The production manager of a large company resigned, and his successor was a middle-aged man known for his practicality and hard work. From the very first day on the job, he worked tirelessly. His defining trait was going deep into the front lines. You could hardly ever find him in his office, as he constantly rushed from one workshop to another solving problems. No sooner had he resolved one issue than another popped up elsewhere, forcing him to hurry off again. He was so busy he barely had time to eat. His dedication was truly admirable. However, after a while, people noticed that despite his hard work, the entire production department was in chaos. He worked himself to exhaustion every day, yet problems kept resurfacing—like pressing down one gourd only to see another pop up. With over a dozen workshops and more than a thousand workers, he was overwhelmed, leading to a decline in productivity. After three months, he had no choice but to resign.
His replacement was a man in his thirties with a master's degree in management. A week after he took office, the president asked his secretary to find out what the new manager did each day. The secretary reported back that the new manager spent most of his time in the office. When subordinates came to report, he gave instructions; when there was nothing to do, he read books and newspapers, appearing quite relaxed. Occasionally he would visit the workshops, but rarely, and he didn’t stay long—just a quick look before returning. The president made no comment but instructed the secretary to keep observing. Twenty days later, the management of the production department began to become orderly. After two months, it was fully back on track. Three months later, production efficiency reached the highest level since the company’s founding.
Let’s pause this story and look at an incident involving the conductor Strauss. In 1872, Strauss was invited to perform in the United States. The American organizers wanted him to conduct a concert with the largest number of performers in history—20,000 musicians. As everyone knows, in musical performances, the more conductors involved, the easier it is for mistakes to occur. It’s already quite an achievement for a conductor to successfully lead a few hundred performers on stage together—let alone 20,000. Many believed Strauss would refuse. Surprisingly, when the Americans presented their idea, Strauss readily agreed.
When the performance began, everyone held their breath, fearing something would go wrong. Yet the concert was a tremendous success. Afterwards, a journalist asked Strauss how he managed to successfully conduct such a massive ensemble. Strauss replied: "Here’s how: I divided the 20,000 performers into 100 groups of 200 each. I had 100 assistant conductors, each responsible for one group. Then I conducted these 100 assistant conductors. This way, the task was distributed among everyone. Each person only needed to focus on their own responsibility. As for me, I only needed to conduct these 100 assistant conductors."
Now, returning to our earlier story: Later, at a company leadership meeting, the president asked the young production manager to explain how he had turned the department around. His words echoed Strauss’s a century earlier: "On my first day, I called my three deputy managers into my office for a meeting. I divided all the department’s tasks into three parts and assigned one part to each of them. Then I instructed them to go back and hold meetings with their department heads, assign tasks, and have the department heads do the same with their deputies—and so on, cascading down the line. By the time it reached the workshop team leaders, each was only responsible for managing a few dozen people. As for me, I only need to manage these three deputy managers. I only manage those closest to me."
Truly effective managers don’t do everything themselves. Instead, they focus on managing those closest to them, then use them to manage the levels below. Senior leaders don’t need to concern themselves with trivial details; they only need to grasp the key issues. While diligence in handling small tasks is commendable, it doesn’t make someone an excellent manager. On the battlefield, a general’s role isn’t to charge into combat, but to command his subordinate officers, who in turn lead their soldiers, enabling coordinated action across the entire army. Managing only those closest to you—that is the essence of wise and effective management.