Transcription
[music] Allow me to introduce the next speaker who will talk about how to make business better with a team. How to make it easier, because growth is necessary, yes, but without a team, it's impossible. I was registered as an individual entrepreneur from '95 to '96. Back then, they were called ChP, and then I went to work in hired business, precisely to learn how to manage other people, because I was alone and had no experience in managing people. And I needed to work by hire to learn exactly that. Well, I understood that you can't build a good business alone, and you need to gain experience, at least work. And about how best to do this, a wonderful entrepreneur will tell you. Well, who can better talk about a team than a person who has these teams? And what I like about Nikolai is that he can switch from one type of business to another quite quickly. I can't say exactly how many books Nikolai has published, around 7. He also manages to write books. And I know that in the entrepreneurial environment, they don't like doctors and candidates, especially doctors of economic [music] sciences, candidates of economic sciences. In short, meet Nikolai Mrokovsky. Thank you very much, Andrey, for the invitation. Good day. Thank you very much, Andrey, for the invitation. I'm glad to welcome you all. I had two presentations, one very large, the other a bit smaller. I hope this one is a bit smaller, because otherwise we'll be here for a long time. Let's talk a bit about working with a team and team management systems. So, today I myself am involved in several businesses. So, I have my main own business project, "Territory of Investment," where we are involved in real estate, investment in real estate, development, construction, and so on. So, everything related to creating passive income from real estate and not only passive. In addition, I am on the board of directors of several other companies, where I am responsible for strategy and, to a large extent, for team development. Because when we need to grow, you always hit the ceiling of personal time. Well, probably many of you have encountered this, that there isn't enough time. Who has encountered this problem? Yes, there are such people. The rest are lying to themselves, or you are very underloaded and feel sorry for yourself, or most likely you are facing this. Although perhaps you have already overcome this difficulty. So, in any case, regardless of whether the presentation is short or long, I have a lot of information, so I will try to tell you everything quite quickly. The first question to you is, how would you define what management is? What does it mean to manage? What is it? Because when we don't really understand what we're talking about, it's difficult. Please, setting a goal, motivating. Aha, leading the team, control, great, optimization. Aha. What else? Analysis. Listen, you are all so good, you know everything. Let me formulate a very simple formula that, in my opinion, clearly defines whether we are actually managing or doing something unclear. I will write it in Latin letters: PDCA. Has anyone heard of these four letters? Well, now I will explain them in Russian. So, the first is Plan, planning. So, to manage equals to do these four actions regularly. The first one is planning, meaning we plan what needs to be done, not just that the situation happens to us, something happens somehow, but we have a clear plan for sales, a plan for creating new products, a plan for entering new partnerships, and so on. The second action is that we do it. Because it often happens that a meeting takes place, everyone discusses, "Let's do this, this, and this," and they disperse. A week or a month later, they meet, and no one has done anything. So, it's not enough to plan, you have to do it. The third, as you correctly said, is control. Often, there are difficulties with this too. We let a person go and say, "Go do this," and hope that they will start doing it all themselves. A month later, we ask, "Did you do it?" "No, why?" "Well, I couldn't." "And did you control it?" "Well, I thought they would do it themselves." Nothing of the sort. So, the third is control. If we don't control, we will most likely have some kind of chaos with actions. The fourth is analysis. Do we analyze what we have done? Because analysis is not conducted, and we especially don't review mistakes. And what is very important is that we launched some super mega project, spent a lot of money, and it didn't bring success. Why? Did we conduct an analysis? So, these four components, look at any of your processes. If something is missing from this, you are most likely not managing it very well. And also for your team. So, managers who are there, heads of departments, divisions, are they doing it? Do they have these four components in their regular work? And today I wanted to give you some practical tools. It's clear that we can't cover everything, but in about 40 minutes, at least some of the most interesting things that you can implement. I hope this will be useful for you. Let's start with the first one: motivation. You mentioned motivation. What types of motivation do you know? The main ones: material, non-material. So, aha. And there's also a hint drawn here, specifically for those who haven't woken up in the morning: the stick and the carrot. Yes, so the stick and the carrot are two main types of motivation. In reality, there is also a third, very strong type of motivation: motivation by environment, when we create such an environment for people that they cannot help but change, that they cannot help but do. Like a management system, a control system, to some extent, solves management tasks, for example, CRM, customer interaction, and so on. But the basis is positive and negative motivation. So, we push people from behind and have a carrot in front. So, to achieve something good in the future. What works stronger, in your opinion? Which motivation is stronger? Positive, emotional. Aha. Negative. It depends on the people. Yes, people say there are different people. Well, let's simplify the task. Let's take our average employee and say, "If you don't do this today, I will fire you." Or, "Do this for 3 months in a row, and you will get a big bonus at the end." What will motivate more? Well, somehow, for some reason, the first one motivates more. This doesn't mean the second one is not needed. Of course, it is needed, and it's