Should this mindset be considered despicable or scientific?
Thread Content
Should this mindset be considered despicable or scientific? For example, in terms of status or power, the four people are ranked first, second, third, and fourth. Normally, the first always strongly supports or promotes the fourth, while violently suppressing the second, and maintaining a peaceful relationship with the third (neither helping nor suppressing it) ； The second will suppress the third, and it will try every means to undermine the first, aiming to bring it down and take its place, while maintaining peaceful relations with the fourth ； The fourth always opposes the third, trying to bring it down, without opposing the first and seeking to replace it. Are these all *habitual ways of thinking rooted in the subconscious, or are they scientific and sound strategies derived from long-term experience in thinking and analysis of situations? How should we view this: as a dark side of human nature, or as a set of rules that must be followed in political struggles?
The possibility of being promoted from the next lower level is greater than that from other levels
Huawei requires that the third party must develop the fourth party to reach the third level before it can become the second; similarly, the second party must also develop the third party to reach the second level before it can become the first. There’s no need to worry that subordinates will take your position – only companies with no future do such things. In companies with a promising future, the talents developed internally will be sufficient to provide greater opportunities in the future
Everyone has their own work to do; where’s the time to train others? Besides, training others doesn’t seem to be a mandatory part of the responsibilities, right?
This post was last edited by cflt111 on 2018-12-8 at 19:22. Agree. It’s just some advice.
That’s just on paper; can you trust it? !
Training does not require constant, hands-on instruction – there is no need to teach employees the procedures, methods, and skills that are not necessary for their positions. Once they have understood these things, they can be given more opportunities for practice, and after that, assessments can be conducted. By placing oneself in a higher position first, both parties can improve and become competent for new roles, thereby achieving career advancement
This model is not suitable for all companies and all people; if you don’t believe it, it means your company isn’t at a high enough level yet. Companies that are in a growth phase need talents who suit their specific development needs, and internal training is an important source of such talent – it’s more reliable than those brought in from outside. If an employee’s value increases only in terms of a higher salary while their job responsibilities remain unchanged, or if only some extra work is added with no other tasks available to share the burden, this is not conducive to the development of the company. It is essential to train successors to fill the positions that will become available as one moves up the hierarchy. In a company with no future prospects, even if an individual’s skills improve, there are no suitable positions available for them; they remain in their current role. Meanwhile, those below them also have improved skills but still lack positions and can only work under that person. As a result, everyone’s energy is not used to create more value, but instead is spent on internal competition
Is your company of sufficient “caliber”? Does Huawei not have internal conflicts? Don’t they talk about a \"wolf culture\"? Everyone there is like a wolf pup – how can there be no internal conflicts? ! Don’t be so idealistic. Right now Huawei is in a period of growth and is being praised; people only focus on its strengths while ignoring its weaknesses. Wait until it enters a phase of stability or decline, and then we’ll see what happens!