Leo的恒河沙

In the Business World, Who and What Abilities Are Most Important? - Huxiu#

#Omnivore

Highlights#

If you don't have clarity in your thinking but possess strong abilities in other areas, that may not be a good thing—standing still in the wrong direction is still progress. ⤴️ ^d29143f0

Doing the right thing is more important than doing things right.

Reflection on the "decision-making process." ⤴️ ^7fccd6e1

Identifying the reasons for poor decisions is more important.

The lack of knowledge management means that these things are not passed down, so every time there is a job change, the company has to reinvent the wheel. ⤴️ ^bf916f4d

Processes and systems should remain within the company.

• Perception: Do you know the actual situation?
• Analysis: How do you organize and understand the perceived actual situation?
• Judgment: Based on the analysis, what conclusions can you draw?
• Choice: Based on the conclusions, what action options do you have? Which one do you choose? ⤴️ ^3fed330c

This process is correct.

If the market is stable, what abilities are important?

Execution ability is important. ⤴️ ^570c215b

In a stable market, execution is important, both at the grassroots and senior levels, while the importance of middle management is not high. This is also why middle management in large enterprises tends to talk a lot but accomplish little.

The wise above and the foolish below. ⤴️ ^c46e9587

It makes sense; the grassroots only need to execute and provide feedback, while thinking is left to the middle and senior levels.

If you are the boss, you should choose to "do the right thing," think more, and avoid going off track. Working long hours every day won't solve business direction issues, and a boss who only thinks about product packaging design won't go far.

What about grassroots employees? They should "do things correctly," follow SOP as much as possible, and think less. Overthinking can affect execution and lead to high turnover, which is not good. ⤴️ ^66960802

That's very true.

Grassroots need "simple thinking and fervent belief." ⤴️ ^f97204dd

This is especially true for sales at the grassroots level.

The executives of the company should focus on one thing: to ensure that those who truly work have "hope, capability, and enthusiasm." ⤴️ ^5e2bbc97

Middle management is the most in touch with the business. ⤴️ ^3ea1eb1d

High-fidelity information. ⤴️ ^ccca5287

Reliable subjective judgment. ⤴️ ^c62cd3d4

Subjective. ⤴️ ^18e0cf9c

Subjectivity is key.

As AI becomes more rampant, human "subjectivity" becomes more valuable. The "subjectivity" of middle managers is the most valuable asset in a company. ⤴️ ^74b50623

I agree; it feels a bit like betting on luck.

Leaders can think more clearly about these matters, break them down more clearly, and follow up more timely. ⤴️ ^9d41d0f9

Those who speak often have issues with their ability to "think clearly" and "explain clearly," and thus push the blame onto others for "not being smooth." Especially when the statement is something they themselves said. ⤴️ ^1dd717c6

If decision-making ability is poor, the stronger other abilities are, the more toxic they become. ⤴️ ^fb233cc0

Upon reflection, yes, it is indeed like this—some decisions did not bring disaster to the company solely because the team executed poorly. ⤴️ ^80a1678a

Hahaha.

"Treat the symptoms." ⤴️ ^28b0f560

Iatrogenic diseases are diseases caused by treatment. The treatment plan may be more harmful than the disease itself. ⤴️ ^cadd2a60

This method of correcting mistakes can be more damaging than the mistakes themselves.

When faced with a situation, your first reaction plan—habitual plan, intuitive plan—almost "treats the symptoms." If you keep making decisions this way, you will be tightly controlled by your biological instincts. ⤴️ ^99a86d5e

In fact, it is necessary to look beyond the phenomenon to see the essence, more like traditional Chinese medicine rather than Western medicine.

Considering survivor bias, the honey badgers I can encounter are all successful; their "ferocity" often leads to good results. ⤴️ ^0341d165

I feel the same way; these types of people are generally successful, but it should be survivor bias because I don't see those who haven't succeeded. However, I think this type of person should be decreasing.

To treat this habit of betting on decisions, the best method is to have them put up their own 500,000 yuan to do short-term trading in the stock market, the kind that involves frequent buying and selling. This treatment method is effective, quick to show results, and specifically treats overconfidence and various forms of defiance. ⤴️ ^0d6a2a70

That's a bit of a folk remedy.

(1) Have I clearly defined the problem? (2) What possible options do I have? (3) What are the criteria for evaluating these options? ... What will happen if I proceed this way? ⤴️ ^e10746af

This can be directly applied; it's very accurate.

Retracing how decisions were made at the time, the definitions of tasks, assumptions, arguments, judgment logic, conclusions drawn, and the beliefs, positions, and emotions held by the decision-makers ...

This is thinking about thinking, which is meta-thinking. ⤴️ ^f02f39e6

This is very insightful; meta-thinking is the essence of reflection.

"The most unfortunate part of life is that a careless word may lead to disaster; a careless strategy may lead to success; a reckless act may yield small gains. Later, one may view these as the norm and become complacent. Thus, the greatest calamity arises from this." ⤴️ ^dd180d80

Understanding that everything is probabilistic.

Tip: First assume that all successes are due to luck, and all failures are due to decision-making errors. Then try to falsify this assumption. ⤴️ ^9e5e6452

Systematic victories accumulated through repeated games. ⤴️ ^351ee314

A positive mathematical expectation is winning.

