主题：【原创】管理案例分析：权力的真相1 -- wqnsihs

说这个可能有点滑稽，可是对于很多在中国文化下长大的人来说，真正追求的不是权力而是特权。也就是说别人不能做的事儿我能做的权力。小到一个餐厅老板，大到几亿身家的巨富，一方大员，都有类似的想法。事实上，这些特权很少真的对他们有实质上的影响。比如说餐厅的老板总是要在餐厅的钱箱里拿钱。其实挣多挣少的那钱最后都会归到老板手里。从钱箱里拿来拿去的常常搞的收银员很难做。或者说你讲的那个董事长，其实报销的钱对他来说应该不算什么。不要说一个月不报，估计一年不报也不会影响到他生活。可他就是要做，而且越是这种制度上不允许的事儿他越在乎。真是应了那句偷来的东西吃的香。在生活中也是，很多当官的可以说是一方诸侯了，可就是过收费路不要交钱。真的在乎那几个钱吗？就是要这种别人做不到的事儿来体现自己。真是让人哭笑不得。要改变这些比改变贪腐还难。没有几代人慢慢的做下来是根本不可能的。

从忙总的贴子里感觉到忙总做事非常理性化。这是好事，而且是大好事。可也会误事。水至清则无鱼，在中国这种文化氛围中，完全的理性常常会是做事的阻力。在很多情况下，借力打力，迂回作战的效果要比正面顶住要好的多。也许，这才是不是办法的办法。

闹僵了，跑出去变成竞争对手。

很常见，技术员工手里有技术，民营老板是又亲又敬比亲戚还亲，要是偷学到手了，态度就360度转变，一脚踢开。

集团也是留后手，以不追究责任安抚收编、调离地方老大，其实就是削藩、集权。

没想到老大浪漫和有人情到这么个地步。原以为毕竟管理着数十亿的资产，浪漫之余也该有些理性。闹了半天，老大是那种“我的孩子我打死都可以，你要敢碰一根手指头我就跟你急”的人。同时也看出老大相当的固执。

看来对于老二这样的人，一方面是制定管理制度时不能轻信集团关于两权分离的承诺，同意上任前要与老大深谈一次，在管理权限方面获得共识；一方面在工作技巧上，有些决策（比如在动老人的时候）必须要让老大觉得这是自己做出的。

对于元老，我觉得如果能够适应新的管理制度的，当然继续留任。那些不适应的，对于不同的人有不同的处理方法：

1. 如果是技术骨干，可以先肯定他的成就，让他对核心技术和生产流程做一个全面的总结文档。然后说服他去从事后继产品，或者新品研发。明确让他与老产品脱离，把老产品留给其他人。一般干技术的在结束老课题后还是应该乐意去搞新的，只要思想工作做的好，不要让他以为是赶他走给后来的人摘桃。

2. 如果是生产，运营方面的骨干，他们的特点是善于在工艺流程上创新并打开市场，而不是守成与拓展，那么可以请他们去新建其他企业

3. 对于实际没有很强能力，但又参与创业的人，可以安排虚职。

但是一定要给他们相当丰厚的“创业奖”，可以是现金与股份结合的形式。同时用政治手段或者权威告诉他们，今后你们不要参与现在的企业运营，但由于有股份，只要企业好了你们仍然能得到利益。给部分人“顾问”的名义也能让他们发挥余热。

具体到这个案子，我同意“云中飞”的观点，集团应该有有所图谋的。那么站在集团的立场，似乎一个比较好的方案应该是让老大当副董事长兼COO，给一些股权，明确职责只有研发和生产，其他运营权归老二。集团调人当名义董事长，老二向集团负责。同时以老大个人名义设立基金（企业出资一半），供老大发挥浪漫主义去。

不知道这样的方案是否可行？

======================

顺便说一下，目前的处理方案里，把老大上调到集团当首席科学家，实际上是把老大与这个企业（他的“儿子”）分开了，而且这个首席科学家很可能还是虚名（毕竟他不是搞理论出身，也许对这个产品有研究但对集团其他产品估计所知不多）。对于老大，我觉得这似乎很难接受。如果他真有主席打游击的精神，说不定还会鼓动留在企业里的老属下继续闹的。

Buddy, you clearly do not understand the American academic system.