natural and correct. Systemic motivation. I will focus your attention today on the first component, on negative motivation, because there are often difficulties with it. In what way? Let's look at punishment as a management tool. Because very often, we don't pay enough attention to it, and we have serious problems with discipline in the team. No discipline, consequently, no results. Who has encountered the problem of discipline? Yes, there are such people. Yes, sometimes you encounter them. Aha. Well, for some, it's not sometimes, for some it's the state of their life, their business, or their life. Look, what's the difficulty? That the manager is obliged to punish. In what sense is he obliged to punish? That if we, for example, set a task for our employee, told them, "Here, do this and this within these deadlines," and they don't do it, then, unfortunately, we often say, "Okay, maybe next time." "What didn't you do?" "Well, I couldn't." "Oh, it's a pity, of course." And this greatly demoralizes people, and they get used to the fact that not doing it is normal. Why? Because we lack this. And why do we lack punishment? Because we are often afraid to punish. It's uncomfortable for us. Well, or not just for us, but for our people. Have you encountered this, that managers are afraid to punish, it's somehow uncomfortable, scary? How can it be, I will punish him in some way? This is not necessarily a fine. Punishments can be very different. Moreover, is a fine an effective punishment, in your opinion? Not always. Aha. And when is it like, short-term? Aha. Punishment, unfortunately, trains people to think that they can buy their way out, especially if... So, if they are critically large, people just can't stand it and leave. If they are small, people come. For example, we set a fine for being late, and they come, "Here's 100 rubles for being late." And so, financial, financial fines, unfortunately, work very weakly. So, by no means rely on this. But nevertheless, we need to force both other managers and ourselves to punish, otherwise, we have a strong demoralization. Moreover, if you promise to punish, then by no means can you just forgive. So, you said, "If you don't do this, then I'm sorry, but you will be..." "We will seriously scold you for this in some way." I won't go into detail now about how exactly. If you're interested later, write to me, I'll send you detailed materials. I have materials on this topic. What is more important in this case? How do you think? A person did something, did it, made a big mistake, but it didn't lead to any serious consequences. What is more important: actions or results? Actions. Why? Because it's either sabotage. Aha. Are there any other opinions? So, what is more important, what the person did, or what results were obtained? So, they did everything wrong, but it turned out okay, or vice versa, they did everything right, but it didn't turn out well, everything is clear according to the charter, completely in vain. Actions are more important than results, because what is important for us in our business is to build a system, so that it doesn't depend on the uniqueness or luck of a particular person. So, they are lucky now, for example, and indeed, they did everything wrong, but, for example, they didn't send an invoice to the client on time, then forgot to call him, then something else, but the client called themselves, came themselves, did everything themselves. The result is there, the sale is there, despite the fact that they actively hindered him from buying. By the way, have you encountered situations where staff are sometimes more detrimental? For example, staff in retail outlets. Such staff, it would be better if they weren't there at all. There is a very interesting video now, have you heard? Amazon, you know the company Amazon, launched stores in America where there are no people at all, in the sense of sellers. You enter with your smartphone, scan at the entrance, walk around, pick up everything you need, it's automatically added to your cart, you leave, and your credit card is charged. No sellers, no one hinders. Live, well, live people. Look, do any of you have warehouses? We have a warehouse now, 2,500 square meters. Not many people have it, so it's probably not that interesting, but also watch the video about how Amazon's warehouse is organized, where there's a huge warehouse, I don't know, maybe twenty or forty thousand square meters, a gigantic warehouse, and there are two people for the entire warehouse. Everything else is robots scurrying around, and this is already done. Interesting. Well, let's move on. Error and violation. What's the difference, in your opinion? So, what is an error, and what is a violation? Conscious violations. Conscious. Aha. Any other opinions? Breaking rules. Exactly. So, look, on the one hand, we should encourage errors. So, an error is when a person didn't know how to do it correctly, tried, but got a bad result. They showed initiative, tried, for example, to sell a new product to a client, something didn't work out, or something else. So, they showed initiative, and we should encourage this so that the company develops, so that people show initiative. A violation is when it is clearly written in the regulations how to do it, and they did it differently, knowing this. We encourage errors and punish for violations. Often it's the other way around. So, when a person shows initiative, especially, for example, in the armed forces, this often happens elsewhere. A person shows initiative, and then... Yes, who showed initiative? Initiative loves the initiator. A very good tool, a simple way to influence people if they... A person comes, and there's a minor violation, and you don't know what to do with them. You demand, "Write an explanation." They write it. You file it. The next time they mess up, you say, "Write it." You file it. So, gradually, this stack that is growing for you starts to bother them. This stack of explanations. So, this is a kind of moral pressure that, it seems, doesn't require much effort from you, but you already have this stack. They see that material has accumulated on them, it's already quite solid. This is even to the point that, in principle, having a dozen of these explanations, you can officially fire the person. And this is such a tool of pressure on minor violators. Use this simple tool. In France in the 17th century, there was a saying, during