leaf

~~~ Second: Where does this work fit into the entire project, and who are the upstream and downstream contacts?

~~~ Third: What does the leader expect for it to be satisfactory?

Next, if the matter is simple, just go ahead and do it; if it is complex, first make a plan, then predict the outcome, and promptly communicate your plan and prediction with the leader before executing the plan.

—— Who to ask questions

~~~~ If you encounter business-related issues, consult colleagues who understand that area.

~~~~ If you encounter process or contact-related issues, consult your direct supervisor.

~~~~ If you encounter cross-departmental communication issues, first try to communicate yourself; if there is no result after two attempts, you can seek help from your leader.

When you are not very familiar with everyone, you can consult different colleagues for different issues, as everyone's time is limited.

2. Use all means to discover those willing to help you.

Proactively identify those who excel in business or have extensive industry experience and are particularly knowledgeable about the internal situation of the company.

Those with strong business capabilities can answer questions and clarify doubts.

Those with extensive industry experience may not excel in business but have high emotional intelligence and a deep understanding of the industry, providing useful advice on what you need to improve and how to develop in the future.

Long-term employees can be very familiar with the company.

~~~~ How to identify such people?

~ Internal experience sharing sessions

~ Friendly colleagues encountered during cross-departmental communication

~ Quarterly and annual work reports

Emphasizing the phrase "hired" implies who hired them? It is the management, which means I am supported by the management, and you better cooperate with my work. When I heard his answer, I found it very classic, so when I encounter similar issues, I will repeat this phrase, and it almost always has the effect of "shaking the tiger's mountain." You see, my communication skills improved this way.

When learning, approach it with humility, respecting the seniors in the workplace as teachers; if you respect them, they will respect you in return. You can regard your colleagues who joined at the same time as classmates; you are not in a competitive relationship. Never treat those around you as opponents; the level of the opponents you choose determines your own level. If your opponents are all around you, then your perspective is limited; only when your opponents come from competing companies can you claim to have a perspective that encompasses the entire industry.

Everyone in the company will have better opportunities for advancement, or even when changing jobs, they will have endorsements. From this perspective, your colleagues should be your partners rather than competitors. You share honor and disgrace, and the optimal strategy for interacting with each other is cooperation rather than competition. Delving into "office politics" is precisely the most incorrect choice.

The power of an individual, no matter how strong, is ultimately limited; everyone needs to fully utilize the power of the team, whether you are a manager or an employee. The biggest obstacle to a team's ability is the inconsistency of each member's goals; some people go east while others go west, resulting in a collective force that remains stagnant, turning the team into a disorganized crowd. Therefore, you need to constantly remind yourself: What is the company's goal? What is the goal of your team? What is your personal goal?

Once the goals are clear, the remaining task is how to achieve them. In specific work, you will inevitably need to collaborate with others, and the biggest obstacle to collaboration is communication. Without communication, you will find it difficult to understand others' true intentions; if you cannot even understand each other's thoughts, how can you talk about collaboration?

As for how to communicate, the most basic requirement is to engage in a logical manner. Data and cases are the basis for communication because only data and cases can be facts that both you and others may recognize. Once your communication deviates from these facts, the foundation of communication will disappear. At that point, even if you force yourself to communicate, the result will just be a case of "talking past each other."

## The value of work in all companies lies in sharing the workload of leaders; what leaders want is "peace of mind." All your work should revolve around making them "at ease."

What does "peace of mind" mean? It means that when they look at your report, they find nothing needs to be changed; when they look at your plan, they can directly let you execute it; when they look at your email, they only need to reply with agreement; when you propose suggestions, the leader says, "Let's go with your plan"... Achieving this step means you are not far from a promotion or raise. Even if your current leader cannot promote or raise your salary, if you change jobs to another company, you can still achieve that goal.

In the workplace, besides the relationship with leaders, there is also the relationship with colleagues. If you are favored by the leader due to good performance, it may cause some colleagues to feel dissatisfied or even hostile towards you. What should you do then?

The best method is to "walk away as the best strategy." Actively distance yourself from them; those who are focused on "infighting" have limited vision. Competing with them only pulls you into their familiar state, trapping yourself in a quagmire of internal strife, making it difficult for you to progress.

What if you cannot avoid these people? Then you must fight back; your counterattack must make the other party feel pain, so they will not dare to provoke you again. Only in this way can you quickly break free from entanglement and invest your energy in enhancing your own value.

Finally, in the workplace, there is one red line you must never cross: never output negative energy. No matter how good your performance or how well-liked you are, as long as you complain, all your efforts will be wiped out. Outputting negative energy is akin to "disrupting morale" in ancient times, which could cost you your head. Nowadays, while it may not cost you your head, it can end your career in the current company. Conversely, if you are a source of positive energy, you will gain significant points; in many cases, even if your performance is slightly lacking, this positive energy can help raise your overall score because it shows you are "in sync with the company." Which leader would not want their subordinates to be on the same page as them? As long as your willingness to work is not an issue, even if your abilities are slightly lacking, it can be tolerated because abilities can be gradually improved.

That said, if you truly cannot tolerate your current company and reach a point where you are full of complaints and cannot hold back, I advise you to hurry and change jobs. However, even if you change to a new company, remember not to complain, even about your previous employer, as this will still be a significant detractor.

## Meetings are the biggest enemy of time management; they are an extremely time-consuming form of communication and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

So, what situations are absolutely necessary?
There are only two: one is the need for large-scale information sharing, and the other is the need for collective decision-making.
Therefore, the principle of organizing meetings is: unless there is a need for large-scale information sharing or collective decision-making, do not hold meetings. Many companies suffer from excessive meetings because they have not clarified the purpose of meetings, greatly reducing operational efficiency.

What common problems are often encountered during meetings? One is that data sharing meetings turn into data error-checking sessions, with errors in the report's data and logic emerging one after another, forcing participants to verify and check the data from various angles, moving the work that should have been done in advance to the meeting. The second is that only two people discuss specific issues while others silently observe. The third is that various parties argue heatedly during the meeting, only to find that there is no decision-making mechanism or that the decision-maker is absent, resulting in nothing being decided.

## So how can these problems be avoided?

For the first problem, participants should do their homework before the meeting to avoid data errors, content errors, and plan defects as much as possible. If errors are still found under this premise and cannot be corrected immediately, then adjourn the meeting and reorganize it after corrections are made, rather than letting one person correct while others wait, which is a significant waste of time. For the second problem, the meeting organizer should design the agenda and topics in advance. Once a topic is concluded, those who are not related to subsequent issues can leave the meeting to avoid wasting time sitting there unnecessarily.

## For the third problem, contentious content should be discussed outside the meeting. Controversial points should be listed in advance, and only the contentious items should be brought up for decision-making during the meeting. The organizer should clarify who will make the decisions and how they will be made in advance with the relevant decision-makers. The majority of meeting decisions should be "formal," and decision-makers should have sufficient information and a clear understanding of the meeting process before the meeting, rather than improvising like cramming for a surprise exam.

