Entrepreneurs are Sungo daily

Ma Yun said that he felt that the success of the success is a little meaning and value is not, because the reasons for success thousands, the reasons for the failure of a few. Entrepreneurs in the management of the misunderstanding will directly lead to the death of a company, some people think that only senior managers are managers, but also some people think that have subordinates is the manager, in fact, these are the management of the misunderstanding against their own misunderstanding, entrepreneurs daily Sungo, continuous improvement.

Misunderstanding one: Only senior managers are managers

It is clear that senior managers are managers. The mistake of this view is the word "only", which wrongly confines people's eyes to the agents of the big companies--senior managers--who are very compelling. The spread of this error is relatively wide and very harmful. It deepens the illusion that, on the whole, everything that this little person does is typical management.

There is no doubt that the management of senior managers is, of course, management, but it is only part of management, and probably not the most important part. Instead of accepting this misleading thought, to focus on the senior management, I suggest that it is better to take such an attitude: no matter what his position is, regardless of his position in the organization, level and so on, all the people engaged in management are managers, who carried out the actual management task who is the manager. First of all, this view broadens our horizons and makes managers not limited to senior managers; second, this view takes into account the large number of managers to be discussed later in the book.

Mistake two: Only have subordinates is the manager

This view incorrectly equates management with personnel management. This and above is a truth, there is no doubt that the management of subordinates is a manager, but if the organization to take into account the key factors in operation, the scope of managers can not be limited to such people, and the authority can not be limited to such management.

This view excludes those who are important to the organization beyond the purview of the manager, whose importance lies in their great contribution to the organization, not whether they have subordinates or not. For the growing number of experts (almost all of whom are knowledge workers), their subordinates are secondary. In most cases they do not have subordinates, and their importance is not in the absence of subordinates and management of subordinates, but in their personal professional skills and expertise.

The importance of a senior forex broker in a bank is not so much how many employees he has, but the same is true for tax experts in multinationals and chief designers in fashion companies. The importance of these people is determined by the contribution they make. For such people, management is important not because they want to manage others, but because they have to manage themselves.

Without such people, organizations cannot function properly, they play an important role in the growing number of organizations, they determine the success or failure of these organizations, so they should be included within the purview of the manager. These people are very aware of their contribution to the success of the company, which makes them not always feel happy. Because they are often unwilling to admit that they are managers, it is a very difficult task to convince them. But they have to think and act like a manager-to manage themselves and their knowledge. In most cases, if they are excluded from the management community, there will be serious consequences, which may even be disastrous.

Misunderstanding three: only subordinates need to manage

This erroneous view is directly related to the topic we have just discussed. This misconception is an almost outdated idea of organization, work, and performance.

Management includes management of subordinates, but mainly not management of subordinates. This view has been applied in the past, and although the world has undergone drastic changes in this regard, it is still applicable. The management of subordinates is undoubtedly very important, but for a manager, the management of subordinates is not the most difficult job. That is why people are amazed at the fact that these outdated notions are still dominant in all organizations, almost without exception. The management picture that we imagine is often the supervisor and subordinates and the problem that comes out of this picture: To be a good supervisor, what he needs to do.

I often ask managers questions about what is the most important or difficult question for a manager. Over the years, only a few managers have answered that management of subordinates is the most important or difficult-and, according to conventional wisdom, such responses should be expected. Almost all managers will answer: my boss! OR: My boss's boss! OR: my colleague!

The reasons for these answers are obvious – but it is very surprising that the reality is rarely paid attention to by the theorists and the training community. In the management of subordinates, the problem of management is relatively small, because every manager can use mandatory tools---------------command. I do not advise managers to use orders, and orders are the last resort and should not be used frequently. However, managers do not have to give instructions frequently, because employees are not stupid, they will not let things go to the point where the boss has to give orders, so far as to achieve this, they have already arranged things.

However, the command is not available to co-workers or superiors. Although the entire management toolkit (e.g., communication, collaboration, persuasion, and self-confidence) is constantly being popularized, these management tools are largely unavailable in the area of employee management, which is widely valued and continuously trained. These management tools are needed when managers manage other parts of their organization and manage the horizontal relationships and relationships above in the organizational section.

Myth Four: Management is a business problem

This misconception can have a negative impact on non-commercial organizations for two reasons: first, this view leads to a false assumption that the management of the business applies to any other organization. Second, this view leads to false assumptions that are contrary to the assumption that the organizations in the business field and those in other areas are completely different. By this logic, the result is that some of the management features that could have been incorporated into other areas and given full play to their advantages would be overlooked.

Management is not usually a "commercial" organization's patent, nor is it derived from business, and many older organizations that existed before the company's emergence have long been managed. However, the systematic use of management and success is particularly evident in the business world. In the business world, we can most clearly and easily observe the role of management.

While all organizations can learn and learn from the company's management, we should not assume that all the actions in the business world are correct and applicable to a wide variety of organizations. Hospitals, public administrations or research institutes and business organizations are fundamentally different, and they must create their own management methods.

On the other hand, the business sector can learn from non-profit organizations, for example, the best human resource management in well-managed non-profit organizations – but because of the prevalence of misconceptions, it is regrettable to overlook the managerial strengths of non-profit organizations.

Myth Five: Management is a psychological problem

The importance of psychology to management need not be overemphasized. On the other hand, some people on the management of the so-called "psychological", which is very harmful. First, this means reducing management to a direct interpersonal level, that is, restricting management to the extent of people management. As we said, people management is a part of management, but management contains much more than this, as well as organizational structure management, organizational development management, the overall control of the organization, if separated from this large background, we will be difficult to understand personnel management.

