The advantages and disadvantages of humanized management and institutionalized management are used for debate. Thank you so much.

Institutionalized management is conducive to the development of the company

1. The boss of my company believes that respecting employees means ignoring their shortcomings, looking more at their advantages, and trusting the consciousness of employees more. Use many restrictive systems to constrain employees, turning them into "robots" who can only follow steps. But sometimes I feel that the boss's so-called "humanized" management inadvertently condones bad behavior, and at the same time it also discourages many people who are dedicated to improvement. Employees feel that good or bad work is the same, there is no reward for good work, and it doesn't matter if they don't do well. Even if the problem is serious, the most they can do is talk to the boss once. Later, even many employees felt that the company could not develop without systems, so the company established some systems, but no one implemented them, and the systems were ineffective. After a few days, it was the same as before. The managers of each department are also very conflicted. Some departments can implement the system seriously, while others do not. As a result, there are private discussions among employees. A certain manager is too bad and a certain manager is good, which makes it difficult for managers to behave. . So far, the company has continuously rewarded some good phenomena, but has never punished employees with poor performance. It is even unwilling to "hurt" people with poor character and harm the company's interests. The boss thinks it is right. Their punishment is injury. As a result, our company's employees are becoming more and more like frogs in warm water, and their sense of responsibility has also declined. The passionate new employees soon turned into "old fritters" and began to live their lives. Their wages dropped and they did not check their work attitude or Is there something wrong with the working methods, but instead complains about the company (in fact, this kind of person is often aware of his own shortcomings, but he still pretends to be aggrieved in order to hide his incompetence in order to avoid chaos in the world)..., in fact, I believe that institutionalized management is conducive to standardizing employee behavior. As long as there are dedicated people to implement it step by step, cadres take the lead, and all departments of the company can implement it in a unified manner. I believe employees who pursue progress and are willing to grow with the company will still be happy. Accept some challenges, and those who cannot accept them are the ones the company will eliminate. (? World Manager)

2. The soul of today’s enterprise development is management! Institutionalized management is more widely applicable because everyone is operating under the same system constraints and has a certain degree of fairness.

3. At the beginning of the establishment of each charter, people will have some kind of discomfort and discomfort. This requires managers to spend energy and take the trouble to guide them with strict rules and regulations. Over time, , when people are familiar with and understand the management regulations, they will consciously abide by them. Only by formulating a strict management system can we reduce the human factors in the management process and satisfy the most basic human needs (physiological needs, safety and stability needs, social love and belonging needs) to the greatest extent. , the need for self and respect, the need for self-realization), can also provide a good environment for humanized management to fully display its charm, and enable humanized management to develop in the direction of kindness, beauty, glory and reasonableness in human nature. Without strict and thorough management regulations to restrict it, no matter how perfect humanized management is, it will come to nothing. It may be able to support it for a while under the shadow of institutionalization, but if there is a slight disturbance, those so-called "governing by doing nothing" How can it withstand the attack of wind and rain?

4. Institutionalized management is the foundation and foundation for effective management of any association. Why do I say this? Because without a system and step-by-step management under this system, this guild cannot operate normally and cannot produce benefits. Therefore, institutionalized management is necessary, unconditional and the most basic. Without institutionalized management, other management is impossible to talk about. To give a few simple examples: DKP management requires a system, otherwise it will be very easy to have disputes over the distribution of equipment. If there is no system to regulate, the consequences can be imagined. The management of main members requires a system. I believe that everyone joins a guild to advance to high-end FB. If there is no perfect system, and the group leader is completely responsible for organizing people according to his own wishes, various problems will definitely occur over time.