Only by addressing these three issues can the meetings you organize be called meetings; otherwise, if everyone speaks without order, it can only be called a gathering.

## Efficient Communication
The purpose of communication is to achieve cooperation and solve problems. This purpose determines that communication requires not only logic but also empathy; logic determines content, while empathy determines form, and both are indispensable.

In fact, many problems do not have correct answers; there are only answers that both parties can accept after compromise.

Before discussing specific issues with others, what we first need is not logical deduction but the ability to empathize and perceive the other person's emotions. Empathy, simply put, is putting yourself in the other person's shoes and experiencing their emotions. The vast majority of communication failures are not due to the complexity of the matter itself or fundamental conflicts of interest between both parties, but simply because emotional opposition has arisen, turning communication into a battle of wits and wills.

You say east, and they insist on saying west; at this point, the other party is no longer communicating with you logically. In such cases, you need to promptly pause the discussion on the issue and examine yourself to see if you carry negative emotions, as the other party's emotions may have been triggered by your negative emotions. You need to adjust your emotions first.

Only when your emotions are stable and you can calmly converse with the other party is it time for logic to come into play. People's logical abilities are often related to their level of education; although this is not absolute, the correlation is high because the content of education is training in logic.

Why must communication be based on logic? Because communication between people, in a narrow sense, refers to verbal communication, and language can serve as a communication tool precisely because it unifies people's definitions of concepts and stipulates the relationships between concepts. Only when the apple you refer to and the apple they refer to are the same thing can you start discussing apples; otherwise, if the concepts are not unified, how can you talk about communication?

Logic is one of the bonds connecting individuals. Therefore, in addition to adjusting emotions, we also need to use logic to express our viewpoints and the evidence and reasoning supporting those viewpoints, which is commonly referred to as "making sense."

After adjusting your emotions and logically clarifying your viewpoints, you will enter the most difficult yet crucial stage of communication—guiding the other party's emotions. Each person's position and assumptions differ; for example, when discussing a vegetable salad, some may find it light and refreshing, while others may think it tastes like chewing wax. In this case, it is evident that both parties cannot reach a consensus on whether the salad is "good" or "bad," and in many issues, the conflict between both parties is similar to the question of whether something is "good" or "bad," involving subjective feelings and values, which transcends the realm of logic. Such issues do not have a rationale to discuss; persuading others to reach a consensus with you is neither possible nor necessary. Since consensus cannot be reached, the only option is to compromise and ultimately arrive at a result that both can accept, or if the issue is trivial, to set it aside. For instance, those who like salad can eat salad, while those who prefer steak can eat steak; everyone enjoys their own choice.

Whether the other party agrees to compromise often depends on their emotions. If the other party is happy, they will be more willing to compromise; if they are unhappy, they will be less willing to compromise, and if they are angry, they may refuse to compromise at all and insist on arguing to the end. 

In many cases, the other party's emotions may not necessarily be caused by the issue itself but by unrelated matters, such as their favorite sports team losing, their pet being sick, or traffic jams on the way to work, etc. In other words, before you discuss the issue, their negative emotions may already exist, and your discussion only exacerbates those emotions. You may think that such emotions, which seem unrelated to you, should not be your responsibility to alleviate, but your goal is to solve the problem. Therefore, any issues encountered on the way to achieving this goal are problems you need to address. So how do you resolve this?

You can try to understand why the other party is unhappy. If they express the reason, you can stand with them and show that you would also be unhappy if you encountered such a situation, indicating that you understand their feelings. You can even share a similar experience, such as if they were late due to traffic, you can share your feelings when you were late due to traffic and reprimanded by your leader. This can quickly bridge the gap between you, making them feel that you are in the same boat, and they may even think, "This person is not bad." Once you reach this point, you have already succeeded halfway in your communication.

If the rationale is clear, and emotions are well-guided, yet you still cannot reach a consensus, what could be the reason? This involves another understanding you need to establish: not all problems require a conclusion, or in other words, beyond your perceived agreement or disagreement, there are two other conclusions: one is "unsolvable," and the other is "pseudo-problem." For instance, regarding whether the salad is good or not, the correct answer is clearly neither good nor bad, but rather "unsolvable." Just like solving a math problem, "unsolvable" does not mean there is no answer, but that the problem itself is unsolvable; "unsolvable" is the correct answer. In our cognition, we usually believe that problems must have a solution, overlooking the answer of "unsolvable." Therefore, when your communication stalls, you should re-examine whether the problem is indeed an unsolvable one. This is crucial as it can prevent you from wasting valuable time on unsolvable issues. 

We mentioned earlier that "pseudo-problems" refer to problems that contain contradictions or (implied) assumptions that do not hold, such as asking which is more, one pound or one foot? This question is fundamentally flawed, yet you attempt to answer it, resulting in endless arguments. Therefore, you need to be vigilant about these pseudo-problems and possess the ability to identify them. Once you identify a pseudo-problem, promptly terminate the discussion and avoid wasting time on meaningless arguments.

Communication requires wisdom; on one hand, it requires the wisdom to identify pseudo-problems or conclude that the answer is "unsolvable," and on the other hand, it requires the wisdom to reach emotional reconciliation with the communication partner. The former is traceable at the logical level, while the latter concerns emotions.

## Urging
Strong individuals share a common trait: they are often good at "urging." Do not underestimate the word "urge." Think about it: when you identify a problem, clarify a goal, provide a solution, determine an executor, set a delivery time, clarify deliverables, and arrange divisions of labor, what should you do next? Wait for the problem to be solved? Trust me, your plan is likely to be delayed or even abandoned. Without pressure, there is no motivation; what you need at this time is "urging." So how do you urge?

First, how to urge subordinates. When urging subordinates, focus on the task, not the person. Do not rely on people to urge; rely on the plan to urge. You can break down the plan as detailed as possible, ideally having a deliverable result every day. Spend 10 minutes at a specific time each day for a brief meeting where subordinates report their work progress. If there are delays, they need to clarify why, what the solution is, how many days they expect to be delayed, the impact on the overall plan, and what help they need. This way, you can keep track of progress in a timely manner without causing resentment among subordinates. If there are delays caused by subordinates, you can receive feedback immediately, identify problems, and take timely measures to mitigate losses and catch up on progress.

Second, how to urge peers. You still cannot rely on people to urge; you need to rely on mechanisms. The method is similar to urging subordinates, but you can hold a weekly meeting and invite both your peer's leader and your own leader to participate. If necessary, invite higher-level leaders. In the weekly meeting, report work progress, prominently list overdue items, and explain to the leaders how many days these delays will cause the overall project to be postponed. If the delay is due to your reasons, you need to provide a remedy plan; if it is due to others' reasons, let them propose a remedy plan. If they do not cooperate, leaders will usually step in to coordinate.

Finally, how to urge leaders. Many may wonder, isn't it the leaders who urge me? Why should I urge the leaders? Yes, leaders also need to be urged; if you do not urge them, it indicates that your upward management is inadequate. Leaders have many resources that can significantly reduce the difficulty of completing projects. If you can utilize these resources to improve the project, why not take advantage of them?