the time of Louis, if the king doesn't take heads, what happens? The king's head is taken. Absolutely correct. Applied to our realities, what does this mean? That the manager, how is it? Not by the way. And why is the king's head taken if he doesn't take heads periodically? Why? Because chaos begins. They stop being afraid, right? So, they start to doubt that the power is strong, that the power really controls the situation, and so on. And maybe they can be tested for strength? And maybe we can now be late by 10-15 minutes? And maybe it's not necessary to come to planning meetings? And maybe it's not so scary if we don't submit the report on time, and so on. And the system starts to loosen up like this. And so, the element of regular head-taking, well, this is a bit of an extreme degree of head-taking, but regular punishments, it creates a kind of cement for our entire management system. Therefore, the manager is obliged to punish subordinates periodically. One of the most powerful examples of systems is McDonald's. You probably know everyone. Why powerful? People with very low qualifications work there, students who come for 3 months, who don't need anything, they are complete slackers, but nevertheless, everything works very well there. Have you seen the restaurant managers? They wear different colored sweaters and shirts. They have an obligatory periodic function in their task list every week: to publicly flog someone. Why? Because they know that this disciplines everyone else. And the task of this manager is simply to find a reason, for example, who drops a patty and still gives it to a visitor, or something else, so that an excellent victim is found. And the rest work better. So, look, if you are too soft here, use it. When to punish: immediately or later? What do you think? Why? You know the answer. Immediately. After 24 hours. So, also. How? And what is people's planning horizon? How far does the average person plan their plans for tomorrow? Well, let's move on to financial motivation. How do you think, what, for example, we take a sales department. Probably many of you have salespeople to some extent. A sales department. How to effectively set a plan for a day, a week, a month, a quarter, a year? For a month. Why for a month? Do you know how they work? When you set them a task for a month, for example, at the beginning of the month. So, the month has 4 weeks. The beginning of the month, they just got paid, they are happy, life is beautiful, they have money, why strain? The plan is still there, we'll manage to fulfill it somehow, we'll come up with something. No one works at all. Here, now, we will discuss. Yes, you know all the answers, you prompt everything. Excellent. And then here, well, the money is starting to run out, but there's still enough of it, so you don't need to strain too much. Here, the money is almost gone, they start borrowing from each other until payday, and so on. They already understand that they need to get involved. And here, it starts in the last week. Tell me, how did you study? When you studied, did you honestly attend all classes, or did you cram everything in the last 3 days before the exam? Let's see, who studied in the last 3 days for the exam? Aha. Well, at least half are like that, and the other half are hiding it. So, people are like that, unfortunately, that they tend to postpone everything until the last moment if the external environment doesn't force them to do it. And the last week, a labor feat is accomplished, they are in a sweat, trying to fulfill the sales plan. They naturally have these constant ups and downs. How to fix this system? It's clear, it's not very effective for business, right? So, we set motivation once a week, for example, control once a week, motivation once a week. Ideally, once a day, but this doesn't always allow us, the business cycle, the deal is long, and so on. But nevertheless, the same with punishment. Daily or at the end of the week, you give a small bonus, and they start working much better. Why? Because there is local motivation to work well right now, not to postpone it. Because there is an opportunity to postpone it, they will postpone it. Why? Because a person is weak, they strive for a state of rest if there are no strong external stimuli. Someone might notice this in themselves too. Implementation of regulations. Why do we need regulations? And most importantly, we, first of all, deprive a person of the right to ignorance. Such a concept, the right to ignorance, is that if it's not clearly written how to work with a client, how to fill out a client card, how to perform certain processes, then he can always say, "I didn't know how to do it correctly." A regulation is created, he signs it, and that's it. You can no longer say, "I didn't know." And we reduce dependence on employees. So, knowledge moves from the head to documents or to processes that are configured, for example, in our CRM system, task management system, and so on. Lower requirements for managers. So, until we have very clear, clearly written regulations, we need brilliant managers who can keep everything in their heads, motivate, and so on. When everything is clearly written, you just need to make sure that the conveyor doesn't malfunction and slightly adjust it. Customs are set. Has anyone heard about this experiment? Now, let's try. Something broke. Statistics. Oh, everything broke. Now, oh, here's the experiment. Let's see, who knows? If everyone knows, then many don't know. But in a nutshell, what was the experiment? They took five monkeys, a ladder, a banana hanging at the top. They locked them in cages. They sprayed them with cold water. It's unpleasant for them. They climb again. They are sprayed again. They were sprayed several times. They understood everything and sat quietly at the bottom. They replace one monkey. She's new, knows nothing, climbs up. What do the other monkeys do, in your opinion? They start beating her. Because they know that they... Well, they really grab her, start beating her, in their own way, like monkeys can. Gradually, they replace all the monkeys. There isn't a single monkey left that was sprayed with cold water. Not a single monkey has such an experience. They throw in a new monkey. She runs up. What happens? They still beat her. Why? Because it's established here. Because this is the principle: if you climb, you get beaten. And that's it. Why? No one