The model of user thinking must inevitably require the user as the core to improve the relevant positive or negative management. One is growth point management, and the other is the risk management of loss.

Regarding growth point management, new, fission, commission increase, etc., do not need to say more. Because the company emphasizes this every day, how to achieve rapid growth of new growth, how to achieve the rapid fission of existing users, how to achieve rapid increase in commission income, and so on. This is a problem that every platform cares about, but it is similar in terms of methodology.

However, most companies are lacking in the risk management of loss. The company I originally worked in this company had serious problems in this piece.

This problem exists from the beginning to the present. From the fundamental perspective, there is no unified rule or system. Each of its own interests is based on their own interests, and the user rules education is ignored. When the rules are regarded as the children's play, the person who destroys the rules will become the biggest beneficiaries, and of course, it may also evolve into a victim.

Then, in the process, there will be some powerful big coffees to try and error, because the platform side will treat rules as children's play. What can they do if they destroy the rules? If the platform dual standard, open one eye about the behavior of internal destruction rules, and the behavior of the rules of external destruction will make people feel disgusting. Essence

In many cases, as long as the rules are clear and educated in place, many of them can be avoided. Unless the other party is so bad. However, I found that only I attached great importance to the rules. They always obtained benefits with sacrificing the rules. They also shamelessly thought that they were very powerful, constantly harvesting users' trust, and constantly trampled on the trust of the brand. Although it seemed to seem to be in the short term It has obtained a lot of benefits, but it will definitely press the development of the platform.

In the past, we found that some people were not bad quality, so why would there be community violations and eventually moved to the point of being banned? This or because the cost of repeated mistakes is too low, either does not form rules and form effective education for users. From my personal feelings, I prefer the latter. Since I am a witness, I can feel the selfish tendency of the platform staff, and treat the rules as a means to squeeze the benefits. As a result, the platform and the big coffee lost.

Once the phenomenon of big coffee betrayal platform, this proves that this is a two -way failure. On the one hand, for the big coffee, he lost the chance of income. On the other hand, the platform also lost an external force with outstanding ability.

Then we have to measure the comparison between the income increase of the temporary interest of the platform and the long -term contribution of those who have prominent capabilities. At the same time, we must learn about the root cause of the incident to make the correct judgment. Without this correct judgment, but if you think it is very arbitrary, then you may fall into the wrong strange circle.

Because they have not gone or opened up education at the user level, the team leader led by the team, their heartpower may be more manifested as the team leader's heartpower.

When we have lost their true internal and external talents due to the dual -standard rules, the team turbulence can be imagined. At the same time, in the process of making mistakes, the imitation of other people and the second platform damage caused by other people will be unavailable.

I have been constantly emphasizing such things since 2019. At that time, we also formulated rough rules, but for some reason, many people disagreed. For the platform, it is possible that the introduction of fresh power to laid the foundation for creative development. In fact, this may be a wishful thinking, dug a deep pit for the sustainable development of the platform.

Because of the routine of the authority and trust that was established in the early stage because of the rules and trust, this one has not been improved by the real meaning, and this situation may not be optimistic in the future.

The second question is about the methodology. The grandson's warfare says, "Everyone knows the shape of my victory, but I don't know the shape of the victory." The meaning of this sentence is that everyone knows that I have fought and know how I used, but I don't know what the real reason I win.

The same method, different people at different times and place, etc., are often different.

Methods belong to the level of surgery, but once different people are planned and executed, the levels contained in the roads are completely different. The same method will become chives in the hands of selfish people, and in the hands of those who think of the people who are linked, they may become the key to rapid iteration development.

Various methods, essentially belong to tools, are not that they are not important, but that these are not equal to inevitable success. The key depends on who is promoting. Because who covers different ways, different values ​​and different wisdom levels. It is also the Northern Expedition. Zhu Yuanzhang's Northern Expedition is completely different from the Northern Expedition of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.

However, the effectiveness of this method in the actual process cannot be scrutinized under certain conditions. For example, you have no action, but the user has done some activities on its own and triggers growth. What is your method? Can such methods stand scrutiny? You have compiled some so -called methods to correspond to such credit, and this method is definitely a problem.

For another example, how effective is the so -called method with the result of promotion costs?

Of course, there are results, but it is also necessary to objectively analyze the reasons for the results, the importance of various elements, so as to discover real short boards and long boards. Only in this way can we make a wrong decision and enter a wrong strange circle.

Again, forming a new project or a new structure is an expectation and idea. From my opinion, from the perspective of human resources, new projects or new structures must be clearly clear at the beginning, and quickly form corresponding rules and systems.

But in the actual process, just expectations, thoughts, and then add a structure. As for power, responsibility, rules and systems, you can do it. Such a leading model is fundamentally problematic. In the case of crossing the river with the stones, there is a better way to choose to touch the stones to cross the river. This is a stupid pig -like operator.

The grandson's warfare said that knowing that he knows all the fight! Is it only to give one idea or expectation, is it the protection of the established equity circle? Will it eventually become a formalism? Will power and small responsibilities, or the power of power, will become a common phenomenon?

For example, the research institute, the idea is good, but what is its rules and systems? Is the right and responsibility of the corresponding role appropriate? Is it conducive to implementing and achieving overall expectations?

Who will set this? It is definitely not this obligation to be an ordinary employee. Even if it is mentioned, it may only be overwhelmed. But without these, then who can only be more powerful in the current situation, who has more initiative, and may eventually only form groupism.

However, from the perspective of the operation barriers of the industry, the platform does miss the effective development stage and will return to the operation of no building.