I originally thought this matter was handled and completed. Then in mid-May, the supervisor came for an assessment, and the first assessment was a scenario simulation for visitors entering the venue, which I had no problem with and passed smoothly. Then he suddenly introduced a scenario simulation for an important leader's visit, and I directly asked the team leader to handle it. Because in our usual work, no one taught us how to handle such situations; we were always told to notify the team leader to come over. Then he said I was wrong, and repeated the script to us: Which unit are you from? Who do you want to find? What is your surname? Then the front desk of Building 5 would verify it.

Later, when I was asked to simulate again, I didn't ask him what his surname was, and he said I didn't pass this time. In the subsequent actual work, when important leaders came, it was either the venue leaders coming to receive them or the other party's registration records, which were verified with the front desk according to the registration, and there was still a discrepancy with the so-called script.

On May 24, there was another assessment for newcomers, and this time I passed. I thought this meant I had officially passed the probation. No one told me that I should also write a so-called self-recommendation for work. It wasn't until June 3 of the following month that the supervisor brought a blank A4 paper and asked me to write a self-recommendation for work, at which point I realized that there was still this process for becoming a permanent employee. So, it seems that my salary for May could only be considered as probationary pay, and I could only consider myself unlucky.

So when the salary for May was issued, I calculated it, and sure enough, it was paid according to the probationary salary standard. I didn't have much objection to this, as long as there were no mistakes in June. According to the agreement at the time of joining, the company would buy housing provident fund after becoming a permanent employee. Although this regulation belongs to the company's actions, we did not intend to delve into this issue; as long as the agreement was fulfilled, it would be fine. Therefore, I believed that the housing provident fund should be bought in June, as it was our mutual agreement, and there should be no problem.

However, in fact, I was thinking too simply. Until June 29, when everyone else's housing provident fund had already been credited, I checked mine and it still hadn't arrived. So I inquired with someone who joined at the same time and also asked a night shift worker who joined half a month later. The result was that the person who joined at the same time as me also hadn't received it, while the night shift worker who joined half a month later had received it. Isn't that too strange?

At this point, we decided to ask the supervisor. After a while, the supervisor said, "You didn't write an application." Then he said in the group, "Who hasn't bought the housing provident fund yet? You need to apply now." Then he brought the application form for us to sign. The first time, because he didn't bring a red seal, he asked us to supplement it later, and the next day he came again for us to leave our fingerprints.

If we hadn't inquired about this matter, if some people had received it and some hadn't, this would have revealed a secret: is it possible that signing and fingerprinting on the so-called application form is not made public?

However, I seriously doubt the purpose of this so-called application form. Because the night shift worker who joined later did not fill out the application form and still had the housing provident fund bought as usual. Why are colleagues from the same project treated differently?

I repeatedly asked that night shift colleague whether he filled out the application form, and he was 100% sure that there was no such application form. If before I thought this was a management blind box, now it seems to be a bit of management chaos.

As a result, our housing provident fund could only be postponed to July. There is another detail about this matter: when I asked why the housing provident fund hadn't been bought, the supervisor said that the housing provident fund would only be purchased after becoming a permanent employee. So I said, "Wasn't I already made permanent in June?" The other party said, "You still need to fill out the application form." This led to the action of having colleagues fill out the form.

I originally thought there would be no more problems, but unexpectedly, when the salary was issued yesterday, another problem arose. This time the problem was very obvious: I was not paid according to the permanent salary, while in fact, I had become permanent in June. Then I don't know how they checked internally, but it turned out that it was because I hadn't filled out the assessment form. Is there no so-called assessment form during the probation period? Even if there is no so-called assessment form during the probation period, after becoming permanent, there is a one-month cycle; can it also be forgotten?

Then I confirmed the amount of the permanent salary with General Zhu on WeChat, and General Zhu said that the amount mentioned by the supervisor was correct, and then he changed the subject and said, "You need to meet the project assessment requirements."

This statement has some deep meaning. How is the permanent salary composed? If it is just the probation salary plus the assessment salary, then it doesn't matter whether you are permanent or not. This introduces some traps, saying that you did not meet the assessment standards, so you still receive the probation salary. However, another paradox arises: the contradiction between being approved for permanent status and not receiving the permanent salary.

In my understanding, I believe that the permanent salary is what it is, and then the performance assessment is multiplied by the assessment percentage to obtain it. Since we do not understand the specific content system, perhaps many management blind boxes will also appear in this regard in the future.

So, saying that management is simple is indeed very simple, and saying it is not simple is indeed not simple. However, once management loses mutual trust, it will inevitably lead to a management crisis. Currently, these phenomena not leading to a trust crisis is already very fortunate; most people still just think that management is chaotic.

I believe that there are some things that must be clarified regarding management training, including processes, content, scenarios, cooperation, behavior, and attitude; it is not just a matter of sending a picture and a few sentences.

Previously, when General Li held a meeting for newcomers, someone suggested that the necessary knowledge should be memorized. General Li proposed printing out the necessary knowledge and distributing it to colleagues, but someone refuted that the picture had already been sent in the group. General Li still insisted on his opinion, believing that the meaning was different, and that taking out a phone to look at a picture while at work was another matter.

I originally thought that the relevant personnel would execute this decision, but unexpectedly, no one executed it. Instead, the team leader sent a long announcement, saying that the hidden information included the necessary knowledge. Of course, General Li might have forgotten to supervise this matter due to being busy with work, but the relevant personnel did not execute it in a timely manner or even forgot, which also highlights the long-standing management issues.

Since the content is not much, it could even form a small booklet, and the cost would not be high, such as a newcomer onboarding learning manual, which could eliminate potential problems in their infancy. This would not only allow assessments to proceed smoothly but also help quickly enhance employee capabilities, changing the past training model of blindly following others, including the rules of work for newcomers regarding visitors, venue staff, external leaders, fire hazards and basic escape rules, handling other emergency situations, project culture and philosophy, feedback mechanisms, standards for rewards and punishments, and channels for announcing praise and punishment, as well as reverse supervision, etc. In summary, this original ecological model still needs some effort to refine. This also indicates that we are still at the stage of human management, and the relevant systems, processes, and divisions of responsibility are still quite chaotic.

Of course, it may also be that for the relevant people, they have not yet adapted well to the rhythm, and are in a state of coping with busyness without being able to grasp the systematization.