Companies never lack real problems; what they lack is a "mistake book," a mechanism and ability to reflect on poor decisions, and a mechanism to retain these lessons learned. This mechanism is "knowledge management." ⤴️ ^bbc1d797

The more dominant the boss, the more paralyzed the middle management becomes. ⤴️ ^1eda7c2f

This is the problem with PayPal; the issue also lies in the fact that the boss makes blind decisions.

Capable people are unwilling to work long-term with victims—only other victims are willing to work with victims. Thus, a victim group forms, executing the boss's orders while complaining about everything in the company. ⤴️ ^2b60e42a

Bad money drives out good.

If someone has strong thinking abilities and also excels in company politics, that is truly strong. Such a person believes, "I can make the right decisions; I am better than others; entrusting the company to me is the right choice." To achieve the correct goal, they may use incorrect means without any guilt. ⤴️ ^25f024b1

If you find such a person in the company, the best approach is to stand with them.

However, such a person will not foster an internal culture of improving learning abilities; they prefer to be surrounded by fools. ⤴️ ^a4999182

This is somewhat like me.

In the Business World, Who and What Abilities Are Most Important?#

This article discusses the importance of middle managers in the business world and the thinking abilities they should possess. The author emphasizes the importance of clearly understanding problems and proposes the abilities that middle managers should have: perception, analysis, judgment, and choice. The author also points out the common issues faced by managers in the current consumer goods industry: "three lacks": lack of logic, lack of reflection, and lack of accumulation. Finally, the author calls for middle managers to focus on cultivating thinking abilities, emphasizing knowledge management and continuous reflection.

• The role and importance of middle managers in enterprises.

• The thinking abilities that middle managers should possess: perception, analysis, judgment, choice.

• The common issues faced by managers in the current consumer goods industry: lack of logic, lack of reflection, lack of accumulation.

The core message of the article includes the following points:

• In a company, middle management is the most important; enabling them to think clearly is even more crucial.
• ==If you don't have clarity in your thinking but possess strong abilities in other areas, that may not be a good thing—standing still in the wrong direction is still progress.==
• The common issues in the management of consumer goods are the "three lacks":

Lack of logic, a deficiency in the "technical actions" of thinking, and the absence of established methods, mainly relying on habitual decision-making.

Lack of reflection, with only a review of "business results" and no reflection on the "decision-making process" of poor decisions.

==Lack== of accumulation, where after reflection, some crystallization of thought occurs, but due to the lack of knowledge management, these things are not passed down, leading to the reinvention of the wheel with every job change.

• Finally, some suggestions and encouragement are provided.

The article is over ten thousand words long, quite lengthy, and it takes at least 15 minutes to read thoroughly. If you lack that 15 minutes or if it is unrelated to business or capability development, the summary above is sufficient; it covers the core ideas.

Main Text

There’s a joke that in the future, factories will be so automated that only one person and a dog will be needed. The person feeds the dog, and the dog watches the person to prevent them from operating the machines. With the recent explosive development of AI, people are starting to worry that this joke might become a reality. Has humanity really become so inadequate?

Not that inadequate, but indeed not great; at least in the consumer goods industry, given the technical content, if practitioners were truly replaced by AI, it would not be regrettable at all.

I have no intention of praising other industries; I am simply unfamiliar with them, and my criticisms would lack persuasiveness.

The following thoughts are my accumulated views from years of observing business, and they are naked biases; if they cannot be used for learning, they can at least be used for critique.

1. Who is more important in a company?

The consumer goods industry is fast-paced, testing the entrepreneur and their organization's ability to respond to the environment: perception, analysis, judgment, choice.

• ==Perception: Do you know the actual situation?==
• ==Analysis: How do you organize and understand the perceived actual situation?==
• ==Judgment: Based on the analysis, what conclusions can you draw?==
• ==Choice: Based on the conclusions, what action options do you have? Which one do you choose?==

These four categories of abilities determine the differences between companies, and the key differences lie here.

1. ==If the market is stable, what abilities are important?==

==Execution ability is important.== At this time, top-down strategies work well and can play a significant role. Decision-making is not difficult; what matters most is executing diligently, for example, "the devil is in the details," "one can do it, ten can do it," being meticulous, being diligent, and being determined can lead to miracles.

2. If the market is turbulent, what is important?

Once, I was chatting with a friend responsible for capability development; she was busy promoting the company's live streaming business. After taking a two-week break, she returned shocked, feeling she had fallen behind the times. "It's like returning to a place that has changed drastically."

At this time, top-down company strategies become less guiding and harder to implement. Those who like military history will remember that during the later stages of the Liaoshen Campaign, things became chaotic, and units acted independently. This is the current state of the consumer goods market—each market is different, with various formats and patterns, and it is unclear which model will succeed in the future—headquarters still uses the old methods to manage the business, marching in formation every day, and the results are not good.

At this time, the ability to react quickly and judge swiftly in chaotic situations is tested. The key is whose ability? Senior management, middle management, or grassroots?

Middle management.

Why middle management? Let's first discuss why it is not senior or grassroots.

2. Grassroots, "==the wise above and the foolish below==" have execution power.

Let me ask you a question: which is more important, "doing the right thing" or "doing things correctly"?

