domeet webmaster

Offensive strategy and defensive strategy in the workplace

• Scenario selection: The first task assigned by the new leader should be as innovative as possible and be deeply impressed. Is it safe to find out the leadership preferences and then take the shot?

• Catch selection: I decided to change jobs. Should I jump to the busy season, concentrate on finding a job, or continue to ride a horse to find a horse, which is inefficient but more secure?

• City selection: Is university graduation a good place to stay in a big city? Or is it good to go to a small city near the township?

• Gifts: If you want to change your position, do you want to give a chance to give a gift to the leader, or do you ask for a normal job (only for state-owned enterprises and civil servants)?

• Business Choice: Friends have a good project, invite me to start a business together, should I give up the stable and high-paying positions of big companies?

The above choices seem to be unrelated. In fact, they all boil down to one question: Would you choose “offensive strategy” or “defensive strategy”? ——The “offensive strategy” is high-risk and high-yield, and the “defensive strategy” is low-risk and low-yield.

This strategic thinking can continue into life

• Investment options: Do you prefer a higher-risk, more risky investment, or a low-risk, low-risk?

• Peace selection: When pursuing a girl, do you like to fully show your charm, let her like you, or use your sincerity to actively touch her?

In the past, many people thought that this choice was related to personality. In fact, there are still many routines in thinking.

Range 1: Decisions under Asymmetric Risks

Want to understandThe core logic of these two strategies on the field, we can look at two extreme types of occupation, one is pure offensive, one is pure defensive.

A typical offensive career is a variety of sales positions.

The reason is very simple. On the one hand, there is an order only for the offense, and the defense is waiting for death. On the other hand, there is almost no loss in the attack even if it fails. The biggest loss is that you spend too much time.

The most typical defensive class is the credit work I did at the bank.

For banks, a loan income is fixed, that is, interest, but the biggest loss can be all the principal (the same thing as P2P), the ratio of the two can reach dozens of times, which is doomed me. Played the role of a “skeptic”.

I will make a “guilty presumption” for loan applicants, assuming they are all cheating on bank money, I will ask them to provide various information to prove that they are not guilty; I also suspect that the information is forged. Ask them to provide information to prove this information; I will assume that these people will fail in business and require them to provide sufficient mortgages and guarantees…

Most of the loan officers will face the dilemma of loan collection, so as long as I use the most conservative strategy to complete these tasks, the annual promotion opportunity will always be seized.

Comparing these two kinds of work, we can come to the first conclusion: If you choose the offensive (or defensive) strategy to fail, you have almost no loss, and if you choose the opposite strategy, you get the result. (or the loss avoided) is not that big, then the strategy is the best choice – the salesperson will assume that everyone in the world will buy his things, and the loan officer will assume that everyone in the world is a liar.

So, the answer to the “gift selection” mentioned above is obvious and should be sent. Because even if the leader does not accept, you have no loss (some people think that it will leave a bad impression on the leader, this is obviously more worrying, and many people do not blame, as long as the amount is controlled within the normal human condition).

And the “chasing girls” multiple-choice questions, the answer is also active, because even if you are rejected, you have nothing to lose, some people chase, girls will not be angry.

These two are typical “asymmetric risks”, Unfortunately, many people give up the optimal strategy for personality reasons.

However, this extreme is not common,The more common pros and cons distribution is symmetrical: Choose an active strategy, you get more, but the loss of failure It’s also bigger; choosing a passive strategy, you get less, but you lose less.

At this point, how do you choose?

setRoad 2: One force to drop ten meetings, can ignore the strategy

I have a friend. His table tennis is very good. I heard that he has handed it to a professional player and asked him how he feels?

He said that when you just played, you still have a feeling of “but not so”, but it is a bit wrong when you are playing. When you make the best lore you are good at, the opponent has inadvertently picked it up. then. A sense of despair is getting stronger and stronger, like a wall that is infinitely high and downwards infinitely deep to the left and right,

Professional players are not much more likely to play good shots than you, but they can get almost all the balls, including your skills.

Our usual so-called good ball is just because the opponent’s training is not enough, and the sign of becoming a professional player is:Most of the normal come, you don’t need any strategy at all.

If we compare the work we usually encounter to a competitor, then most of the work is only amateur, and only a few jobs are professional. Your requirements for yourself are to become professional players. Then, most of the work, just like professional amateurs, does not need to choose any strategy, the offensive and defensive results are the same, according to their own It’s okay to do it.

This is just a professional player, not a top player. Most people in their field of work can’t be top players in their lifetime, but everyone should be a professional player, because only then can you qualify for this bowl of rice.

The “chop-choice selection” mentioned at the beginning is a bare-bones or a horse-riding horse. For those with strong professional ability, they do not constitute a choice at all, or even appear at all. They are all headhunters.