7 Devilish Laws Every HR Professional Must Know: If You Spot These Types of Employees, Act Fast to Remove Them from the Team!

I am a senior business consultant at a certain company. When I first met its founder, the company had only a few dozen employees; today, it has nearly a thousand.

The founders and executives all feel that, Today’s companies are far less dynamic than they were when they were startups; they’re becoming the very thing they once despised: As organizations grow larger, processes multiply, and performance evaluations become increasingly complex, there’s a strong desire to “return to the entrepreneurial spirit.”

But can we really go back? It’s like how many adults long for the innocence of childhood, wishing they could stay young forever. Yet returning to that time is impossible. Each stage of life calls for its own way of living; each phase of a company demands its own approach to management. Below are seven management principles I’ve distilled:

01

The Law of Wine and Sewage:

Be sure to remove such employees from the team—their ability to spread negativity is tenfold, or even a hundredfold, greater than their capacity to generate positivity.

To put it another way, if you pour a spoonful of wine into a bucket of dirty water, you end up with a bucket of dirty water; but what if you do the reverse—pour a spoonful of dirty water into a bucket of wine? You still get a bucket of dirty water.

It’s the same whether in life or in management. Perhaps you have such a negative‑energy friend nearby—life, in their eyes, is always gray, and chatting with them feels like listening to nothing but complaints. Like a black hole, they slowly drain your energy; after each conversation, you feel exhausted, even questioning the very meaning of life.

Kaoru Inamori once said that people fall into three categories: combustible, self‑igniting, and non‑combustible. The cynical, world‑weary type belongs to the third category: no matter how you try to spark them, they remain indifferent; no matter how you motivate them, they simply won’t put in the effort.

Employees like this should, whenever possible, be removed from the team or have their access restricted. They lack alignment with the company’s objectives, exhibit highly unpredictable behavior, and are prone to faltering or causing problems in critical situations.

02

The Mushroom Law:

Anyone who talks to me about strategy, I’ll fire them.

A story is circulating online: A newly hired employee at Huawei was brimming with passion for his work and deeply committed to self-improvement. During his tenure, he identified numerous strategic and managerial issues, leaving him deeply concerned. Consequently, he painstakingly penned a 10,000-word letter to Ren Zhengfei, outlining his insights and recommendations on Huawei’s business strategy.

Ren Zhengfei was deeply moved, yet he declined the suggestion and issued an official reply: “If this person has a mental illness, I recommend sending them to a hospital for treatment; if they are not ill, I recommend dismissing them.”

Many people might be shocked: How could this possibly happen? But those who think this way are far from being limited to Ren Zhengfei. Jack Ma has said something similar: “Employees who have been with the company for only three years shouldn’t talk about strategy—first master the tactics, and then worry about strategy. Anyone who tries to discuss strategy with me will be fired.”

Why does this happen? It comes down to the management and development of new employees. Throughout their growth, newcomers invariably go through a phase where they “see the big picture but struggle to execute.” Every student who’s ever sold snacks at a school fair thinks they’ve got what it takes to be a businessperson; every student‑government leader believes they’ve mastered the art of management; and every person who’s experienced heartbreak is convinced they’ve figured out human nature.

In reality, they’re like mushrooms in the workplace—huddled in a corner, doing only simple, repetitive tasks, with no one supervising or asking what they’re up to. Some people refer to this situation as the “Mushroom Principle.”

Therefore, for young new hires, managers should provide ample care and encouragement, guide them to start with simple, practical tasks, set high standards, and help them grow rapidly. Increasingly, domestic companies are adopting the “Management Trainee” programs of foreign firms to cultivate promising young talent.

03

The Matryoshka Principle:

A single soldier may be cowardly, but a whole troop led by a cowardly commander is doomed.

Many managers may not say it outright, but when it comes to staffing, a common issue arises—the “nested‑doll phenomenon.” As the name suggests, it’s like a set of nesting dolls: each layer is smaller than the one before.

When they hire someone more talented than themselves, they often harbor a deep concern: Could this person one day replace them? Their sense of security is rooted in the belief that “I must be the best in the entire department.” As a result, even at the hiring stage, managers tend to block higher‑caliber candidates from joining. The less competent the manager, the more pronounced this tendency—hence the saying, “One mediocre soldier makes a mediocre unit; one mediocre leader makes a mediocre team.”

On the tombstone of Andrew Carnegie, the American steel magnate, is inscribed: “Here lies one who knew how to choose men stronger than himself and set them to work.” Carnegie became a steel tycoon not because he possessed extraordinary personal abilities, but because he dared to employ those who were more capable than he was and knew how to bring out their strengths.

A quintessential example from Chinese history is Emperor Gaozu of the Han, Liu Bang. Liu Bang acknowledged that his strategic acumen was inferior to Zhang Liang’s, his administrative skills fell short of Xiao He’s, and his prowess in warfare was no match for Han Xin’s—but it was he who ultimately ascended the throne.

As a CEO, you must constantly reflect on yourself: Am I the outermost, largest layer in the “Russian doll” phenomenon?

04

Benjamin’s Law:

Talent is the company’s most valuable asset.

I once met a boss who, during our conversation, suddenly blurted out: “The biggest problem in my company is the gap between my employees and me.”

I was taken aback by the look of exasperation on his face. Clearly, he believed that the challenges facing the company were due to “this generation of employees being inadequate,” thereby holding back the greater success he could have achieved.

Is it really their fault? If you’re paying your employees a monthly salary of 5,000, don’t expect them to meet the expectations of a position that pays 20,000 per month.