knows, but it's established. This is the concept of the right of custom. So, along with regulations that we write clearly and so on, there are customs, informal rules, how things are done in our company. And managing through these informal rules is much easier and more effective. So, when we set the custom, how things are done in our company, how are these rules set? They are set precisely through regulations. We create a regulation, we force them to follow it, we force, for example, within... We create a regulation on how to fill out a client card, for example, that every salesperson who interacts with a client must fill it out at the end of the day. The head of the department checks if all client cards are entered. Plus, a weekly meeting, some additional control tool. We constantly work on this for a month or two. Then, after our management efforts, it's practically no longer required. People get used to it being established, and they work by inertia. That's how it is. So, we practically no longer need our serious effort to control this process. At the same time, it must be understood that simply issuing some regulation is not enough. For example, managers often complain, "Well, I told them," or "I wrote the regulation that now we work like this," and they do nothing. Well, naturally, people won't just do it. And why? Because most people, once again, this postulate: strive for a state of rest. They don't really like any innovations because it requires thinking, acting differently, retooling. It's better to do everything as before. Therefore, they try to sabotage everything new that you invent. Not everyone, but many, until you train them that innovation is also a rule and requires effort. And here, for us, as managers, the principle is: if I am not ready to go all the way and push through the implementation of a regulation, then it's better than a non-working regulation. When we write something, rules, and no one follows them, why? Because non-working laws indicate that the power is weak. Yes, the weakness of power, the weakness of power is very bad. Let's move on. The principle of successful innovation is what Machiavelli wrote a good phrase: "Every innovation has lukewarm supporters and ardent opponents who are absolutely convinced that it will be worse." This is about the fact that it will take a lot of effort, and if you are not ready, it's not worth doing. How do we do something new, launch it in our business? For example, our company, by the way, what is the scale of your business? Just so I can understand a bit. So, from scratch. Five people. Ten people. Fifty people. One hundred people. Fifty people. Aha. Ten. Fifty. Aha. Fifty. One hundred fifty. Four hundred. Aha. Ten. Well, five hundred. Aha. Well, in general, tens to hundreds. Not many are a thousand yet, I haven't heard. Or more. Five hundred was the largest. I now pay the most attention to my three main projects. In one, 30 people, in another, 80, in the third, 400, a manufacturing enterprise. And how do we implement innovations? So, when you have three people, well, let's not consider it, you'll figure it out with three somehow. But if you have at least a few dozen people, then implementing something new immediately. You've probably had many new ideas in these 2 days, and now you'll return and on Monday you'll dump all your brilliant thoughts on your people: "What we do now." They'll say, "Oh, damn, it's better if he didn't go there." "Let's not do anything just in case, maybe this eclipse of reason will pass." How to act correctly? Through localization on loyal people. We have, for example, 40 people. We choose the 5-7 most loyal people, open to everything new. We implement this new thing with them, and then, relying on the support of this loyal minority, but strong activists, we spread it to the whole company. We say, "Look, we did it with them, they are happy, everything works well, let's do it everywhere now." If we immediately try to implement it everywhere, we most likely won't have enough of our personal strength to push through the innovation. Optimization of communication. A few points. This is, in my opinion, a very important element. Who among you, your people, often run to you with different questions? Is there such a thing? Or come to you? Many. Not all. Someone is more advanced. A simple recommendation: as soon as a person runs up, "Boss, everything is lost! The client is asking for special conditions, I don't know what to do." In no case answer them simply like this, "You need to do this, this, this." Why not answer simply? Because we are teaching people not to think. We say, "Okay, but what do you suggest yourself?" So, we force people to engage their brains. After all, they don't like it. They are used to: "You're the boss, I'm an idiot, you think, and I do." Or rather, because you thought for me. We force people to think. Without this, if you see that your team is uninitiative, no one does anything without your intervention, then, unfortunately, you have taught them not to think. So, they are used to the fact that there is one smart head, let it think for everyone. We deprive them of the opportunity to run to you at any moment. If there are small accumulated questions, so that your attention is not taken away, because your attention as a manager is very limited. We collect all small questions, say, "Okay, let's have all non-urgent questions. Come once a week, we have a general meeting, I answer everyone at once." So as not to repeat 28 times to each person, but at once. So, somewhere my democracy has run away. Or dictatorship. How to manage a team? What do you think? Who is for dictatorship? So, now, now we... And for democracy? There are none. Democracy loses. We have an overwhelming majority here. I understand. So, you are all tough dictators. I see. And in what cases is democracy, dictatorship? You say different options. And where creativity is not needed? And where democracy is... So, excellent. In small groups, more democracy. And in large groups, more dictatorship. Any other options? Well, look, if it's dictatorship, what are the downsides of dictatorship, in your opinion? Let's just analyze. People will be suppressed. They won't think. Initiative, yes. So, dictatorship leads to what? Very high speed, but with this high speed, we often rush into a dead end or a wall. Why? Because everything is decided by one person and depends exclusively on the manager.
