A few days ago, the conflict between railway employees and passengers on the K511 train caused a large social **. Subsequently, a Weibo explaining the situation of the Changsha passenger section of the Guangzhou Railway Group triggered the first orientation, and the public and the internal employees of the group criticized it one after another.
So? In this incident, why do the employees of Guangzhou Railway Group hate their own enterprises so much? Is this situation only available to the Guangzhou Railway Group? State-owned enterprises, because of their important social status, important economic structure, and important social status in people's livelihood and well-being, so its reform has always attracted the attention of all sectors of society.
Over the years, although some achievements have been made in the reform of state-owned enterprises, their internal ills have become more and more prominent. Once upon a time, when the employees of state-owned enterprises went out to mention their units, their faces were full of pride, and their hearts were filled with countless sense of honor.
However, today, when the employees of state-owned enterprises mention the unit they work for again, they are full of complaints, and their separation from the unit is even more intense.
The reason for this is nothing more than the bureaucratization of leading cadres, the marginalization of workers' discourse, the bloated government departments, the tension between cadres and the masses, the cumbersome rules and regulations, the ineffectiveness of daily work, the formalization of humanistic care, and the strictness of the appraisal system.
1.Bureaucratization of leading cadres.
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have a special power structure, and although they are not civil servants or public institutions, their management methods are largely based on the former structure. The strict hierarchical structure of power and the disparity in the status of cadres and workers have created the absolute authority of the leaders of state-owned enterprises in their internal management.
So, to what extent is this right in some state-owned enterprises? Leaders can act without being constrained by the existing rules and regulations in the enterprise, their decisions can be made without being constrained by national labor laws, their decisions can even influence the outcome of any collective discussion meeting, and they can even link their ideas to the political level.
Absolute power, so that some leaders have even become the existence of the emperor of the inner soil of the enterprise, "I don't want the actual situation, I want to complete what task at what time, and if you can't complete it, it's your attitude problem" This situation happens from time to time.
In some enterprises, the constraints on the leading cadres have even become a dead letter. When did the collective phenomenon occur? Let's take an example to illustrate that an enterprise at the level of a participating justice department is equipped with an administrative leader, a secretary of the party committee, all of whom are at the department level, and the secretary of the discipline inspection commission and other administrative deputy positions are all at the deputy department level, and there are several second-level institutions at the section level.
First of all, the secretary of the company's discipline inspection committee could not supervise the two top leaders, and he could not even manage the deputy positions. When the secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission handles the case, he cannot deal with his own level and half a level of seniority, and for the section-level cadres, he still needs to look at the face of the number one leader, so he can only deal with the ordinary cadres and workers at the grassroots level, not including those with deep relationships.
2.Marginalization of employee discourse.
Employees, referred to here as ordinary workers, are the most basic part of the enterprise and are also the direct participants in the work of the enterprise. However, the right of employees to speak in state-owned enterprises cannot be guaranteed, and the reason for this is also very related to the transparency of trade union guarantees.
To take the simplest example, although state-owned enterprises have workers' congresses, which are organized by trade unions, and workers' representatives review and vote on proposals, most of the state-owned workers' congresses have the problem of formalization and formality.
First of all, some enterprise employee representatives are appointed by the department leaders, they represent the intention of the leadership rather than the will of the grass-roots workers, and the workers' congress will be opened by the superiors first, and the subordinates will be opened later, so the advantage is that the upper-level policies can be conveyed to the lower levels in a timely manner, but the disadvantages are also obvious, the lower-level workers' congress has not been opened, and the employee representatives do not know what the employees they represent have and what proposals they have, and how to timely feedback and convey the wishes of the grass-roots workers?
Many enterprise leaders even directly define the reasonable demands of employees as unreasonable when they contradict their own ideas. According to the normal process, when an enterprise punishes an employee, the trade union should review whether the handling infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the employee, but this link is not reflected in some state-owned enterprises.
3.Cumbersome rules and regulations.
No matter what problems occur to the employees, whether it has a relationship or not, the direct managers of the employees should be held accountable first, and this aspect forces the managers to constantly formulate rules and regulations in order to get rid of their own management responsibilities.
As a front-line worker in production, the main task is production, constantly cumbersome rules and regulations, the workers simply cannot write down one by one, in the face of increasingly cumbersome rules and regulations, the workers have resistance in their hearts, in fact, the rules and regulations have become ornaments, but these rules and regulations have become the main means for superior managers to assess employees.
In addition, in order to get rid of management responsibilities, many managers adhere to the principle of "one person gets sick, the whole family takes medicine", as long as something happens to other units, they do not actually start from the situation of their own units, and formulate many management methods, resulting in the accumulation of ineffective and useless systems.
