How to establish a "KPI-free" team

Recently, Google abandoned OKR and adopted a brand-new GRAD system. It is estimated that there will be a wave of follow-up in China.

The goals of performance appraisal in the East and the West are completely different. Western countries assess the creativity and influence of employees, while China enterprises assess the execution of employees, that is, the degree and quantity of completion. You can see the clue from Google's abandonment of OKR special graduate students.

In my opinion, based on the self-Dunbar number theory, companies with less than 150 employees do not need management at all, let alone performance appraisal.

I use my own practice to tell you how to evaluate KPI performance and how to build a self-running team.

People have misunderstandings about management, just like the word "property management". Does the owner need property management? How to manage the owners?

Do employees need such management? What exactly is the administrator responsible for?

The root cause of management confusion is that there is no locomotive to lead the company forward, and the train doesn't know where to go or where to stop next. Without a unified dispatching map, trains without targets dare not rush forward and must wait for instructions from above.

Finally, the train can only push, and pushing is the so-called "management".

Before I became a manager, I often heard my boss say that I was responsible for the results. When I succeeded in becoming a manager, I began to reflect on this sentence.

If you are only responsible for the results, you can recruit an assistant and secretary to do the job.

Management should be responsible for the process, design, formulation and repeatable process, not the result. If you are responsible for the result, it is not management, but "management", and "cause" stands for process.

I think management needs to do four things, planning, execution, inspection and improvement. "Result" is one of the links, that is, the third link.

The work of management is as follows: first, make a plan (including strategic planning and implementation planning), then break down the tasks to the implementation level, then check the report results of the implementation level, and finally find problems, put forward problems, solve problems, improve problems, and iteratively optimize problems (including processes, processes, technologies, costs, management, etc ...).

What's wrong with being results-oriented and responsible for the results?

Let me start with process-oriented. Streamlining can create a platform for enterprises, so that any position can be streamlined and standardized. After standardized training, anyone can be competent for this job.

Results-oriented, ignoring the intermediate process will lead to dependence on people. We often find that once the management changes, the following processes will be adjusted, and many positions will even be irreplaceable or the replacement cost will be too high.

If an enterprise needs to buy a piece of equipment, it will fill out an application form for your signature. As a boss, you don't know whether to buy or not, so there are layers of checks and approvals.

Let the applicant's immediate leader approve first, then submit it for approval in turn, and finally submit it to you. You think it should be okay?

As a result, all kinds of application forms were submitted to you like snowflakes. They were approved before you, and everyone signed (agreed), only a lot more than before.

You will find that the management below you will "agree" the following application with a stroke of a pen.

Do these people know this equipment better than you? I'm afraid they don't know what the equipment they want to buy can do like you. What if they refuse to approve and miss something?

Are they more responsible than you? The previous person has passed the examination and approval. Why should I refuse? Aren't you bored?

Finally, everyone signed their names and asked the boss to make a decision. If something goes wrong, no one is responsible.

The same is true for Internet companies. After Cheng finished writing the program and passed the test, he felt that there was no problem with the product, and the green light went online all the way.

There are three driving modes for automobiles, namely, front drive, rear drive and four-wheel drive. No matter what type of car, including electric car, the final power output depends on these three engine layouts.

Enterprise management is like a moving car, and the engine layout is the organizational structure of the management, which eventually leads to three driving forces for the enterprise to move forward:

Push, pull, push and pull go hand in hand. I vividly become a front drive (pull), a rear drive (push) and a four-wheel drive (push and pull).

At present, the most widely used mode is the rear drive mode, the technological innovation enterprise is generally the pioneer mode, and the four-wheel drive mode is generally the partner mode.

This type of enterprise usually sets strategic goals at the top, then sets the goals, and then breaks down the tasks in turn until the front-line employees. The gradual transmission of government orders is like the power output of the engine to push the enterprise forward.

The organizational structure is tree-shaped and hierarchical, and the work needs to be reported for approval.

The driving force of the enterprise's progress mainly depends on the promotion of the upper level, and the employees below are in a passive acceptance state. If the top is stagnant, the wheels of the enterprise will also stagnate.

After setting the strategic objectives, the top managers of the former model will delegate some authority, and the middle managers will decompose the tasks of their teams according to the strategic objectives, so that the enterprise will be pulled forward by the lower managers. Without changing the strategic objectives, the team can run on its own.

These two management styles are similar to those of China (central government) and the United States (Congress). China is a backward-driven model, and the central government sets targets and decomposes them into provincial units and municipal units. The United States is the direction set by Congress, and the state capitals are relatively independent.

Most of the reasons for the emergence of post-driven enterprises are that the management is from management background and is good at project management and performance management. The reason why precursor enterprises appear is that technological innovation enterprises have many technical backgrounds, they know what to do, how to do it, and have clear goals.

The four-wheel drive mode is a push-pull mode, and enterprises encourage employees to start businesses while holding employees. Employees start their own businesses and work for themselves, of course, with the highest enthusiasm. Enterprise holding provides funds to promote the development of employees' enterprises and achieve a win-win situation.

