Two days ago, the author read a book about overall thinking. The book mentions in-depth thoughts on the contrast between the disintegration of the Soviet Union and China's eventual prosperity. Some of the concepts in this thinking reminded the author of the current status of enterprises in the ceramic industry, which was quite inspiring. So I would like to share the following, hoping to inspire others.
As we all know, China has always been on par with its big brother, the Soviet Union (formerly the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics") in terms of early party building and country governance, and the two have considerable similarities. On the one hand, they both strongly promoted a socialist system that was different from the capitalist system, and in the early days, both were advancing at full speed in the direction of focusing on the construction of industrial economic infrastructure. In particular, in the early post-war period, the Soviet Union experienced significant economic recovery and gradually stabilized its international status through the construction of heavy industry. China followed suit and made a great leap forward in this direction.
I believe all Chinese people are familiar with this history, and even some older Chinese may have a deeper impression of the historical details. But why did China continue to develop and prosper as a unified country, while the Soviet Union could not escape the fate of splitting and disintegrating?
The reasons are of course complex and varied, complex and involve a wide range of factors, whether they are cultural, political or economic and historical. The author does not intend to discuss such complex reasons in detail in this manuscript. The author of the book mentioned that among the factors that led to the reversal of fortunes between the two, one reason that cannot be ignored is that the two have different organizational structures. The Soviet Union has a U-shaped structure while China has an M-shaped organization. These two forms It will also have a greater impact on the final fate of the two countries.
What is a U-shaped organization and what is an M-shaped organization? Simple and popular here.
A simple understanding of U-shaped refers to a highly centralized management model. Each functional department is divided according to its function, and everyone is uniformly planned and deployed, and collaborates and coordinates with each other. For example, ant colony organizations and bee colony organizations are the most standard U-shaped organizations. Worker ants and worker bees are responsible for work, other ants and bees are responsible for other matters, and everyone performs their own duties and collaborates together to depend on each other. To understand it as a country, for example, the production of automobiles can be understood as unified regulation by the central government, that is, the division of labor between provinces: some provinces provide coal and other fuels, some provinces provide raw materials for raw mineral smelting, and some provinces provide foundry production. Some provinces are responsible for transportation, and some are responsible for sales. Together, they form a complete organization.
M-type organization refers to decentralized management, and each province can complete the process independently. It is equivalent to dividing the organization into several small organizations, and these small organizations have a large degree of independent operation rights. If we still use the above example of car production, then Shandong can produce it, Hubei can produce it, and each province can produce it independently. They can exist independently of each other.
Whether it is a U-shaped or an M-shaped organization, each has its own pros and cons.
The advantage of the U-shape is that once it is well coordinated and worked together, professionals doing professional things can greatly reduce the waste of resources and maximize the input-output ratio; conversely, if a branch appears If there is a problem, the whole situation will be affected, and the whole body will be affected, and the risk factor will be high. At the same time, it is more suitable for a relatively peaceful and smooth development environment.
The advantage of an M-shaped organization is that on the one hand, its small sub-organizations can develop independently and adapt to market changes with ease; on the other hand, a certain amount of internal competition can be formed between small sub-organizations to stimulate the enthusiasm of each organization. ; More importantly, its security is stronger, and it is more advantageous to conduct some innovative pilots. For example, for structural reform, experiments can be carried out in individual provinces first, and then they can be replicated if successful. Failure will only affect that single province and will not cause an overall collapse. The disadvantage is that it easily causes a certain waste of resources.
As the saying goes: "Governing a big country is like cooking small things." Since governing a country and cooking small things have an underlying logical connection, does governing a country have the same purpose as managing and controlling enterprises? The answer is obvious.
Now, looking back at the reasons for the fate of the Soviet Union and China, the author is reminded of the current situation of two types of non-organized structures in the ceramic industry: It is obvious that U-shaped and M-shaped coexist and even interact with each other in the industry, and even more What's more, as the current industry enters a reshuffle period, these two structures are undergoing some vague transition and interchange. Some companies originally implemented a U-shape and are now adjusting to an M-shape. There are also some companies that originally implemented a M-shape and are now changing to a U-shape.
——Many people in the industry and the media have said that the current actions of many companies are a bit incomprehensible.
In fact, the phenomenon we see in the marketing department is: some companies have unique brands in major sub-brands.After the establishment of a marketing department for many years, a headquarters marketing department was suddenly added to manage all sub-brands in a unified manner; some companies, after developing under the control of the headquarters marketing department for many years, suddenly revoked many of the headquarters' powers and delegated control directly to Each brand marketing department - in essence, this is a problem of mutual conversion between a U-shaped organization and an M-shaped organization.
So the question is, is it better to have unified management and control at the headquarters, or to split it up to each brand for independent management and control?
This is the same as the previous question of whether a U-shaped organization or an M-shaped organization is better. It cannot be generalized.
You said the U-shaped control of the unified headquarters is not good, but look at ants and bees. It has always been like this. The race is very strong in reproduction, isn't it? You say the U-shape is good, but once it encounters a risk, whether it is an ant colony or a bee colony, there is a risk of immediate collapse.
You said that it is better to decentralize power to M-type and give independent control to each brand. Different brands within a company operate independently, which is a serious waste of resources. There are many. You say the M-type is not good, but many companies have experienced major changes. Instead, one or two of the many brands have become the survivors of the group company, becoming the last blood of the company and leaving the fire for a comeback.
In fact, if you are confused about which type of organization is better, it is better to look at the current industry status quo and the specific situation faced by the company before making a decision.
But the author secretly believes that when the environment begins to change and the industry develops through the sunrise industry period, it encounters bottlenecks and a reshuffle period. Although major companies are facing a difficult situation of plummeting sales performance, U, which seems to be under unified control, The M model seems to be better at saving resources and avoiding waste; but the M model, which operates independently, is more adaptable to complex environments, has the flexibility of a small boat to easily turn around, and has the efficiency advantage of short, smooth and quick decision-making.
In other words, the author believes that around 2005, the ceramic industry was in a mature but prosperous period, and the U-shaped one undoubtedly had more advantages and competitiveness; but now, the M-shaped one is obviously more secure.
Although bystanders are clear, as an onlooker, the author, as a bystander, has come to the above simple thinking about the vague, changeable and even confusing organizational issues of enterprises under the current industry situation, which may not be truly "clear". But the author hopes that this manuscript can give the industry some thinking about thisA little bit of inspiration from you can be used as a starting point.
National Day is here. From the national prosperity to the comparison of the development fortunes of China and the Soviet Union, and then to the reflection of the industry, this wave of associations is not too out of the ordinary, right?
Then, I would like to dedicate this article to the 70th birthday of the motherland. Pray for the prosperity of the motherland.