Therefore, when making plans, ensure that leaders are involved. The most important resource is management resources; some things you say may not work, but what the leader says will work. This is management resource. Since the project is assigned to you, you must ensure that it is completed with quality and quantity, even if the leader "drops the ball," you must hold on. As the project leader, you must have the momentum of "who else if not me" and handle all obstacles in your way, including those that the leader is responsible for. Therefore, when it is time for the leader to sign, urge them to sign; when it is time for the leader to speak, urge them to speak. Report project progress to the leader in a timely manner, and for important matters, even if it is just a sentence, make sure to clarify it in person. 

Are you worried that doing this will make the leader dislike you? Rest assured, the leader will be pleased; with you as a "alarm clock," they do not have to remember to urge you all the time but can wait for you to urge them, saving them a lot of worry.

Additionally, for external partners, urging Party A can refer to urging subordinates, while Party B urging Party A can refer to subordinates urging leaders. Partners of equal status naturally refer to peers urging peers.

### Reporting

Regular meetings, quarterly reports, year-end summaries... There are various forms, but to summarize, they can all be boiled down to one core idea: "In the shortest time, clearly explain what you have done and how you plan to do it in the future," and the purpose of saying this is singular: "to obtain resources."

Here is the general format of a report.

First, report quantitative indicators. Why report quantitative indicators? Because the standard for judging "good or bad" varies from person to person, while data is objective. If you see 100, others see 100 too, which leaves no room for dispute. Therefore, quantitative indicators are the most efficient means of communication. You can start by presenting around three core indicators; do not present too many, as too many indicate insufficient summarization ability; nor too few, as too few make your work seem too thin. About three is just right. With these indicators, the tone of the entire report is set.

Second, break down the quantitative indicators.

Core indicators are often too general, only allowing the leader to understand whether the overall situation is "good" or "bad." However, what the leader truly wants to know is not just this; they want to know what is good, what is bad, and more importantly, how you plan to address these strengths and weaknesses in the future. Therefore, you need to break down and explain the core indicators, providing the leader with more detailed information.

Next, you need to talk about "what I have done," which is a key point. For indicators that have been completed well, list the specific work you have done; it is precisely because you have done points one, two, and three that you have achieved today's results. For indicators that have not performed well, although the results are unsatisfactory, you should still report with the mindset of "I have tried my best," allowing the leader to see that you have indeed made sufficient efforts, but the results have yet to show. However, you must not stop at emphasizing difficulties and explaining reasons; instead, link every "not done well" to the subsequent plan of "how you plan to do it in the future." When discussing what you have done, intersperse examples, as merely talking about data or listing what you have done makes it difficult for leaders who are not familiar with the actual situation to form an intuitive understanding of your work in a short time.

The advantage of examples lies in their details, making them vivid and specific. If you represent a team, find a team member's story to highlight as a typical case, preferably one that can move people to tears; such examples are impactful and can easily earn you extra points. If you only represent yourself, you need to put in some effort; do not boast about yourself, as no one likes self-praise. However, you can praise users or partners, using their related stories to highlight yourself. For example, if you are in operations, you can say you want to thank a certain programmer, as it is because they worked closely with you, staying up late to troubleshoot issues, that the system ran smoothly. Here, although you praise a certain programmer, the leader will certainly recognize your hard work and contributions. Limit the number of examples to two; first establish your glorious image with a positive example, then conclude with a negative example to show your deep understanding of shortcomings, and of course, the key is to lead into "how you plan to do it in the future."

Since you have a deep understanding of your shortcomings, the next step is to propose your solutions to these shortcomings, which is how you plan to proceed. So the question arises: since you already know you have not done well, why did you not improve earlier? Is it because you lacked the ability to solve this problem under the current conditions? If you cannot solve it now, will you be able to solve it in the future? Therefore, at this point, you should take the opportunity of reporting to the leader to ask for resources. Whether it is the indicators that have not been achieved, the plans that have not yielded results, or the painful lessons from examples, all serve as a foundation for this step, implying, "This matter is important; I have tried my best; now I need the leader's support."

Finally, clearly state how you have performed, how you achieved it, what was done well, what was not done well, how you plan to proceed, and what support you hope to receive from the leader. This way, your report becomes a complete report. Of course, not every report needs to be this complete; in daily reports, you can simplify it appropriately based on the situation. If you only have one minute to report, then just state what support you hope to receive. Throughout the report, pay attention to one point: focus on the matter at hand, do not dwell on personal gains and losses, and do not carry unnecessary emotions. The principle you must adhere to is that good performance is the team's achievement, while poor performance is your own responsibility.

## Leaders must clarify their statements
Can learning to report ensure effective upward management? Not yet; communication is two-way. You need to ensure that the leader hears your report and that the leader gives you instructions.

When it comes to the leader's instructions, many people may wonder why leaders often do not clarify their statements? This is a key issue; if you cannot understand what the leader says, how can you talk about execution? So how can you understand what the leader is saying, or how can you ensure that the leader clarifies their statements?

First, you need to determine whether the leader did not express themselves clearly or if you did not understand clearly. Ask other colleagues if they understood; if no one else understood, it indicates that the leader did not express themselves clearly. If the leader did not express themselves clearly, you need to further assess what caused them to be unclear: is it a willingness issue, a capability issue, or a cognitive issue? If the leader continues to urge you after assigning work, it indicates that they still hope to get the job done, so there is no issue with willingness. In this case, what remains is either a cognitive issue or a capability issue. A cognitive issue means they do not realize they have not expressed themselves clearly; if you indicate that you did not understand their instructions, they will try to explain it from various angles, indicating that their cognition is fine, leaving only the capability issue. You are powerless against willingness and cognitive issues; if you encounter such a leader, you may need to plan early and seek other paths. However, if it is merely a capability issue, you should still make an effort to help the leader clarify their statements.

How to help the leader clarify their statements? First, you need to realize that the information between you and the leader is asymmetric; typically, the leader has more information while you have less. For the leader to ensure you understand, they need to align the amount of information you both have to a level where you can discuss the issue. However, many people do not recognize the issue of information asymmetry; they naturally assume that if they know something, others should know it as well. Therefore, when others are confused due to information gaps, they fail to realize this.

In the face of such a leader, you need to guide them to share information first. Once your information is aligned, you will naturally understand.

So what if you still do not understand even after the information is aligned? This issue may arise from differing assumptions about the goals. For example, you may think the goal of this project is to improve performance, while the leader's actual goal is to promote the company's brand. If your goals differ, no matter how you communicate, it will just be talking past each other; not only will it be unclear, but it may also become increasingly confusing. You may wonder why the leader insists on doing something that seems like a losing deal, while the leader may wonder why you cannot understand such a simple matter. In such cases, you need to clarify the project's goal with the leader. Once you both agree that the project is aimed at promoting the company's brand rather than improving performance, you can then communicate on the same channel, allowing you to understand what the leader is saying.