Guild financial management requires systems. Without systems, financial management will be chaotic. In this way, the morale of the military will be unstable and it will be difficult to retain people. Through the simple examples above, we can see that institutionalized management is a necessary condition for the success of a guild. At the same time, how to formulate a good system is also a question worthy of serious consideration by the presidents. At present, many guilds have their own mature management systems. Everyone can learn from these, but at the same time, they need to make some modifications or formulate some new systems based on the situation of their own guild. When formulating the management system, the following four points must be grasped: 1. The need for the introduction of the system: The introduction of any system must be targeted, necessary for the management of the guild and connected with the most essential goal of the guild. Otherwise, there is no need to add superfluous information. From a management perspective, the quality of a guild's management system indirectly reflects the guild's most basic management concepts and attitudes. Institutionalized management is not arbitrary without any restrictions. The introduction of any system must be based on the fundamental needs of the guild management, so as to maintain the fundamental needs of the guild as the principle, and even be conducive to the healthy, orderly and steady development of the guild. At the same time, it shows that it is highly binding and normative for players, but they must fully trust and respect people. Only this kind of system based on needs can play its due role. For example, when we open up a certain BOSS in the wasteland, there are often some main members who are not very willing to come. After all, clearing out the wasteland is a very tiring task. We don’t know whether it will be successful. It costs a lot to repair and requires drinking a lot of various potions. In this regard, we have introduced a series of relevant policies such as the "Rewards Method for Main Members to Actively Participate in Land reclamation" and the "Measures for Rewards for Non-main Members to Actively Participate in Land Development". In this way, there are rewards and penalties, which has greatly improved the guild's land reclamation situation. 2. The scientific and standardized nature of the system: When certain problems arise during the association management process, a system needs to be formulated to standardize management. Then we must strictly follow and formulate procedures according to scientific and standardized systems, and formulate and issue them with an objective understanding of things. This point is very important for the effectiveness of institutionalized management of the guild. If we base the introduction of the system solely on the experience or subjective consciousness of the framers, it is very likely and easy to fall into the category of strong control. When it reaches a certain level, it often leads to the result of "regarding a deer as a horse". This not only violates the essence of system management, but also seriously affects the operability of the execution of the guild system and the formation of system culture. 3. The fairness and rationality of the introduction of the system: As the system is used to regulate and constrain the behavior of association members, the fairness and rationality of its form and content is very important. As the execution objects of the system, the balance and mutual restraint of interests of guild members, that is, the symmetry of rights and obligations, is particularly noteworthy in the guild management system. Otherwise, it will cause guild members to have an emotional work mentality or even a rebellious mentality in order to safeguard their own interests and dignity. Therefore, it further hinders management. Therefore, the formulation and introduction of a system should be based on a scientific and reasonable perspective, a rigorous attitude, and a thorough understanding of the scientific basis for management. The system serves as a means to restrict the behavioral norms of guild members. Fairness, fairness and rationality to guild members are the basis for gaining the recognition of all members. 4. The seriousness of system implementation: The best effect of system implementation is the universal psychological recognition under the principle of non-discrimination. Due to the different time and status of each person in the guild, it is impossible to truly achieve non-discrimination. It is often the key to the ultimate goal of impact and institutionalized crisis management. However, as the implementer and assessor of the system, we should speak with objective facts and handle issues fairly, seriously, fairly and reasonably. This is an inevitable rule for maintaining the effectiveness of institutionalized management of associations.

Institutionalized management is not conducive to company development

1. If the implementation is too strict, it will dampen the enthusiasm of employees.

2. There is a joke like this:

A company is preparing to eliminate a batch of outdated equipment. The board of directors said: "This equipment cannot be thrown away. We must find a place to store it." So a warehouse was built specifically for this batch of equipment.

The board of directors said: "Fire and theft prevention is not a trivial matter. We should find a janitor." So we hired a janitor to look after the warehouse.

The board of directors said: "What should I do if the gatekeeper has no restraint and neglects his duties?" So he appointed two more people and established a planning department. One person was responsible for assigning tasks and the other was responsible for formulating plans.

The board of directors said: "We should keep abreast of the performance of our work." So we appointed two more people to set up a supervision department, one person was responsible for performance appraisal, and the other person was responsible for writing the summary.

The board of directors said: "Egalitarianism cannot be practiced, and the income gap should be widened." So it appointed two more people to set up a finance department, one person was responsible for calculating working hours, and the other was responsible for paying wages.

