Our point of view is: when enterprises employ talents, they should put talents first, supplement by ethics, and put people first. We believe that talents play a greater role in an enterprise, and being a person with moral integrity can only be an auxiliary to promote talents to perform better. If you have virtue but no talent, that is incompetence; if you have talent but no virtue, that is disaster. Putting people first is to know people well, use their strengths and avoid their shortcomings.
What is the priority in enterprise employment reflects the concept of "people-oriented". Enterprise employment should be people-oriented and talent first. Of course, companies need employees with both ability and political integrity, but when there is a deficiency in one aspect, companies must be good at putting the right people into the right positions. At the same time, as an employee of an enterprise, you should also have a clear understanding of yourself. When you are still lacking in a certain aspect, you must work hard to strengthen your own transformation and strive to make yourself "have both ability and political integrity." ”, which is more in line with the needs of enterprises. Through the efforts of both parties, we can achieve a win-win situation for both the enterprise and individuals, so that everyone can find their ideals, future and career by contributing to the enterprise, and truly achieve the goal of "society, enterprise and employees develop together, **Prosperity” is the ultimate goal.
As the saying goes, shopping malls are battlefields, and both morality and talent are very important. However, our topic is enterprise employment, so it has a prerequisite that it already has a manager. As long as this Managers must have both ability and political integrity, so when it comes to hiring people, only those who have the talent and ability to create wealth and interests for the company can do so. Of course, the manager of the company must be a courageous person. After a talented person has created benefits for the company, if he does something that harms the company even just a little, then the manager will give up.
Opposite point of view: Enterprises should put people's ethics first
"Talent, career prosperity, and national fortune" illustrate that talents are a weapon for enterprises to conquer cities, survive and develop in market competition. , and morality is the glue that creates a good atmosphere in an enterprise. Although both are indispensable, talent should be the priority factor for enterprises to employ people, so "enterprises hire talents first."
If everyone understands history, then we will expand the scope and treat an enterprise as a country, then the manager is an emperor. Now we need to use people to govern and stabilize him. country, then who does he need? I have never denied the importance of virtue, but we must distinguish the important and the small, and do not put the cart before the horse.
How does a company grow from small to large? Did it get bigger for no reason? Isn't it true that what makes an enterprise grow from small to large depends on employing the right people? Then the development and growth of an enterprise depends on talented people using their talents to create wealth and benefits for the enterprise
The other party puts morality first The overwhelming position is that people without morals will bring disaster to the country and the people, and the world will be in chaos. However, our definition of morality is “not completely negative”. It’s about being adaptable, flexible, and more humane, talking about morality. There is no need to demand too much morality.
At the same time, we need to understand the purpose of the company's employment. Doesn't the company really hope that the people it employs can be helpful to the company and help the company bring vitality and benefits?
A person without talent will be eliminated quickly. Talent can often be experienced at work and in life. His speech, behavior, and thinking patterns can all indicate whether a person is talented. Often, during the interview, you will see his talent first, and only later will you see his character. Therefore, talent should come first when choosing.
Example: A reporter once conducted an interview with the general manager of a Taiwan-funded company. The general manager said frankly and clearly: "The key to hiring talents for a company is to see whether the applicant is suitable for the company." Job requirements, that is, whether they have practical value, are the objective basis for recruiting and employing people. Suitability is talent; if it is not applicable, even if you are a graduate of a prestigious university, have a master's degree, a doctorate, and have high moral character, you must give up." The company always hopes that the talents it recruits can be qualified for the job and can create value for the enterprise. Therefore, the key to recruiting talents is whether their work ability and knowledge level meet the needs of the position
It can be seen that those who agree with putting morality first They are all very emotional people. But the competition in the current market is so fierce that it cannot be solved by virtue. I still say the same thing. When you write a resume, you cannot explain what good things you have done in your resume. Instead, you can only focus on explaining the talents and skills you have and the majors you have studied. Because the company recruits It’s the talent, not the philanthropist.
