I still find myself unable to stop writing about management.

If you are merely trading for margin, you may stop here. This will waste your time. But if you are trying to operate an enterprise — something that carries weight and consequence — then perhaps read this book with a hoe in your hand. There is something like statecraft in it.

Let’s begin without ceremony.

The first principle is this: make the pursuit of the material and spiritual well-being of all personnel the mission of the enterprise. In plain terms — the happiness of the people comes first.

It sounds simple. Almost unsophisticated. Yet it is formidable.

Why formidable? Because the mission is large enough to be defensible anywhere on this planet. You can carry that banner into any culture and it makes moral sense. In Confucian language, it possesses righteous legitimacy — what might be called 大义. And yes, that matters. More than most operators admit.

I recall a similar emphasis in Feng Tang’s The Golden Thread, though I never wrote the close reading I had planned. Some books are read carefully; others are read in passing. This one demands the former.

Naturally, tensions emerge. The small self versus the larger collective. Leadership accused of “selling dreams.” The transactional mentality — pay me for what I do, nothing more. These are not trivial issues. But they look different when examined from the perspective of an operator — not a CEO as a title, not a boss in hierarchy, and certainly not through the tired binary of exploitation versus victimhood, a framing I find deeply misleading.

An enterprise is not a moral drama between oppressor and oppressed. It is a coordinated endeavor among people who choose to gather and work together.

Peter Drucker — unsurprisingly — addressed something adjacent. He argued that employees are not merely sources of productivity; they are central to innovation and adaptation. After the Industrial Revolution, factories began labeling people alongside natural inputs — coal, steel, labor — and the term “human resources” was born. But management philosophy should have evolved. Technology has evolved. To treat human beings merely as resources is archaic.

What strikes me most is that the principle speaks of “all personnel,” not merely employees. That expansion is subtle but significant.

The logic is straightforward: the pursuit of well-being — both material and spiritual — is not for a fictional entity called “the company,” nor for an abstract organization, nor solely for shareholders. It is for the collective well-being of the people who gather within it. In other words: people-centered.

When a leader says, “I exhaust myself working for this organization — how can you afford to be careless?” such rebuke is legitimate only if it is not self-serving. It must stand on behalf of the whole. Only then does it possess dignity rather than coercion. An enterprise must have moral standing. Without it, authority erodes.

That is why the first principle — defining the meaning of the enterprise — is foundational. It becomes the DNA of all subsequent action.

If the first principle concerns legitimacy, the next concerns direction. A compass is superior to a map.

No matter how hostile or uncertain the environment, the operator must indicate a direction. Some may object that clear directional goals conflict with probabilistic thinking — perhaps invoking Bayesian reasoning as if it were a universal solvent. This is confusion. Strategy and statistical updating are different conversations. Mixing them is intellectual noise.

Others will dismiss ambition as “selling dreams” — becoming number one, becoming world-class. I do not know who coined the phrase, but human progress has always depended on imagination. Collective imagination sustains forward motion. The ability to make others believe in that imagination is precisely what distinguishes leadership. Those who constantly mock vision often lack one.

This, of course, excludes those who deceive for a living.

An operator must continually persuade colleagues toward the objective, while refining details, adjusting plans, and confronting constraints. But goals cannot remain abstract. They cannot float as a single number on a slide. They must be concrete in time and space, broken down by department, by team, and ultimately by individual responsibility. Napoleon did not reshape Europe through enthusiasm alone. He calculated. Vague goals paralyze organizations. Precision mobilizes them.

There is another warning: the author does not advocate grand five- or ten-year plans. Variables multiply. Overconfidence compounds. Repeatedly missing distant targets breeds cynicism — “we never hit them anyway.” In that sense, elaborate long-term planning can become ceremonial fiction.

It may be more realistic — even more rational — to focus on annual plans executed with relentless discipline. Strive through today, and tomorrow clarifies. Strive through this month, and next month reveals itself. Strive through this year, and the next becomes visible.

There is also a structural asymmetry embedded in long-term planning. Costs are committed early; returns remain uncertain. Once a long-term plan is formalized, expenditure begins. Revenue, however, may be delayed, discounted, or fail to materialize. This does not mean long-term projects are inherently wrong — some industries require them — but for most operators, disciplined short-cycle execution is safer than ceremonial forecasting.

How should one plan? Simply: be realistic.

Communication must flow both top-down and bottom-up. Discussion is essential. And numbers matter. Even provisional numbers sharpen thought. Without quantification, discussion drifts.

There are countless subtleties here. Writing can only carry so much. Those who understand will recognize the pattern; those who do not will not be persuaded by additional paragraphs.

One passage in this chapter moved me personally.

It speaks of founders from small enterprises. In small firms, one cannot afford narrow specialization. The entrepreneur must understand sales, production, technology — everything. Because of this, even when the enterprise scales dramatically, the founder can still comprehend reports across departments in substance, not merely in tone.

By contrast, someone who rises through a single technical track in a large corporation may lack cross-functional fluency. When presented with unfamiliar reports, they can only nod and say, “I see.”

I am currently in transition. I no longer occupy the managerial role I once did. Yet I am still drawn toward small companies and startups. Why? Because in such environments, one touches the totality of operations. That is education in management, not merely employment.

Call it what you will.

I call it learning the craft of rule.