This model first appeared in Cisco and was practiced in Silicon Valley. The most successful enterprise in China should be Xiaomi.

Therefore, it has been emphasized that management, management and management are all caused by enterprise model. Information asymmetry between management and front-line employees, and strategic objectives are decomposed layer by layer, which leads to the front-line unable to obtain clear objectives and can only be pushed forward from the rear layer by layer.

In the predecessor and four-wheel drive modes, the company's goals are clear, so that people who hear the sound of guns can make decisions.

A team is a * * * body composed of grassroots and managers. It makes rational use of each member's knowledge and skills to work together to solve problems and achieve the same goals. The elements of a team are summarized as 5P, namely, goal, people, orientation, authority and plan. A group is not a team. There are some fundamental differences between "team" and "group". It doesn't take a group of people to become a team.

Characteristics of the team:

No one in the team is idle. Everyone does his job well and will not hold others back. Teams can transition to teams, but it takes time and costs trial and error.

Many bosses or company managers often talk about the word "team" and organize a group of thugs to build a fighting team. You will find this group of people, everyone is unreliable, has various problems and has their own ideas. It takes a lot of time for the company to maintain this team. For example, work coordination, training and study, psychological counseling, etc ..... If you are not capable, teach with your hands. Can't teach, or can't teach, the ability is equally poor. I didn't do anything at the end of the day, just talking to them about trivial things. Finally, there was a little disagreement and we parted ways. If you have an idea, I will give you an "excuse me" and then leave first. More importantly, no one appreciates your kindness and puts more energy into teaching them. They may not be grateful, and no one will remember your kindness. They don't think they owe you anything for working for you.

According to the division of labor of the team, recruit the right people to do the right things.

Human cognition is divided into three levels:

What we need is employees with "superego" cognition. It is good that every employee can complete his mission at a certain stage on the road of enterprise growth. As for whether he can accompany the enterprise to the end, we hope so, but we don't have to force it. Generally, there are only a few teams that can walk from the beginning of the enterprise to the end. You can't expect to build a team.

A real team knows its authority, position, goals and plans in the team. The job of team leaders is not to manage team members, but to convey the strategies, tactics and tasks of superiors, assign tasks, coordinate when the team encounters problems, guide the work of team members, and report the results after completing the tasks assigned by superiors. Team leaders need to be familiar with the work of each position in order to temporarily replace team members to complete the remaining tasks when necessary.

Teamwork is not just talk, nor is it a management meeting to implement team spirit, which will form cohesion and immediately improve the team. In fact, there is no one who won't listen to you about teamwork. For most employees, standing up to 99.9% is just a job, getting what they deserve and going to work on time. Even many managers want to find a job, get a high salary and go to work on time. Some employees who are truly independent from management, truly responsible for their work and dedicated to their work will do better in some fields, while others will choose to start businesses and so on. Your business is lucky to have such employees. Teamwork can't be managed, and a team can only be united by the art of leadership.

I don't think companies with less than 150 employees need to be managed at all. This theory comes from Dunbar number.

In many enterprises, the relationship between employees is just like neighbors in residential buildings, even if they face each other, they are almost untouched.

The work contents of the two employees do not intersect, and there is no interaction like neighbors.

I chatted with a netizen of Huawei Sakata the other day. He said that he had worked in an office for more than two years, and he didn't know what department his colleagues next door were working in. They call it the departmental wall (invisible wall).

This is very common in domestic enterprises now. How do foreign companies solve this problem? The answer is league building.

Let me first talk about how our domestic enterprises are organized. Basically, it is a department, and this group is a unit, which further contributes to the problem of small circles. The purpose of league building is to let everyone know each other and establish a trust relationship, so people have to leave.

When people understand and trust each other, they will promote communication and practice. Cooperation is based on trust. I call it the evolution of cooperation.

The problem of team execution is the problem of managers' leadership!

It's not that your employees don't think, it's not that your employees don't work hard, but that your leadership is not enough to drive the team to finish the work efficiently.

As a manager, how do you motivate employees to do things?

Employees can be divided into four types:

New employees, they really don't know what to do. You need to be proficient before you can let go. In the process of doing this, it is necessary to supervise and remind newcomers, and managers should do a good job in project risk management.

What this process needs to do is: division of labor, authorization and counseling. The best training is not attending classes, but actual combat. The most difficult thing for management to restrain in actual combat is to see that the work of subordinates is not done well. As a management, you have to accept people who are dumber than you. Many managers who have just been promoted to management often find that their work may take a week to complete, and they may have to go through several reworks to adapt to this situation, which may be months or even half a year.

Because you are in a different position, what you see is completely different from what the grass-roots employees see. For example, if you compare something to an apple, you always assign a job to your subordinates and tell them that the apple is divided into five parts. They think that apple is like this, and they have never seen a finished apple, which is why subordinates can't understand your thoughts. In addition to new employees, old employees who have just joined the company also need pre-job training.

Older employees adopt project-driven learning, such as dealing with bugs. Fixing bugs requires looking through a lot of code so that they can quickly understand the project and what they use in their work. Rather than specifying the scope of employees' study.

