With passion and enthusiasm, let's create brilliance together!

Company Management Collection "Factors Affecting Execution"

1. Middle managers lack the perseverance to consistently enforce policies, resulting in inconsistent execution and a lack of follow-through.

At the beginning of work, there is often organization, planning, publicity, mobilization, deployment, and arrangements. However, as time goes by and work unfolds, the initial enthusiasm gradually cools down, leading to less inspection, forgotten supervision, lost promotion, dropped assessments, and missed summaries. In work, being lenient with oneself while strict with others often results in a pile of decisions, plans, and proposals that are discussed but not decided, decided but not acted upon, and acted upon but not effectively implemented. This means that the established decisions, plans, and proposals are not purposefully implemented to specific goals, positions, and employees, making it even harder to establish strict timelines and standardized reward and punishment measures. Such store managers inevitably lead to poor execution at the grassroots level, resulting in procrastination and perfunctory efforts.

2. The internal organizational structure is unscientific.

From a management perspective, the current franchise management system has too many functional departments, and the functional configuration is unscientific, with a lot of overlap and redundancy. Additionally, influenced by social environment, management level, superior requirements, and factors like "position based on personnel" in actual staffing, the entire middle management structure is irrational, bringing a series of hidden dangers to improving the execution ability of middle managers. First, the phenomenon of "unequal suffering and joy" is more severe in certain departments. Second, the responsibilities, rights, and benefits of departments are unbalanced, making it impossible to establish a relatively fair, scientific, reasonable, and practical performance evaluation system. Third, the leaders' favoritism leads to unequal treatment of middle managers at the same level.

3. The arbitrariness and uncertainty of policies hinder execution.

(1) When managers formulate policies and systems, they lack detailed research, repeated verification, and careful consideration, resulting in policies and systems that change frequently, leaving executors at a loss. Ultimately, even when good policies and systems are established, they are not effectively executed. Therefore, once a decision is made, the store manager should take the lead and give their all, avoiding a stop-and-go approach in work.

(2) The policies and systems themselves are unreasonable and detrimental to execution. In practice, we often find that managers attempt to improve execution through various assessment systems, but often the results are contrary to their intentions.

4. The impact of formalism in work and personal worship in performance on execution.

In reality, store managers often face a lot of overlap and redundancy in their functions and effectiveness, all aimed at providing customer service, collecting supply and demand information, and maintaining market stability. Current sales and profits are increasing day by day, but how much is achieved through market publicity, planning, regulation, operation, and seizing opportunities? Can high management costs, an ever-increasing manpower strategy, and endless changing models be sustained without a franchise mechanism? When everyone sees the problem but is unwilling to speak up, they can only push responsibility onto each other or execute in a perfunctory manner, which will inevitably undermine execution.

5. The performance assessment of positions is rough, making it difficult to play a motivating and promoting role.

First, position management neglects the construction of a scientific and detailed performance evaluation system, only conducting a so-called qualitative assessment of the store manager based on "morality, ability, diligence, performance, and integrity," leading to unfair assessment results. Second, the unit's administrative management is rough, lacking norms, scientific rigor, and practicality, making it difficult to impose scientific and effective assessment constraints on middle management personnel. Third, the current assessment methods are singular, making it impossible to provide accurate and appropriate evaluations of middle management personnel's work performance both theoretically and practically. Fourth, there is an emphasis on year-end evaluations while neglecting daily evaluations, leading to a reduction in the effectiveness of assessments. Fifth, influenced by the broader social environment, the main evaluators are unwilling to correctly judge the merits and demerits of the evaluated personnel, making assessments merely formal and dampening some people's enthusiasm.

6. The store manager's awareness of "self-performance" and "self-protection" is quite serious.

In the execution process, we often find that due to middle managers being constrained by their own mindset, quality, and concepts, they judge what is right and wrong in work solely based on personal preferences. Moreover, some believe they are merely working for the boss, viewing the company's benefits, image, and development as merely the leader's "face, image, achievements, and ladder." The increase or decrease in corporate benefits, the quality of the image, and the speed of development have nothing to do with them; as long as they ensure they receive their monthly salary, quarterly benefits, and year-end bonuses, that is enough. When they see benefits, they are eager and competitive; when problems arise, they either turn a blind eye, pretend to be deaf, blame superiors or subordinates, or attribute issues to changes or profits, failing to think about or solve problems. Typically, they prioritize "job security" over "duty fulfillment," with their efforts ultimately directed not at how to do their job well, but at how to keep their position.

7. Middle managers often exhibit narrow-mindedness and a tendency to shift blame while taking credit.

Due to the influence of individualistic thinking, a considerable number of people in reality are unwilling to listen to opposing opinions and fear that others' achievements may threaten them. As a result, they suppress outstanding colleagues or subordinates, making it impossible to establish an atmosphere of cooperation and trust within the team. Sometimes, in order to flaunt their so-called individuality, they ignore processes, responsibilities, and systems, reaching out to take credit from colleagues or subordinates. When work goes smoothly, they boast about their cleverness; when faced with setbacks, they cry foul and blame subordinates for their incompetence.