Read More《真实的创业故事，和大厂里看到的完全不一样》
Positive Review: The Survival Rules for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Survival Wisdom in the Real World
This article peels off the “filter” of business narratives and presents the real survival state of entrepreneurs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) nakedly to the public. Those behaviors regarded as “unprofessional” by the management theories of large enterprises – such as hands-on work, family-based management, extremely long working hours, and leading with a fiery temper – are precisely the underlying logic for SMEs in traditional industries to survive and even thrive in the fierce competition. Behind these “rustic methods” lies the survival wisdom ignored by sophisticated business theories.
First of all, hands-on work is a “survival necessity” for SMEs. The “focus on the big and let go of the small” approach of large enterprises is based on a mature organizational structure, standardized processes, and a reserve of professional talents. However, SMEs often do not have these conditions. The boss mentioned in the article, who “can handle everything from strategic direction to packaging design and raw material procurement”, essentially adopts an “all-round survival strategy” due to the lack of resources. In an environment with unstable orders and a fragile capital chain, the boss has to be a “firefighter”: when the supplier suddenly changes the deal, he can directly contact alternative manufacturers; when the design draft does not meet the customer’s requirements, he can adjust the details personally; when the employees fail to execute effectively, he can take over immediately to avoid losses. This “full-chain control” is not about “not knowing how to divide labor”, but about ensuring the business closed-loop with the minimum management cost. As a manufacturing entrepreneur once said, “When I can afford to hire 10 professional managers, I will naturally delegate power. Now that I can’t even recruit 3 reliable supervisors, if I don’t take charge, who will?”
Secondly, family-based management is the “primitive contract” with the lowest trust cost. The phenomenon in the article where “more than half of the core staff have the same surname” is often criticized by the outside world as “nepotism”. However, in the context of SMEs, it is the most realistic choice. In the early stage of starting a business in traditional industries, the founder’s personal accumulation is highly relied on for funds, technology, and market resources. And “trust” is a scarcer resource than ability. When external professional managers may frequently change jobs due to issues such as salary and development space, the interests of family members are more closely bound to the enterprise (even “sharing weal and woe”), which naturally reduces moral risks and communication costs. More importantly, the initial accumulation of many enterprises itself relies on the “selfless support” of family members – for example, siblings who pooled money to purchase goods and stayed up late to pack and ship in the early days. After the enterprise shows signs of improvement, “bringing family members to live a better life” is not only an emotional return but also an important bond to maintain the original intention of starting the business.
Moreover, high-intensity personal dedication is the “competitive barrier” for SMEs. The boss’s work rhythm of “from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m.” in the article is often interpreted as “inefficient” or “poor management”. However, in the competitive environment of traditional industries, this is precisely a strategy of “exchanging time for space”. For example, in the wholesale and retail industry, the boss personally monitoring the delivery time and negotiating prices can obtain high-quality goods at a lower price faster than employees; in the manufacturing industry, the boss spending a long time in the workshop observing the production process can more acutely detect points of efficiency loss; in the service industry, the boss directly contacting customers can capture changes in demand more quickly. The information density and decision-making speed brought by this “physical presence” are difficult to be replaced by standardized management. More crucially, the boss’s energy state itself is the “morale anchor” of the team – when employees see the boss working harder than themselves, their inertia will be suppressed, and their execution ability will be stimulated.
Finally, direct emotional expression is the “primitive mechanism” to maintain energy. The “emotion management” and “rational communication” advocated by large enterprises may become “tools for internal strife” in the high-pressure environment of SMEs. The boss’s mode in the article of “scolding but then forgetting it the next minute” is essentially an “emotion reset” mechanism: by directly venting dissatisfaction, it avoids the accumulation of negative emotions; by adopting an attitude of “addressing the matter rather than the person”, it maintains the simplicity and purity of the team relationship. This “straightforward” way of getting along actually reduces the “subtext” and “face-saving projects” in the workplace, allowing the team to focus on solving problems. Many employees mentioned in the interviews, “Although the boss scolds severely, he forgets it after scolding and won’t make things difficult for us. It’s actually more refreshing than those leaders who are polite on the surface but stab you in the back.”
Negative Review: The Limitations of Traditional Management Modes: Hidden Concerns for Sustainable Development
Although these “rustic methods” show strong adaptability in the survival stage of SMEs, from a long-term development perspective, their limitations are becoming increasingly prominent. When the enterprise scale expands, the market environment changes, and the generational replacement accelerates, these modes may become an “invisible ceiling” hindering the upgrade.
Firstly, the “boss-centered system” that overly relies on personal ability is difficult to support organizational expansion. The boss’s “hands-on” mode in the article is efficient when the enterprise scale is small (such as 10 – 50 people). However, when the business lines increase and the team expands to more than a hundred people, the boss’s time and energy will inevitably be unable to cover all aspects. At this time, the drawbacks of the lack of standardized processes, talent echelons, and authorization mechanisms will break out intensively: the key positions relying on the boss to “put out fires” will lead to a decline in efficiency; employees will leave due to the lack of growth space; and new businesses will miss the market window due to the long decision-making chain. For example, a boss of a food processing enterprise personally supervised the packaging design for 3 years, resulting in the design team never being able to work independently. When the enterprise planned to expand into the high-end product line, the boss was unable to take care of it due to lack of energy. The design of the new line of products was repeatedly reworked, and finally, the enterprise missed the peak sales season.