To take a step back, our point of view is that putting talent first does not necessarily mean being immoral. It just focuses on the word "being first". I think there is no need to waste time on the meaning of being first. Did you explain it?
Enterprises must pay attention to efficiency! The standard for enterprise employment is to put talents first and morality as the wing. In other words, we do not deny the existence of virtue, but virtue is only used as an auxiliary standard when employing people in enterprises!
I would like to ask my fellow debater: When companies generally interview new employees, do they select talents first in the preliminary interview? Definitely! In other words, if you have no talent or are less talented than others, you simply cannot pass the first level. The so-called first level of course means being first. You must pass the first level, which is the test of talent. The company Only then will we examine your morality again, so it is better to put talent first and morality as your wing!
Of course, it does not deny that some managers in the enterprise must use morality to convince the public, but here Virtue is actually another kind of talent reflected on the basis of professional talent, isn't it? Therefore, talent comes first!
Example: Historically, handsome and promising kings always appoint people based on their talents, while only relatively conservative emperors appoint people based on virtue. However, it must be the successor to the next generation. If you start a business and found a country, the world will be in chaos. If you don't have talented people, you can rule the world by cooperating with each other, and you can't create a big situation by just relying on a few local wishes that are limited to small virtues. What about enterprises? Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty Liu Che, in the fifth year of Yuanfeng, issued an edict to recruit talents because there were not enough civil and military officials. The imperial edict said: "If you have extraordinary merit, you must treat extraordinary people. Therefore, a horse may gallop and travel a thousand miles, and a scholar may be tired of being unworthy of the customs and gain fame. The horse driven by the husband will be relaxed.
A thousand-mile horse is not easy to tame, and talented people are often criticized by ordinary people. However, Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty did not use this horse or person because of this, because he was confident that he could control it. Okay, you can use its strengths to control its weaknesses. Why can't enterprise managers maximize their strengths and avoid weaknesses? Emperor Wu of Wei, Cao Cao, was even more prominent. He gave three orders to employ talents regardless of moral character. It is even said that people who "bear an insulting reputation, behave in a mockery, or are unkind and unfilial, but have the skills to govern the country and use military force" should be recommended by local officials so that they can be "used." It can be seen that when a country is prospering from all kinds of waste, the need for "talent" is even greater than "virtue". The minister said: "The only way to control chaos is with common officials. Officials are not as good as private officials, but only because of their ability. Nobility does not involve bad virtues, but only those who are virtuous." In other words, officials should be appointed according to their talents, and their salaries should be evaluated according to their character. Ratings too.
Enterprises put talents first because talents are very important. A person must have a skill to make a living, an enterprise must have a "business backbone" to develop, and a country must have scientific and technological elites to ensure its leadership. Sometimes it is the foundation for your rapid rise to success. Real talent and practical knowledge can almost make you travel all over the world without any hindrance. In ancient times, there was meritocracy, but now there is merit-based admission, which is just based on talent.
The opposing side used the famous saying of the ancients, "Talents, careers, and national fortunes are prosperous" to illustrate that talents are a weapon for enterprises to conquer cities, survive and develop in market competition, and virtue is to create a good atmosphere for enterprises. Adhesive, although both are indispensable, talent should be the priority factor for enterprises to employ people, so "enterprises hire talents first."
The other party’s explanation of virtue is as follows: “-Virtue refers to moral character and cultivation. It includes: being honest, sincere, and responsible, and it is also necessary for management to be motivated and professional; at the same time We also advocate the acquired personal cultivation of employees: including social etiquette, personality, courage, perseverance, perseverance, confidence, patience, etc."
Among them, integrity, sincerity, responsibility, perseverance, confidence, and patience. Isn't it just for the ability to adapt to society? These so-called virtues are actually a person's ability in dealing with others.
When a company recruits people, it must require the applicant to adapt to the position. It's not that this person is highly respected. If a company needs to recruit a highly respected person, then the company has already regarded "high moral character" as the ability of the person it needs.
