Many people actually have a misunderstanding about solving things, which is why they always feel that there are too many things.
It is undeniable that there are many things that exist objectively in some cases.
But more often than not, it's because there are too many people.
Since it is an objective situation, why not solve the problem?
First of all, many of the issues are interlinked.
Why do we talk about moderation, why do we talk about inaction?
Because, things are a cornerstone, and because of the existence of this cornerstone, dynamic equilibrium can be maintained.
There are two sides to everything, and you'll see that this cornerstone is certainly not all good, but it certainly causes a lot of problems.
This is the same as fixing system bugs.
In the use of the system, we will find some small bugs.
The user will jump out and say, repair, why not fix?
Then the repair began, and at this time an announcement was issued, saying that the repair was completed at 12 o'clock.
Once you fix it, it's solved, it's very simple.
When it runs, there are a lot of bugs that run on the basis of the bug just now.
Another announcement was made, saying that the repair was completed at 14 o'clock.
Then these bugs were fixed, and because the second generation of bugs as the cornerstone was lost, the third generation of bugs came.
I didn't dare to send this announcement randomly, and directly said that the time was uncertain, but the compensation would be in place.
But, why address the person who asks the question?
The first point, and most fundamental, is that if you don't address the person who asked the problem, then you will find that the problem will not be solved at all.
Even when you solve a problem, the original dynamic equilibrium is broken, and you need to solve endless problems.
Therefore, as long as the problem is not a major problem that affects the foundation, it is far better not to solve it than to solve it.
Otherwise, you don't have to do serious things all day long, you don't need to develop, and you just have to drink a pot just to solve the problem.
What are the consequences?
Others develop with problems, and you frantically adopt opinions from all sides and continue to solve problems.
Then you stay where you are, accomplish nothing, and you are moved by yourself and say how hard I have worked to solve so many problems.
The second point is that the person who asked the question is different and cannot be admitted.
For example, A asks you a question, and B asks you a question.
Objectively speaking, both questions are very well asked, but they conflict with each other, so who should you adopt?
Take Yuan Shao as an example, the advice given by his advisors is very good, because he has enough resources and many options.
But he listened to it a little bit and was overturned by Cao Cao.
Even because he didn't listen to a little bit of Xuyu, he let his camp jump back.
It's not that listening to it is clear, because different people's concepts require different development route planning: let me tell you, fighting the economy out of the mining knife, taking into account the economy and combat power; He told you that playing the economy and outfitting double salary, all for the later service; The master told you that combat power is the economy, all the equipment in the early stage is put on the whole, the art master is bold, and there is no room for error.
It makes sense to you, so you put out the mining knife after paying your salary, and then make up a reward outfit.
Then you're financially punished, and you can't get a kill, and it's not even as economical as that kind of stupid casual mending.
It must be a wrong sentence to listen to both sides and listen to the dark: I think that opinions should be listened to more, and when you hear different voices, you will summarize and think, and your thinking will not be narrow-minded.
But when you adopt an opinion, it is best to go black according to one of the opinions, and remember to use people without suspicion, and do not use people who are suspicious.
Thirdly, the person asking the question is doing it for his own benefit.
In any case, he may say that his opinion is for the sake of the collective or you, because the interests of the collective or you are good, and his own interests can be taken care of; Or maybe it's more selfish, purely for his own benefit.
All in all, the problem he asks will definitely benefit him in the end.
And you also have to identify whether this issue can benefit you and benefit the collective.
Fourth, solving the problem itself rewards the act of asking the problem.
After solving the problem, it is actually rewarding the person who asked the question from the side: because it tells him that his opinion is valuable, will be adopted, and will be rewarded.
So he will tend to ask more questions in order to get rewarded.
At this point, you may not think it's much, but what about thinking about it on a deeper level?
If you can be rewarded for asking questions, what about creating problems?
The previous light bulb companies in the United States were like this, and it was clear that the bulbs made by everyone had not been broken, but in order to sell a few more, those monopoly manufacturers joined forces to sign an agreement to let everyone collectively produce light bulbs with a short lifespan.
A lot of problems are created because they're going to be solved.
I knew you wanted to solve the problem, so I deliberately created a problem for you to solve.
If you ignore the problem, there will be no demand, and there will be no way for them to benefit.
Fifth, maintain its own prestige.
What is a person if they are constantly solving the problems posed by others?
Without reading the above article, the answers you give must be the following:
Technician, consultant, housekeeper, designer, chef, management.
Found no?All of them are service staff.
Because it is the responsibility of the leader to ask questions, leaders need to ask questions according to the strategy they have developed and let their subordinates solve the problems.
Once you have been inclined to solve problems, then your essence is that of a waiter, serving the lives and interests of others without any assertiveness.
This is also a common problem of many people-pleasing personalities, anxiety disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorders.
They need to solve the problem so much, but the problem will never be solved.
Life is busy and busy, constantly being pulled by various forces.
As a result, you feel completely powerless to control your life.
And, because they have been solving problems raised by others, they lose the ability to think for themselves: they don't have time to ask their own problems, they don't have time to solve their own problems.
And then because you haven't developed and have been acting according to other people's opinions without your own opinions, others will look down on you and think that if I raise a problem, you will solve it, and if you don't solve it, you will disrespect me.
In the end, it developed into not only despising you, but also hating you for not solving the problems you raised.
Because you can't solve everyone's questions.
Shift your mindset: Address the person who asks the question, not solve it. tiw uh-huh.
Online Literature Awards