Once the goals are unified, the next step is logical deduction. Theoretically, once the assumptions are established, the conclusions of logical deduction should be unique, but this is only in ideal situations. In actual work, logical deduction may also encounter issues. As we mentioned earlier, logical ability is a high-level skill, and not everyone has received good training in logic. Most people's logical abilities are not strong, and insufficient logical ability can lead to logical errors during the deduction process. These errors need to be identified and corrected by someone with stronger logical abilities, at which point your previously trained logical skills can come into play. Of course, while correcting the leader's logical errors, you need to apply the communication principles mentioned earlier and use necessary skills, which have been shared before and will not be repeated here. After correcting logical errors and arriving at the correct conclusions, will you fully understand the leader's instructions? Not necessarily, as there may still be disagreements on the path to achieving that goal. For instance, the leader may want to use 1 million yuan to directly purchase online traffic for exposure to promote the company's brand, while you believe that the 1 million yuan should be used to create a series of content to gain sustained traffic for brand promotion. At this point, although you and the leader advocate different paths, there is no clear advantage or disadvantage to either path; choosing either path may yield the same probability of achieving the goal. The concern arises when the leader wants to go east while you want to go west, resulting in a mutual cancellation of the combined force, making it impossible to achieve the goal. In this case, you can gently propose your suggestions, but remember that the final decision-making power lies with the leader. If the leader wavers between the two paths, you need to support them in making a choice quickly; most of the time, even if they choose incorrectly, it is better than being indecisive. Because even if they choose incorrectly, you can still adjust the direction through frequent reviews and rapid iterations. However, if no decision is made, you will not know who is right and who is wrong.

## Emotions
Someone once asked me how to handle work pressure and internal repression, which sometimes leads to losing control over emotions. Before addressing emotions, you should first ask yourself how these emotions arise. Is it because you saw something, heard something, or thought of something? After seeing, hearing, or thinking about these things, you will inevitably focus your attention on them; even if you do not want to, these matters will linger in your mind. Moreover, you often think negatively, such as worrying about losing your job due to poor project performance, whether others will look down on you for your mistakes, or whether your work troubles will never improve... The more you think, the more disheartened you become, ultimately feeling hopeless about your life. Yet even so, you still feel unwilling and want to improve yourself, leading to repressed emotions. In fact, the process of emotional generation is similar for everyone: external stimuli trigger your attention, and if you do not control your attention and let it wander, it will naturally focus on desires. When you believe your desires cannot be met, emotions arise. What desires are typically unmet?

First is the desire for survival, such as worrying about being fired and losing your source of income; second is vanity, such as worrying about being looked down upon by others, making it hard to hold your head high. If you analyze the desires that lead to your emotions, you will find that they generally fall into these two categories.

Since you have identified the causes of your emotions, addressing them becomes straightforward: simply shift your attention from the desire for survival and vanity to other aspects. For example, worrying about poor performance leading to dismissal is unhelpful; it is better to focus on how to improve performance. It is never too late to mend the fold. Human attention is limited, and you cannot focus on too many things at once. If you focus on the desire for survival, you will only be anxiously worried about your job security, which will only worsen your performance. This is what is meant by "the more you fear something, the more it comes." When you shift your attention to improving performance, those worries will naturally fade away, allowing you to concentrate on achieving results, thus eliminating the fear of unemployment. This is a method that addresses both the symptoms and the root causes. 

However, "prevention is better than cure." You cannot just passively wait for emotions to arise before addressing them; you must take preventive measures. This requires you to predict the direction of events, envision various possible outcomes based on current conditions, and devise a response plan for the worst-case scenario. When you immerse yourself in the scenario and predict the future, your emotions will naturally undergo a rehearsal in that scenario. If one day a certain situation truly occurs and it does not exceed your expectations, you will naturally remain calm.

Of course, in most cases, when you can predict the worst-case scenario, it is unlikely to happen.

## Goals

When it comes to goals, ignore distractions outside of them. With fewer goals, there are fewer desires; with fewer desires, there will naturally be less anxiety over gains and losses. For example, while others are "slacking off" at work, you want to work hard to improve yourself, but you fear that your colleagues will say you are not a team player. What should you do? At this moment, you should ask yourself: What is your goal? Is it to improve yourself or to make your colleagues think you are a team player? Of course, it is the former. Since being a team player is not your goal, do not worry about what others say; just focus on achieving results and improving yourself.

Even if you have only one goal, you may still feel anxious about not being able to achieve it. For instance, you want to work hard, but you worry that if your performance is poor, it will prove your incompetence. The reason you have such concerns is that you have not clearly thought through your long-term goals. If you only focus on short-term goals, you will feel anxious about gains and losses. How can you clarify your long-term goals?

You can ask yourself: Why is it important to achieve good performance? To get promoted. Why is promotion important? To earn money. Why is earning money important? To live. Why is living important? To explore the wonders of the world and satisfy your curiosity.

Does this goal seem much more ambitious than just making money? Next, you may ask how to explore the world. The answer is through learning and practice. If you can achieve good performance through learning and practice, that itself is part of exploring the world. After going around in circles, it seems you have returned to the "starting point," but the difference is that when you view achieving performance as part of "exploring the world," you will feel more at ease. You will think that after achieving good performance and earning money, you will still explore the world through learning and practice, and since you are already doing this, why rush? In this way, you will no longer feel anxious about gains and losses.

Secondly, "not causing trouble and not fearing trouble." Among them, "not causing trouble" is relatively easy; by being cautious in speech and behavior, most troubles can be avoided. The key is "not fearing trouble." How can you not fear trouble?

As the saying goes, "Preparation leads to success; lack of preparation leads to failure." This means that before something happens, you should envision various possible scenarios in your mind and prepare plans for each scenario. If the situation is too complex, you can use tools to simulate it. For example, the mind map shared earlier is a suitable tool for simulation. During the simulation process, you need to continually ask yourself, "If a certain situation occurs, how should I respond?" When the situation actually arises, you will have a response plan in place, and you will naturally "not fear trouble."

A person who is well-prepared for a goal cannot help but feel empowered.

## Attributes of Bad Companies
"Bad companies" is a highly subjective label, with no unified standard. However, based on the feelings of pain, hope, and value from people, they can generally be categorized into two types: those that are currently difficult to endure and those that have no hope for the future. Based on the experiences of my colleagues and myself, I have listed several common attributes of bad companies for your reference.

Low starting salaries, slow salary increases, or simply no salary increase system.
Using salary to measure an employee's perception of a company is probably the least controversial. A company with weak competitiveness in salary is essentially due to poor profitability. Alternatively, it may simply lack the desire to strive, being content with just getting by, and having no motivation to expand its business. Low starting salaries and slow salary increases, when considered separately, are not sufficient conditions for a company to be deemed bad, but together they almost inevitably lead to a pessimistic salary expectation. For most ordinary people, salary levels and future salary expectations are still significant factors in career choices. Companies that meet the criteria of "low + slow" should be approached with caution.