These rules and regulations, as well as some "standardized operating procedures" that are not formulated in combination with the actual situation on the spot, have become shackles for grassroots workers when they work.
4.Routine invalidation of routines.
Some enterprises blindly implement the modern enterprise system, and only learn the dross, but do not learn the essence. Blindly put on the shelves of various management ** and intelligent systems as political achievements, but behind the lack of linkage and comprehensiveness, but these are regarded as important inspection items.
As a result, grass-roots workers are tired of dealing with various ** and various systems on a daily basis, and a large number of repetitive forms and system registration occupy most of the production time of employees, and even need to be specially arranged for production personnel to fill in, doing a lot of ineffective work, resulting in low overall work efficiency.
Moreover, due to the frequent replacement of the top leaders of some enterprises and the different development concepts of the top leaders, the lack of long-term development plans for the entire enterprise has resulted in a lack of long-term development plans. In the end, the result is that many of the tasks vigorously promoted by the previous leader have been completely denied by the successors and reversed, which has caused the grassroots workers to do a lot of ineffective work from one to two and then from two back to one, which not only wastes resources, but also increases the burden on the grassroots workers.
5.Bloated government departments.
Some state-owned enterprises have blindly expanded their staff, and many useless departments have been expanded independently, and some enterprises have even set up departments with only four people, but there are two section chiefs and deputy section chiefs, wasting resources and not making substantial progress in the work of the departments.
Moreover, the lack of communication and linkage between the work of the increasing departments leads to troubles and conflicts in the work of grassroots units. There are some things that can be reported to one department, but they need to be reported to several departments.
Obviously, they are all the same data, but they have to be filled in different formats, which greatly increases the burden on the grassroots. The particularity of state-owned enterprises also lies in interpersonal relations, and government departments have sometimes become one of the means for the enterprise to curry favor with the higher-level departments, and the relatives of the responsible persons of the key departments at the higher levels, regardless of whether they are capable or not, have been assigned to the organs and departments, which has not only led to the bloated organs and departments, but also intensified the contradictions between the grass-roots units and the organs.
6.The assessment system is strict.
The leaders of many state-owned enterprises, in the case of weak management means and blind management measures, mistakenly regard strict appraisal as the best way to manage workers, but the strict appraisal system is actually conducive to the benign development of workers' work, but the management of workers should start from a variety of aspects, such as building a more reasonable mode of production, building a more reasonable profit distribution system, and so on.
As a state-owned enterprise, as long as there are no major and serious problems among the employees, the enterprise generally does not dismiss the employees, and in addition, the primary purpose of the state-owned enterprises is stability.
Some of the rotten workers, problem workers, strict assessment system can not restrain their behavior at all, superior leaders for the stability of the unit, in order to not be criticized by the superiors, will only see the soft persimmon pinch, for these problematic workers, can only turn a blind eye, strict assessment system does not dare to use it, and finally evolved, more and more strict assessment system only for those who work hard, resulting in more and more mistakes to do the more negative incentives of the assessment.
7.Tension between cadres and groups.
In some state-owned enterprises, the identity system of workers with distinct hierarchies, the disparity in the distribution of benefits of workers and cadres, and the quantitative system that takes the number of employees as a cadre task have pushed grassroots cadres to the opposite side of workers.
Blindly promoting some well-connected households with incompetence to cadres, and blindly applying the rejuvenation of cadres in the selection and appointment of cadres, not as giving young cadres more opportunities, but understanding that it is necessary to promote young cadres, this has caused many college students who have just been assigned to be promoted quickly, regardless of whether they are good or bad, and many young cadres are inexperienced, lack of experience at the grassroots level, and the management methods are out of touch with the reality of the grassroots level, which further stimulates the contradictions between the cadres and the masses.
8.Formalization of humanistic care.
Some leaders of state-owned enterprises put care for workers on their lips and wrote them on paper, but they did not take it to heart, the bureaucracy was serious, they did not care about the management of the enterprise, and they studied the art of guarding people deeply, and did not understand that the leaders needed to manage the workers, and they also needed to serve the workers.
The mistake pushes the employees to the opposite side of themselves, regards the employees as the road rover and stumbling block for their promotion, and even takes the collective sense of honor of the enterprise as a moral constraint and blame for the employees.
There is no regard for employees as relatives, and there is no family culture for employees, resulting in employees only treating the enterprise they work for as a way to make a living, without a sense of belonging, the enterprise and employees go farther and farther, and finally centrifugal away from Germany!