling everything personally. The business becomes a small workshop for making a living, relying on one’s own hard work rather than treating it as a career. Strictly speaking, such enterprises can no longer be called enterprises. The awareness of breaking bridges comes first. Enterprises face continuous changes and breakthroughs throughout their journey from inception and entrepreneurship to growth and expansion. Therefore, the boss should constantly destroy the old bridges by removing their wooden planks and build new ones, in order to cross one river obstacle after another. The development of a company is driven by talent, but what exactly constitutes talent for a company? The answer is: those who can best meet the needs of corporate development. Therefore, it is necessary to burn bridges after crossing the river. If one crosses the river without considering the need to dismantle the bridge, or if they do not know how to do so, the only outcome is that it will be necessary to get rid of that element, which in turn imposes greater operational risks on the company. Therefore, business leaders must first have the awareness to cut ties once they have crossed the river. Secondly, one must learn the art of actively breaking bridges. Third, companies should establish mechanisms to cut ties after achieving success, such as the provision in the U.S. Constitution established at its inception that a president cannot serve more than two consecutive terms. In short, it’s better to remove it early rather than late; it must be removed properly and not damaged, and it’s better to have a mechanism handle the removal rather than relying on people to do it.