How to address \"feint moves\" in management”

Thread Content

We observe a very common phenomenon in businesses: doing without taking responsibility. Everyone is doing things, and once it’s done, the task is considered complete. As for whether it is done well or not, to what extent it meets the standards, no one cares. This results in many management activities failing to fulfill their true purpose and becoming mere formalities. How to address \"feint moves\" in management? The three-element method is an effective solution to this problem. I. Fake moves are rampant in management. Every effective management action must have three elements: standards, constraints, and accountability. In other words, there must be standards and regulations for how things should be done, and someone needs to oversee them to ensure supervision and restraint; finally, responsibility must be held accountable for whether the work is done well or poorly – those who do well should be rewarded, while those who perform poorly should be punished. Lacking any one of the three elements—standards, constraints, and responsibilities—will render management actions mere pretenses. Take a company in Beijing as an example. This company helps others build steel structure factories, warehouses, or large sports facilities. It is involved in both the production phase, where steel is cut and welded to create columns and beams, and the on-site construction work. Please take a look at the operation process of this company: The business department follows up after receiving business inquiries, and reviews the potential contracts to determine whether the prices are appropriate and whether delivery can be made on time. After the review, a contract is signed with the client; thereafter, departments such as production, procurement, and technology commit to completing the work on time and sign accordingly. Then it enters the actual implementation phase: in the first step, the technical department breaks down a large engineering structure diagram into individual component diagrams. In the second step, the purchaser uses the parts diagram to check the warehouse to see if the required materials are available; if not or if the quantity is insufficient, an order is placed for procurement. When the materials are delivered, the warehouse conducts a check. The warehouse keeper also has the component diagrams provided by the technical department; he can use these diagrams to determine whether the materials being purchased are the right ones and in the correct quantity, thus deciding whether to accept them or not. Step four: The workshop retrieves the materials using the component diagrams provided by the technical department. When picking up materials, the warehouse can also verify based on the drawings to determine whether they should be sent to the workshop. Step five: After receiving the materials in the workshop, production begins, and then the finished products are shipped. Finally, the finance department also needs to conduct an accounting exercise to determine exactly how much material was used once the project is completed. This process seems reasonable. Many companies are like this: their large-scale operational processes appear to be very thorough and seem to have no problems. However, in the analysis below, we will step by step expose the feints in this process. II. Identifying false moves in management: Based on the three-element method, we can see that the management in the above example is actually out of control at every level. For example, the order closure process. Although there is a step in the process for closing out the task (where the finance department calculates how much material was used after the work is completed), I asked the finance staff whether there are any penalties for exceeding the material usage limits, or any rewards for saving material. The finance staff said no. This shows that no one will take responsibility for the quality of the results. Why is this the case? Because there are no standards at all for its material control. I saw a project invoice of 700,000 yuan in the finance office, and the cost of materials alone amounted to 620,000 yuan. If labor costs, sales expenses, and administrative expenses are added as well, this business will definitely be loss-making. So, this company made no profit at all for three years. Analyzed using the three-element method, there are constraints; for example, the financial department’s process of settling accounts with the production department represents such a constraint. However, there is no standard at all for determining how much material should be used; as a result, it is not possible to hold anyone accountable, with neither rewards nor punishments. There is only one of the three elements of management in this process: constraints; two are missing: standards and responsibilities. Looking at the order approval process in this company: all departments must sign to commit to completing tasks on time, and this approval process serves as a form of mutual oversight. However, when they failed to complete it on time, no one ever held them accountable. When everyone signed the commitment statements back then, it was based on intuition and experience, with no objective standards, so it is impossible to hold anyone accountable. In other words, of the three elements, there is only one in the order signing process: constraints; two are missing: standards and responsibilities. Let’s take a look at the procurement process again. Purchasers make purchases based on the component drawings provided by the technical department, so there are standards in place. But I asked the purchasing officer: to avoid ordering the wrong items, is it necessary for the technical department to review and sign the purchase order before placing the order? He said no, it’s sufficient to place the order directly. So, although purchasers have standards, no one holds them accountable, and no one knows whether they are buying in accordance with those standards. Is anyone held accountable for buying too much, too little, or the wrong thing? No. Of the three elements of management, there is only one in the procurement process: standards; two are missing: constraints and accountability. This stage is also out of control. Some might say that warehouse staff also have the drawings from the technical department, and they can check the quantities against those drawings when receiving materials – thus creating a system of mutual checks and balances. But I’ve asked the warehouse staff, and they’ve never refused to accept any materials, as no one is held accountable for receiving too much or too little; therefore, they don’t bother to carry out such checks. So, what about issuing and receiving materials? On the surface, there are standards: the warehouse issues materials based on technical drawings, and the workshop receives materials using those same technical drawings. Moreover, the warehouse acts as a checkpoint, providing a form of control. But is there any responsibility for sending more, less, or not at all? No. There are never rewards or punishments. So, the issuance of materials is also quite casual. Cutting the material is even more absurd. I saw at the site workers cutting many strip-shaped and circular pieces from the steel plate. But there are no standards for the workers; the technical department does not give them any instructions on whether to cut horizontally or diagonally – it’s up to the workers who carry out the cutting decisions themselves. No one checks what they do, and there is no accountability if too much or the wrong amount is cut – it’s completely uncontrolled. What about returning or making up for the materials? If too much was received, there’s no need to return it; if too little was received, it can be made up directly. Therefore, there is no standard for returning or compensating for materials, nor is there anyone to enforce such rules or hold anyone accountable. There are standards for the overall production schedule, but no one checks it, and no one takes responsibility when deadlines are missed. So, it also has standards, no constraints, and no responsibilities. It involves more than a dozen processing steps, and there are no standards specifying when each step should start or end, nor is there anyone to oversee this. What about quality management? There are no documented standards, no one checks things carefully, and it’s needless to say that no one is held accountable. In short, on the surface it seems that everything is normal with this company, but in fact, if analyzed using the three-element method, it becomes clear that control is lost in every aspect. When evaluating according to the standards of these three elements, it can be seen that there is one element that is lacking in all stages, and that is responsibility. It can be said that the core problem of this enterprise is a lack of responsibility; its responsibility system is essentially zero. It can be seen that if any one of the three elements is missing, things get out of control. We can analyze a problem quite simply: for any given matter, we can ask whether there are standards, whether there are constraints (whether someone checks on it), and whether there are rewards or penalties. If there are no standards for doing something, no one to oversee it, and no rewards or penalties, then that thing will definitely get out of control. Therefore, the three-element method is an important approach for analyzing loss of control, as well as a crucial method for designing control systems. If there are no standards, we must establish them; if there are no constraints, we must introduce inspection mechanisms; if there is no sense of responsibility, we must implement systems of rewards and penalties. Every step must be carried out according to these three elements. In almost every company that has implemented changes, we have introduced a management tool called a “Action Control Card” based on the principles of the three elements of management; it is both simple and practical. It breaks down any management action into three aspects: how to do it, who will oversee it, and who is responsible, and writes them down on a small card. Both those who carry out the tasks and those who conduct inspections have these small cards; everyone follows the instructions on the cards, which results in good control.