Since I entered the agricultural materials and internet industry, I have always held myself to high standards. Even when I was just a small promoter, I strictly demanded myself with a strategic mindset and the layout thinking of a product manager.

Over the years, I have noticed that some small and medium-sized enterprises that once had a strong call for reform have gradually faded out of the market or are still stuck in a difficult model.

They once yearned for breakthroughs in management and operations, and they warmly welcomed marketing innovations. However, after much effort, they found that it was not as good as the previous loose management model.

They ended in despair and disappeared without a trace. There are countless examples of this. What kind of force causes them to fail so miserably?

I remember a small micro-enterprise that wanted to undergo a major transformation. Initially, they had great ambitions, and there were no real issues with various planning proposals. But they still failed. Why is that?

The company promoted a spirit of proactive employees, but the employees still acted according to their own ways, relying on the lazy model of the past and resisting the new methods emotionally.

Indeed, transitioning from one habitual model to another requires an adaptation process. This adaptation process can be long or short, but during this process, negative emotions will inevitably arise. If not handled well, it may even escalate into conflict.

Therefore, I believe that only multi-dimensional rewards can serve as a lubricant to avoid conflicts. Unfortunately, many companies, in the process of reform, reduce costs, leading to a decrease in reward dimensions and a significant increase in the threshold conditions compared to the past. It's like a bicycle lacking lubricant; over time, it will lead to wear and tear until it is scrapped.

However, many bosses undergoing reform do not understand this. They believe that reform means reducing costs, achieving good results with the least amount of money or even no money at all. If they do not reform, it is fine, but once they do, it becomes even more stringent. This is undoubtedly a case of reforming while cutting off the life of the reform.

I remember when I proposed many reward schemes during the reform of a small micro-enterprise, the boss always emphasized that this was a cost, or that it was a conspiracy, or that it was useless, forcing me to remove the rewards and make the requirements stricter. How is this reform? This is a path to self-destruction.

However, as a worker, or a worker with a bit of power, I could only follow the boss's wishes and start a cost-cutting reform. In reality, this kind of reform is a form of alternative exploitation. The boss's goal may be to make everyone work hard like boiling frogs in warm water, but they end up getting less than before.

So under such a boss's guidance, any form of reform seems destined to fail. Of course, those who are clear-headed will be very distressed during this process. If you insist on doing things your way, the boss will likely transfer power to the finance personnel, allowing them to guide the marketing department. As a result, the entire reform will completely change its flavor, and all marketing methods will inevitably fail to be implemented in a meaningful way. The so-called implementable plans are bound to fail easily, as financial approval of marketing plans is often based on current cost considerations rather than long-term development or future breakthroughs. Therefore, when the boss repeatedly emphasizes that finance is the boss, if the finance personnel themselves lack marketing capabilities, it basically represents future market failure.

Secondly, the few proactive employees did not receive official recognition or any reward measures from the company. The boss believes that being proactive is what they should do, so why reward them?

As a result, after a period of time, these few proactive employees also began to revert to their original lazy model. They feel that they have contributed more than before but still receive the same, so they are unwilling to continue promoting this so-called proactive spirit.

The obedient and the disobedient end up with the same result. Those who are disobedient will feel they have taken advantage, and to continue taking advantage, they must remain disobedient. Meanwhile, those who obediently follow the rules find that they are actually at a disadvantage in this process, leading to a psychological imbalance. To restore relative balance, they will also become lazy until they become disobedient, ultimately turning everyone into disobedient opportunists.

At that time, I proposed an efficiency-first action mindset for the company. However, when I suggested that the warehouse's inefficiency needed reform, the boss felt it was unnecessary to change, which I found baffling. Differentiated treatment is a destruction of the efficiency-first principle. When such incidents occur and cannot be corrected for a long time, it will trigger the broken window effect, leading to everyone becoming inefficient and feeling justified.

Therefore, later on, everyone feedback that the reform was not good. Those who took advantage did so to continue benefiting, fearing targeted treatment, while those who suffered wanted relative fairness. They did not want to continue suffering, wanting either rewards or for everyone to seize opportunities. However, when such things happened, the boss did not realize the reason. The boss wanted to maintain reform while also wanting these people to be quiet. Ultimately, the boss thought: since it has started, it should continue, and of course, some compromises were made, such as allowing them to maintain past habits.

In fact, this kind of compromise is equivalent to bleeding the reform dry; the death of reform is just a matter of time. If behaviors do not change, reform becomes an empty talk, yet still expecting huge results after the reform—this is self-deception, isn't it?

After another six months, the company made no changes. Since the reform's provisions became empty talk, many people blamed their inability to achieve good results on the reform, using it to cover up various chronic issues in their business.

In fact, this kind of failure is inevitable. Because if habits cannot be changed, other so-called management, operations, and marketing can only be shelved.

First, those who actively cooperate do not receive material or spiritual rewards, making it easy for them to lose motivation. Even more than two thousand years ago, Shang Yang understood the necessity of rewards, yet this company wants to replace such schemes with a so-called culture of gratitude, which is clearly a self-deceptive approach.

Secondly, there is a lack of dialectical analysis of inefficient and uncooperative behaviors, forming a counterforce against the fear and emotions of breaking habits. At this time, the leader's position is very important. If the leader is ambiguous, it will lead to chaos. If the leader stands from a past perspective, they may make strategic misjudgments or miss good opportunities.

Furthermore, new habits need to be cultivated, and old habits need to be gradually broken. This is a necessary transition. If during this period, there is a surrender to old habits, it is essentially undermining the new habits, and everything else becomes meaningless.

Moreover, rewards should focus on effectiveness, and punishments should clarify job responsibilities, avoiding various collective punishments. For example, if a reward is announced but takes months to be fulfilled, the incentive effect will be completely lost. And when punishing someone, punishing diligent superiors along with them is also inappropriate.

Finally, corporate culture is not limited to the internal company but is a guideline for external communication. During the reform process, the company only limited itself to internal forms, not mentioning or being ashamed to speak of it externally, which led to a more chaotic value system.

In summary, when old habits still become a norm, any reform (management, operations, marketing, etc.) will ultimately fail.