Prioritizing personal relationships over work: severe internal strife, numerous factions, management focused on internal conflicts, and employees merely occupying positions without contributing.
Internal strife is almost a common characteristic of all bad companies; in fact, it is also a common cause of the downfall of all dynasties throughout history. A company atmosphere with severe internal strife allows petty individuals to take advantage of the situation, but it exhausts ordinary employees, especially those who value the realization of their worth. The onset of internal strife often signifies the end of the stage of unity and entrepreneurship; a team that is not united will regress. When the atmosphere of unity in a team deteriorates, it usually foreshadows decline. Because companies plagued by internal strife rarely have the possibility of self-healing, internal strife is the worst attribute—it makes employees miserable and foreshadows the company's demise.

What kind of company prominently displays "internal strife"? It should be one that treats slogans like "prioritize personal relationships over work" as part of its culture. The older generation of entrepreneurs created this phrase in an environment where state-owned enterprise employees had job security for life. At that time, a company was primarily the smallest unit of society and only secondarily a market entity. It was difficult to fire an employee with poor character, and one had to accept the existence of various types of employees. The primary responsibility of company managers seemed to be to maintain stability in interpersonal relationships within the unit. Thus, the saying "prioritize personal relationships" was born. However, a rule that has proven true time and again is that where there is emphasis, there is a problem. A modern company's culture that places "prioritizing personal relationships over work" in a prominent position often indicates that there are numerous factions within the company, and management is focused on internal conflicts. It is hard to say whether the older generation of employees brought about internal strife or whether internal strife gave rise to this admonition. In any case, I personally find these six words very distasteful. In a vibrant company, everyone should focus their energy on doing their jobs well; those who are solely concerned with personal relationships and networking are parasites in modern enterprises.

### Teams
1. High efficiency, simple and smooth processes.

2. There are many benchmark employees. These employees are not only proactive and hardworking but also humble and diligent. Being with them makes you feel ashamed if you do not work hard.

3. The team approaches project communication with a problem-solving mindset, and employees cooperate seamlessly, rarely engaging in disputes.

Teams in bad companies

1. Disputes, shirking responsibility, and low efficiency. Managers waste a lot of time on communication and coordination, and employees have poor tempers and require constant appeasement.

2. The team lacks a sense of purpose, fears taking responsibility, and spends each day just getting by.

3. The team complains a lot, does not work properly, and focuses on pointing out others' faults.

### Leaders
Good company leaders

1. Clear instructions with no unnecessary chatter.

2. Take responsibility for their decisions. If subordinates make mistakes, the leader can represent the department and take responsibility while asking subordinates to improve.

3. Provide clear promotion goals for subordinates and help them outline the path to achieving those goals, filling their work with passion and a sense of accomplishment.

4. Encourage employee innovation and give them more opportunities to make mistakes.

Leaders in bad companies

1. Love to hold meetings. Meetings are held every three days or two days, with no control over the frequency and outcomes.

2. Cannot take responsibility for their decisions. They like to blame and punish employees but cannot guide them to improve.

3. Undermine employee confidence to maintain leadership authority.

4. Require employees to comply unconditionally.

### Owners
Good company owners

1. The company has a long-term, clear plan and can communicate that plan in simple terms to management.

2. Grateful and values corporate social responsibility.

3. Places employee satisfaction in a position of importance.

Owners of bad companies

1. Focus on immediate corporate interests, taking one step at a time.

2. Distrust subordinates, only believing their relatives.

3. Love to boast and do not value facts.

### Benefits
Good company benefits

1. Consider employee perspectives to provide benefits, such as training, learning, industry exchanges, etc.

2. In addition to providing basic welfare guarantees according to national regulations, they can also add company-specific benefits.

3. Employee income is competitive in the market.

Bad company benefits

1. No benefits and lack of necessary guarantee mechanisms. For example, not providing employees with social insurance or only providing work injury insurance, only considering cost reduction from the company's perspective.

2. Find ways to withhold employee salaries, leaving them feeling insecure.

3. Do not consider creating more learning opportunities for employees.

### Corporate Culture
Good company culture

1. Employees can genuinely identify with and execute the culture.

2. The corporate culture can influence employee behavior and set a good example.

3. Employees take pride in the company.

4. Simple, feasible, and sustainable.

Bad company culture

1. Shouting slogans and going through the motions. Everything is for external appearances, with inadequate internal understanding of corporate culture.

2. Lack of a sense of ritual, mechanically executed.

3. Employees superficially agree but internally reject or even scoff at it.

4. Overly complex, difficult to implement, and fails to resonate with employees.

Every employee hopes to work in a good company, but what constitutes a good company varies from person to person. The best company for you is the one that suits you best. Therefore, all roads lead to Rome; regardless of what kind of company you are in, you must clarify your direction and strive towards your goals!

Executives are all "organizational people."

In middle and lower management, you can say, "I am talent," "I am an individual." But executives are all "organizational people," not just individuals.

Executives must accept the evaluation of long-term results from the organization. You are tied to this organizational ship. When you retire, how will you evaluate your contributions? The results and value created by the organization you serve are the primary standards for evaluating executives.

Executives are accomplices in the first position. Many key decisions made in the first position, even if you are not the initiator, at least you have played a tacit role or even a conspiratorial role.

True executives must have a sense of social responsibility. If you are in middle or lower management, you may not have enough power or ability to make an impact. However, executives still have a significant influence on many important decisions for the company, whether it is about what kind of products to make, what kind of services to launch, or how to treat employees. Executives have a considerable influence on these matters. Therefore, many decisions they make must carry a sense of responsibility towards society.

### The Social Responsibility of Executives

How does the social responsibility of true executives manifest? At least in the following three aspects:

Holding back the boss from going astray.

Although "the arm cannot twist the thigh," you can still hold back a bit. Many CEOs still receive significant influence from executives, and executives should not underestimate their power.

## Companies can be divided into four categories: excellent companies, good companies, companies needing improvement/observation, and bad companies.

The core leaders of the company cannot connect with young employees. In terms of capability, it is challenging for senior management to connect with grassroots employees; in terms of principles and concepts, if middle and lower-level employees have not experienced these matters, it is also difficult for them to understand these principles. However, on the level of life views, core leaders can establish genuine connections with young employees. Despite the significant hierarchical gap, our definitions of success in life are the same.

Regarding the value of life views for true executives, allow me to quote a line from Max Weber to help everyone understand: "These people are filled with a special sense of voluntary awareness towards work."

## The Biography of Elon Musk
Hiring a large number of people to complete a complex task is a mistake. In problem-solving, the number of people is meaningless; two ignorant people are not better than one. On the contrary, they often slow down progress and significantly increase costs.

A company is a group organized to create products or services, and its quality depends on the employees and their excitement about creation. I truly want to commend a large number of super talented individuals. I just happen to be the spokesperson for these companies.

## Zhang Yiming
For an organization, it is necessary to clearly convey and continuously refine the standards of excellence. Ambiguity and confusion are sacrifices.

Joining us does not represent the current job. If I say, hypothetically, that this attempt fails, joining us will reveal that there are many things in the world worth doing. It just depends on whether you have enough vision and passion.

