读后非常有同感。
有人讲管理是管人的，也有人讲管理是管事的，我说这都不对。要说到管人，恐怕只有军队有这么强的管制力量了。军队与军人的关系是占有与被占有的关系，因为军队担负着保家卫国，击退任何来犯敌的特殊使命，所以它所需要的关系型态必须非同一般。为了实现这种关系形态，军队不仅仅要实施全封闭管理，制定严明的纪律体系，更加要整合各级军官、督战队、军事法庭等自属的特定资源对人实施管理。而企业就不同了，企业与员工的关系从根本上讲是合作关系，双方可以自愿选择，来去自由。若以军队的管理资源为喻，企业只拥有“军官”资源，督战队和军事法庭则是不具备的。所以说，企业是无法管人的。事实上，讲管理是管人的还有一个误区，就是将管理行为仅仅界定于企业内部，这样认识管理显然不完整，例如经销商管理，这就不仅仅是企业内部的行为了。
说到这里顺便提一句，应该有不少朋友都发现了在企业内实施军事化管理其实是扼杀个性和创新的最好方法。
如果说到管事就太抽象了，事情怎么去管呢？不可能你希望它好起来，或者你要它好它就好，事都是由人去做的，怎么样让人把事做的更好是关键。但这并不是讲单纯地加强对人的要求，这样就又回到管人的误区上来了。
当前有这样一种说法普遍流传于打工者之中：给别人干又累、又受气，挣钱还不多，还不如给自己干，哪怕只是开个小店……这样普遍流传的说法的背后浮现出一个中小型企业管理中普遍存在的问题：员工与企业的关系危机。
建设并巩固和谐的企业与社会、企业与员工、员工与岗位的关系才是企业管理应该始终追求的目标，因为所有的工作必须依托于这种和谐的关系才能更好的完成。就象一些企业主宁愿信任并不才华横溢的家庭成员，而不愿在具备相应技能的员工身上冒险一样，是因为有稳固的关系做保障。假设一个企业的员工视自己的岗位如同自己的伴侣，视企业如同自己的家，那么这个企业还会存在“执行力”不强的问题吗？还会出现人浮于事的现象吗？当然不会，恰恰相反，会基业长青！
做为一个管理咨询工作者，我与许多行业的众多企业合作过，我发现改善企业管理问题的根本方法在于改善企业与员工、员工与岗位的关系。大多数问题重重的企业是因为企业与员工的关系仅仅停留在雇佣关系上，这是员工刚加入企业时自然而然就会建立起来的关系，这种关系形态绝对不足以让员工为了工作更加勤奋的学习，并充分发挥自己的技能，因为这种关系的基本逻辑是：你付给我工资，我干完你交待的工作。事实上，这个“干”字应该写成“混”字才更准确。
即便是一个强大的跨国企业，我相信关系的建设与巩固只会更加重要，没有哪个人会不断重复的做好一件自己根本不喜欢的事，如果他认为这件事与自己无关那更不可能了。而喜欢或者不喜欢并不是由一时冲动的“一见钟情”式好感决定的，是由“关系”来决定的。这就有点类似于为什么古代的包办婚姻能够持久、稳定，因为在那样的历史环境下，人们很自然的认可和接受了这种婚姻关系、夫妻关系，各自扮演起了自己应该的角色，天长日久便情由心生了。
所以说，管理的对象是关系。
译文:
Relationship is the Target of Business Management
Relationship is the Target of Business Management
Keyword: management, relationship
It is said that management means how to manage people, but there are others who claim that management means how to manage matters, and I don’t share both of them. Talking about people management, nowhere but in the service is there a strict discipline to keep people in line. As the army is responsible for guarding the nation against any enemy, it is necessary to have a special relationship between the army and the soldiers, that is possessing and being possessed. To maintain this relationship, the army not only need to implement closed management and enacts strict and impartial disciplines, but also demands an integrated management by such specific resources as all levels’ officers, superintendents and martial court. Things are different in an enterprise, where relationship between the enterprise and employees is, fundamentally speaking, cooperation, for they can make choices to stay or go. Compared with the management in the army, enterprise only has "officers", and lacks of such resources as superintendents and martial court. Therefore, enterprises are unable to manage people. In fact, taking management as controlling people has another fallacy that it defines its management within the enterprise. This definition for management is obviously incomplete, for instance, retailers’ management is outreached the boundary of a company.
By the way, it should be noted that many friends have found the fact that militarized management in an enterprise is the worst way to stifle individuality and innovation.
When it comes to business matter management, it gives us a notion of too abstract, how can we manage abstract matters? Business matters do not proceed along your wishes, though you might have the best intentions. Business matters are done by people, so how to motivate people to do their best counts for much. But we don’t want to slip into the old fallacy of placing too much emphasis on people management.
At present, there is a widely accepted view among employees: Working for the boss, you take too much pain and too less money. If you self-employ, no matter how small scale your business is, you will get better off. This statement reflects a universal management problem in small-medium sized enterprise: the critical relationship between enterprises and their employees.
Building and consolidating the harmonious relations between enterprises and society, enterprises and their employees, employees and their positions, shall be the goal of business management, since all the work, if it is to be successfully completed, relies on the harmonious relation. Some businessmen prefer to trust their non-talented relatives, instead of risking on trusting other qualified employees, for there is a stable relation to guarantee their loyalty. If employee viewed his position as his companion, the company his home, would there be such problems as malfunctioning and overstaffed? Of course not. In the contrary, the company will thrive for ever.
As a management consultant, I have worked with many enterprises of many industries, and I find that the fundamental way to improve management lies in harmonize the relations between employer and employee, the employee and his position. Most of the problem enterprises barely have the engagement relation between employer and employee, which is automatically established when the employee joined the company, and not good enough to motivate the employee to work hard and perform his best; because the rationale of this relation is: you pay my paycheck, I do the work you assigned. In fact, this word "do" should be read as "observe", to be more pertinent.
I believe that building and solidifying relations will be more important, even for powerful multinational corporations. No one will repetitively do a job well if he doesn’t like the work, and it is impossible to do the job well when he deems it irrelevant to himself. Whether you ‘like it’ or ‘do not like it’ are determined by ‘relations’, instead of instant feelings. This somewhat similar to the ancient arranged marriages which were always lasting and stable, as in the historical circumstances, it was natural for people to recognize and accept those marriages, relations between husband and wife who often play their roles automatically and later on affection formed naturally in the relationship.
Therefore, the target of management should be relations.