That is, the entire company essentially rests on a dictator. As soon as the dictator is either tired, or their attention shifts to something else, or they get sick, and so on, everything starts to fall apart very quickly. Democracy leads to us getting a large number of opinions. We gather, we include people's initiatives, but this slows down processes because they say, "I disagree," or "I think it should be done differently." And then you want to hit them over the head with a sledgehammer and say, "Do as I said. Stop thinking." You, Andrey, correctly said that at the discussion stage of meetings, we have democracy. Everyone can speak, everyone can offer an idea. We discuss together to involve people in development. But when we collectively decide that we are acting like this, like this, like this, then comes implementation. And in implementation, we have a dictatorship. Until the next meeting, a decision is made: "Here's the action plan. Now everyone strictly follows this plan. No 'I agree' or 'I disagree' or anything like that. We have a dictatorship." Decision-making: "I won't eat anything after six anymore." And then democracy in implementation: "Well, okay, bang, at 12 at night you find yourself teleported to the refrigerator, finishing the third cutlet." But you didn't want to, right? You made a decision, but it just happened.
Taming Chaos. If chaos occurs in an organization or in some department, it means it is poorly managed. You understand that people are simply… what to do. It's also a simple tool. Perhaps it will help you to simplify the implementation of a simplified order. That is, when we… our task is to break the process into two stages. First, to divide everyone into law-abiding and non-law-abiding, that is, those who are ready to obey our leadership and those who are not. How do we do this? We give some simple instruction, for example, "Tomorrow at 10 AM, each of you brings a detailed plan for the week." Everything is a very simple, clear instruction. And tomorrow morning, we see who completed it and who did not. This is something… again, it cut out, oh, it returned. That is, we restore control. Those who openly disobey us, well, we remove them in one way or another. That is, either we remove them altogether, or a person comes, "Did you bring the plan?" "No." "Everything, thank you. You are not present." We leave those who are ready to obey the management, with whom we can do something. That is, to remove sabotage, to remove people who hinder us, openly or not, hinder us from managing the team. Because most likely, many of you have encountered that in a team there are some employees who sabotage the process. Who has such people now? Even many, yes. Someone is afraid to admit it to themselves. But the task is to remove people. He pulls it back, and we are simply afraid to fire him, or somehow influence him, because "What will others think?" "But he is so important to us." Nothing of the sort. It is more important to maintain manageability than to have a unique specialist who hinders everyone. In extreme cases, you can isolate him altogether, so that he sits somewhere in a separate office, a separate room, and doesn't bother anyone. If they don't do something, for example, you force a person to do a competitor analysis, he says, "Yes, I'll do it." "Oh, I didn't have time, so much has piled up, clients." "Okay, do it." And so the person doesn't do it, doesn't do it, doesn't do it. What to do? We say, very clearly and directly: "Tomorrow, you do nothing except this." That is, we achieve it so that the person does it.
I will speed up a bit, there is little time left. Again, it's not scrolling, our system is broken. Ah, well, I can scroll with this if needed.
The best people. Is it difficult to find a good, capable person? Yes. No one said it was easy, for some reason. Well, okay. And what is the solution to the problem? The problem is that we, as a rule, do not treat this as attracting clients. And we need to treat it similarly: that we are creating a funnel for generating capable people into our business. A funnel implies, first of all, a large incoming flow. How is it organized? Here are a few points, solutions for you, on how to organize a large flow of people. This is, first of all, a mass vacancy posting service. That is, we often just post an ad on HeadHunter. There is a service that will post it on 50 platforms at once. That is, we immediately increase the flow. And our own HR service, or outsourced HR. I use the services of remote HRs, that is, people who, as a rule, work in large recruitment agencies and simply moonlight as freelancers. If you need to fill a position, they have all the databases, and so on. It's very convenient. And it costs much less than contacting a recruitment agency directly. And constant search and constant filtering. That is, to search not when it's already urgent that we need a person, but to constantly generate a flow of capable people. I think that if a strong person comes, you will find a task for them. That is, it's much easier than when tomorrow we need a person urgently, we'll take anyone, even a lame or cross-eyed one, just to fill the position. Hire more than needed. For example, in the sales department, we have two vacancies. It's better to hire three, fire one after 2 months, the worst one. And if everyone is good, great, keep them. It's cheaper than the opposite, when we hired two, one didn't fit, one remained, and we need to find one again. That is, we build a conveyor belt here. And this is the idea. Well, maybe you won't agree, but I've already accepted it for myself: to abandon the idea of finding good people only through their development and upbringing. That is, especially in small businesses. That is, to find a ready, capable specialist is, in principle, when you abandon this idea that such people don't exist, or they will be exceptions. We hire just normal people with the personal qualities we need, and then train them to the required level. Then somehow everything becomes simpler.