Having said that, Zhang Fei is better than Liu Bei in killing thieves on horseback, and Zhuge Liang is better than Liu Bei in making suggestions. If you want to find someone who can kill the enemy, you will ask Zhang Fei. If you want to find someone with wisdom, you will ask Zhuge Liang.
I don’t know if the other party’s friend has written a resume. If not, you can open the search website to see how the resume is written. What does the company look for when looking at a resume? Is it a resume? Is your self-evaluation of morality high? Morality cannot be seen in a short time. It is impossible for a company to keep you in the company for long-term observation in order to see whether you are moral. 1. What they look at is your work ability. You can check your work experience and talents to see if they are helpful to the company. These can be seen through skill certificates and employment certificates, or on-site assessments can be used to verify whether you have real talents. I added, "I hope God will be energetic and use talents in an eclectic way.
”
Please look at the existence of talents and virtues dialectically and distinguish the priorities of the company’s needs for talents and virtues. What I said about “not harming the interests of the company” is indeed a requirement for virtues. , we do not deny that morality is of certain importance to enterprises, but for enterprises, development still needs talented people to promote it, so it is far more important than morality.
Talent comes first, and the shopping mall is like a battlefield. If you are not even as good as the opponent in terms of professional skills, how can you defeat your opponent with your noble moral character? The other debater said, "You can make up for your lack of talent by working hard, but you can't make up for your lack of virtue." When I said this, I wonder if you have ever heard of "returning from evil, turning back a prodigal, becoming a Buddha immediately, etc." ! And what we are derogating now is the employment of enterprises instead of living a life! Life can be independent of the world, but if the enterprise does not compete, it will be replaced. So please don’t deviate from the topic.
Those who have both ability and political integrity It refers to a person who has both noble sentiments and extraordinary talents. The other extreme is a "bitch" who has neither virtue nor talent (please forgive me for using such a word, because I have little knowledge and can't find a better one). words to describe this type of person).
The above two categories of people are very small, and the vast majority of ordinary people's sentiments and talents can only be described as "ordinary". Between those with both ability and political integrity and ordinary people, there are some minority groups with high virtues and average learning or extraordinary abilities and average virtues - there are also a very small number of special individuals who are virtuous but not talented or talented but not virtuous; among ordinary people, Between people and "sluts", there are some people with average talents and bad morals, or people with average moral character who are uneducated and incompetent.
I would like to ask you to clearly indicate which of the above types of people do you think the "person" of "enterprise employment" is aimed at?
Without specific objects, our debate will be meaningless.
Just like your "This person is crazy" debater only focuses on the two types of people: those with morality but no talent and those with talent but no morality. It is impossible for companies to be willing to hire people. lead this debate astray. )))
Qin Hui is a traitor, but how do you know about him? If he is not famous, if he is not a minister, how can he talk about a treacherous minister? Why is he a minister? It was the emperor who took a fancy to his talent and reused him. Isn't this putting talent first?
Comparison of Liu Bang and Xiang Yu, two historical figures that everyone knows. Many people will say: "The successful king loses the bandit." The description in "Historical Records" shows that the Liu Gang's virtues are inferior to Xiang Yu. Zhuangzi also said: "Those who steal hooks will be punished, and those who steal the country will be princes. In the gates of princes, benevolence and righteousness exist." But just because of Sima Qian, who does not judge heroes by success or failure, Liu Bang's rogue nature can no longer be washed away.
Let's compare their talents and virtues. It seems that Xiang Yu's virtue is slightly better, but his talents are not as good as Liu Bang. Liu Bang is very good at winning people's hearts. Don't think this is virtue. This is just him using his talents to actively adopt the strategies and suggestions of counselors such as Zhang Liang. The Overlord of Western Chu was inferior to Liu Bang in this regard. This shows that talent can make up for virtue and appear "virtuous" in front of the world. From historical comparisons, we can draw the conclusion: It is not a bad idea to use talents to make up for your virtues. Who comes first, it should be talents!
