Recently, the boss of the company handed over the class 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 promoted Huawei's concept of "Excellence" and spared no effort to practice this view on various occasions. First, a new human resources director was assigned to the subordinate automobile business department. This person came from Huawei and was hired at a high price. Secondly, he carried out the concept of "striving for first class" 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 craze. If there are great difficulties after the implementation of this policy, it is a question mark whether the chairman's idea can continue. After all, the former chairman also implemented a similar policy for a period of time. At first, it was quite good, and then it gradually deteriorated, and even it was used by people with a will to fight for power and profit, and then it went away.

Is the concept of "Struggler-oriented" correct? I think this is completely correct! Our personal work is to make money, and so is starting a company. A company that doesn't make money is irresponsible to the boss or shareholders, that is, irresponsible to the society. There is nothing wrong with starting 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 jobs and pays more taxes. So 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, especially excellent talents can often influence 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 being willing to invest in talents has become the mainstream concept of operating the company at present. Look at Huawei. In just a few years, from an OEM manufacturer who started as a communication equipment, it has become a giant that leads the development trend of the industry. Huawei's investment in employees simply shocked the whole 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 is 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 that "there is no merit and there is hard work". 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 at work, deliver work results that satisfy the boss and the company, 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 at this level can we be called "talents"!

Ordinary employees are generally step by step, punching in and out of work on time, and the interests of the company have little to do with him. Because he has no company in his heart, they can't be the "strugglers" of the company. From a hierarchical point of view, the average employee is only "human resources" at best, but cannot become "talents". From the perspective of contribution benefit, the value created by the average employee is limited, and may only be worthy of his share of salary, while the value created by the "striver" 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 can affect people around him. This is the so-called "bosom friend" and "birds of a feather flock together". 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 get a promotion and salary increase 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 lead a group of strugglers, and the effect of setting 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 perspective, it is better than creating direct economic benefits before!

Third, the strugglers are all smart people. If they coexist and benefit from the enterprise, they will win.

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

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 creating a positive relationship: the company leans resources towards the strugglers-the strugglers strive to create value-the company makes profits-and the company continues to invest in the strugglers with the profits earned. Is this an ideal circular relationship?

Finally, 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. Judging from the company's interests and personal growth returns, once this policy is mature, with the support of many "strugglers", the company's development will go to a higher level. How to treat Huawei's cultural strategy of "Excellence"? Welcome to leave a message in the comment area for discussion.