What should we do? Make our employees increasingly valuable. Don’t treat them as consumables—try to view them as investments. Work is consumption; training is investment. As the renowned management scholar Warren Bennis once said: Employee training is the strategic investment that minimizes risk and maximizes returns for an enterprise.

Specifically, you may consider using “7-2-1 Model” That is, investment in employee training: 70% comes from “learning on the job,” 20% from “learning from others,” and 10% from “formal training.”

Almost all Fortune Global 500 companies adhere to “Benis’s Law,” treating talent as an investment. Singapore Airlines spends $100 million annually on employee training; at FedEx, frontline employees receive $2,500 per year to pursue further education; and IBM allocates $3,000 per employee per year for training.

05

The Bystander Effect:

Responsibility divided by two equals zero.

I work as a business consultant at a company. During one meeting, while helping them streamline their management structure and clarify responsibility assignments, I was taken aback: the company’s most critical performance metrics—sales revenue and profit—were jointly assigned to both the Vice President of Marketing and the Vice President of Product.

Social psychology features a concept known as the bystander effect: when an individual is asked to complete a task alone, their sense of responsibility tends to be strong; however, when several people are tasked with accomplishing it together, each person’s sense of responsibility diminishes significantly. This can inflict substantial harm on organizations. If you believe that a particular matter requires collaboration across multiple departments and have indeed defined each department’s responsibilities, you should still designate a single ultimate accountable person.

Moreover, power is hot, while responsibility is cold. If left unaddressed, responsibility tends to be pushed down to the lowest levels, while power rises to the top management, resulting in a situation where frontline staff bear responsibility but lack authority, and senior leaders wield power without accountability. In other words, “when things go well, it’s credited to the boss; when problems arise, the blame is shifted onto subordinates.”

When a superior assigns a task to a subordinate and the subordinate fails to deliver, the superior still bears responsibility. Because… The responsibility of superiors is the sum of all subordinates’ responsibilities. This is also why, following certain major accidents, senior officials are required to resign in acknowledgment of their failings.

06

Byron’s Law:

Don’t mistake assigning responsibility for granting authority.

D. Buren, president of an inland U.S. bank, said: “Once you delegate authority to others, you should completely let it go and never interfere.” As the Chinese often put it, “Trust those you employ; do not doubt them.”

Many managers mistakenly equate delegating responsibility with granting authority. In this matter, the employee is responsible, and if it fails, the employee bears the accountability. As for decision-making authority, if the employee’s decision aligns with the boss’s, follow the employee; if it does not, follow the boss.

Granting responsibility without granting authority is the greatest misunderstanding of Byron’s Law. It is essential to understand that power must be aligned with responsibility. An excellent leader, when delegating authority, even retains some responsibility and proactively assumes partial accountability in the event of failure.

The renowned American football coach Paul Brown once said, “If something goes wrong, it’s always my fault; if something goes well, it’s always because we did it together. That’s the secret to our victories.”

Authorization grants decision‑making power—the authority to choose the path forward when faced with a goal. In other words, once the outcome has been defined, refrain from micromanaging how it’s achieved. Many people have encountered such a co‑pilot: you’re driving, and they’re even more anxious than you are—“Brake! Brake!” “Turn left! Turn left!” “Move right! Move right!” You say, “Then why don’t you take over?” And they reply, “You drive—you drive; I trust you.”

Since you’ve handed the authority to the driver, just shut up and be a “quiet co‑pilot holding the map.”

Every boss loves a subordinate who helps cover for them, and likewise, every subordinate appreciates a boss who lifts them up.

07

The Law of Unworthiness:

Command-and-control management is outdated.

What is the “Not Worth It” principle? It means that if you don’t think something is worth doing, you won’t do it well.

The “Not Worth It” principle is one of the most important rules in managing people. It requires managers to imbue every task with meaning that makes it worthwhile, rather than simply echoing the line from war movies: “This is an order.”

Even the military places great emphasis on imbuing war with meaning. In the film “Braveheart,” there’s a scene where, just before a major battle, William Wallace stands before his troops and declares: “Tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!”

In undertaking any task, there are three essential components: What (what to do), Why (why to do it), and How (how to do it). The poorest managers merely tell their employees what to do; slightly better managers teach them how to do it; and the best managers explain why they should do it.

08

Conclusion:

Dreams are one thing, performance is another.

Management doesn’t always end in a happy ending; it also requires making truly difficult decisions from time to time.

Whether it’s fostering goodwill, designing systems, leveraging people’s strengths, or looking inward to improve oneself, management ultimately bears responsibility for performance. To truly take responsibility for performance, you must master the balance among three key elements.

First, there’s the distinction between merit and effort. Some people often say, “I may not have achieved any results, but I’ve certainly put in a lot of hard work.” Most individuals tend to focus on their own contributions without considering the outcomes. However, as a manager, you must understand that while you can applaud hard work, it is merit that deserves compensation.

Second, dreams and reality. Is living an end in itself, or merely a means? When survival is no longer the issue, life becomes a means, and meaning takes its place as the end. Yet, When even staying alive becomes a struggle, at that point, simply being alive becomes the end in itself.

The same holds true for businesses. Is making money the goal, or merely a means? When generating profit is no longer an issue, it becomes a means, and the dream takes center stage as the true objective. But when even making a profit becomes difficult, profit itself turns into the end in itself.

Third, theory and practice. From time to time, the management world sees the rise of new and intriguing management theories, which many people chase as if they were celebrities—sometimes even getting so caught up in them that they lose sight of the bigger picture, much like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.