This article is from WeChat public account: caoz’s nightmare (ID: caozsay) , author: caozsay, title figure from the visual China
In fact, I have written similar articles before on topics that are easy to understand. Of course, it is inevitable to be scolded.
Many people like unconditional correctness, but they do n’t know that unconditional correctness often lacks the basis for implementation. In game theory, why is it difficult to achieve the optimal solution because the optimal solution is too challenging for humanity, and the basis of game theory is to respect humanity. .
I have mentioned such an example before. At that time, Zhu Gezhen wrote the teacher’s watch, and warned the postmaster Liu Chan to be “professional, virtuous, far-off villain.” Is this correct? This is definitely true.
But the question is, who is a virtuous person and who is a villain? How can this be judged? After all, people are not born with a virtuous person and a villain on their forehead, nor are we playing the Three Kingdoms game. What a person’s ability and loyalty is clear. Everyone says that he is a virtuous minister and others are villains. What should I do?
The Prime Minister Zhuge gave a list to the post-lord. Whoever is who has been evaluated by the emperor first is a virtuous man. You can just use it with confidence. The problem is that even if Zhuge Zhuan’s judgement is 100%, each is a virtuous person, these people will grow old and die. What then? Prime Minister Zhuge did not say.
The fact is that the post-lord still respects the arrangement of the Prime Minister of Zhuge, but the Prime Minister of Zhuge failed to arrange for that long, and after the old people are almost dead, the post-master himself will be okay. The descendant historian said, look, the posterior master has no relatives and ministers. Ma Hou Pao is right about everything. When the adulterers of the previous dynasties did not fall, they were all role models.
That’s why modern society pays attention to the binding nature of the system instead of relying on the sage emperor. Of course, I won’t talk about this today.
This topic is mentioned today because the circle of friends saw a chicken soup and couldn’t help but use it for a bit.
The talents companies need are for problem solving, not for creating problems. Whoever can solve the problem will stay, and whoever creates the problem will leave.
Of course this is true, but the question comes, how to implement it? Who sets the implementation criteria?
As a result, we found that many companies advertised this logic, but in the process of implementation, it was absurd.
Take an example of a field where information security is relevant.
Who made the security breach? Some people have reported vulnerabilities, and those who report vulnerabilities have, in the eyes of some managers and management agencies, become problem-makers. So how to solve the problem, as long as the people who report the loopholes are arrested and controlled, and they are not allowed to report the loopholes, will the problem be solved?
Whoever finds a problem becomes the maker of the problem; who hides the problem and who becomes the solver of the problem Are n’t many big companies the same virtue? In the face of word-of-mouth crisis, he never reflects on the problems of his business products. I’m trying to find a way to find out how to deal with concealment in public relations. What’s more cruel is to use power agencies to get rid of each other. What, some people dare to say that our products are not good and are deceiving money. I asked the police to hunt you across provinces and arrest you. The problem is not solved.
That ’s right. It ’s a shit. Many high-ranking companies are good at concealing problems and praising virtues. What really finds problems and tries to solve them is creating trouble for company leaders People, naturally go out to death, until everyone sinks together, do they really sink together? Those executives continue to harm other companies with their three-inch tongues and the skills that a watch can do.
In addition, what a problem is depends on who defines it.
You think you are trying to solve the problem, but in the eyes of the boss, maybe you are the problem maker. For example, if a company promotes a new risk control supervisor, the operation is fierce, and the real hammer of internal procurement is caught and made public. You think you have solved the problem for the company. Unexpectedly, this person may have a deep background, the family has special resources, and the boss offers some channels of corruption to the company for corruption. You now let him lose his face. What you think is to solve the problem, but actually create problems for the boss. Therefore, you can only leave.
Take another historical example. In the Ming Dynasty, the Ming Yingzong was captured and captured. The army of tile thorns came under the city of Beijing, Yu Qian was threatened, and he stood up as a new king. From the perspective of the Ming Dynasty, he resolved