Many people believe that spiritual motivation is unnecessary and superficial. When they see others energized, they start to mock them. However, looking back at their own team, each member is like a walking corpse, going through the motions, lacking vitality, and in their work, they are either extremely lazy or full of mistakes.

Such teams and platforms find it hard to gain an advantage in fierce competition; on the contrary, it is already a blessing that they have not been swallowed by the market.

I do not want to seek the reasons why some people dislike spiritual motivation; I just want to tell everyone that without spiritual motivation, there can be no creativity, and certainly no innovation.

In many traditional business entities, the boss or professional managers first divide the cake into small pieces and then require others to take their piece first. In their view, eliminating emotions is a sign of high emotional intelligence, controlling distribution is strategic, and blatantly robbing money is a sign of combat effectiveness.

However, when implemented in this way, the team first loses morale. They begin to seek a sense of security through nepotism, and decision-makers seem to feel that only those who are close to them have the motivation to act and can provide them with a sense of security, gradually deviating from their original intentions and starting to favor those close to them.

When a person favored by nepotism takes office, he will not change the current lifeless atmosphere because if the atmosphere were different, he would not be able to take office; he cannot disrupt the feelings of the decision-maker.

At this time, the favored person begins to extol everything about the decision-maker, even if the decision is wrong and everyone knows it is wrong, it will still be treated as a golden rule.

At this point, the decision-maker becomes even more convinced of the old methods and paths, until they hit a wall. At this time, they will feel discouraged and often express some nameless anger.

Then they will share their thoughts with those favored by nepotism, trying to gain valuable advice. However, the favored person can only provide reasoning, which is inevitable on the path of development; doesn’t this prove that this path is blocked? This is the greatest value.

Then the discussion of failure stops there. No one cares what the real reason is. The decision-maker believes that failure is everyone's business, and everyone should share some responsibility. As for pursuing the key reasons, to hell with it, there are none.

At this time, decision-making power becomes even tighter. The decision-maker fears the decentralization of decision-making power even more, believing that it is the loss of decision-making power that led to past failures. They will strive to find details of those who did not listen to their words, and once recalled, those who indeed did not follow their words in the past become objects of disdain.

At this time, they feel that emotions are undesirable. Only by eliminating their emotions and completely obeying orders is right. Although they do not say it, they still believe that it is due to others' incomplete obedience that led to failure, and they think this is the main reason.

To this end, they often speak ill of others in front of some people, intentionally or unintentionally amplifying these emotional perceptions. They believe they are perfect saints, and all failures are due to some people not listening. They never consider that others are just basic employees or have no decision-making power at all. If they believe that the failure is due to the other party's poor execution, why not arrange capable people to do the work?

They cannot stand to see others smiling, even if that smile is because someone had a baby; they still feel that they are intentionally mocking, and may even think that the other party is taking advantage of the company and feeling pleased with themselves.

Although they have this self-righteous mentality, they are unwilling to communicate openly. What they believe is what they think is the truth. This has a significant impact on their future decisions, inevitably leading to subjectivism.

This subjectivist thinking gradually takes root, leading them to become increasingly autocratic in decision-making, while they themselves remain unaware of it. This autocratic decision-making style creates an increasingly oppressive atmosphere within the team, and employees begin to be cautious, fearing to anger the decision-maker. Even when faced with obviously wrong decisions, they can only grit their teeth and execute, fearing to become the target of the decision-maker's emotional outbursts. Over time, the company's innovation gradually dries up, internal conflicts intensify, while the decision-maker remains immersed in their subjective world, oblivious to the crises facing the company.

This creates a vicious cycle within the company, where employees' dissatisfaction and anxiety continue to accumulate, yet they dare not speak out, fearing to provoke the decision-maker's displeasure. The decision-maker, lacking effective feedback, becomes increasingly convinced of their own judgment, leading to more severe decision-making deviations. Ultimately, this management style not only limits employees' potential but also hinders the company's development, causing what was once a vibrant enterprise to gradually decline.

In such an environment, employees' enthusiasm for work gradually diminishes. They no longer actively offer suggestions and even avoid any behavior that might attract attention. Meetings become silent, and everyone just bows their heads to obey, fearing to become the next target of blame. A vacuum forms around the decision-maker, where real voices cannot reach, and their decisions become increasingly detached from reality. The company is like a ship that has lost its helmsman, lost in the waves of the market, facing numerous crises.

If this situation continues, the company's development prospects will become bleak. Employees' voices are ignored, creativity is stifled, and the entire team will fall into a stagnant state. If the decision-maker cannot reflect in time and actively adjust management strategies, it will ultimately lead to talent loss and a decline in competitiveness. The company's development urgently needs to inject new vitality, restore internal communication and trust, and allow everyone to realize their value to collectively face future challenges.

However, he is not entirely ignorant; occasionally, he is touched and realizes that his decisions may require more communication and transparency. Under such a touch, he begins to try to listen and understand the thoughts of everyone in the team. Although change does not happen overnight, he gradually learns to seek others' opinions in decision-making, allowing the team's voice to be heard. This subtle shift is like a spring breeze, gradually dissipating the oppressive atmosphere, and employees begin to regain confidence, willing to contribute their wisdom and strength to the company's future.

In this gradually improving atmosphere, the company begins to regain vitality. Gradually, the meeting room is filled with lively discussions again, and employees dare to express different viewpoints and propose innovative solutions.

The decision-maker begins to value teamwork and encourages everyone to speak freely, which refreshes the internal atmosphere of the company. Employees gradually break free from constraints and are brave enough to showcase their talents. In an atmosphere of brainstorming, the company's business continues to expand, and innovation capabilities are enhanced. Facing market challenges, everyone works together to overcome difficulties. The enterprise finally finds its lost direction, sets sail, and moves towards a more glorious future.

This positive change also impacts the company's performance. Data shows that after implementing open communication and management transparency strategies, the company's performance has significantly improved. The collaboration efficiency among departments has noticeably increased, project advancement has become smoother, and customer satisfaction has also risen. Market competitiveness has gradually strengthened, the company's image has been revitalized, attracting many outstanding talents from the industry. This series of changes undoubtedly lays a solid foundation for the company's long-term development. Under the influence of this positive cycle, the company culture gradually shifts towards openness and inclusiveness, fully stimulating employees' sense of ownership.

Under the influence of this virtuous cycle, the corporate culture gradually transforms towards openness and inclusiveness, reigniting employees' enthusiasm for work. Everyone begins to actively participate in various company affairs, not only proposing many creative suggestions but also spontaneously organizing multiple team-building activities, enhancing collective cohesion and centripetal force. In weekly meetings, everyone can see him actively speaking, and his opinions often spark in-depth discussions, driving the company forward. This bottom-up force is the source of the company's renewed vitality.