The board of directors said: "There is no hierarchy in management. Who will be responsible if something goes wrong?" So they appointed four more people and established a management department. One person is responsible for the planning department, one person is responsible for the supervision department, one person is responsible for the financial department, and one person is the general manager and is responsible to the board of directors.

A year later, the board of directors said: "The management cost of the warehouse last year was 350,000 yuan. This number is too big. You must find a way to solve it within a week."

So, within a week Afterwards, the janitor was fired.

Looking at it simply, this is a joke that is easy to judge, but in fact, we are entering this management maze. The larger the company, the more such problems are expected, because we know that many companies have After development reaches a certain level, only by divesting subordinate companies on a large scale can the company's profits and competitiveness be guaranteed. It turns out that it is difficult for us to imagine that the bigger the company, the more powerful it is? Why spin off affiliated companies? In fact, from this story, we can find that if a company continues to develop along the lines of institutionalization, the larger the company, the easier it will be for it to produce a large number of branches as described above. Such a company serves no purpose and only consumes the company's profits. By stripping off parts that do not contribute much to the company but have reasonable existence, a large enterprise can be brought back to life. We can take a look at the following reports:

Report 1: Panasonic’s profit surge through layoffs and price cuts

Panasonic President Kunio Nakamura’s layoffs and price cuts strategy has received As a result, investors are waiting for his next move. He needs to prove to investors that he can increase profits by launching new models more frequently, selling them in more retail stores, and focusing more on products with the greatest growth potential. In the quarter ended December 31, Panasonic is likely to achieve earnings of 14 billion yen, compared with a loss of 172 billion yen a year ago. Sales revenue in the quarter will increase by 2, reaching 1.77 trillion yen. Factory closings and layoffs could save the company 227 billion yen, more than double the forecast operating profit of 100 billion yen. While falling prices for DVD players and video camcorders have helped attract buyers, Panasonic's strategy is not without risks, with concerns that lower prices could hurt the company's profitability. Last year, Standard & Poor's downgraded Panasonic's debt rating twice, saying its "growth strategy was unclear."

Report 2: It took three years for Lucent to lay off 2/3 of its employees and 3/4 of its operating expenses before it initially achieved a turnaround. If it were a Chinese company, I think not only would people have been panicking for a long time, , and just the rumors during the layoff process are enough to cause this company to fail. At the same time, it also reminds me of the Long March. Although most people died in the process of reaching northern Shaanxi, the combat effectiveness and cohesion of the Red Army did not decrease.

When Lucent entered a business trough, it chose a new leader, Lu Sibo, a strong-armed female entrepreneur. She had worked at Lucent in the past and had experience in turning around losses. She also worked successfully at Kodak before returning to Lucent. She led the change at Lucent. Under normal circumstances, when a company reorganizes, the first step is to replace people, and always there are strong figures taking action.

There are more reports: such as Sony Ericsson, such as BMW, etc. It can be easily found that in the institutional construction of the company, in order to standardize the behavior and norms of the company, it will reduce the autonomy of the employees of the company, and make employees think that I only need to complete the part of the work that I should do, and other things. I don’t care, that’s a matter of the system. But this also kills the vitality of enterprise innovation.

And these cannot only be implemented by some enlightened managers, but must be ensured by formulating relevant systems.

Western countries are characterized by a "stranger" society, so they emphasize the rule of law and a sound legal system. There are rules and regulations restricting everything in management, so institutionalization of management is common, and Pay attention to the hardware of management and the scientific management methods; but Eastern countries are characterized by a human society, which pays attention to interpersonal relationships in management and emphasizes humanized management. Pay attention to flexible management. Each should have its own strengths and weaknesses. Now the East and the West influence each other and learn from each other in management. If the advantages are truly complementary, the most effective management can be achieved.

4. Institutionalization and humanization are not contradictory in themselves.

Enterprises must constantly improve systems and processes, but these systems and processes are implemented by people and must be adapted to the company's own development stage. Systems that do not consider human factors are unexecutable. On the contrary, some good Humanized measures and concepts can be institutionalized. In the final analysis, systems and processes belong to the hardware level of an enterprise. Without good execution capabilities and cultural support, no matter how good the system is, it will be in vain.