Secondly, the “trust dividend” of family-based management may turn into an “efficiency black hole”. The “low trust cost” of family members is an advantage in the early stage of starting a business. However, when the enterprise needs to introduce professional talents and establish a modern enterprise system, this advantage will turn into a disadvantage. On the one hand, family members may avoid assessment due to their “special relationship”, resulting in a rigid mechanism of “only promotion but no demotion” and weakening the fairness of the team. On the other hand, external talents will find it difficult to integrate due to the “visible ceiling” (core positions are occupied by family members), ultimately forming a vicious circle of “family members with mediocre abilities occupying positions while external talents with abilities cannot stay”. More seriously, internal family disputes over interests (such as equity distribution and generational inheritance) may directly lead to the split of the enterprise. For example, a traditional manufacturing enterprise experienced a conflict between the second-generation heir and the family elders over the transformation direction, resulting in the departure of the core technical team and the erosion of market share by competitors.
Thirdly, high-intensity personal consumption is difficult to cope with generational replacement and health risks. The boss’s work rhythm of “from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m.” in the article is a “physical struggle” in the short term and an “overdraft of health” in the long term. As people age, the decline in energy is an irreversible physiological law. And SMEs often lack a “succession plan” – either pinning their hopes on their children to take over directly (but the children may be unwilling or unaccustomed to traditional industries), or relying on “veteran employees” for the transition (but veteran employees may lack innovation ability). In addition, the younger generation of employees has a much lower tolerance for the “996” or even “712” work system than the previous generation. When the boss still demands that employees work hard with the logic of “I worked even harder in my time”, it will only intensify the generational conflict. For example, a traditional trading enterprise insisted that “employees must accompany the boss to work overtime until 12 p.m.”, resulting in a turnover rate of up to 60% among post – 95 employees. The business expansion was stagnant due to the talent gap.
Fourthly, simple and crude emotion management may damage the long – term cohesion of the team. Although the mode of “forgetting it after scolding” reduces internal strife, it also ignores the emotional needs of employees. Young employees attach more importance to “being respected” and “being recognized”. Being publicly criticized for a long time may lead to a blow to self – esteem, a decrease in sense of belonging, and even trigger “silent resistance” (such as passive work and secretly job – hopping). In addition, the boss’s loss of control over emotions may convey the wrong signal that “all problems are the employees’ responsibility”, covering up the loopholes in the management mechanism itself (such as unreasonable processes and insufficient resource support), resulting in the repeated occurrence of problems without a radical cure.
Suggestions for Entrepreneurs: Finding a Balance between “Survival Wisdom” and “Development Logic”
The “rustic methods” of SMEs are not “backward”, but survival strategies at a specific stage. However, entrepreneurs should not be satisfied with “just surviving”, but should think about how to “survive longer and better”. Based on the observations in the article, the following suggestions may provide some references:
From “hands – on” to “ability replication”: The boss can continue to “grasp the key details”, but should transform personal experience into replicable processes and standards. For example, sort out the “core points of packaging design” into an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure), and make the “supplier negotiation skills” into training materials to gradually cultivate the ability of key employees to handle problems independently. At the same time, establish a “backup mechanism for key positions” to avoid business disruptions due to lack of personal energy.
Optimize family – based management rather than completely deny it: Family members can retain core positions, but “ability access” and “assessment exit” mechanisms need to be established. For example, set up a “probationary period” to evaluate the professional abilities of family members, and provide job transfer or external learning opportunities for those who are not competent; open up promotion channels for non – family members, and enhance their sense of belonging through methods such as “equity binding” and “project co – investment”. In addition, family enterprises can introduce “external independent directors” to provide objective suggestions in major decisions and reduce internal conflicts.
Energy management is more important than “working long hours”: The boss needs to distinguish between things that “must be done personally” and things that “can be delegated”. Focus time on the three core areas of “strategic direction, resource integration, and talent cultivation”. At the same time, establish a “health management plan” (such as fixed exercise time and regular physical examinations) to avoid affecting decision – making judgment due to physical overdraft. For young employees, a “result – oriented” flexible work system can be tried (such as leaving work after completing the goal), and use “efficiency” instead of “working hours” for assessment.
Emotional expression needs “a sense of boundary”: The boss can retain the style of “direct communication”, but needs to distinguish between “criticizing behavior” and “negating personality”. For example, change “Why can’t you even do this well?” to “What are the specific reasons for the late delivery this time? Next time, we can confirm the progress 3 days in advance.” At the same time, increase the frequency of “positive feedback” (such as publicly praising employees’ innovative suggestions) to balance “criticism” and “recognition” and enhance team cohesion.
Plan “generational inheritance” in advance: Whether or not the enterprise is taken over by children, a “talent echelon plan” needs to be established. For children, arrange them to start from grass – roots positions to gradually familiarize themselves with the business; for external successors, cultivate comprehensive abilities through a “rotation system” and bind long – term interests through equity or profit sharing. In addition, pay attention to industry trends (such as digitalization and green transformation) and reserve relevant talents in advance to avoid missing the opportunity for upgrading due to over – reliance on traditional models.
The real survival state of SMEs is both “cruel” and “vivid”. It reminds us that the “right way” in the business world is never single, but is deeply related to the enterprise stage, industry characteristics, and resource endowment. Entrepreneurs need to extract replicable experience from “survival wisdom” and break through path dependence under the “development pressure”. After all, true “success” is never “living as others expect”, but “growing the toughest roots in one’s own soil”.
- Startup Commentary”Real entrepreneurial stories are completely different from what you see in big companies.”
- Chain Exploration”Musk’s Heavy Bet: Is the Next Disruptive AI Trend on the Horizon?”
- Startup Commentary”Stablecoins: The Last Straw That Broke the “North American Alipay””
- Startup Commentary”The First Prestigious School to Fall Victim to the AI Impact: The End of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies”
- Chain Exploration”USD1 Stablecoin: The New Force in the Global Cryptocurrency Market”