Neither choice is correct; the standard answer is "not necessarily."

==If you are the boss, you should choose "doing the right thing," think more, and avoid going off track. Working long hours every day won't solve business direction issues, and a boss who only thinks about product packaging design won't go far.==

==What about grassroots employees? They should "do things correctly," follow SOP as much as possible, and think less. Overthinking can affect execution and lead to high turnover, which is not good.==

Grassroots employees often remain in their positions because they cannot be promoted—these are good people, but their abilities are limited. Worker bees and ants deserve praise, but there is no need to try to elevate their thinking levels. Among the grassroots, there are a few who are passersby; their minds are sharp, and even without training, they are capable. What to do? Promote them; that’s how middle management comes about.

The term "the wise above and the foolish below" originally referred to the smartest and the dumbest people in the Analects. I want to change its meaning to "make the wise above and the foolish below": those above should be smart and think clearly, but they don't need to make those below understand clearly. Even if you explain your thoughts in simpler terms, most of them still won't understand what you are explaining—due to a lack of information consensus and different CPU computing powers, your explanations will only exacerbate misunderstandings.

Grassroots organizations need to strengthen their culture, which is why grassroots branches must be established. Looking further back, the Catholic Church in medieval Europe, most socialist countries, and nearly all military systems operate this way; it is a universal law in human history.

==Grassroots need "simple thinking and fervent belief."==

3. Senior management, more importantly, needs culture and organization.

What about senior management? Their thinking abilities are important, right? Of course, they are important, but they have more important tasks, which are culture and organizational management.

Executives' biggest problem is not a lack of intelligence; if they are not smart, they find it hard to become executives. Their problem is that they can easily be spoiled by power and cannot control their own inflation. The character Pang in Lao She's "Teahouse" marries a commoner, and every day he tortures her. This happens every day in companies; executives like Pang have their own issues, turning anxiety into SM, often losing control, and when they are in the mood, they PUA employees.

I once advised a Pang-like executive to treat the commoners better. The Pang-like executive said, "Look at Jobs," implying that those who can accomplish great things do not get bogged down by these issues. I think this is called "having neither Jobs' fate nor his abilities." Merely imitating flaws is not enough; you need to have their skills. Why not learn about their "reality distortion field"?

==The executives of the company should focus on one thing: ==to ensure that those who truly work have "hope, capability, and enthusiasm."==== Compared to a clear-thinking Pang-like executive, organizations are more willing to work for warm parental figures and reliable mentors.

4. ==Middle management is the most in touch with the business.==

Sitting in the executive position, most of their understanding of the external environment comes from reports in the headquarters conference room. Occasionally going to the market to take a look is usually accompanied by a crowd, viewing it from a lofty perspective—if they can see the problems, how bad must the market be? They are destined to become people who lack a sense of the business.

A sense of business means:

• ==High-fidelity information.== Decision-making cannot be better than the information obtained. Middle management is closer to the scene, with fewer filtering layers, leading to higher fidelity.
• ==Reliable subjective judgment.== High fidelity and high efficiency are contradictory; to balance reality and efficiency, managers must have the ability to subjectively choose objective facts.

The difficulty lies in "subjectivity." Facts are objective and can be provided by artificial intelligence; insights are subjective and belong to you. The company hires you for your subjectivity—==as AI becomes more rampant, human "subjectivity" becomes more valuable. The "subjectivity" of middle managers is the most valuable asset in a company.==

5. The key ability of middle management is "thinking clearly."

Any middle manager in a company should focus on three things: "think clearly, explain clearly, and execute smoothly." The key is "thinking clearly."

1. Poor execution ultimately stems from unclear thinking.

One common complaint is "the team's execution ability is lacking." The issue of execution refers to "smooth execution." Reflecting on the hundreds of companies I have collaborated with, which company's team has inherently poor execution? I have not seen any.

The team's execution ability largely comes from upstream; ==leaders can think more clearly about these matters, break them down more clearly, and follow up more timely.==

For example, this is like renovating your house.

As the general manager of your home, you probably described your thoughts; the designer, adding their understanding, drew an effect diagram. You looked at it and thought it was okay, so you handed the effect diagram to the construction team, but no one made a "construction breakdown table." What followed was endless arguing, and after the originally planned six months, you angrily moved into a barely acceptable house, while the construction team had relatives squatting at your door eating takeout and chasing after the final payment.

In management, the situation is similar: everyone wants to be the designer, no one wants to be the engineer; everyone is eager to offer ideas and write proposals for presentations, but no one makes a "construction breakdown table." The so-called execution problems I have seen are mostly of this nature.

Tip: When you hear "the team's execution ability is lacking," reflexively assume: ==the speaker's ability to "think clearly" and "explain clearly" is problematic, thus pushing the blame onto others for "not being smooth." Especially when this statement is something they themselves said.==

2. If you can't think clearly, can you compensate for your weaknesses with strengths?

If you really can't think clearly or just can't think clearly, can you rely on "explaining clearly" and "executing smoothly" to compensate for your weaknesses? If we lack GPUs, can we make up for it with more CPUs?

Not really.

==If decision-making ability is poor, the stronger other abilities are, the more toxic they become.==

Assuming a company, middle managers are trained to enhance their "explain clearly" abilities, such as various verbal communication skills, handling objections, cross-functional communication skills, and various written structured expressions based on the pyramid principle, how to increase influence, etc., but they cannot "think clearly." What happens then?

