The boss advocates Huawei's "Struggler-oriented" culture, not people-oriented. what do you think?

Recently, the boss of this company handed over the work to his son and retired from the background. As soon as the chairman of the new company came up, he vigorously promoted some measures and systems of Huawei. In terms of cultural construction, he first publicized Huawei's concept of "pursuing Excellence" and spared no effort to practice this view on various occasions. First of all, a new human resources director was arranged for the subordinate automobile department. The human resources director came from Huawei and was hired with a high salary. Secondly, he promoted the concept of "striving for the first" from top to bottom in the group company, and asked the leaders and human resources departments of the headquarters and the following branches to thoroughly implement the boss's core requirements and formulate a series of policies to ensure that the strugglers who "create profits for the company" get benefits!

Of course, this seems to be a good thing. I wonder if this young new chairman is a three-minute fanatic. If this policy encounters great difficulties after implementation, it is a question mark whether the chairman's concept can still be implemented. After all, the former chairman also implemented a similar policy for a period of time. At first, it was quite good, but later it gradually deteriorated, and it was even used by people with a heart to fight for power and profit, and then it went away.

Is the concept of "Struggler-oriented" correct? I think this is completely correct! We work individually to make money, and so does starting a company. A company that doesn't make money is irresponsible to its boss or shareholders, that is, irresponsible to society. It is understandable to start a company for profit and money.

A profitable company can not only make the boss earn money, but also let the employees below enjoy the company's profit dividend, which not only ensures the stability of employees' work, but also indirectly supports the families behind employees, and even creates more employment opportunities and taxes. Therefore, the social value of a profitable company is very huge, so how can we make a profit? We all say that talents are the core competitiveness of enterprises. Why the United States rose rapidly after World War II is because it can accept eight talents!

For a company, outstanding talents can often affect the life and death of a company, and the growth of the company is based on the full support and contribution of many talents, so it has become the mainstream idea to invest in talents. Look at Huawei again. In just a few years, it has changed from an OEM of communication equipment to a giant that leads the development trend of the industry. Huawei's investment in employees has simply shocked the world. An annual salary of one million not only created many people's financial freedom, but also pushed Huawei to the top of the world. Is this investment worth it? I think it's a good deal!

Struggler-oriented means talent-oriented, that is, the company's resources are tilted to "strugglers", so the problem is coming? What is a struggler? How to define strugglers and outstanding talents? What's the difference between a struggler and an ordinary employee? Combined with personal work experience, I think it can be seen from the following points.

First, strugglers speak with achievements, are responsible for the results, and can create value.

Many people in the workplace like to say, "I can't get through." In fact, this sentence does not apply to the workplace. No boss likes such an employee, he only pays his salary to get the results of his work. The biggest difference between strugglers and ordinary employees is that strugglers can create value, hand over the work results that satisfy the boss and the company at work, and even exceed the boss's expectations and overfulfil the task! Speaking with achievements and results is the biggest feature of a "struggler" and the core competitiveness of this excellent employee. Only when you reach this level can you be called a "talent"!

Ordinary employees usually pay wages step by step and punch in on time, and the interests of the company have little to do with him. It is precisely because he doesn't have a company in mind that they can't be "strugglers" of the company. From the perspective of hierarchy, ordinary employees are at best "human resources" and cannot become "talents". From the perspective of contribution income, the value created by ordinary employees is limited, and may only be worthy of his salary, while the value created by "strivers" far exceeds the salary paid by the boss, which is a premium. Judging from the return on investment of capital, if you were the boss, who would you hire? Who do you want to reuse? Do you earn a dollar with a penny or a penny with a penny? I think anyone can do such a simple arithmetic problem!

Second, strugglers can lead by example, illuminate the whole company and create a struggling corporate culture.

Strugglers can not only create direct economic value, but also influence the corporate culture of the company subtly. Many times, a person's behavior will affect the people around him. This is the so-called "people who are close to Zhu Zhechi and close to Mexico are black, and people are divided into groups". Strugglers are not only the executors of work, but also the most attractive leaders and motivators in the company. Strugglers can mobilize the enthusiasm of their colleagues around them through their own efforts, and they are promoted and raised because of their excellent work. What will others think? This is a positive feedback, a positive relationship between a struggler and the company. A struggler can drive a group of strugglers, and the role of an example is the most direct! So another difference between a struggler and an ordinary employee is that he can influence others, thus affecting the company culture and working atmosphere. From this point of view, it creates direct economic benefits better than before!

Third, the strugglers are all smart people, and they are mutually beneficial and win-win for the enterprise.

Workaholics who work silently can't be called "strugglers", but can only be called "labor writers" at best, because first, they create limited value, and second, they can't influence others. Those who can be called "strugglers" are usually people with high IQ and EQ. First of all, with high IQ, such people can work intelligently and know where to start to get twice the result with half the effort; Second, I have high emotional intelligence and know how to influence others, so that more people can use it for themselves and create greater value. Therefore, the strugglers in the company actually stand out from the crowd, and you can identify them as long as you pay attention.

The above is the difference between strugglers and ordinary employees. After reading it, do you think the company resources should be tilted towards the strugglers? The reason why Huawei advocates "Struggler-oriented" is to maximize the benefits and create a win-win situation for the company and the strugglers, thus forming a positive relationship: the company leans resources to the strugglers-the strugglers strive to create value-the company creates profits-and the company continues to invest in the strugglers with the profits earned. Is this an ideal circular relationship?

According to the "28" principle, only 20% people in a company can create value, so the company should tilt its resources to these people. Therefore, I agree with the suggestion made by the young new boss at the beginning of the article. From the perspective of corporate interests and personal growth returns, once this policy is mature, the company's development will be supported by many "strugglers" in by going up one flight of stairs. What do you think of Huawei's cultural strategy of "Excellence"? Welcome to leave a message in the comment area for discussion.