When "poor execution" becomes an arrow without a target: Where does the subordinates' resistance come from?
In the workplace, the most infuriating criticism is probably the words Your execution ability is so poor blurted out by a superior with a frown. There is no specific event, no detailed indication, and no direction for improvement. It's like shooting at the air. The subordinate clearly feels wronged but can't find a point to refute. You say My execution ability is poor, but you didn't say what was wrong with the plan I stayed up late to revise yesterday. You say My execution ability is poor, but you didn't tell me that this task should be handed in before Friday. You say My execution ability is poor, but you never said whether the client wanted the concise version or the detailed version. Criticism without specific indication is essentially emotional venting rather than problem - solving. It makes the subordinate feel that You don't want me to improve, but want me to take the blame, and naturally they can't be convinced. Just like when you say This dish doesn't taste good without saying whether it's too salty or too bland, all the chef can do is roll their eyes instead of adjusting the heat.
Poor execution ability is never the sole responsibility of "one person": How many cases of "absence" of superiors are hidden in the task chain?
Many people mistakenly believe that "execution ability" is the "individual ability" of subordinates. However, the truth is that execution is a "chain of responsibility," and the absence of any link will lead to deviations in the results. For example:
- If the superior fails to clarify the goal – asking the subordinate to organize an event without specifying to attract 1,000 participants or to achieve a 20% conversion rate, and the subordinate acts according to their own understanding, but then the superior says the subordinate has poor execution ability in the end, whose fault can it be?
- If the superior fails to provide sufficient resources – asking the subordinate to conduct online promotion without allocating a budget or providing a customer list, and then blaming the subordinate for poor execution when there is no traffic, is this fair?
- If the superior doesn't teach the "method" - asking a subordinate who has never done data analysis to make a report without saying "use the VLOOKUP function" or "look at the month-on-month growth rate", and then saying the subordinate has "poor execution" when the report is in a mess. Is this reasonable?
These "absences of superiors" ultimately turn into "poor execution of subordinates". It's like asking someone to pick apples from a tree without giving him a ladder and then scolding him for being "useless" in the end - providing the ladder is your responsibility, not his.
The "list of implementation responsibilities" from superiors: If you don't do these things right, don't scold your subordinates
True implementation has never been a one - way transmission of "superiors giving orders and subordinates running errands". Instead, superiors need to complete the following "six pre - tasks" first:
Clarify the "goal": It's not "You go and work on this project", but "Complete it before next Wednesday, achieve an XX conversion rate, and the core is to address the XX pain points of customers." A clear goal is the "compass" for execution. Without it, subordinates can only feel their way across the river.
Provide sufficient "resources": To carry out activities, one must allocate budgets, provide contact information of partners, and offer technical support; to prepare reports, one must grant data access rights and provide tool accounts. Execution without resources is like sending soldiers to the battlefield empty - handed.
Teach the methods properly: If a subordinate is doing something for the first time, the superior should guide him through the whole process: When the customer refuses, you can say XX; when making a budget, pay attention to the XX details. It's not just about giving a manual and being done with it, but rather teaching hand in hand.
Keep a close eye on the "process": Execution doesn't end with "handing in the task". Instead, regular follow - up is required: "How's the progress today? Have you encountered any bottleneck problems?" — For example, if a subordinate focuses on the publicity gimmick when planning an event, the superior should promptly remind that "the conversion stage is the key", rather than saying "You missed the key points" after it's over.
Do a good job in "feedback": After the task is completed, give specific evaluations regardless of whether it is good or bad. "The good thing about this time is that the customer follow - up was very timely. What can be improved next time is budget control. Look, there was a 20% over - budget here. Next time, you can use the XX tool to make an advance calculation." Without feedback on execution, it's like a student doing exercises without anyone grading the papers. You'll never know where you went wrong.
Execution ability is the system's "medical examination report": Superiors are the system's "attending doctors"
Some people say that "execution is the vitality of an enterprise", but more accurately: execution is the "external manifestation" of an enterprise's operating system. Just like when a person has a fever, the problem isn't the "fever" itself; it's that there is inflammation in the body. If an enterprise has chaotic processes (for example, applying for resources requires signatures from 5 departments), vague regulations (for example, it says "fines for being late" but doesn't specify how long being late means), and a negative corporate culture (for example, an atmosphere of "the more you do, the more mistakes you make"), all these systematic problems will result in "poor execution".
As the "designer" or "manager" of the system, the superior is the key to solving these problems: You can't complain that your subordinates are "slow" while creating bottlenecks in the process; you can't blame your subordinates for "not following the requirements" while keeping the rules ambiguous; you can't resent your subordinates for "lacking motivation" while fostering a negative corporate culture. When you say "the team has poor execution," in essence, you're saying "there's a problem with the system I designed" - because you're the one who built the system.
From "Critic" to "Coach": How Should Superiors Lead Teams to Improve Execution?
True "execution management" has never been about "finding someone to blame" but about "finding solutions". What superiors should do is to change from "those who shift the blame" to "those who help others".
Choose the "capable executors": Recruitment is not about selecting the "most outstanding people", but the "most suitable people for the positions". For a sales position, one should choose those with strong communication skills and good stress resistance. For a copywriting position, one should choose those with clear logic and solid writing skills. It's not "recruit first and then figure it out", but "recruit the right people and then use them".
Establish "executable standards": Transform the vague "work hard" into the specific "make 10 customer calls every day, and each call should last at least 5 minutes"; change "prepare reports well" into "use Excel to prepare, including XX data, and send it to me before 5 p.m." — The more specific the standards are, the more effectively they can be implemented.
Practice on the ability to execute: It doesn't end with just one new - staff training but rather scenario - based training. For example, what should be done when facing customer complaints? What should be done when the event budget is exceeded? The solutions to these specific problems are the real weapons that can improve execution ability.
Cultivate the "habit of daring to execute": When subordinates do something right, promptly affirm them: "The customer conversion rate this time is 15% higher than last time. Your follow - up method is very effective." When subordinates make mistakes, help them find solutions: "The budget exceeded this time. Next time, you can use the XX tool to control costs. I'll help you get historical data from the finance department." Only by letting subordinates know that "doing things right will be noticed, and there are ways to correct mistakes when they are made" will they be willing to take the initiative to execute.
Finally: Don't let "poor execution" become the "lazy cancer label" in the workplace
In the final analysis, "execution ability" has never been a "label" used to criticize people, but a "tool" used to solve problems. The responsibility of superiors is not to deny subordinates by saying "poor execution ability", but to help subordinates with "specific problems + solutions". For example, when a subordinate fails to complete a task, instead of saying "you have poor execution ability", it's better to say "This time you didn't complete the task because the frequency of customer follow - up was not enough. Next time we can make a follow - up schedule, and I'll accompany you to try it once." The former is "shifting the blame", while the latter is "solving problems"; the former makes subordinates resist, while the latter helps subordinates grow.
The most powerful words in the workplace have never been "You can't do it" but "Let me help you". When superiors stop accusing their subordinates of "poor execution" and become "execution coaches", all the previous "disobedience" will turn into "I'm willing to give it a try" - and this is the real improvement in execution.