They will use these communication skills to package poor decisions. And these poor decisions, armed with stronger charisma, have the power to bypass rationality and strike at the heart; this is a fortified poor decision—different from before—it is an even worse decision.

Following this line of thought, one can derive a somewhat absurd conclusion:

If decision-making ability is poor, it should be ensured that execution ability is lower than decision-making ability, making it difficult for poor decisions to be implemented. After all, "standing still in the wrong direction is still progress."

==Upon reflection, yes, it is indeed like this—some decisions did not bring disaster to the company solely because the team executed poorly.==

6. What is the current state of middle management's thinking abilities?

7. In this field, people do not feel they have any issues.

Our consulting team has conducted several surveys, asking managers what they think their weaknesses are, where their shortcomings lie. Some say time management, others say organizational development, and some mention being too invested in work without taking care of their health, but almost no one has ever said that their "thinking ability" is lacking—this seems to be a privacy issue for managers that cannot be openly discussed.

2. My bias is that thinking abilities are not great.

I serve consumer goods companies, and limited by my small sample size, my biased view is:

The bad news is—decision-making abilities are concerning, and most rely on charisma and eye contact to hold things together. The good news is—everyone is not great, very few are good, and if you accidentally encounter a good decision, you should go home and write a diary to commemorate it.

In this field, everyone seems to be somewhat slacking off.

Most middle managers make a large number of decisions every day—you can count how many decisions you make daily, such as whether to approve each expense.

The problem is that making many decisions does not mean your abilities will improve; playing mahjong every day will not make you a better player.

3. Almost all are "symptom solutions" and "iatrogenic diseases."

Business is complex, and managers tend to use simple methods to solve problems—for this, they pull out many books to prove that "decision-making is simple," "management is simple," and "strategy is simple." You should pay attention to their prefaces, which state, "Seeing its simplicity is not easy," and these are insights gained after much experience, not the simplicity understood by laymen.

The most typical poor decisions are "symptom solutions," those that address the second or third site, the "treat the symptoms" type of decisions, such as:

When someone resigns, hire someone new;

When a client drops out, find a new client;

When the team is slack, strengthen attendance;

When expenses are tight, require business trips to "tighten the budget," and so on.

Thus, a series of new problems arise—using medical terminology, this is called iatrogenic disease. ==Iatrogenic diseases are diseases caused by treatment. The treatment plan may be more harmful than the disease itself.==

Iatrogenic diseases continue endlessly, making managers very busy, hastily making decisions, and patching various "symptom solutions," thus creating more "iatrogenic diseases," leading to even more busyness. Thus, the wheel of overtime keeps turning.

In companies, everyone is busy going in circles, mostly because they cannot understand things—or they understand but feel that creating chaos is more profitable.

During the pandemic, some companies could not hold promotions or launch campaigns, leading to simultaneous increases in volume and profit. I don't know why; perhaps the iatrogenic diseases decreased?

Tip: ==When faced with a situation, your first reaction plan—habitual plan, intuitive plan—almost "treats the symptoms." If you keep making decisions this way, you will be tightly controlled by your biological instincts.==

4. Unclear thinking is characterized by "three lacks": lack of logic, lack of reflection, lack of accumulation.

Lack of logic refers to a deficiency in the techniques of thinking;

Lack of reflection refers to a lack of "thinking about how to think";

Lack of accumulation refers to a lack of management of the products of thinking and reflection—experience and knowledge.

Let me explain each in turn.

7. Lack of logic: a deficiency in the techniques of thinking.

Company review meetings and strategic planning meetings are the most important meetings. These meetings often consist of three parts: decision-making based on betting, reviewing to assign blame, and leaders banging the table.

1. Strategies are set using a "betting" approach.

How should strategies be set? To make a long story short, setting strategies is about making choices, which also consists of three parts:

• Clarifying what you want;
• Identifying the available options;
• Making a choice among the options.

In practice, these steps are often absent. If you advocate "decision hygiene" or "procedural justice," you may find yourself isolated, ridiculous, indecisive in meetings.

Speaking of decisiveness, there is a type of honey badger manager who is the most decisive.

Honey badgers are fierce, genuinely confident, and do not get bogged down in "what the problem really is," wasting time considering other options; they can quickly make judgments without any evaluation—setting an annual channel strategy might be less careful than deciding where to place a refrigerator in their home. In the eyes of honey badgers, those who do not quickly agree with their thoughts are not human; they are merely alpacas.

To summarize, honey badgers are characterized by:

No options, no evaluations, no surprises, no failures, confidence, charisma, and a wolf-like nature. Their motto is: "Life and death are trivial; if you don't agree, just fight."

Most of their decisions are based on "I think it will work," relying on a bold "ferocity," not licking the lid when drinking yogurt, and breaking stones with their chests. ==Considering survivor bias, the honey badgers I can encounter are all successful; their "ferocity" often leads to good results.==

What if the results are poor? They seek extra resources, reallocate other resources, and carve out a bloody path; they must succeed and cannot fail. Many companies' ambitious new products follow this route, and those called general manager projects often turn into such success stories.