Core competitiveness directly refers to our products; behind the products is our technical system, and behind the technical system is our team and culture.

## Questions like "Why not eat meat porridge?"
The managers of the company must have their stable values. The company has its brand value, and individuals also have their brand value. Everything you do will ultimately settle in the brand of personal cognition.

Values are your long-term interests; do not violate your values for any benefit, as that would be the greatest harm to your personal brand.

Focusing solely on your own small territory and blindly "shifting blame" to others—can this solve problems? What companies need are managers who can step out of their "small hills" and stand on the company's "big hill" to solve problems. Only by standing at the company's height can you fully utilize limited resources and efficiently drive the entire company forward. If you only see yourself, you can only be an employee; if you see a department, you can be a manager; if you see a function, you can be a director; if you see a business line, you can be a vice president; only when you see the entire company can you qualify to be a partner.

## Slacking Off
Human nature's tendency to "slack off" is inevitable. Even among those internet companies, how many can claim that none of their employees "slack off"?

Managers, how do you handle "slacking off"? Allow everyone to "slack off," not only allowing it but encouraging it. However, "slacking off" must also be done properly; playing games or watching videos is a waste of life. I encourage everyone to do two things: think more and communicate more. What do we mean by thinking? Think about the business, think about your career. I even ask team members to update their resumes every six months; I won't mind even if they send their resumes out. Remember, the employees' abilities are the company's abilities; the most valuable asset of any company is always its people. 

Some may worry, "Aren't you afraid they will jump ship after growing?" Those who are meant to leave will always leave. Being overly protective will only lead to a "forced fruit that is not sweet." Instead, it is better to let them grow and then leave; the company will not suffer. 

What do we mean by communication? Here, communication manifests as casual conversation, and it can be about anything, not necessarily work-related. Whether it is about international competitions or children's schooling, you can chat broadly. Some may wonder if such casual chatting wastes time. The saying goes, "Sharpening the axe does not delay the work of chopping wood." When team members become familiar with each other, they become friends. The efficiency of cooperation between friends is incomparable to that between colleagues. Therefore, overall, this is not a waste of time; rather, it saves communication costs. If you can grow in a team while having many friends to chat with, would you still want to jump ship? If you can enhance employees' abilities while ensuring their stability, the benefits and cost savings from this far outweigh the time wasted on "slacking off."

## 996
The emergence of "996" is due to managers not realizing the preciousness of team energy and instead squandering it.

So how is this misconception formed? It is because, in today's cities, knowledge workers have become the mainstream. They sit in offices every day without demonstrating the intensity of their work, giving managers the illusion that "Isn't it just sitting in the office for 8 hours? What difference does it make to sit a few more hours?" In reality, people often say that the brain is a good thing; in fact, the brain is not only a good thing but also a luxury, especially rational ability, which consumes a lot of energy resources. Although the brain has rational abilities, operating this ability is quite challenging. Why do classes have breaks? It is because the brain needs a recovery period after high-speed operation. The brain's work-rest rhythm, which has been followed since kindergarten, is often overlooked by many managers.

Additionally, the nature of some positions dictates that employees in those positions will inevitably work more than 8 hours. The most typical example is sales positions, where many sales roles can even be considered a 16-hour workday. For instance, if the first client is scheduled to meet at 8 AM, the second client at 6 PM for dinner, and then karaoke until midnight, they might claim they worked from 8 AM to midnight, totaling 16 hours. Although it appears they worked for 16 hours, the efficiency is extremely low, as they only met two clients that day. If performance targets are not met, what happens? Insufficient credit leads to excessive effort, so the sales department sends an email to the entire company, announcing that all sales staff will work "996" for a quarter to push for performance, hoping for support from other departments, with the company owner's email prominently included in the CC. The owner replies with, "United as one, we will overcome!" Immediately, the telemarketing department follows suit, stating that they will also implement "996" starting now to fully support the sales department. However, the telemarketing department operates on a shift basis, and their working hours will not change. Although the owner knows this, they cannot dampen the enthusiasm at this moment, so they can only give a thumbs up. Thus, "996" becomes the norm, and other departments are also swept along to express their support. At this point, it is no longer a matter of whether "996" is needed, but rather an issue of dedication.

Besides the sales department, other departments have work characteristics that lead to endless tasks. For example, in the R&D department, demands are always scheduled a year in advance; how can they avoid overtime? If they leave work on time, the next day the boss will ask, "Isn't the progress good lately? No need for overtime?" How should they respond? Programmers are usually well-educated and tend to be sensitive; they may feel their self-esteem is being undermined by the boss's comments, so they grit their teeth and decide to "996." However, the more they work, the more demands arise, and the more overtime they put in, the more work there seems to be. They end up doing a lot of work but receiving a lot of criticism, and after being criticized, they still have hundreds of demands waiting to be launched, which they indeed have not completed. They can only swallow their pride and continue to work hard. The boss, worried that pressuring the R&D team will lead to negative emotions, adopts a different strategy by establishing benchmarks, providing snacks for the R&D staff, taking photos of them working overtime, and sending out battle reports, elevating them. This way, the programmers feel they cannot complain. Other departments see the R&D team's overtime reports and feel they must also work overtime to show support. Although they may have cursed the R&D team countless times and complained that they are not contributing while dragging others down, they cannot voice those complaints and can only grit their teeth and join in the "996."

Since they are being coerced into working overtime, it means that during overtime, there is often nothing to do. Therefore, the person in charge finds ways to create work, arranging training, sharing sessions, and cultural activities. Since there is no real work to do, they can only engage in "virtual" activities. However, everyone’s work is still not saturated, leading to a situation where team members become disengaged and work at a slow pace, even deliberately dragging their feet. Why does this happen? Because if they finish their work during the day, what will they do during overtime? So they intentionally leave work for the evening. Before long, capable individuals who do not want to waste time will choose to leave, while those who lack ability and cannot leave will continue to "slack off." Thus, a once efficient team is forced into collective "slacking off."

"996" is a process where bad currency drives out good currency. As a manager, once you are caught in the vortex of overtime, the team will begin to waste energy. Capable individuals will leave because they do not want to waste time, while those who lack ability and cannot leave will remain and start "slacking off," turning the entire team into a disorganized mess.

You must be clear that a team must never be idle; idleness will lead to problems. Some people will engage in office politics when they have nowhere to vent their energy. When they have no serious work to do, they will stir up trouble. Once office politics takes root in the team, morale will quickly dissipate; when morale is lost, the team becomes difficult to manage.

Therefore, for your own good, for the team's good, and for the company's good, as a manager, you need to change your perception, cherish the scarce resource of "energy," and focus your limited energy on performance, rather than wasting it on meaningless "996."

