论文部分内容阅读
这几年,在人事工作上常见一种情形:哪里空出一尊官位,参与竞争者的背后,就会出现一些“好人”。他们或是决策者的上级、部下、亲朋,或本身就是参与决策、拥有拍板大权的。他们有的通过打电话、递条子、请客送礼等各种途径为竞争者“帮忙”;有的则摇唇鼓舌为竞争者美言,玉成“好事”。 按说,为国荐贤,好事一桩,乃有功之举。当年鲍叔举管仲、徐庶荐诸葛,为国为民功不可没,至今为人称道。笔者所指的“好人”问题在于:明知自己所荐的那位,水平离那尊官位“尚欠些火候”,或根本就不是那块材料,也要帮着通融,甚至拿党性原则送人情,这样的好人,当然就应当加引号了。 凭实而论,一般的“好人”,并不一定坏事。譬如决策者的熟人,只要把条条、杠杠亮将出来,以实情相告,一般不会再去死皮赖脸,就是遇上死皮赖脸的角儿,你不理他的茬儿,能奈你何?充其量背后说你个“不够哥们”,庶几与党的事业、人民的利益无碍;再譬如参与决策者,由于我们的各级干部,一般要经过“集体研究”,他只有一票的权利,明明知道自己所荐者“技不如人”,找点理由说说好话可以做到,但要想以已之票否决他人的意见,也就不那么简单,故离坏事还有一段距离,可怕的是那种拥有拍板权兼资格老又好个人说了
In recent years, one common situation in personnel work is that there is a “good man” behind the competitor. They are superiors, subordinates, relatives or friends of decision-makers, or themselves participate in decision-making and have the power to make decisions. Some of them give their competitors “help” through various means such as making phone calls, handing off sliver gifts, and giving gifts to customers. Others say that they are “beautiful things” for competitors and others. According to say, for the country recommended Yin, a good thing, is the meritorious move. That year Baozhu Guan Zhong, Xu Shu recommend Zhuge, for the country for the people contributed, has been praised. The problem I refer to as a “good man” lies in knowing that the one whom he or she recommends is “still under fire” at the level of that official position, or it is not a piece of material at all, but it should also help bring in harmony and even give due consideration to the principle of party spirit. Of course, good quotes should be added to such good people. In fact, the general “good people” is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, the acquaintances of policymakers, as long as the rules, the lever will come out, to tell the truth, the general will not go to Sipilai face, that is the face of the corner of the face Sipilai, you ignore his stubble, how can you? Behind you say that you are “not enough buddies,” and that we have no problem with the party’s cause and the interests of the people. For example, if we participate in decision-making, because cadres at all levels generally go through “collective research,” they have only one vote and we all know that Their own recommendation of “skill is not good,” find some reason to say good things can be done, but in order to have the vote to veto the opinions of others, it is not so simple, so there is still some distance away from the bad things that horrible that is Kind of clashes with the qualifications of old and good individuals said