Now I'll suggest a few ideas. The idea of holding a competition. You probably know the idea of holding a competition. Many, yes? In a nutshell, a competition is a good thing. Building a sales department. He describes it there. So, I'm conducting it. I'm hiring a sales department. Do not conduct one-on-one interviews under any circumstances. Well, when we're not talking about hiring a CEO, but for ordinary positions, mid-level positions, we gather a crowd. Well, here, about 15-20 people gathered. In the sales department, you are 20 people. I come out. This is me standing. You are 20 people. We will take the two best. Now we will have a competition for the best team. We need the best. So today you have a chance to prove yourself. Now our competition will proceed like this, like this, like this. And then there is an algorithm on how to conduct it. This immediately changes everything upside down. When a person comes for an individual interview, they are still looking around, like, "What if I find something better?" and so on. Here, when they come to a beauty contest, they immediately think, "Wow, there's such competition." That is, creating such artificial hype. Often, people object here that, "Well, a normal person won't go for this." Nonsense. Everyone will go and react to it normally.
So, motivation. Let's scroll through something now. You need to understand this: money is only a hygiene factor. That is, if we pay little, people will be demotivated. Normally, they won't be demotivated. What will motivate them? Who has encountered such a paradox: you think that this person works for 40 well, now they work well. Now I'll raise their salary, we'll start paying 60, and they'll start working one and a half times better. You raise it to 60, and they start working worse. Who has encountered this effect? So, this is not a paradox. It will always be like this. That is, under no circumstances rely on raising salaries to motivate a person. That, in principle, doesn't work. Because money is not a serious stimulus for people. The stimulus for him will be… just now there isn't enough time. That is, it's almost mathematically proven. Don't rely on motivating people with money, in general.
We hire for relationships, then train for skills. That is, for us, the most important thing in hiring is people's personal qualities: discipline, responsibility, punctuality, and so on. This is much more important than technical skills. It's not that difficult to teach technical skills, usually. Well, if we're not talking about some serious complex profession. But even if it's difficult, we just select from those who possess technical skills. But usually, it's not that difficult to teach technical skills. But personal qualities… if a person is a slob, you won't change him. He will remain a slob his whole life. It's too late to change him. I'll give an example of how we built a system for developing the necessary qualities and selecting people. We generate a flow of people. We take, for example, the best five. And then, the first week… well, we chose four main qualities: independence, learnability, diligence, effectiveness. How do we check this? The first week, you work. Your task is to study the niche, research our competitors' websites, research our website, and independently compile a report on products and their features. That's it. And the person is released. And after 3 days, their task is to return with a report. We see if the person can work independently without being constantly pushed. What kind of report will it be? A sloppy, incomprehensible thing, or will it really be work? We see if the person can do something on their own. Because if we constantly have to push them, it means that I, as a leader, have to spend a lot of my energy to make this person work. This is very inefficient. If they pass this, the second stage is learnability. You must conduct marketing research, analyzing our competitors, comparing their products with ours, calling us as if you were a client, just going somewhere, calling our managers who are already working, as if you were a client, trying to buy, identifying typical objections, comparing how effectively our managers work with competitors, and so on. That is, can you do this? And secondly, this simultaneously helps us actively train the person. That is, they have already researched the market, looked at how competitors work, where we have what flaws, and so on. Diligence. I really like this point. Cold calls per day, 5 days in a row. Well, this is a normal figure, it's not fatal. I'm sure half of you here will say it's impossible. Possible, yes. And who until this moment considered it an unrealistic task, an inadequate one? Many consider it so. Approach, find out how it can be done. But this is normal. 150 calls is normal. How many do people usually call in a sales department? In others, 40-60. How do they call? They called, "Damn, I'm tired, I'm going to drink tea." Everything. "Oh, sorry." It happens approximately like this. He got nervous, went to drink tea. So, yes, he smoked. Yes, the phone receiver. He's like, "Well, I have to call. I have to." "Let's go." "Oh, great, let's go smoke." Yes, he returns. "Well, I have to call. I have to." "So, dial, dial, dial." "Hooray, it's busy." "So, I'll go drink tea." And… well, I'm exaggerating a bit, but approximately like this. That is, instead of sitting and doing their job, people spend 15 minutes on some fuss around one call. If we make people work, they suddenly start working diligently. That is, to do this and show results. Okay, you made about 500-600 calls. Now, out of them, you need six applications, that is, six orders, and at least one payment. That's a simple algorithm. The person goes through it in a month. Those who survive are usually quite capable people. That is, our task is simply to load people into this funnel. They go through it and move on.