## The Illness of Large Companies
Speaking of idleness, many managers in large companies can probably relate. The decision-making efficiency of large companies is often lower than that of small companies, which is commonly referred to as the "illness of large companies." Why does this illness exist? Because management has bandwidth, and that bandwidth is limited. As a manager, you can only manage a certain number of people; exceeding that limit means that every additional person you manage increases the difficulty exponentially, as you are not just managing that individual but also all the relationships associated with them. Therefore, typically, a manager should not directly manage more than 12 subordinates; this is still for physically intensive positions. For mentally intensive positions, your management bandwidth will narrow even further, and many top mental positions may only have one assistant. For example, during my time at ASML working on algorithms and modeling, it was already quite challenging for the manager to understand my work content, let alone manage it.

Assuming a company has 10,000 people, and each person can manage an average of 5 people, the company would likely have six or seven levels. If we also consider branches and subsidiaries, a company could have more than ten levels. You must have played the game of "telephone," right? 

When 10 people pass a simple word from the first person to the last, it often results in a situation where the final message is completely different from the original. Therefore, in a company with 10 levels, the degradation of information transmission is even more severe.

Thus, the "illness of large companies" arises. 

Internet companies seem to handle the "illness of large companies" better than traditional companies. Why do I say this? First, because internet companies have highly systematized, digitized, automated, and intelligent processes, which greatly reduce the degradation of information during transmission. 

Second, many positions have been replaced by systems, allowing companies to reduce levels and achieve flatter management structures.

Third, many internet companies are still in their entrepreneurial phase, having survived the ruthless market mechanism of survival of the fittest. Their managers are acutely aware of the harshness of market competition, which keeps them humble and cautious, not daring to overlook any details that could lead to the "illness of large companies."

From the experiences of internet companies, we can find directions to avoid the "illness of large companies" by building systems to solidify processes and iterating on those systems to enhance the level of process automation. Of course, the last and most important point is to maintain a sense of reverence for management; management is not a trivial matter. As long as you are in a management position, you must always keep a tight rein and tread carefully, as if walking on thin ice.

## Management
Both parties cooperate in this way, resulting in a gain of "1+1>2," which is the essence of management. In other words, power is also a form of transaction; the buyer is the manager, and the seller is the managed. The managed cedes part of their freedom for the manager to gain some power, and at the same time, the manager assumes the responsibility of providing benefits to the managed. Since it is a transaction, both parties must be equal; neither can be forced to buy or sell. You may be confused; since there is a relationship of management and being managed, how can it be equal? This involves how you understand power.

Power and responsibility are opposing yet unified contradictions; they are two sides of the same coin, mutually dependent. There has never been absolute power that does not bear any responsibility, nor absolute responsibility that does not hold any power. Before the power contract is formed, both parties are equal; this is self-evident. Even after the contract is formed, while the contract stipulates power, it also stipulates corresponding responsibilities. From the perspective of the power-responsibility contradiction, both parties remain equal. If the manager's power is 1, then the corresponding responsibility is -1, and the sum of the two equals 0; thus, the managed's power is 0, and the corresponding responsibility is also 0, resulting in 0=0, meaning the manager equals the managed.

Carrots are incentives, and sticks are threats; both exploit human weaknesses, namely greed and fear, to manipulate workers, which is contrary to the essence of management.

The rule is that quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes. What kind of quantitative change leads to a qualitative change in the management role? The answer is the quantitative change in responsibility.

If on your first day managing one person, you help them gain 100 yuan in profit, that person will be willing to obey your management the next day because they can continue to earn 100 yuan. If the next day you manage another person and help them also gain 100 yuan, you then bear the responsibility of managing two people, each earning 100 yuan, thus gaining the power to manage two people. After a month, if 10 people have become accustomed to earning 100 yuan daily under your management, their habitual reliance signifies that they have ceded part of their freedom, and you have gained the power to manage these 10 people. The quantitative change in your responsibilities leads to a qualitative change in your role, thus making you a manager.

Therefore, the process of gaining power is essentially the process of assuming responsibility, and the manifestation of assuming responsibility is to ensure that the other party gains benefits.

Finally, you can assess your management abilities based on practice. The only standard for judgment is whether you can continuously bring "benefits" to others. Of course, the benefits here are broad, including immediate material benefits, long-term material benefits, and spiritual benefits. Immediate benefits include performance bonuses, work environment, verbal praise, etc., in other words, making others "prosper by following you"; long-term benefits include skill enhancement, promotions, salary increases, and career development, essentially becoming a mentor in their careers, as having a momentary benefit is not as satisfying as having long-term benefits; as for spiritual benefits, it depends on your own insights.

## The Trolley Problem
The benefits brought by the team represent the positive side of management, while "kindness does not command troops" represents the negative side of management. Many people fail at management precisely because they are too "kind" to face the "trolley problem." What is the trolley problem?

A madman ties five innocent people to the tracks, and an out-of-control trolley is heading towards them and will crush them in a moment. Fortunately, you can pull a lever to divert the trolley onto another track, but unfortunately, the madman has also tied one person to that track. Considering the above situation, do you think you should pull the lever that determines the fate of others?

Case: Would you choose to eliminate Old Wang from the bottom tier?

The company conducts year-end assessments and must rate each employee's performance as A, B, or C. A is the highest, and C is the lowest. Each department must identify one annual C, and employees rated C for three consecutive years will be eliminated.

Your department has 10 employees, and you are the department manager.

Old Wang was just transferred from another department last year. Since Old Wang joined, his work ability and results have not matched those of other department members, and based on the overall score, his performance will be rated as C this year.

Just as you are about to rate Old Wang as C, you suddenly discover that he has already received two consecutive C ratings in his previous department. This means that if you rate him as C this year, he will be eliminated.

At this moment, you hesitate.

Old Wang has only been in the department for a year, has poor abilities and performance, and does not fit in well, but he has not made any major mistakes. You also learn indirectly that Old Wang is the primary breadwinner for his family, with his wife unemployed and his child still young, making life quite difficult.

Rating him as C would effectively mean dismissing him, which puts moral pressure on you.

However, if you do not rate Old Wang as C, that C rating must go to another colleague, which is unfair to whoever receives it.

Faced with this issue, if you were the department manager, how would you decide?

Would you adhere to the company's management system and rate Old Wang as C, letting him pack his bags and leave? Or would you make an exception and rate another employee as C, sacrificing another employee's interests to protect Old Wang?

When the trolley approaches, will you pull the lever that determines others' fates?

The decision-making problem above is a classic "trolley problem." This embodies utilitarianism. Is "moralism" better, or is "utilitarianism" better? 

In fact, there is no standard answer. Moralism and utilitarianism represent two different value systems, leading to different choices. 

Those who adhere to "moralism" may be more inclined to respect individuals and emphasize human rights; those who adhere to "utilitarianism" may be more inclined to make choices based on comparative values and benefits.

For managers, you may face such trolley problems daily, constantly weighing whether to sacrifice the interests of certain individuals to ensure the benefits of the majority, such as layoffs. If you cannot bear to eliminate underperforming employees, the company will gradually devolve into a situation where everyone shares the "big pot of rice," ultimately leading to collective unemployment. Therefore, for managers, the trolley problem should never be a problem; to ensure the interests of the majority, you must be willing to be the "bad guy," as this is part of management. As the saying goes, "If I do not go to hell, who will?"

