本文来自微信公众号： 半佛仙人 ，作者：半佛仙人，头图来自：视觉中国 每当看到一堆超市言必称胖东来的时候，我都想笑。 这些超市过到今天这个样子不是没有理由的，很多甚至都没理解胖东来到底是一家什么样的企业。 居然还想用超市的模式理解胖东来，复刻胖东来。 这就相当于想让3a大作跑在自己那个黑白屏的小学计算器上，那这个计算器不用你摁都要自动播报 66666666。 以下文章来源于半佛仙人 ，作者半佛仙人 半佛仙人 . 半佛仙人那些疯癫又暴躁的灵魂文章。 胖东来只是恰巧跟他们分在了同一个班，不代表大家是一个世界的人。 胖东来的业务模式和管理模式一开始就是无法复制的，就连于东来自己都很难说复制，我两年前都写 过，人家不出河南就是看明白了。 一 先看业务模式。 但凡觉得胖东来是超市，用超市的方式分析，根本就没玩明白游戏规则。 胖东来最核心的业务是房东。 不是超市，是房东。 有时候是大房东，有时候是二房东，但没区别，都是收租。 不要用超市那点货品差价理解胖东来。 只要保证人流和人气，他们就可以作为房东的存在来收租。 只有在这个前提下，才能理解为什么他们如此的照顾客户。 因为只要照顾好客户，他们就可以收其他来他们这里开门店的 ...

Core Viewpoint - The book "Chinese Enterprise Power" by Huang Kangjun highlights the journey of entrepreneur Luo Su and the development of Xingfa Group, emphasizing the importance of persistence, specialization, and quality in building a successful brand representative of Chinese enterprises [12][16]. Group 1: Entrepreneurial Journey - Luo Su has consistently practiced physical and mental discipline for over 20 years, which parallels his business philosophy of focusing on high-quality aluminum profile products [3][4]. - The narrative illustrates how Luo Su's personal values and dedication have influenced the operational success of Xingfa Group, showcasing a model of perseverance and self-improvement [4][5]. Group 2: Business Philosophy - The core of the "Xingfa phenomenon" lies in specialization and quality, rather than size, as noted by economist Wu Jinglian [4][5]. - The management model of Xingfa Group reflects a common trait among Chinese private enterprises, where initial decisions are often driven by values and beliefs rather than pre-defined management frameworks [5][6]. Group 3: Value System - The book argues that a company's value system is more enduring and powerful than its management model, as it supports continuous adaptation and improvement in business practices [5][6]. - Successful entrepreneurs often create their management strategies based on their core values rather than formal education in management [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - The recent salary reduction at Peak has sparked significant employee unrest, with reports of a 50% salary cut and subsequent threats to employees who refuse to comply with the new terms [1][3][10]. Group 1: Salary Reduction Incident - In September 2025, Peak employees were informed of a sudden salary reduction, with some experiencing cuts as high as 50% [1]. - Employees expressed their discontent, stating that the company did not consult them before implementing the salary cuts [3]. - On October 13, employees who refused the salary cut were issued a "final notice," demanding they submit a "reflection report" by October 14 or face suspension of their September wages [4]. Group 2: Company Response and Internal Policies - Employees who submitted written refusals regarding the salary cut were deemed non-compliant, which could affect their salary calculations and disbursement [6][7]. - The company requested that those who needed to retract their refusal meet with the chairman by October 15 to discuss their situation [6][7]. Group 3: Labor Department Involvement - The local labor department stated that while writing a reflection report is an internal management issue, withholding wages based on this requirement could be illegal [9]. - The labor rights center in Quanzhou has taken over the case, indicating that if the allegations are true, employees should file complaints and seek labor arbitration [9]. Group 4: Media and Public Reaction - Media commentary criticized Peak's management practices, suggesting that the company's approach to employee relations is outdated and detrimental to its image [11]. - Public sentiment reflected disappointment, questioning the sincerity of the company's charitable actions in light of its treatment of employees [12].

Management Models and Their Limitations - The article discusses four common management models: personal management, delegation management, oversight management, and excessive institutional management, highlighting their limitations [2][3][6][7]. Personal Management - Personal management lacks standardization and replicability, as it relies on the charisma of an individual, making it difficult to sustain once that individual leaves the company [2]. Delegation Management - Delegation management has vulnerabilities due to the difficulty in accurately assessing the capabilities and character of those entrusted with responsibilities, which can lead to negative impacts on company development [3]. Oversight Management - Oversight management is limited in scope and can be arbitrary, as it relies heavily on the authority of individuals, potentially leading to a situation where the owner becomes overly involved in day-to-day operations, undermining the roles of functional departments [6]. Excessive Institutional Management - Excessive institutional management can lead to an overwhelming number of processes and regulations, resulting in inefficiencies and a bloated talent pool, which can hinder operational effectiveness [7][9].