Andrey, please tell me, how much time do I have? 5-10 minutes? Minimum 10, maximum, apparently. Okay, then let's speed up. Creating an internal cadre forge. I already told you that my approach… maybe you won't agree… that not relying on hiring capable people from the market will sometimes work, but very rarely. It is much more effective to cultivate them. For this, a large incoming flow is needed. Then the question arises: what to occupy people with? It is very effective to create a "dirty" position that brings benefit, which we almost always have, and to which we can drive a large flow of people. Hire for this position, and then grow those who perform well. For example, it can be an intern in the telemarketing department for cold calls. That is, we drive people there. The person sits and makes their 100-50 calls. If they survive and show good results, we then see where it's best to apply this person. But we have a constant flow. We constantly have this internal forge, in which we also build a training system. For 3 months that the person works in this department, they are also actively trained in what we need to train them in, so that it is simple to do. It's very good to write down the regulations for finding the right person. That is, how we look for the right person, who is responsible for the search, where, how we post the announcement. So, you can take a picture of this so that it's convenient for you to look at all this. If you need a presentation, Andrey, or do you send it out somehow? Or… [music]… send it out. So, take a picture. Write to me, and I'll just send you some additional materials in response.
What today… I'm galloping, probably. I'd like to give you something else. A general algorithm. That is, we write this down, and then our search for a new employee is simply launching work according to this algorithm. For example, a secretary, or whoever else is responsible for this. We say, "Okay, let's find such a person," and they go, they don't invent anything like, "How, where to get them, what announcements, etc." Everything is already worked out. We launch the process. Everything is going.
Career ladder. This is a great tool. I am now trying to implement it in all my organizations where I participate. Now something is stuck again. For example, the Armed Forces. A person comes after college, they come as a lieutenant, captain, major, and so on, infinitely. It's generally… well, practically infinite. Reached colonel, then if they were very lucky, became a major general, general… well, in general, it's for life. Similarly, it is very effective for us to create an internal career ladder. That is, when a person comes, for example, to the position of intern, then they come, then they are a junior specialist, specialist, senior specialist, leading specialist, and so on. And they have written down both the requirements and how they will grow, how their income will grow, and so on. That is, the person immediately sees how they can develop in this organization, that it doesn't just depend on the boss's will, but there are quite clear criteria for what they need to do. And when they come to you and say, "I want to earn more money," you say, "Great, well done. Do this volume. You know what you need to do to earn more money." That is, we greatly simplify our lives, and this is a truly powerful motivational tool. That is, instead of giving a bonus, we can hang another star on a person's shoulder, call them a specialist. That is, instead of, say, +10,000, "You'd better be a specialist." "Damn, cool, I'm a specialist now." That is, people really love this model. Think about it. Well, here's an example of what a position might look like, a career ladder. This is… I think I did this for the client department, for example. That is, a person is a junior client manager, fixed salary 15%, personal commission 3%, 7 rubles for some letters, 1% of the department's volume, and conditions for promotion. And each position is written like this. Well, this is just an example so that you have something to rely on.
We are almost finished, approaching the finale. KPIs for each position. If this is not yet in place, then our people are out of sync. That is, we have, for example, 40, 50, 200, 400 people working in a disorganized way. Why? Because, well, what does it mean to synchronize? To show a person what exactly we want from them right now. How to show? To implement a specific, preferably one main indicator, plus two or three auxiliary ones that will directly affect their salary, and they will understand what is expected of me. And this can be done practically. That is, even if it seems to us that it is not implementable, KPIs can be implemented for any position. But in sales, it's just… in sales, you need to think. That is, how for KPIs, for example, a KPI can be the number of failures in work, of something in production, the defect rate, and so on. Or for an accountant, the amount of tax claims against us, or something like that. That is, look at this. If you currently have people, do you have people with just a fixed salary? Does anyone else have that? Yes, many. This is the most unpleasant thing. Because the person simply doesn't care anymore. "I work well, I get 40,000. I work poorly, I also get 40,000." Everything. That is, this system is not only not good, it demotivates people. Because the person understands, "I have no incentive to work more actively. Why?" That is, to implement… that is, change this system. Everything will immediately become more interesting.