Tip: For every decision you encounter, assume that the decision-maker is betting, and ask them to provide evidence that they are not gambling.

==To treat this habit of betting on decisions, the best method is to have them put up their own 500,000 yuan to do short-term trading in the stock market, the kind that involves frequent buying and selling. This treatment method is effective, quick to show results, and specifically treats overconfidence and various forms of defiance.==

2. Using "assigning blame" as a way to review.

"When a person is in a company, they are actually doing two types of work: one is what they are actually doing, and the other is what they do for others to see, hoping others believe they are doing."

— Bob Kegan, Harvard University professor and developmental psychologist.

The greater the difference between the two, the more dangerous the company becomes. If one thinks too much about the boss, they think less about colleagues and clients.

The purpose of corporate summary meetings is often not to uncover the truth, find the source, summarize experiences, or share lessons, but rather a feast of "self-serving bias," typically following a routine:

If I did not do this well, it is because:

(1) The company's support was inadequate; (2) The team's execution ability was lacking due to salaries being below market average; (3) Customer loyalty was poor; (4) Competitors were ruthless; (5) It was due to natural disasters and other uncontrollable factors.

If I succeeded in this matter, it is because I am highly capable;

Others' successes are due to luck;

Others' failures are due to their incompetence.

Tip: Any explanation that does not relate to oneself is nonsense. (My mother says she cannot memorize ancient poems because of poor memory, which is a hereditary issue, so the responsibility lies with my grandmother.)

Ultimately, any reflection that does not point to a specific individual's traits is merely whitewashing. (This is Ray Dalio's perspective.)

If there were a historical fast-forward button, pressing it would reveal the company's development trajectory, showing where they fell and where they fell again, getting up, and falling again, without even grasping a handful of sand. Bystanders find it amusing, while the parties involved are exasperated, blaming heaven and earth.

3. Managers lack the "technical actions" of thinking.

In training for sports skills, such as running, swimming, or skiing, technical actions are emphasized. Their daily training is not merely repetition or increasing intensity; the most time-consuming part is refining technical actions. During regular training, they record videos, reviewing frame by frame, with coaches focusing on every detail.

Without meticulous refinement of technical actions, training is exhausting without yielding results, leading to injuries—this is a "deeply troubled" mode of exercise.

Powerlifters and gymnasts must mentally rehearse technical points before each lift. What about a company's manager? Before making a decision, they should mentally rehearse the decision-making technical points: ==(1) Have I clearly defined the problem? (2) What possible options do I have? (3) What are the criteria for evaluating these options? ... What will happen if I proceed this way?==

They won't do that; they are not familiar with the "technical actions" of thinking—there's nothing to rehearse.

4. Let's take the common issue of "questioning" as an example.

In 1868, after Zeng Guofan quelled the Taiping Rebellion, he was asked by the court to disband the overly powerful Xiang Army and then became the governor of Zhili, entering Beijing to meet the emperor and the two empress dowagers. Zeng originally thought that the empress dowagers, being adept at seizing power, would surely be intelligent figures. To his surprise, they spoke only trivial matters and did not raise any key questions about governing the country. Zeng was greatly disappointed and wrote in his diary: "The two empresses are of ordinary talent, and there was not a single important word exchanged."

I often encounter similar issues: corporate executives complain that their teams do not ask questions. During the questioning segment of meetings, there is either complete silence or questions that lack technical depth, "not a single important word." How to solve this?

Asking questions is a typical technical action. To ask good questions, one must master the techniques of thinking, which require you to have:

• A standard thinking process;
• Applicable business models;
• Extensive thinking on such matters;
• Mastery of the techniques of questioning.

Only then can one ultimately ask a series of good questions. Asking truly good questions almost guarantees half of the correct answers.

Let's do a simple test:

(1) Ask yourself how many times, when you ask the first question, you are clear about what your second question will be? The third? The fourth?

(2) Your girlfriend talks about breaking up again. You have two questioning patterns:

Pattern A: Why do you want to break up?

Pattern B: How did we get to this point today?

If you can only ask one, which one would you choose? Why? What are the differences?

(3) On a project, a colleague gives an action suggestion, and you can ask two questions:

Question A: What assumptions is the suggestion based on?

Question B: What difficulties might arise during execution?

If you can only choose one, which one would you choose? Why? What are the differences?

See, asking questions involves both technique and thought; it is not easy. What about other thinking techniques? To put it bluntly, there are no easy ones; this field almost has no concepts that are easily understood or quickly grasped.

5. Schools do not teach learning methods, and companies do not teach thinking techniques.

Just as schools lack training in exploring learning methods, companies rarely have an atmosphere for thinking about "how to think."

As a result: very few people master critical thinking, there is a lack of clear logical reasoning, and no one challenges others' assumptions; everyone is busy providing symptom solutions and dealing with iatrogenic issues, with few caring about the techniques of thinking to solve problems and make decisions.

These deficiencies are packaged as "pragmatism," which has become a perceived virtue, similar to how poor emotional intelligence can be described as being genuine.

Among the clients I have served, only a few companies have ever launched training in this area, such as Mars Wrigley's PSDM, a decision-making training workshop based on systematic cycles, which is certainly difficult to promote. One reason is the applicability of such courses, especially functional applicability; supply chain training is easy to promote, while marketing training is not. The second reason is that this is a technique that requires extensive training, which is inherently difficult—if it weren't difficult, all companies would have already rolled it out.