First, post-doc is not a degree, contrary to perception of most Chinese.

Second, post-doc in chemistry/engineering/biology does not mean that this guy knows management or operation.

Third, post-doc=incompetent Ph.D. graduates who can not find industry or professor jobs.

Inside management schools, post-doc=LOSERS.

Fourth, your friend might never studied for long time in the American university. Some Chinese scholars just spent gov. money working in some professor's lab. They are cheap labor employed by US professors.

I met many post-doc with non-US degrees before: they do not have enough time in States to really get exposure to American culture, management. Most of them speak poor English.

I hope you find such info helpful.

If somebody spent 5-6 years in States and get a Ph.D., then that guy really learned a lot and became expert in his or her subject field.

While post-doc means NOTHING. It is a title used to fool Chinese.

这时董事长就来闹事了，说我不顾全大局，不给国家创汇（实际上是评全国劳动模范要：产值，利润，税收和出口创汇四个指标，

--you see: they behave exactly like those American bankers who screwed up several giant banks. This chairman was DAMAGING NATIONAL INTERESTS to achieve his personal political agenda.

For any enterprise, profit is the only thing that the managers should care--- of course, it is long-run profit, not one-quarter-based profit.

出口创汇as the measure--is the legacy from the 1980s when China was extremely short of hard currency to purchase overseas technology.

The backwardness of performance measure induced STUPID BEHAVIOR among extremely CUNNING Chinese.

When we talk to Chinese management, do not listen to their lip service--THEY ALL SOUND LIKE patriots, JUST LOOK AT THEIR DECISIONS and evaluation system.

THEY ARE ALL personal BENEFITS MAXIMIZERS!

It is called cost control. Everyone must respect that. Accounting and finance department are there to control those managers.

Your stories just showed how poor the overhead control is inside the Chinese enterprises.

Back in 1920s, inside GE, any expenditure above $25,000 MUST BE SUBMITTED TO the board to approve. President's authorization is below that number.

At the same time, there are several subcommittees inside the board that supervise the finance, operation, purchase function of the VP--the whole purpose is to monitor and constrain the president, to avoid stupid error and cost overrun.

Remember that system is there for over 90 years.

BTw, 15 years when I audited one subsidiary inside the group firm of 李嘉诚, I notice that the bylaws make it very clear: CEO can only approve expenditure blow RMB 10,000. Any expenditure above that number will be AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE by president's secretary.

President can not control his secretary since secretary is recruited based by independent HR department.

That's modern-day check and balance and professional management.

李的性格和任有很多相似之处，所以任才曾经把李当作接班人，但两人都太要强，不可能同时在一起，让李外放对两人对公司都有好处。

现在华为的问题是除任正非外都是执行层水平，没有一个人被内外看好能当任的接班人的（据说有一个，可惜身体不好），尽管搞来IBM的管理制度，但华为是在中国，老大永远是最重要的。在就好比TG，虽然有同样的组织原则和机构设置，但8086，286，386到486时代的情况就完全不同。所以在中国的企业如果有好的管理制度，企业就能相对平稳的运行，不至于一下倒闭，这样就能有机会等待下一个明君（超强的老大）出现。

the opposite.

小高尔文--is not competent CEO and he does not get that job with his own competence, but by his bloodline. Under his reign, the firm is corrupted by cronyism. He was surrounded by many ass-kisser executives.

Wall Street had many negative stories against his family.

The next CEO bets on very limited range of models. The razor thin phone is a big success and the CEO took a fat bonus and left.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=MOT&t=my&l=off&z=l&q=l&p=b,m50,m100,m200&a=m26-12-9,ss,fs,vm&c=

See graph between 2003-2005.

Then whole pipeline dries up.

why competent finance/accounting managers are so important and crucial for those enterprises.

I still remember when I chat with a CEO of one major oil firm many years ago back in China. The whole chat was about more increase in production volume and to beat last year's record.

No one sentence on current market price, distribution channels, distribution costs and PROFIT...

15 years later, still the same culture.