Okay, now let me try to scroll here. Ah, no. Let's not give time for nonsense. It would seem like a simple thing, but what does it mean not to give time? To load people so that they simply don't have time for anything else, so that they run around like squirrels in a meat grinder. It seems that… well, how so? People should rest and so on, and so on. But partly, yes. But when people have enough time to rest, how to understand this? Look, how often do they go to drink tea, and so on? If often, it means they have time for this. And there should be no time, so that their life is so active, so bustling, that they come and everything engulfs them in a whirlpool of events, and they do, do, do, do. They went to lunch, and only then, at the end, they woke up. "Oops, the day is over. Did we do anything?" Good. If this is not the case, then the people in the inner circle… I try to implement this everywhere now. That our attention as managers is not enough for everyone. No matter how small the team, we cannot give much attention to each person. And the idea of the inner circle is that we choose three to five people, maybe seven maximum, in whom we start to invest. That is, all our management is working with these five to seven people. We practically ignore the rest, maybe only general meetings. But in these people… that is, we manage through their hands. What is the ideal model of a manager? Perhaps you remember a book like "Professor Dowell's Head." He has nothing, no hands, nothing. He can only tell others what to do. And we have five people, maybe six or seven key ones. That's it. Then we invest in them. We start to develop them personally. We meet with each of them every day. But we try to minimize personal involvement in processes. That is, under no circumstances do we get involved in doing something ourselves, fixing something with ordinary employees, communicating a lot. That is, sometimes it's necessary, but literally in the format, initially, once a week at a general meeting, then once a month. The main attention is on these five key people, and that's it. And this is our team. The next step, when we master this, is to teach each of these people to create their own inner circle, so that they also manage their team. When this happens, your management becomes much simpler. That is, you don't keep 280 tasks in your head that are pending in your business today, but you have these five people. Everything is clear for each person: a list of their tasks, a list of areas they are responsible for. We manage them. I understand that perhaps for someone this seems like an unattainable ideal. But the task is simply to start moving in this direction. And the road is mastered by the walker. Everything is much simpler than it seems. That's all from me for today. Thank you very much. Success in your businesses. Questions. Thank you. Questions? Yes, please. A few questions. Yes, if we have time, I will certainly answer.
There is such a problem with attendance and employee lateness. Their work is motivated, partly plus bonus. Part is from sales. The question is: we implemented such a thing that people are not punished with money, but for an employee's lateness or absence, the plan increases. That is, the idea is that if you can make money in a shorter time, do it. But the idea works until the employee gets too high a plan. When they get too high, they, roughly speaking, resign themselves. "Well, I won't do it this month." How to act in this situation, what do you think? Well, not only to you, but to the hall. What do you think? How can this problem be solved? How would you suggest? I had a suggestion to remove it completely, that is, the addition of the plan, and reduce the percentage. Maybe just reduce the percentage. Any other thoughts? Let's ask everyone. Ah, excellent. How do you suggest? Let's just say there is a different level of contingent that we have to work with. There are those who understand, and there are those… but salespeople are excellent, right? Roughly speaking, yes. Well, here's one idea. Suggest another. Unbearable conditions. Okay, you work standing on the street. Excellent. 2 hours on the street. Sanctions for lateness. Also deprived of incoming traffic. Now sit on cold calls. All incoming calls are redirected, for example, to other people that day. Late, no problem. Generate more to your salary. Ah, write an explanation. Well, we've brainstormed a number of ideas. We could write this down now, but time is limited. I'll just…
I don't answer immediately. I have, of course, some of my thoughts on this topic, but this is an example of how I am now trying to show you how to work with your team, with the collective. Your employee runs up to you, "What to do?" and waits for you to say. How you… you probably waited for me to say, "Do this, this, this." Nothing of the sort. We try to involve, first of all, the person themselves, and other people. Let them generate ideas, and together… again, if there were time, I would unite you. Those who proposed the idea, discuss it. Better. You yourself, and so that next time you unite yourselves, without even asking me, and do it. But this is just a short throw-in for you as a team development process. Let's have one or two more questions, please. The last question. The last one. Yes, already. In the break, you can approach, right? Hello, Oleg. My name is… Tell me, what is the role of the owner in general? Who writes the rules, regulations, checklists, and other documentation? The role of the owner. What is it, in your opinion? A big question. But the role of the owner is the development of the entire system. But to be outside the system, but not inside it. There is such a principle of system development: it is impossible to develop a system while being inside it. You must be outside it. This means that you should not be involved in daily meetings, and so on. If you are in it, it is very difficult, almost impossible, for you to develop, to deal with tasks like "How to increase business turnover tenfold?" "How do we enter fundamentally new markets?" For example, now, in one of our businesses, we are very actively trying to enter Europe with our products. Specifically, Spain, Greece. And it seems like it's working out for us. Now we will be sending the first orders. So, you don't have time for such tasks. This is the role of the business owner: to develop, to work on the development of the entire system and key people in it. The writing of regulations is the role of line managers when they know how to do it. And the role, accordingly, of the general executive director is to teach their line managers, managers of different levels, so that they know how to write all these regulations. Because initially, they usually don't really know how. You say, "Write a regulation," and they bring such nonsense that you think, "I'd better do it myself." "Better? No, you can't." You say, "Well, okay, go write it again." They write it a second time, also nonsense, but a little less. "Well, well done, already better. Go again." From the fifth time, they succeed. They don't like it. So, people will resist these things, of course. But… well, that's roughly my idea, in a nutshell. Thank you, Nikolai. Okay, thank you. [music] Thank you very much.