8. Lack of reflection: a deficiency in "thinking about thinking."

I am often asked for my opinions on certain matters, but I have rarely encountered anyone asking me how to think about a particular issue. People are more accustomed to seeking an answer, not caring much about the process of obtaining that answer. The difference between "fish" and "fishing."

1. Reviewing business results is one thing; reflecting on the decision-making process is another.

Corporate summary meetings share a commonality: most are reviews, and very few are reflections.

Let me explain the difference between the two:

• Review

Evaluating business performance, identifying problems through results, and then making adjustments.

This is thinking about the matter, thinking about the business.

• Reflection

==Retracing how decisions were made at the time, the definitions of tasks, assumptions, arguments, judgment logic, conclusions drawn, and the beliefs, positions, and emotions held by the decision-makers ...==

==This is thinking about thinking, which is meta-thinking.==

For example, the easiest way to identify problems during reflection is to trace back and discover that the judgments made at the time were incorrect. For instance, the perceived current situation, the predictions of trends, and the assessments of competition may all have biases, but they form the basis for making decisions. If the predictions are wrong, everything else will be wrong. Your decisions cannot be wiser than your predictions.

However, there is no way around it; everyone looks at problems with "confirmation bias," like lawyers, forming opinions first and then seeking facts to support their views. Everyone views the world through their own funhouse mirror, distorting everything. What seemed resolute and bright at the time appears completely off-track and horrifying in hindsight.

You can find this feeling by looking at past stock market predictions.

But what if there is no reflection? We have managed without reflection for many years, achieving double-digit growth year after year.

The possible outcome is that you can only judge your performance based on wins and losses; you will never be able to discern whether this double-digit growth is due to good cards or good skills.

2. Is it good cards or good skills?

When everyone goes on stage to review, the typical routine is: first presenting a good result, saying that this year we did well because we accomplished A, which led to our current success.

At this point, my mind kicks into "Eight Section Brocade + Burpee" mode. This is from the fable of Tom and Jerry: they both enter the elevator, press the button for the 18th floor, and immediately, Tom starts doing Eight Section Brocade while Jerry does Burpees, both panting and sweating profusely, and then the elevator reaches the 18th floor.

They share their success stories, with sweat and heart rates displayed; what does this indicate? The movement of people in the elevator is the key to reaching the 18th floor.

As for which is better, Eight Section Brocade or Burpees, the internal division of the company has formed two factions:

The entrepreneurial veterans believe in Eight Section Brocade because they have always practiced it and have consistently reached the 18th floor. Note: not once or twice, but every time. How could this be a coincidence? Eight Section Brocade works well.

The newly appointed managers, with broader perspectives, see that society generally adopts more vigorous forms of high-intensity aerobic exercise in short durations, while the slow-paced Eight Section Brocade is outdated and inefficient. Burpees are effective.

The story ends here. Although everyone has divided into factions, the consensus is that they believe their skills are good.

In reality, asking one logical "negation" can resolve the issue:

• Negation: Not doing Eight Section Brocade means you cannot reach the 18th floor.
• Judgment: If the negation does not hold, the original proposition does not hold.

See, that’s quite smooth.

These fortunate double-digit growths bring about dangerous confidence. Quoting a line from Master Hongyi Li Shutong:

==“The most unfortunate part of life is that a careless word may lead to disaster; a careless strategy may lead to success; a reckless act may yield small gains. Later, one may view these as the norm and become complacent. Thus, the greatest calamity arises from this.”==

You say something you shouldn't have, and nothing happens;

You make a wrong decision, and it surprisingly works out;

You indulge yourself, and instead, you make a small profit.

Not only are you completely unaware, but you are also encouraged, leading you to continue down the wrong path, unaware that the greatest calamity begins here.

The way to avoid this is to have a strong desire to explore whether it is good skills or good luck.

If it is good skills, even if you fail, it doesn't matter;

If it is good cards, even if you profit, it is not worth celebrating too much; things that come from luck will inevitably revert to the mean—"regression to the mean" is the curse of statistics for all lucky individuals.

==Tip: First assume that all successes are due to luck, and all failures are due to decision-making errors. Then try to falsify this assumption.==

Can good skills guarantee a win? Not necessarily. A correct decision-making process does not completely avoid failure, but it can increase your chances of success. Remember: we are pursuing ==systematic victories accumulated through repeated games.==
This is a statement that needs to be emphasized repeatedly; those who often play mahjong can easily understand the essence of this statement.

3. Do not blame others, do not repeat mistakes.

When a leader scolds executives at the year-end meeting for making strategic errors and having problematic thinking, it is quite awkward: this strategy was approved by you at the beginning of the year; didn't you already pass it? If you didn't approve it, why didn't you do so earlier?

A good leader should learn from Yan Hui: "A good learner does not blame others and does not repeat mistakes."— Do not vent your frustrations on others and do not make the same mistakes again.

How to "not repeat mistakes"?

According to Ray Dalio's formula from Bridgewater Associates:

Pain + Reflection = Progress

First, there is pain; one must bravely face their mistakes, lay them bare for oneself and others to see, and then sprinkle salt on the wounds and stir them up;

Then comes reflection, which involves thinking clearly about why the mistake was made, which step, which element, or which technical action was wrong, leading to the mistake.