## KPI and OKR
How can you cooperate with employees in an equal and rational manner? The answer is what we previously discussed: "naming correctly," which means aligning goals. The goals of a company, from large to small, are mission, vision, phase goals, and annual budget. Even the smallest goal—the annual budget—is merely a final number.

As a manager, how do you achieve this number? You need levers. How do you obtain these levers? You need to break down the indicators in the annual budget, and the sufficiently detailed indicators derived from this breakdown are KPIs; they are your specific levers for completing the budget. When you achieve all KPIs, you have also achieved the annual budget.

For example, if the revenue for December in the budget is 20 million yuan, and you are the head of the sales department, this 20 million yuan in sales is the KPI assigned to you. How do you achieve this KPI? You need to apply the data analysis methods discussed earlier to break it down. For instance, if the product price is 2,000 yuan, you need to sell 10,000 units. If the conversion rate from leads to sales is 1%, you will need 1 million leads. Thus, the KPI for 20 million yuan in sales is broken down into two sub-KPIs: 1 million leads and a 1% conversion rate. You can assign the leads KPI to the marketing department and the conversion rate KPI to the telemarketing department. If they both complete their respective KPIs, you as the manager will also complete your KPI.

Why assign the two KPIs to two different departments instead of one? 

First, because obtaining leads and telemarketing are entirely different types of work; as the saying goes, "each profession has its expertise," and you should let professionals do professional tasks.

Second, if the same group of people is responsible for obtaining leads and completing telemarketing, they will lack a checks-and-balances mechanism, easily leading to corruption. For example, salespeople may privately sell some quality leads for personal gain. If they are also responsible for obtaining leads, those privately sold leads may never appear in the company's data. From the company's perspective, those leads never existed; even if you can detect some clues through fluctuations in lead prices, you cannot grasp the actual evidence of these "termites." 

These two points lead to the two basic principles of KPIs: 

The first is the simplification principle; you need to simplify the responsibilities of a department or position as much as possible, allowing them to be responsible for as few things as possible, thus reducing the difficulty of work and making it easier for them to complete KPIs.

The second is the separation of powers and responsibilities principle; you need to assign powers that are prone to "self-dealing" to different departments to create mutual checks and balances. 

So why not set the telemarketing KPI as 10,000 units sold but rather as a 1% conversion rate? Because the 10,000 units sold depend not only on the conversion rate but also on the number of leads, but telemarketing has no control over the number of leads. You cannot assign them responsibilities that do not match their powers; this is the third principle of KPI setting: the principle of matching powers and responsibilities.

For positions with single goals, as long as they adhere to the three principles of simplification, separation of powers and responsibilities, and matching powers and responsibilities, a clear KPI can be set for employees. However, some positions have more complex responsibilities, such as operations, which are responsible for the entire company's budget. How should their KPIs be set?

This has always been a challenge. To solve this challenge, we must introduce another goal system: Objectives and Key Results (OKR). OKR first gained popularity at Google and has been around for 20 years. During this time, it has been popular in China several times, and even now, it is still occasionally discussed. What does this indicate? It does not mean it is particularly useful, but rather that it is difficult to use. If it were as simple and clear as KPI, it would have been widely adopted long ago. 

We can summarize that if you cannot even use KPIs well, you should not think about OKRs, as you are far from being at the level of using OKRs. It is like playing basketball; if you cannot make free throws, you cannot expect to become a three-point shooter. 

Setting aside the halo of OKRs, objectively speaking, the vast majority of positions in most companies are actually more suited to KPIs rather than OKRs. For example, sales positions are judged by sales volume, customer service positions by call volume, etc. This type of position constitutes the majority of employees in most companies, and such singular work does not require OKRs.

In reality, only a few positions truly need OKRs, such as R&D. Why did OKRs emerge from Google? Because most positions at Google are in R&D. The most practical reason they are suitable for OKRs is that managers cannot set reasonable KPIs for them. The scheduling of system requirements is determined by them, and the demand side does not understand technical matters, so they can justify their scheduling in any way. How can you assess their performance? By measuring completion rates? They can simply schedule delivery dates further out to easily meet those targets. If you compress the schedule, they will launch with a bunch of bugs. If you point out that they have too many bugs, they will argue that you pressured them with a chaotic schedule. And they are not entirely wrong; there are indeed factors influencing this. In the end, the demand department can only suffer in silence.

I once heard a joke about a company that set a KPI for R&D to assess code volume, and one programmer wrote "hello world" in 10,000 lines of code...

If KPIs cannot be set, then OKRs must be used; this is a forced choice. Even if OKRs are not as simple and understandable as KPIs, at least they do not seem so foolish. Of course, OKRs do have an advantage; their key idea is to allow executors to set their own goals and encourage everyone to set challenging goals. They believe that achieving around 80% of the goal is optimal; if the completion rate is too high, it indicates that the goal was set too low; if the completion rate is too low, it indicates that execution was inadequate or the goal was set too high.

OKRs also assign the task of "setting goals" to the executors, allowing those who genuinely want to get things done to finally feel a sense of ownership. They transition from being executors to self-managers, significantly improving work efficiency. It is important to note that positions in product development and operations are "creative" roles. What characteristics do these roles have? 

They are multipliers rather than adders; their work affects everyone, and their lower limit is particularly low, easily becoming negative. Often, a bug from R&D can wipe out a month's worth of company performance. Conversely, their upper limit is particularly high; sometimes, a significant version update in product development can help the company go public. For roles that have such a significant impact yet are so uncontrollable, what can you do? The only way is to stimulate their subjective initiative, allowing them to set their own goals, find their own direction, and then work towards that direction.

Whether it is KPI or OKR, in the end, they are just tools. No matter how good the tools are, they can only be effective in the hands of those who know how to use them. Use KPIs where appropriate and OKRs where appropriate; the day you make full use of both is the day your team fully utilizes its talents.

## About Money
The purpose of eliminating "petty individuals" is to retain talent, and retaining talent often gives managers more headaches than eliminating "petty individuals." After all, the power to eliminate lies in your hands, while the choice of whether talent stays or leaves lies with others. In reality, all you can do is try to avoid the causes of talent loss.

So what are the main reasons for talent loss?

There are three main reasons: insufficient money, dissatisfaction with the work environment, and lack of hope.

What does insufficient money mean? First, it refers to the necessities of life. If the money earned is not enough to pay the mortgage, then the person will naturally leave; they cannot just wait for you to stop paying the mortgage. Even if the salary is enough to cover the mortgage, if another company offers a higher salary, it still falls under the category of insufficient money—not that it is not enough to spend, but that it is not enough to be competitive. How can such employees be retained? With money? In many cases, the budget is fixed, and you do not have the ability to raise salaries. Moreover, raising salaries is never just a matter for one person; if Zhang San's salary increases, Li Si will soon find out, and what will happen when Li Si demands a salary increase as well? Or, to take a step back, even if you manage to retain someone by raising their salary this time, it may not