Only for things, not for people? Is this the right thing to do What are the disadvantages?

Only for things, not for people? Is this the right thing to do What are the disadvantages? The disadvantages are obvious. Treating people wrong is bound to offend people. If you meet someone with a small belly, he will retaliate. It is impossible to overcome. However, you can consider making up for other things and giving him some benefits.

How to say "only for things, not people" in Japanese? ただぃのだけに?して!

Is it correct not to work overtime and pay fines? If it is illegal, you can apply to the Labor Bureau for arbitration. If not, you can sue him.

I think you'd better change your job

Is it property right or illegal? It belongs to arbitrary charges, so you can report it to the price department ~

The right thing, not the person? This is complete nonsense. The reason is artificial. How could it be wrong?

Is this father doing the right thing? In this era, there should be very few parents who think so ~

But parents also want their children to live well ~

I can see that girls have deep feelings for you ~

I think it's not just his family to do now.

I think it is necessary for you and your girlfriend to have a good talk with the engaged man.

Maybe that person doesn't really want to be with your girlfriend either?

You can talk over there ~ even if his family insists, it's useless ~

Because after all, there is no agreement ~

Then I think you should show your sincerity ~

Let the girl's family think that you will be good to him ~ you can give him happiness ~!

How to do things right, not people? When you do something that offends others.

"The right thing, not the person" is a good excuse.

Although things are done by people.

When this person is a person who is embarrassed by everyone.

But you deal with this person "for things, not people"

Then everyone will admire your verve.

But when this person is someone everyone likes.

You deal with this person "for things, not for people"

People will say that you make a mountain out of a molehill and use the topic.

So, when you decide to "focus on things, not people"

People are still the most critical.

Otherwise, there will be no "material-oriented, not people-oriented" principle.

Now it's just the opposite.

This person does things very well, without a good background and a hard backer.

Still won't be activated

And those who can say but can't do are often in high positions. So that there is a phenomenon that powerful people are incompetent.

"Not right for people" means that when solving problems, people are the focus of attention. Only by solving people's problems can we truly solve problems fundamentally. "What people pursue is that when criticizing or praising others, they only focus on things, right and wrong, black and white, clear at a glance, without any emotional factors. People often give affirmation to those who are "right about things but not about people", and leave contempt to those who are "right about people and not about things". But interestingly, many things at work are not as clear as the above classification. Different people may come to different judgments when the same person handles the same event. Some people think that this person's style of doing things must be "right things, not people"; Some people may think it is a typical "right person", not a thing. "

There is another situation where you firmly believe that you belong to "the right thing, not a person", but others think that you belong to "the right person, not a thing" or that I played a little cleverness and was originally "not for the people", but after explaining what I said, others really thought that I was "not for the people".

Take the common phenomenon in organizations as an example, different people have different views. For example, if some people leave their current jobs, they will still be "empty" after leaving the enterprise. Some people leave their present jobs and will soon be "without tea." Some people will think that people are indifferent because they are successful and objective, and they belong to the kind of people who are "right about things, not people". Others may think that the key to such detachment is that it can better pull and arrange relationships. There are naturally different views on "people use tea to cool off the heat". Some people think that it is because it is not objective, and all the people who are promoted are profit-seekers. Others think that it is too rigid, only admitting death, and too "right things, not people".

In fact, "for the people, not for things" or "for things, not for people" is just a simple statement, and there is no absolute standard. It reflects people's expectation for an organization's internal management to be "objective, scientific and fair", but they are not satisfied with "subjective, extensive and partial". The criteria for distinguishing "objectivity" from "subjectivity", "science" from "extensiveness" and "fairness" from "partiality" are closely related to everyone's values. Different people have different personal values and different judgment standards. Birds of a feather flock together. People with the same or similar values are more likely to accept each other and agree with the same standard. One person's behavior, in one's own eyes, is "right things but not people", but in another's eyes, it may become "right things but not people", and the key lies in the different values.

It is very important for an organization to establish consistent values. Whether this organization is a small family composed of only two couples or a large enterprise composed of ten thousand people. Different values will make internal friction an endless activity, which will make the organization decline and helpless.

Is this the right thing to do No, computers are not that sensitive. Some people control it very well. The tires move tooth by tooth. To tell the truth, as long as you stop for less than three seconds, the computer will hardly notice it.

What's the difference between right and wrong, right and wrong? "Not right for people" means that when solving problems, people are the focus of attention. Only by solving people's problems can we truly solve problems fundamentally. "What people pursue is that when criticizing or praising others, they only focus on things, right and wrong, black and white, clear at a glance, without any emotional factors. People often give affirmation to those who are "right about things but not about people", and leave contempt to those who are "right about people and not about things". But interestingly, many things at work are not as clear as the above classification. Different people may come to different judgments when the same person handles the same event. Some people think that this person's style of doing things must be "right things, not people"; Some people may think it is a typical "right person", not a thing. "

There is another situation where you firmly believe that you belong to "the right thing, not a person", but others think that you belong to "the right person, not a thing" or that I played a little cleverness and was originally "not for the people", but after explaining what I said, others really thought that I was "not for the people".

Take the common phenomenon in organizations as an example, different people have different views. For example, some people will still be "crowded" after leaving their current jobs. Some people leave their present jobs and will soon be "without tea." Some people will think that people are crowded because success is objective and they belong to the kind of people who are "right about things, not people". Others may think that the key to the hot market is to pull relationships and arrange relationships. There are naturally different views on "people use tea to cool off the heat". Some people think that it is because it is not objective, and all the people who are promoted are profit-seekers. Others think that it is too rigid, only admitting death, and too "right things, not people".

In fact, "for the people, not for things" or "for things, not for people" is just a simple statement, and there is no absolute standard. It reflects people's expectation for an organization's internal management to be "objective, scientific and fair", but they are not satisfied with "subjective, extensive and partial". The criteria for distinguishing "objectivity" from "subjectivity", "science" from "extensiveness" and "fairness" from "partiality" are closely related to everyone's values. Different people have different personal values and different judgment standards. "Birds of a feather flock together, people are divided into groups". A group of people with the same or similar values are more likely to accept each other, and * * * agree with the same standard. A person's behavior, in the eyes of his own group of people, is "right things but not people", but in the eyes of another group of people, it may become "right things but not people", and the key lies in the different values.

It is very important for an organization to establish consistent values. Whether this organization is a small family composed of only two couples or a large enterprise composed of ten thousand people. Different values will make internal friction an endless activity, which will make the organization decline and helpless.