Thus, progress is made. That is essential because you will not make the same mistake again; you have "not repeated mistakes."

If you can do this, you are a "professional mistake-maker."

4. Being a "professional mistake-maker" means not making many mistakes but being able to reflect on each mistake and turn it into principles that guide future similar events.

In fact, this means understanding oneself first: knowing your thinking framework, understanding how you think about each type of matter, why you think that way, and how decisions are made.

Non-professional mistake-makers become flustered when encountering situations, while professional mistake-makers list behavioral guidelines for similar situations and problems, turning all new problems into "old problems that we have solutions for."

This leads to a new topic: accumulation.

9. Lack of accumulation: a deficiency in knowledge management.

10. An uninitiated project.

I encountered a project demand from a large company; the executive's thought was: competition is fierce, and our battle with competitors has become intense, leading to significant resource investment, but the results were not ideal, and the group's leadership was unhappy, suggesting that the marketing strategy was problematic and that the ability to formulate marketing strategies needed improvement.

What a great topic. So we said, please provide me with the following:

The direction, goals, strategies, and actual performance results for the past three years;

Records left from discussions about these directions, goals, and strategies each year. In fact, qualified meeting minutes would suffice; the goal is to understand "how decisions were made."

Based on my project experience, having this information can reveal most decision-making issues.

The company could not provide the materials—there were no records. Aside from some fragmented emails, there were only the annual meeting PPTs. Perhaps some process-related materials were scattered across different participants' hard drives, making it difficult to compile them together due to personnel turnover.

As a result, without historical materials, this project was shelved. Thinking about how they would continue to set strategies year after year is truly nerve-wracking.

2. Learning from investors.

I admire Nassim Taleb, a thinker from Lebanon who has spent most of his life on Wall Street as a hedge fund trader while writing books like "The Black Swan," "Antifragile," "Fooled by Randomness," and "The Asymmetry of Risk." He loves strength training, believing it helps him become "antifragile," to quote Nietzsche, "what does not kill you makes you stronger."

He has a bias: securities market traders are the best decision-makers—not necessarily because they are smart, but because their poor decisions will have immediate consequences; they will immediately lose their interests if they make a mistake.

I really like this bias; those who feel pain from making poor decisions have motivation and will strive to master techniques to make good decisions.

In companies, the script is different; ordinary managers do not face immediate feedback or consequences for their mistakes, nor do they feel the pain of losing their own interests. They may be dedicated, but they are not as dedicated because it is not directly related to their personal interests.

What am I trying to say? When making decisions, one should learn from investors, observing how these people with "skin in the game" strive to improve their decision-making accuracy.

How do they do it?

From Ray Dalio's "Principles" to Naval's "The Navalmanack," from the interviews in "Market Wizards" twenty years ago to the recent "The Way of Trading," excellent investors share a common characteristic:

They record the trading logic behind every investment and then summarize patterns, extracting investment rules and standards to guide future trades.

For example, take the Silicon Valley investor Parish:

After making a decision, he does not announce it immediately; instead, he writes down the entire rationale for the decision on a piece of paper and then goes to sleep.

The next day, he wakes up and reviews that piece of paper. If he feels something is off, then that decision is immature and should be postponed.

If the decision is confirmed and the money is invested, that piece of paper is archived, and when the results come out, he reflects on the decision-making process and improves the decision-making process.

If it were a secondary market stock trader, they would use a "trading journal" approach:

Making a pre-trade plan: what to trade, under what conditions to trade, and why these settings are made;

Making a post-trade summary: what the actual situation was, whether the plan was followed, and why?

Every day, planning and reviewing allow for a frame-by-frame retrospective of decisions, with extensive deliberate practice focusing on the details of technical actions.

Making records, managing records, and utilizing records is a set of reflection tools; this is not only a set of thinking techniques but also a learning technique and the foundation of knowledge management.

3. Both companies and individuals lack a "mistake book."

For most people, their student years are the peak of their learning abilities.

"The top students have two pens, while the struggling students have more stationery."

Top students may have fewer stationery items, but they have three treasures: notes, real questions, and a mistake book.

• Notes record all the valuable information;
• Real questions are the most practical topics;
• The mistake book specifically records errors for repeated review.

The purpose of reviewing is not only to get it right but also to understand why mistakes were made previously. How did they happen? What fundamental skills were lacking? How can we ensure that similar problems do not occur again? The "mistake book" is the basic guarantee of "not repeating mistakes."

==Companies never lack real questions; what they lack is a "mistake book," a mechanism and ability to reflect on poor decisions, and a mechanism to retain these lessons learned. This mechanism is "knowledge management."==

I have asked many middle and senior managers, from department heads to newly appointed general managers, "How do you manage your knowledge?" One type of response is confusion, asking what "knowledge management" is. Many managers do not know what "knowledge management" is.

Another type of response is—Word; previously, there were emails, and now some answer with Feishu: when I have good ideas, experiences, or information, I send them to everyone via Feishu, and the sending records become my knowledge management. This is indeed better than nothing, but it is still scattered and inefficient.