Secondly, the "psychological" coverage is limited to psychological difficulties, problems or contradictions, the reasons for these difficulties, problems or contradictions are lack of management and psychological knowledge. If you do not understand these, it is easy to think that the causes of these problems are psychological, and therefore should be found in the psychological solution. I think most of the obvious psychological challenges in management are rooted in the lack of the professional management skills discussed in this book, and also because the organization does not perform basic administrative tasks or perform poorly. In this case, even if psychology is applied correctly, it is useless.

Thirdly, psychological therapy is a great part of psychology applied in management practice, and psychotherapy itself has been doubted by psychological experts. There are probably 600 different psychotherapy procedures in which the theoretical reliability and practical effectiveness of these psychotherapy procedures are largely dubious [1].

However, for management, more serious than internal psychological problems is the introduction of pathological cases into the organization and occupy a dominant position, I use the following term to define it elsewhere: the dominance of pathological cases [2]. Psychotherapy specialists are largely uninterested in ordinary cases and healthy people, but are interested in uncommon cases and sick people. From the perspective of psychotherapy experts, this is completely reasonable, but for management, this is more or less useless.

Although there are people in every organization who are difficult to get along with-and some are even close to being sick-most of them are normal, healthy people. Or, more precisely, because no one can accurately define the concept of "normal", so to some extent we may not be normal.

We can often observe in management training that people pay great attention to the difficulties, problems, contradictions and disputes in interpersonal relationships and communication, which either make people insensitive to mental problems that are really important, or they become neurotic. If possible, what we need in management is psychology for healthy people rather than patients.

Finally, it is even worse that the psychology that we should take seriously is replaced by the bizarre mixture of psychoanalysis, mysticism, the New Age of Metaphysics and prediction, and the continued inclusion of the ecological views that are influenced by ideology and the remnants of thought since the 1968 left movement. However, a lot of people are caught up in the mire of thought, and their peculiar absurdity has great appeal to these people. There are a considerable number of people who cannot resist the magic of this thought and surrender to it. This is one of the main ways in which vulgar management and all sorts of other erroneous ideas can enter into management. Not only in the management literature, but also in the company's training programs, we can see all kinds of wrong thoughts.

I'm not talking about absolute heresy (if that's the case). I mean, half-truths, superstitions, unproven ideas, and worthless formulas are combined into confusing mixes that, although not licensed by the top management or they don't know, sneak into the organization and, It stems from people's trust in the ability of trainers and seminar organizers, as well as their own carelessness and ignorance. Part of the reason is the lack of a clear standard, which makes everything seem right, and therefore seems to be feasible.

It is precisely because of this that good, correct management is so important. Once the shallow knowledge, metaphysics and superstitious thoughts took root, it was difficult to correct them.

Myth Six: Management relies on culture

This mistake was created by the constant warming of the corporate culture of the the early 1980s. The discussion of globalization gives this perspective a further impetus to develop. The view of cultural dependence is obvious, and it is not difficult to understand, but it is not true. It confuses the content and the way in management. In all cultures, the job content of highly efficient managers is the same, or very similar, and their management is largely dependent on the culture, but this is by no means limited.

For example, in Italy, Spain, Mexico or China, organizations with good management will clearly set goals and establish an effective control system. On the other hand, in the external manifestations of various cultures, there are great differences in how organizational goals determine, determine which goals to identify, and how to test whether the goals are realized and achieved.

Although in the above example we do not define culture as an ethnic, national or regional culture, or a culture based on other criteria, the same is true. Whether High-tech enterprises or non-high-tech enterprises, knowledge-intensive enterprises or labor-intensive enterprises, fashion industry or technology industry, consumer goods enterprises or means of production enterprises, good management includes the same content. and the specific management style--even within the same country--can be very different, and indeed a big difference. On the surface, for example, the management of an Italian machine tool company is very different from that of an Italian fashion firm.

It is tempting to speculate that management relies on different cultures. In fact, it only makes the problem even more confusing. It is very unscientific to confuse the form and content of management.

Therefore, there is no reason to pay too much attention to cross-cultural management, but to overlook the obvious fact that every country has its own specific traditions and customs [1], and we must first learn these traditions and customs as a courtesy, and secondly respect them. However, this has nothing to do with management, but it has to do with the minimum of rules, politeness and upbringing, which are something to be cultivated from an early age. I admit that these polite questions are no longer a problem, perhaps largely because modern society needs large numbers of managers. But it would be a big mistake to think of the behaviour of people who have been poorly educated in their teens, and who are underperforming in later managerial positions and even in senior positions, as another type of management.

For the so-called "internationalization" management, the truth is the same. This type of management has never been seen, and its antithesis, the "domestic" management, has never appeared. What is real is the organization that operates at the national, international or transnational level. Incidentally, these organizations are not limited to enterprises. If organizations that are supposed to operate only in the country want or are forced to operate internationally, there are likely to be serious or even unresolved problems. However, the relationship between this situation and management is not significant, but it is related to the lack of knowledge of other countries, such as ignorance of foreign languages, inability to control foreign exchange risks or the need to respect the customs of other countries or nations.

Management can be divided into the right management and wrong management, good management and bad management, effective management and ineffective management, and can not be divided into domestic management and international management, the management of a single culture and cross-cultural management. As in sports, the influence of the State and culture in management is not significant. Anywhere in the world, golf plays the same game, as do tennis and chess. Some sports are not very popular in some countries, which can be attributed to culture, so skiing is not a traditional American sport, but a traditional sport in Austria and Switzerland. However, when skiing, especially the high level of skiing, Americans and Europeans follow the principle of skiing is the same. Similarly, the principle of effective management is the same everywhere in the world, for example, where the rules of the same language are the same. Although in many countries, people speak English is not enough standard and accent, but on a global scale, we evaluate the level of English standards are the same.