A colleague said very little and was not taken seriously. But after a few things, I found that he was quiet but focused, and his judgment on people and things was very accurate. How to evaluate this k

A colleague said very little and was not taken seriously. But after a few things, I found that he was quiet but focused, and his judgment on people and things was very accurate. How to evaluate this kind of person? In fact, such people are very disadvantaged in today's society! Because people are relatively low-key, they are often considered to have no self-confidence and lose the trust of others.

We also have such people in our unit. There are two technical experts in a department, one is a senior "expert" in related majors for more than 30 years, and the other is a "cutting-edge" who has only been in contact with this major for several years. When the department was reorganized, the company leaders were worried that the "cutting-edge" ability was not enough and recruited "experts". The "expert" is good at talking, while the "cutting edge" is not good at talking. At first, everyone believed in "experts", but after a long time, more and more people think that "cutting edge" is better than "experts". There is a simple reason. If there is a problem, "experts" will only talk about the truth and find various reasons to shirk it, but "cutting-edge" can really be solved.

To give the simplest example, two people were appointed by the company and took their leaders to visit a company in the same industry. During the visit, the "experts" all felt very serious and frequently asked each other questions. And "cutting-edge" is just looking around and feeling for yourself. It doesn't seem to be very serious. After coming back, the "experts" took the initiative to talk to the leaders, talk about their feelings and experiences, and set lofty goals. But the leader asked him what the new technologies he saw were worth learning, what the principle was, how to use them, and what the use was. He couldn't answer at all. It's like watching a big movie, knowing that the heroine is beautiful, but knowing nothing about the plot and acting. As for "cutting edge", I didn't say a word. Later, I learned that people did experiments immediately after they came back and made their own technology completely public. The leader is strange. Obviously, he looked at it very roughly and didn't even have a question. Why did he look more thoroughly? In fact, this is called "layman watching the excitement, expert watching the doorway." Since it is a new technology, the other party will naturally not tell the core part of the introduction, so the "experts" ask a lot and only touch on the surface. And "cutting-edge" is not casual, but actually looking for a doorway.

But leaders still believe in "experts" for a simple reason: although "experts" can't grasp the essence and don't understand the principle, they are written in the report, which is lively and easy to attract the attention and interest of others. The leaders themselves can't understand a large number of principles, methods, mathematical derivation and argumentation of the "frontier" theory, let alone judge whether it is correct, let alone the supreme leader.

Therefore, in enterprises, being too pragmatic and low-key will make the top leaders lose confidence, and such people will not be reused! Nowadays, many enterprises do not have to be pragmatic when selecting "talents", but they must be able to "blow" and "shoot"!