A common way to handle knowledge is to forward public account articles in groups, ask for others' PPTs, and take photos during visits to share insights on social media. However, these flashes of inspiration fade away with time. Personal reflections are not solidified, and corporate experiences are not passed down.

The lack of transmission is a regrettable matter.

A friend who works in management at a certain group is an excellent businessman; wherever he is assigned, the business flourishes. When he leaves, it gradually returns to its original state. Why?

He is smart and has keen business insights, but he is not good at conveying his thoughts to subordinates and successors. He neither transforms experience into knowledge nor manages knowledge, so his success remains personal and cannot become the company's success.

Tip: Prepare a "decision journal," and don't worry about how to record it; just start recording. Record daily, noting just one decision each day, avoiding formal language and using colloquial expressions.

4. In a poor economic climate, companies compete on who makes fewer mistakes.

Previously, there was the pandemic; now there is weak recovery, and in the future, there will be new issues, such as excessive internal competition. How can companies rise against the tide and thrive during tough times?

In difficult times, the real competition between companies is "making fewer mistakes and not repeating them"—hunters need to be steady, while prey jumps around.

10. Why is there no evolution of learning abilities?

Originally, everyone had received higher education; why, in the workplace, has there been no evolution of decision-making abilities, no trend of natural selection? Clearly, it is a highly decision-dependent environment; why has there been no evolution of strong thinking abilities?

The answer should be: because this is not important for individual survival; developing this set of abilities is not the optimal solution.

Several reasons are worth considering:

• The nature of the matter:

Management work has a delay between action and results, which makes the cause-and-effect relationship vague and unfavorable for analysis. Short-term stock trading does not have this issue, which is why Nassim Taleb believes traders are the best decision-makers.

• Middle management's own reasons:

"Inertia default": people tend to continue doing what they are used to and resist change. The times have changed to high-speed trains, but those riding still prefer the old green trains, eating roast chicken and playing cards, while their minds are filled with offline thoughts.

• The boss's reasons:

==The more dominant the boss, the more paralyzed the middle management becomes.==

Bosses spoiled by their own power make all decisions forcefully, interfering with operations. After several struggles and failures, middle management falls into learned helplessness, no longer daring to make decisions or wanting to make decisions. They become victims.

==Capable people are unwilling to work long-term with victims—only other victims are willing to work with victims. Thus, a victim group forms, executing the boss's orders while complaining about everything in the company.==

Talking to them about thinking abilities and knowledge management is not only useless but also archaic and laughable. They are the second site; the crime scene is with the boss.

In such companies, the virtue is execution ability, aligning with the boss. Buffett once said in a letter to shareholders, "The overall image of lemmings may be poor, but no individual lemming has received negative coverage."

They are just a group of lemmings.

• Peer competition reasons:

If someone has strong thinking abilities but lacks political acumen, they tend to be conservative—because they can always foresee problems and loopholes—making it difficult to achieve breakthroughs in their careers. In a team where everyone is taking risks, the optimal solution is to follow the risks rather than think cautiously; reckless and overly confident honey badgers are more likely to succeed and become leaders.

==If someone has strong thinking abilities and also excels in company politics, that is truly strong. Such a person believes, "I can make the right decisions; I am better than others; entrusting the company to me is the right choice. To achieve the correct goal, I can use incorrect means without any guilt."==

This is a Benthamite utilitarian moral perspective, typically represented by Iron Man Stark in Marvel—he advocates for government oversight of superheroes, not out of a desire for power over S.H.I.E.L.D., but because he knows that if he does not take the lead, there will be worse leaders. Thus, Captain America can only be a grassroots leader, while Iron Man is fit for higher leadership.

==If you find such a person in the company, the best method is to stand with them.==

==However, such a person will not foster an internal culture of improving learning abilities; they prefer to be surrounded by fools.==

11. To summarize, some suggestions.

To summarize the previous thoughts:

If only one group of people can be empowered, it must be middle management;

If only one ability can be empowered, it must be the ability to "think clearly"; if there are issues with "thinking clearly," other abilities may turn into poison.

If we get specific about a technique, it is best to focus on the reflection technique for poor decisions;

If we get even more specific, it should start with recording the decision-making process.

If a system must be built, I hope it is a knowledge management system based on summarizing experiences and lessons learned, a serious "mistake book."

The best method is to "lead by example," allowing a small group of passionate and qualified individuals to first become personal knowledge management experts, enabling them to grow and taste success first. What companies lack most is role models, allowing people to see that excellent thinking leads to good results, inspiring them to follow suit.

Postscript

The article is too long; it has grown to the point where a postscript is needed.

Peter Thiel said in "Zero to One":

"Great companies are built on open and undiscovered secrets."

I believe this statement can be paired with a line from Kenichi Ohmae in "The Professional":

"What is professionalism? It is that I give you all the operating instructions, and you still cannot surpass my abilities."

Their underlying code conveys a similar meaning:

What makes a company good? Often, it is evident; the truth is that if I tell you one sentence, you still won't be able to do it. In the context of our article, a good company is not difficult—"make fewer mistakes, do not repeat them," record more, reflect more, and ensure transmission. That's it.

Finally, I encourage the middle managers struggling in the bureaucratic business system with a quote often said by actor Gary Oldman:

There are only bad movies, not bad roles.