The Three Kingdoms are three companies that seem to be competing. Seventh, the other party likes to talk about the Three Kingdoms, so let’s talk about the Three Kingdoms. We will compare the Three Kingdoms to three companies, and the person in charge of one of them is Liu Bei, then who are his subordinates Guan Gong, Zhang Fei, and Zhuge Liang? This is how the other party described the talents of the three of them. Guan Gong, who mounted his horse to command a million-strong army and dismounted, was knowledgeable about the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. He was a rare talent, but he had little virtue. Zhang Fei is a warrior, brave and invincible, but short-tempered and short-tempered. Zhuge Liang knows astronomy and geography, and is self-aware. "As for Zhuge Liang's lack of virtue, it can be seen from his willingness to help others achieve his hegemony.
So, let me ask my fellow debaters, do you admit that all three of them are more virtuous than others? It's best not to shoot yourself in the foot again. The flesh is your own.
Please give me a standard for measuring morality? What does it mean to put people first? It depends on whether you have this talent or not. Otherwise, what if you have enough virtue but not enough? Who said that if you have talent, you have no virtue? It's just high or low.
Information 2
First of all, I want to ask you what is most lacking in the 21st century? Talent. Well, thank you brothers and sisters for standing in our perspective. Yes, it is precisely because of the lack of talent that companies consider talent first when employing people. Below, I will give you some ideas on some of the key points of debate between the two sides in this debate, and at the same time point out some misunderstandings of the other party's debaters. .
(First, the opponent’s fellow debater has been making a big fuss about the principle of recruiting people based on morality first. In fact, it is simply unrealistic for companies to recruit people based on morality first. In terms of formulating employment standards, talent first is incomparably easier to operate than morality first. Comparing the two, we can easily find that talent first is more feasible.
Second, the other party’s speech is always entangled in the two extreme situations of talent but no virtue and virtue but no talent. And repeatedly focusing on these two types of people who are simply impossible for companies to use. If this continues, it will only lead this debate to a point of no return. In fact, we have reminded the other side of the debate many times, but the other side of the debate has repeatedly ignored it. Hearing and not listening can be saved, but if it persists, there is really no cure.
Third, the opponent’s debater tried to draw general conclusions based on some special cases, so as to overgeneralize. Isn’t the opponent’s logical reasoning ridiculous and absurd/
Fourth, we have always reiterated that we do not completely reject morality, but talk about morality in a flexible, flexible and more humane way. Enterprises also need this when employing people. What we emphasize is that enterprises should put talents first and morality as a supplement when employing people. Morality assists the better development of talents. But the opposing debater continues to distort our views again and again. Why hasn’t the opposing debater woke up yet?
Fifth, as the saying goes, the shopping mall is like a battlefield. If we are not even as professional as each other, how will we defeat our competitors? Only with noble moral character? Here, we do not deny that some managers in enterprises must convince the public with virtue, but the virtue mentioned here is actually a kind of ability to deal with people that is reflected in the basis of professional abilities. Therefore, when enterprises employ talents, their requirements for talents also indirectly impose requirements on ethics. This shows that enterprises put talents first in their employment!
Secondly, it can be seen that those who agree with putting morality first are very emotional people. But the competition in the current market is so fierce that it cannot be solved by virtue. Today, our position is that enterprises should put talents first and morality as a supplement. A person's talent can often be experienced in work and life. His words, deeds, and thinking patterns can all indicate whether the person is talented. And a person's moral level can't be judged at the moment when the coffin is sealed. When an enterprise is in urgent need of employing people, why not consider talents first? You can't let go of a talent who can immediately bring the company back to life and use someone whose talent doesn't meet the requirements and who doesn't know whether his morality is as high as he claims. Therefore, companies should put talents first when employing people! To sum up, no matter from the perspective of operability, feasibility or pure reality, it is an understandable fact that enterprises should put talents first when employing people!
Finally, what I want to tell you is that knowing our talents and doing our job well is like relying on heaven and slaying dragons, while the other party's first virtuous and then only just use words and ink, and write with spears and swords. In the end, who can be more proud in the world, everyone has their own justice. It is clear which side the truth lies on.