The Biography of Chen Ping in the Book of Han records that Chen Ping, a villager from Yangwu Huyou, was very poor when he was young. However, Chen Ping loved reading, especially the doctrines of Taoism as espoused by Huangdi and Laozi. Chen Ping lost his parents at an early age and lived with his older brother, who was always good to him. His brother worked in agriculture but allowed Chen Ping to study and travel for learning. However, his sister-in-law disapproved of Chen Ping not engaging in agricultural production and said: "He only knows how to eat but does no work. A brother like this is worse than none!" Upon hearing this, his brother severely scolded his wife and sent her back to her family.
As Chen Ping grew up, he reached the age where he could marry, but no one was willing to give their daughter to him. Later, there was a wealthy man in the village named Zhang Fu, who had a granddaughter that had been married five times, but all her husbands had died. People called her a "sweeping star" and were afraid to marry her, but Chen Ping wanted to marry her. Because he married the granddaughter of a wealthy man, Chen Ping finally had the resources to broaden his travels and teachings.
Every year during the village's annual sacrifice, everyone recommended Chen Ping to divide the meat. Chen Ping did an excellent job in this task, dividing the meat fairly. The elders and villagers all said: "Haha, Chen Ping divides the meat well!" But Chen Ping sighed and said: "If I, Chen Ping, one day get to manage the whole country, I will be as fair and impartial as dividing meat!"
A few years later, Liu Bang defeated Xiang Yu and seized the empire, establishing the Great Han Empire. Chen Ping's official career also went smoothly, and during the reign of Emperor Hui of Han, he became the Left Chancellor, realizing his lifelong aspiration.
When it comes to evaluations, many managers often think it's simple, but that's far from the truth. Based on research and training at many companies, lecturer Tan Xiaofang sighs deeply: Evaluations are not easy.
Regarding the issue of corporate evaluations, let's talk about a "gang leader." In a movie about delinquents, a "rising star" brought his gang members to challenge the "veteran leader" of a faction. He poured water on the veteran leader's face in front of many elders and gang members. Everyone was angry except the challenged "veteran leader," who still smiled. The "rising star" proudly left with his followers.
At this time, many elders came over urgently and asked why the "veteran leader" wasn't angry, and he replied with just one sentence that got rid of this disrespectful person. The "veteran leader" said something along the lines of: "If I reacted excessively and disciplined him, he would remember and become more restrained in the future; if I don't react, he will continue to be arrogant and domineering, and even without me, someone will deal with him." Sure enough, not long after, the challenging "rising star" was "taken care of."
Therefore, if our middle-level managers see their subordinates committing mistakes without restraining or managing them, allowing them to act freely, they are like this "profound-minded and ruthless" "veteran leader," harming rather than helping them. In their view, management is discovering the dark side of employees' nature rather than uncovering the bright side, evaluation is catching bad guys rather than setting good examples; management is supervision and control rather than communication and service, evaluation is settling accounts after the fact rather than helping and improving; management is formulating complicated rules rather than simplifying methods, evaluation is finding every unseemly action employees make when no one is watching and exaggerating it; management is focusing on employees' mistakes rather than their strengths, evaluation is trying every means to increase fines rather than bonuses; management is establishing authority, making employees fear like mice before cats, evaluation is telling employees that I have control over their life and death, so they must respect me; management is proving that managers are always right and those being managed are all foolish, evaluation is proving that managers have the ability to see everything, even catching a sneeze during work...
Besides these extreme reactions, there are several wrong attitudes among those implementing evaluations in enterprises:
First: Treating the evaluation plan as a "ghost-driving charm," putting it aside. That is, they never intended to implement the plan from the beginning, just using it to scare people. As a result, some employees accidentally stepped on the red line, testing it out, and found that the landmine didn't explode. The news spread, and the entire plan became ineffective.
Second: Unwilling to implement it. Some mid-level managers might be their former seniors, previous leaders, or colleagues at the same level, or people who are usually good to them, making it difficult for them to implement the plan. When problems arise, they mainly focus on "guidance," and if it fails, they have no other options.
Third: Unable to carry out the plan. Evaluation plans generally have different levels of handling measures, such as first warning, second probation, third dismissal, etc. When some employees repeatedly fail to improve, they should be dismissed, but the manager can't bring themselves to do it, as firing someone isn't a pleasant task. This results in the poor performers staying, and good ones not coming in because the exit mechanism is broken.
Fourth: Implementing it half-heartedly. Since the plan has been set, not implementing it would definitely be unacceptable to the leadership. So, they choose a few minor cases, issue a few notifications, and show them to the leadership. The serious violations of the plan are either downplayed or ignored. On the surface, it looks like they're working, but in reality, it's just spinning wheels.
Fifth: Afraid to implement it. What are they afraid of? They're afraid that if someone is dismissed, there won't be anyone to take their place and do the work; they're afraid of retaliation from those being evaluated, etc. "Bad money drives out good" is a famous law in economics. This law describes a historical phenomenon: in the era of coinage, when coins that are below the legal weight or purity — "bad money" — enter circulation, people tend to hoard the full-value coins — "good money." Eventually, the good money will be driven out, leaving only bad money in circulation. Being afraid to implement evaluations leads to the day when good money also becomes bad money, resulting in your team being filled with bad money, causing you to be driven out as well.
In fact, if we resolve some of these misconceptions mentioned above, seemingly unsolvable evaluation problems should easily be resolved. Teacher Tan Xiaofang once trained a scenic area that introduced many radical measures in a certain phase, such as "100 yuan fine for each day overdue! 1000 yuan fine! Ten times the loss in fines!" etc., presenting an image of "majestic executioner." However, when summarizing, they found it impossible to implement. After a trial period, it was changed to painless measures like "10 yuan, 20 yuan, 50 yuan" fines, which made employees open up but led to orders not being followed! Corporate trainer Tan Xiaofang believes that the real effectiveness of the plan doesn't lie in "how big or small the intensity is," but whether it is meticulously implemented, continuously reviewed, emphasized, and the results publicly displayed, without haggling.
I've given lectures to many state-owned enterprises and found a unique feature in domestic companies: the employees or model workers they generally recognize are often the first or very early to arrive at the unit and leave very late or last. Ignoring time concepts and dedicating themselves to work shows high professionalism, but from another perspective: if employees all work like model workers — treating the factory as home — then setting time standards loses its meaning, and the efficiency evaluation of unit time also loses its significance. Many foreign companies differ — they don't easily let employees work overtime for no reason, and if they do, they strictly manage it to avoid excessive randomness leading to losses for the company. They often advocate efficient work, making good use of work hours, and do not encourage overtime unless overtime pay is provided, which requires our deep reflection.
In short, corporate evaluations aim to distinguish between right and wrong, reward excellence, and punish inadequacy. It is a natural process in the standardization and growth of company management, and timely promotion is necessary for it to have effect.
More importantly, meticulous thinking and clever skills are required.