我还是忍不住继续写一下关于经营的东西。如果是买卖人，就甭看了，因为真的浪费时间，如果是在经营一项事业，那还是与锄头一同看看这本书吧，里面有‘帝王术’。

不墨迹，直接开写

第一条是：要把‘追求全体从业人员物质和精神两方面的幸福’作为使命，即只要员工幸福就好。

这是一个很朴实但很‘厉害’的一条。怎么说他厉害呢，首先，这个使命够大，举着这个旗子，我相信走在这颗星球上，哪里都说的通。而且够朴实。用中国儒家边来讲就是有 大义。这个是否重要呢？其实据我所知，重要。而且极为重要。好像冯唐的一本《金线》里某一处也有所强调（我本来打算写精读《金线》的，但还是懒得写，就暂且当厕所读物吧）。

这不免会有一些疑问或者困难，比如小我 VS 打我的博弈，领导的‘大饼’，以及‘给多少钱，办多少事儿’等的管理问题。不过可以试着找到这个角度‘一位经营者‘的视角去审视这些问题，不是CEO or什么title，不是老板与职工的关系，更不是剥削与被剥削（这个比较我非常反感，误导了人们对待雇佣与被雇佣之间的关系），而是站在一位经营者的角度去对待问题。

Peter Drucker（是的不意外，不引用他的思想才是意外）也有所相关强调，他说：员工不仅是生产力的源泉，也是组织创新和适应变化的关键。这也就是人力资源的难处，工业革命以后工厂把人同其他自然资源一样也称为资源，所以有了名称‘人力资源’，但新的科技现状和企业管理哲学已经进化到不可以小视人‘人’的因素。我在很早的文章中就有所提到，因此把人当成资源，就太原始了。

但这里要注意的是作者所说的是全体从业人员，而不仅仅是员工。 真是一个了不起的强调。

其实这条的逻辑是：追求全体从业人员的幸福（物质+精神），不是为了某个人，不是为了幻想出来的某个‘公司’，某个‘组织’，更不是为了股东，而是为了聚集在一起的全体人员的幸福。怎么说呢：以人为本。

引用原文说：“我从早到晚，纹身碎骨，拼命工作，而你如此马虎，你好意思吗？”这种斥责是正大的，堂堂正正的，不是为了某个人，不是为了自己，而是全体从业人员。因此公司必须具备大义名分。

因此经营十二条的第一条，要确定事业的意义，非常重要。是一切的开端，是日后行事的DNA。

上面这一条讲的是大义，算是目的，接下来是目标，毕竟，“指南针优于地图”

设定具体的目标——所涉目标随时与员工共有

无论生存环境多么恶略，多么看不起方向，但经营者必须要指明前进的方向和目标。或许有人会说这个与（贝叶斯）相悖，但这是两个概念，就像在谈战略的时候你来捣乱说具体战术。所以纯属捣乱。

还有的人说这可能是在画大饼，成为第一，成为世界第一。‘画大饼’我不知道是谁发明出来的说辞，但自有人类以来，大伙儿聚在一起，怎么发展的呢？是靠想象。想象是维持不断前进的原动力。要让大家相信这个想象就是经营者或者说领导者所具备的能力。因此按我的说法，总是说画大饼的，是那些吃不着大病说没有饼的人。（为了严谨一点，我这里的前提不包括市面上忽悠人为生的坏老鼠们）。

所以经营者需要不断的说服全体同事来实现这个目标，并且还需要不断制定细节，修改细节，制定计划 etc.

这里所需要注意的是目标不可以是一个的数字，需要具体到时间和空间上去，而且要具体到各个部门，各个小组，再进一步，每一位基层员工。所以“拿破仑怎么打下欧洲的，是靠算出来的”。因此不明确的目标无法让公司前进，会让员工无所适从。

第二个需要注意的是，作者不主张制定中长期的计划，5-10年的计划基本上就是胡说八道了，因为变数太大。与其郑重其事的制定这么长期计划，倒不如爻卦来的实际（这个不是讽刺，是严肃认真的比较）。因为会涉及到一个非常大的问题，假如计划达不成，而且是多次的达不成，反而会让大家认为“反正完不成也没关系”的感觉。因此作者一般只会制定年度经营计划，怎么执行呢：千方百计，不达不休。需要‘拼命努力度过今天这一天，就能看清明天；拼命努力度过当月这一月，就能看清下月，努力度过今年这一年，就能看清明年‘。

在励志方面结束后，作者也给出不定长期计划的另一个客观理由，那就是‘计划推进的只会是费用的支出‘。假设长期计划确立下来，那么相应的费用预算就到启动了。可是这里的问题是费用的支出是确定的，但是希望收到的回报是不确定的。有可能delay，有可能打折，也有可能彻底的事与愿违，因此长期计划的执行是一件非常冒险的事情（我这里不用错误来描述长期计划，是因为很多大项目，确实是按照年来设计的，但作为生意人，还是最好按照作者提示的来工作）。

关于怎么制定计划呢，简单：实事求是即可。

另外还有自上而下，自下而上的信息传达，讨论也是必须的。还有就是在讨论中尽量用数字去说话，（哪怕数字是虚拟的，杜撰的——我说的）。有太多太多的细节在这里需要嘱咐了，不过毕竟文字的效率还是有限，懂得都懂，不懂的看了也不懂。

本章节有一段话很让我欣慰及动容，因为我目前正在求职当中，角色不再是之前公司的管理者了。但我还是乐意去寻找在微小企业，创业公司去工作。为什么呢，如原文：
“你我都是微小企业出身。微小企业的创业者如果不关注销售·生产·技术等所有方面的工作，就无法经营。多亏积累了多方面的经验，直到所有的业务内容，所以哪怕规模做到了一兆日元，在听取部下的报告时，我仍能理解其内容。如果我是半路出家，进入某大企业，当上了社长，因为只懂技术，对于其他部门的报告，我就看不明白。怎么做才能让那项事业扭亏为盈，我就不晓得。听到回报，我只能说‘啊！是吧’。

怎么说呢，我懂‘帝王术’。