What is the most likely reflection of an enterprise’s rotten card-ca1810

What is the most likely reflection of an enterprise’s "rotten card"? What is the most likely reflection of an enterprise’s "rotten card"? Wen Tang Yinghong in life, an enterprise, sometimes in making decisions, there will be frequent "rotten card" phenomenon. For example, in order to achieve a management goal, not high efficiency and low risk management measures, but the choice of low efficiency and high risk management measures, such as the wall. Or, is not necessary in the circumstances, many departments jointly issued by staff management measures, such as burial. So, if an enterprise frequent "rotten card" may reflect how the enterprise management problems?   in general, rational decision makers of the enterprise, the preferred management measures must be of high efficiency and low risk, suboptimal management measures at least high or low risk, low efficiency and high selection risk is irrational decision-making, should not appear this kind of phenomenon under normal circumstances. Even if occasionally, corporate decision makers choose the low efficiency and high risk, in the exclusion of intentionally harmful situations, most likely is the decision makers for making relevant information almost no knowledge, or be misled by false information. If the frequency of frequent "rotten card" in the short term, always choose inefficient and high-risk management measures, then the most likely is that the enterprise has a profound crisis. In fact, not only the enterprise, in any organization, because all levels of auxiliary decision makers and decision are made by specific people to organize, so within the organization crisis, or a link to each person may by no need to let others know the motivations of twisted messages can be misleading, and even senior policymakers, the senior decision makers to deviate from the preferred management decision in the wrong message or deliberately misleading situations. To this, usually means the following questions appear within the organization: first, top, or the top decision makers, such as CEO, individual ability or lack of intelligence; but a high level of confidence and power control. Such a high level decision maker is most likely to use "bad" cards repeatedly". Otherwise, if it is a clever and authoritarian CEO, he can be fooled after react in time; at the same time in after being fooled so, after will adjust the decision structure and information channels, in order to avoid a repeat. Or, a fool CEO, but at least know, so he is unlikely to monopolize power, but will rely on smart staff to provide reliable staff views, to avoid falling into predicament. Therefore, a stupid, confident, only three have CEO, inside an organization, most likely to become the highest decision-making frequently a bad card without knowing the person. Secondly, the subordinate or decision staff of the highest policy maker should be resentful and dare not say anything. If there is no deep anger, a clever or subordinate staff is unlikely to let yourself needlessly jinx it. Only disgruntled, or already could not but not its authority, it is more likely to mislead the boss adventure set. Moreover, not only the subordinates or staff members are dissatisfied, but also they need to form an alliance with each other to share the risks and work together to give advice. So it is 一个企业频出“烂牌”最可能反映了什么? 一个企业频出“烂牌”最可能反映了什么?   文 唐映红   在生活中,一个企业,有时候在做决策时,会出现频频出“烂牌”的现象。例如,为了达成某项管理目标,不是选择高效低风险的管理措施,而是选择低效高风险的管理措施,如拆墙。或者,在毫无必要的情况下,多部门联合出台激怒员工的管理措施,如合葬。那么,如果一个企业频出“烂牌”可能反映了该企业怎样的管理问题?     一般来说,对企业的理性决策者来说,优选的管理措施一定是高效低风险的,次优的管理措施至少高效或低风险,选择低效高风险是反理性的决策,正常情况下不应该出现此种现象。即使,偶尔企业的决策者选择低效高风险,在排除故意使坏的情况下,最可能的就是决策者对于决策情境相关讯息几乎无所知,或被虚假讯息所误导。如果短期内密集地频频出“烂牌”,总是选择低效高风险的管理措施,那么最可能的就是这个企业内部出现了深刻的危机。   其实,不仅企业,在任何组织里面,由于各层级决策者以及决策的辅助者都是由具体的人来组织成,所以在组织内部出现危机时,某个或每个环节的人都可能出于各种不足为外人道的动机而扭曲讯息传递,甚至可以误导高层决策者,使高层决策者在错误的讯息或刻意误导的情境下做出悖离优选的管理决策。要出现这种情况,通常意味着组织内部出现如下的一些问题:   首先,高层,或者最高决策者,如CEO,个人能力或智力不足;但又高度自信;且独揽专权。这样的高层决策者才最可能在被屡屡误导的情况下频频使出“烂牌”。否则如果是一个聪明而专权的CEO,他既可以在被愚弄后及时反应过来;同时也会在被愚弄后吃一堑长一智,在之后会调整决策结构和讯息渠道,以避免重蹈覆辙。或者,一个笨蛋CEO,但却有起码自知,那么他就不大可能独揽专权,反而会仰赖聪明的幕僚来提供可靠的参谋意见,以避免蹈入困局。因此,一个蠢、自信、专权三者具备的CEO,在一个企业组织里面,最可能成为频频出“烂牌”而不自知的最高决策者。   其次,该最高决策者的部属或决策幕僚要对其心怀不满,敢怒而不敢言。如果没有较为深刻的愤怒,一个聪明的部属或幕僚不大可能让自己去无谓地触霉头。只有心怀不满,或者早就看不惯却又慑于其权威,才更可能冒险设局来误导上司。   再者,不仅那些部属或幕僚们心怀不满,而且还需要彼此之间形成“联盟”,共同来承担风险,共同来出谋划策。这样就没有谁是单独面对风险。而且部属或幕僚们在“联盟”中各司其职,分工合作,这样给高层决策者设局也就更难以穿帮。   满足上述三个基本要素,那么决策者就极易陷入被人为误导的虚假决策情境而不自知。他以为自己在选择优选的管理措施,但实际上他选择的是被狸猫换太子后的多个烂选项中的一个。由于决策者与幕僚之间往往对具体决策情境形成信息不对称的博弈局面,决策者拥有权力,但不掌握充分的信息;掌握充分信息的幕僚,却往往没有权力,因此,拥有权力但缺乏信息的决策者就需要基于幕僚提供的有效信息来进行理性决策。如果上述三个要素具备,那么幕僚提供的完全可能是无效的虚假信息,例如夸大一些完全可以忽略的威胁因素;低估必须高度重视的致命因素;凭空捏造子虚乌有的限制条件;刻意隐瞒迫在眉睫的风险。再例如,在提供给决策者的三套方案中,A方案拆掉小区重新规划;B方案拆墙;C方案耗费巨资架设空中通道越过小区,自以为聪明的决策者当然会“理性”地选择最稳妥的B方案;而分工合作的“联盟”则会想方设法使B方案看起来很美。   既此,从外界观察者的角度,一个企业在匪夷所思的情况下,竟然频出“烂牌”。如是,握有这家企业股票的投资者,最好的决策就是抛了吧。   (首发公号“psy-eyes”)   (声明:本文仅代表作者观点,不代表新浪网立场。)相关的主题文章: