This article comes from interface News , author: Yong Bao Jian (tenured professor at the University of Lethbridge Dillon School of business, Canada, Fudan University School of management EMBA Distinguished Professor), picture from: Visual China
A company’s personnel policy should be determined by the company or by online opinions?
Is a company’s personnel policy legal? Should it be determined by law or online opinion?
Whether a company’s personnel policy is in line with human ethics, should it be determined by internal employees’ feet or by online opinions?
Which decision mechanism is in the interests of the individual concerned? Which decision mechanism is in the interest of the company in question? Which decision mechanism is in the interest of society?
For the above question, it seems that the recent personnel disputes between NetEase and Huawei and follow-up reactions have already given the answer. Unfortunately, they gave the opposite answer.
I have hidden the names of the two companies and asked the opinions of several organization personnel management experts. They reached the same conclusion: Both companies have issues with credibility. Credibility, a simple definition, willing to show weakness to the other person before they have the ability and opportunity to see the effects of the other’s decision and behavior on me. Credibility includes two dimensions: emotional trust and professional trust.
After displaying the names of the two companies, the organization ’s personnel management experts stated that Netease gained emotional trust in the online opinion through the statement, but lost the professional trust of internal personnel managers. Huawei can gain the professional trust of personnel managers, but sacrificed the emotional trust of online opinions. What kind of trustWhat’s more important for the business? There is no simple answer.
The personnel policy expressed in Netease’s statement cannot be continuously implemented internally. So, professionally, it is not credible. If the personnel policy can be changed based only on widely disseminated online opinions, every employee in extreme situations will use the Internet mood to change the company’s personnel policy. The personnel policy of each company should not be based on extreme situations, but should reflect consistency with the company’s strategy.
So what about extreme situations, such as those who need care for critically ill and terminally ill patients? Extreme situations should correspond to extreme practices. If NetEase’s founders are willing to donate their salary for one year, if NetEase employees initiate a company-wide donation, these are good things in extreme cases. System is the product of average. Nobility should leave rare opportunities. Let the system be changed casually by the Internet to accommodate those who need help in particular, and it stifles nobility. A society without institutions is more harmful than a society without nobleness.
The cold attitude expressed in the Huawei statement offends the emotional trust of external social opinions. Professionally, however, it is credible: there is a social legal system above the parties and the companies involved. If the conflict between the two parties cannot be determined by the company’s personnel policy, then the legal judgment is higher than the personnel decision. Online opinions cannot accept such emotional distrust, because in other cases they put a lot of trust in Huawei’s emotions. Both situations are like two emotional accounts, which record the emotions and emotional inputs of the general public.
However, if the number on an emotional account can influence and determine the quality of personnel decision-making, what kind of personnel system is this? Is the quality of this system worthy of professional trust? For those who held 251 days of injustice for Li Hongyuan’s detention, who is the main responsible party you question? In short, Huawei declares that it has no Internet connection. However, if Li Hongyuan stated it, it would help to clarify the subject of responsibility and regulate the scope of limited liability. Therefore, it must be society that benefits. Mr. Li Hongyuan, please make a statement!
In the public opinion field this week, it is not Huawei that is disappointing, it is not Li Hongyuan, and it is not the network opinion leader of various channels.
Disappointing is the media.
Li Hongyuan has 10,000 reasons to fight for his power. Huawei has 10,000 reasons to maintain its personnel system. Network opinion leaders are one-person editorial departments who have 10,000 reasons to express legitimate personal opinions. There is only one reason for the media: to prevent one-sided opinions from society!
To prevent a one-sided opinion society, we should have seen the following clues from the report: 1) The indictment at the time. 2) Li Hongyuan and his wife have not considered the reasons for prosecution. 3) Explanation of Huawei being interviewed or refusing to be interviewed. 4) Does Huawei have information to launch internal investigations? 5) In the case of Li Hongyuan’s possible prosecution, if Huawei adopts a “NetEase” solution, how will it affect the legal process and opinions? 6) Does out-of-court public relations that satisfy the parties enhance the fairness of the law and social fairness? 7) The impact of the two approaches adopted by NetEase and Huawei on corporate personnel management policies. 8) The process and reasons for corrections by the local legal department. 9) Self-blame, is the social responsibility of the media to amplify the voice of social media, or to deepen the society’s thinking on the issues behind it?
Unfortunately, I haven’t found any clues about the report so far.
What are the negative effects of a one-sided opinion society? Let us look at some extreme situations and people’s concerns.
The Atlantic Monthly (The Atlantic) published on November 12, 2019 (Yoni Appelbaum) ‘s article,” How America Ends “ (How America Ends) . In his imaginary ending power, one-sided opinion of the social media being infinitely enlarged is one of the important reasons. Due to emotion, individuals like to choose the same social media and listen to the infinitely amplified sound in the backward ringing. This is human nature. However, social media technology has pushed this to the extreme of distortion.
Once the group enters a one-sided opinion society, the nature of social communication changes. Its purpose is no longer to convince the other party, but to defeat and suppress the other party.
The negative impact of unilateral social opinions has appeared in public policy and social governance activities.
In 1999, sociologist Moskovsky (Peter Moskos) joined the Baltimore Police Department for another purpose: to study police organizations. MossThe judgment of the court. When one-sided opinions can quickly influence social attitudes and even effectively control collective behavior, people can’t help but pray for its divine power, and even give up the rule of law in exchange for expediency brought by one-sided opinions. For society, it opens up some kind of disaster model. Because once people fall into a one-sided opinion contest, the truth is not important anymore. It is the purpose to prove that “I am right, you are wrong”. Facts are not important. Evidence that supports “my view of truth” is allowed. The overall damage to society is not important, as long as you can see “you die first”. It doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t make sense, as long as they are on our side. Bad means are not important, as long as it serves our purpose. Once we fall into the weird circle of a one-sided opinion society, it may take several generations to pay the price before our society gets rid of it.
In a one-sided opinion society, internal contradictions in some companies may evolve into contradictions among social classes. The historical lesson of this simple replacement is too heavy and should not continue to repeat itself today and in the future.
My colleague Yin En is an English historian. Comparing the British Glorious Revolution and the French Revolution, Yin En believes that “micro conflict, dynamic balance” is the wisdom of history. Without conflict, contradictions cannot be revealed; without the ability to talk, social groups can only be excited and do not understand compromise. In reality, when the crowd has only one-sided opinions, Yin En must choose to stand on the opposite side of the public opinion trend, even if she is guilty of anger. Yin En has retired and I inherit his spirit. As social media opinion turned to an IT worker who was unfortunately detained for 251 days, as a media columnist, I reminded the media not to forget the responsibility of guarding one-sided social opinions.
This article comes from interface news , author: Yong Bao Jian (University of Lethbridge, Canada Dillon School tenured professor, School of management, Fudan University EMBA Distinguished Professor)