Will think that to decompose, we should pay attention to the degree of coupling, try to decouple, and then assign one item to employees, complete one item, then assign the next item, and accept the current item. The requirements for employees are: employees only need to concentrate, be careful, maintain the value and quantity, and finish on time. At the same time, cooperate with performance management and incentive policies to improve work efficiency. This model is suitable for repetitive work that does not require creativity. The disadvantage is that employees have been doing repetitive work, have no sense of accomplishment, are easily tired, get bored gradually, and no longer challenge performance goals. At this time, it is about to enter the next stage.

Managers communicate the company's strategic goals, define the monthly/quarterly goals, and let employees know what the company wants and what we can do to achieve the company's expected goals. Managers need to break down their goals into tasks one after another, so that employees can claim tasks according to their preferences and abilities. Finally, unclaimed tasks will be discussed in a meeting. Whoever starts quickly is cheap and can grab the task he likes. This can improve the initiative of employees, and employees can only passively wait for distribution. Whether you like it or not, you must accept the task.

Employees who reach this level will have the ability to manage upwards. They not only know what they should do, but also have insight into what the company needs to do. In order to complete the work, they will ask the management/boss for resources. Managers do not need to assign specific tasks or set goals, but fully empower, trust employees and create an atmosphere. What companies need to do is to think about how to retain employees.

Is it really useful for managers to write daily reports, weekly reports and project progress reports?

The answer is that it was useful at first, but with the passage of time, the work report gradually lost its function.

Writing a daily newspaper will affect employees' work and occupy working time. Don't ask employees to write work reports just for the sake of writing work reports.

I never ask the team to write a work report, because the tickets/problems in the project management software and tools are clear at a glance, and the Gantt chart has clearly marked everyone's work tasks, and all the work is issued after confirmation, so the whole project is managed by itself and no work report is needed.

The work report can't judge whether the workload of employees is saturated or not, so the work report is inaccurate, fictitious and untrue. Employees write reports for the purpose of writing reports, which wastes time and cost.

This kind of frequent reporting is caused by management style, or it may be due to management inaction, unclear management strategy, unclear tasks and inadequate implementation. What haven't you figured out? How? Just let the bottom work.

Management methods can be roughly divided into two types, process inspection and result inspection. Most managers check the results, but in essence they are senior executives. Managers who are good at process inspection pay more attention to the process and the formulation and optimization of the process. When the company has a perfect process, even if the middle level is removed or disappears for a long vacation, the team can still operate steadily step by step.

Result check: reporting, approval, execution and result process check: its core is to formulate process, execute process, check process and optimize process, so as to make process redundant and nodes have backups. Do not participate in the process as long as the manager of the result does not know what he has done below, and he has mastered the initiative below, and management becomes passive. What to do next must be reported first, and then implemented after the approval of the leaders. This is why we constantly report, approve, coordinate and correct the confusion. Managers are always worried about the progress of the project, so they must always hear the following progress returns in order to coordinate resources in time and ensure the progress of the project. Without process management, the organizational structure can not be flattened, and there are many problems in the tree-like organizational structure, such as multi-level, slow transmission, information loss, transmission obstruction, internal friction and so on.

For managers involved in the process, the strategic objectives are clear and the tasks are clear. The following only needs to be implemented, and management is top-down. Make clear what to do at each stage of the project above, and make clear your own work below and deliver it at the specified time, thus reducing communication times, improving efficiency and reducing internal friction.

I once wrote "Leadership, Professionalism and Management" in another article. When the management lacks "professionalism" and can only rely on "management" project management knowledge and tools, there will be risks that the project progress cannot be evaluated, the task completion time cannot be controlled, the ability of employees cannot be judged, and finally the project cannot be controlled.

In another article, The Trap of Identity, I said that many times you don't know much about grassroots leaders. When you see that the middle manager has signed off, you also sign off.

Professional strength > management strength

The current management is not a graduate of the previous management class, sitting in the office, giving advice, drinking tea and signing. Management should have "professional ability", and professional talents can do professional things.

First, top managers set clear strategic objectives, and then they decompose the strategic objectives into milestones and assign them to middle managers, who decompose the milestones into specific tasks and assign them to grass-roots managers, who are responsible for organizing, coordinating and leading front-line employees to complete the assigned tasks within the specified time.

Top managers stare at the road map, middle managers stare at the milestone progress, grass-roots managers stare at the task progress, and front-line employees report the progress to the project management system in real time.

Assigned tasks can't work at 100% full load, but 80% can. We should reserve unexpected tasks, as well as changes and delays that occur at any time.

Recently, I saw on the Internet that a company asked its superiors to write work reports for their subordinates. This situation is more of a hype. If not, then writing a work report to subordinates from top to bottom is what I call strategic goal communication, telling the employees below what the management is doing and what the company is going to do next. As the employees below, they know what they are going to do from the work report of their superiors.

In short, doing a good job in project management is neither writing a work report to the superior nor writing a work report from the superior to the subordinate.

Wonderful articles in the past

An in-depth analysis of the 35-year-old phenomenon in the workplace

What is the root of 996 in the workplace? How do migrant workers work overtime happily?

How high is the employee's turnover costs?