What are the disadvantages of the management system of state-owned enterprises?

There has always been a contradiction between emphasizing management and backward management in state-owned enterprises. The main reason is that there are still a series of outstanding contradictions and problems in the management thought, management system and management mode of state-owned enterprises. The main reasons are: there are misunderstandings in management thinking, vulgarization, conditioning and idealization; In the management system, there are phenomena of administrative and economic organization and irregular management system; In the management mode, it has a wide range of colors of acting by feeling and managing by experience. These deep-seated contradictions and problems directly affect the economic benefits and market competitiveness of state-owned enterprises. Only by effectively solving these contradictions and problems and changing the current situation of vague ideological understanding, unreasonable management system and extensive management methods can we stimulate the great potential of state-owned enterprises and truly improve their management level and market competitiveness.

The existing cadre management of state-owned enterprises in China is basically the management system under the planned economy mode, with administrative appointment as the mainstay, which is extremely uncoordinated with the management of enterprise cadres required by the market economy. To sum up, there are some shortcomings:

1, the management level is not clear.

According to the modern company system, shareholders are investors and should exercise the rights of investors. In the case of dispersed shareholders, directors are recommended to form a board of directors according to the proportion of shares, and the board of directors represents shareholders, exercises decision-making power, and is responsible to shareholders based on safeguarding their interests; The board of directors appoints a manager to carry out daily operations, and the manager is responsible to the board of directors (not to the chairman personally). This level is clear and required by the modern enterprise system. But in practice, the state not only appoints directors and chairmen, but also appoints managers together, paying more attention to the selection and appointment of managers. The actual power of managers is far greater than that of the board of directors, so directors have no practical significance, so they have to have a director and deputy manager, and sometimes even those cadres who are inconvenient to arrange are directors.

2. The management position is unknown

At present, there are many cadre positions (leading cadres) in state-owned companies, including board of directors, managers, supervisors, party committees, trade union presidents, and "chief engineers" (such as chief engineers, chief economists, chief accountants, and chief planners). Even if the board of directors, managers and party committees overlap, an enterprise team often reaches ten people, a province, region or city, such a state-owned enterprise team. Under normal circumstances, the management department will only pay a visit to the cadres appointed by itself when it needs to be adjusted. Don't be too busy with selection or communication, it is difficult to know the real situation of the selected cadres.

3. Incomplete management links

Not to mention that it is unreasonable to treat state-owned enterprise executives as "cadres." From the perspective of management alone, it is also incomplete, or the intensity of management is unbalanced. Irresponsible or irresponsible people often make too much effort. First, the management mode is single, paying too much attention to direct management, and appointing (appointing) senior executives instead of entrusting them. Although there is only one word difference between delegation and entrustment, their connotations are different. Entrustment is an administrative means, and entrustment more embodies an economic relationship.