"Pharaoh, do you know why you lost the game just now? The 'cannon' shouldn't be there. You made the wrong move and you basically lost."
"I'm careless, that move was originally intended to lead out his 'rook', and then I jumped the 'horse' and directly 'checked', alas, I didn't notice..."
Under the shade of a tree in the hot summer, standing next to a group of old men, watching a chess showdown representing the highest intelligence level of the elderly in the community...
If you have ever had such an experience, then you must not be unfamiliar with the above dialogue scene.
Bystanders always seem to be more awake, seeing what the authorities can't see, and knowing where both sides of the game are going. What's even more surprising Latest Mailing Database is that they can even give sharp comments immediately after the chess game, how to win or lose, and what they say makes sense.
So much so that for a long time in the past, I thought that those who watched were the masters of the masters.
But the fact is that when bystanders come into battle, TA will also face the "authority's dilemma". Those words and lessons learned when standing without back pain were actually repeated on myself.
why is that?
You must have imagined that this phenomenon is "the authorities are obsessed, and the bystanders are clear".
However, perhaps few people think about it: Why do bystanders always have deep insights, while those who are really involved are always confused in a pinch?
What is the root cause of "the authorities are obsessed with bystanders"?
I think there are at least four reasons for the "authority's dilemma," while also highlighting the potential of bystanders.
(1) Sunk costs
Under the circumstance that a lot of manpower, material resources and financial resources have been invested in one thing, even if it is found that the wrong direction has been chosen, due to the impact of sunk costs, the authorities will generally not stop, but will continue to invest to verify the correctness of the decision; Those who stand on the sidelines, without the limitation of sunk costs, naturally think that even a stop loss is the best choice.
For example, Britain and France once jointly developed an aircraft that is estimated to be twice as fast as the current aircraft. However, the research and development process was slow, the aircraft never made it to the production line, and the result was always losing money. Ironically, because of the shackles of sunk costs, the two countries continued to invest, and it was not until 40 years later that they stopped and stopped research and development.
(2) Information overload
When faced with any choice, the authorities will be faced with a large amount of information. How to prioritize and how to eliminate irrelevant redundant information is a heavy task. A little careless will be buried in a large amount of information; and although bystanders do not know the details, they often grasp the key information, which can penetrate the essence of the problem.
This is also why "first principles" are more and more sought after in the business world; why the founder of a company is the one who knows the industry best, the opponent best, and himself best, but always has to hire a business consultant—— Under the interference of a large amount of irrelevant information, it is impossible to see the essence of the problem, while business consultants can often see the key information, find out the problems of the enterprise and provide solutions.
(3) Containment by related parties
If the authority is a stakeholder, then any party with whom it has a cooperative relationship (such as employees, shareholders, customers, partners, etc.) is also a stakeholder. At this time, when making any decision, the authorities not only need to take into account their own interests, but also the interests of their cooperators. The pressure in it can be imagined, which makes it difficult for them to make decisions that go against the interests of most cooperators. move. Even if the move is beneficial.