In enterprises, people tend to overlook details.

If the general rule of management is science, the management of details is art, and the ability of enterprises to handle details will form the ability of enterprise management.

The collapse of an enterprise is often caused by a huge problem in detail.

Recently, I had an unusual experience in Beijing Shanghai Express Line's return to Beijing, and even exaggerated the terrain as "airport panic".

When he arrived at Hongqiao airport, the service staff told me that the boarding pass had already gone out.

I said I was in front of you. Who did the boarding pass go to?

He called the man who had just issued the ticket. The man came up to the computer and got up and said, "wait a minute," and he did not return in ten minutes.

The boarding time was near. I had to find the supervisor before I realized that my boarding pass was sent to a person who was close to the name. The man seemed to have passed the security check.

The chief executive immediately cancelled the original boarding pass and made a new one, so that I could go to the boarding gate with him.

I followed him through the security check on the side. He brushed his credentials past. I didn't follow up directly and went over the security counter directly. The officer didn't make a sound until a security guard called me, and I realized that I had not checked the documents and was let in.

After crossing the security check, Japanese guests holding my boarding pass were stopped at the boarding gate.

I heard the passport from his supervisor read "Tera..."

It's not very close to my surname "Teng".

The safety management of Hongqiao airport is so chaotic that it is really shocking.

Just imagine, if terrorists, how many loopholes can be exploited here?

Objectively speaking, the management of domestic public service institutions can see loopholes and problems everywhere from the perspective of research.

There are so many problems that there are so many problems in the safety window of the airport. It can be seen that the occurrence of the Xinjiang flight incident has certain inevitability, and the lucky defeat of the attack is quite accidental: if it is not a terrorist "lack of experience", the action is a bit slow and the consequences are unbearable.

There are two problems.

First, many of our measures have not been strictly enforced since they were concluded.

For example, many flights require that only one carry on baggage should be allowed on board, and the size is limited.

But almost every time we see passengers dragging two or three suitcases, some obviously exceed the size, but generally no one is in charge, so that everyone has to rush to board the plane to take up the luggage position.

Second, in many ways, we lack a unified system. We often rely on temporary adjustments to adapt to our immediate needs.

For example, the beverage problem related to the flight in Xinjiang, the practices of different airports are very different. In some airports, you can bring your own drinks to the airplane, but you can hear about them. Some can not be brought with the bottle. Some are not allowed to do so.

This time, the most stringent rule was made, and the liquid must not be taken up.

The intention is good, but can it be fixed?

If it is a good rule, why is it not clear before?

The practice of judicial flexibility, such as the emphasis on temporary adjustment, is actually prevalent in our judicial practice.

In the past, there was a practice of "strike hard", that is, the same accusation. During the period of severe fighting, it was a crime against the wind. It could be sentenced to several times.

In fact, the degree of crime should be based on the law, and what is the relationship between the crime and the prevailing wind?

In addition, whether or not to commit suicide or to plead guilty can affect the length of conviction and sentence, which is characteristic of China.

In the United States, when the rugby star OJ Simpson, who was suspected of killing his wife, did not even mention the fact that he had ever driven away, let alone take it as evidence.

At first I did not understand, but later I realized that the so-called "escape" itself was not a crime, nor could it prove that it had committed a crime. It could not even make the crime more serious, so what did it do?

A few years ago, a young man named Xu Ting, who was called a young man in Guangzhou, took the opportunity to withdraw 170 thousand yuan from the ATM error. He didn't give up the case and fled to the field to squander money. The first trial was sentenced to life imprisonment by stealing the financial institution. After that, the public was beaten back to the court for retrial, and finally sentenced to five years, from no period to five years, and the scale of the judiciary was flexible.

Recently, some ATM of Hull bank in England also broke down. One by one, hundreds of "British gentlemen" were brought in. In broad daylight, they queued up to steal financial institutions.

It can be seen that "the same world, the same dream", Chinese people, most of the British do not think that using ATM error to take money belongs to "theft".

Although most of the people feel that the sentence is beyond the limit, some judicial experts believe that the crime of stealing financial institutions is correct, while 170 thousand of them are huge and can be sentenced to no time.

In fact, it is wrong. In the final analysis, the public should have the final say, because the law is nothing more than the manifestation of the public will, and the law that does not conform to public opinion will eventually be eliminated.

In the Anglo American law system, jury members are the most common people. They do not understand the crime, they can not see the evidence and will not be convicted, just like the Simpson case.

Professor Lang Xianping, a famous professor, was randomly selected as a jury candidate in New York. But because of his intelligence, he was not considered to represent the general public, so he was not selected as a jury.

Enterprises also have their own "judiciary", that is, the management system, this system is rigid, it has no feelings in it.

When we can not incorporate a subtle act into the management process, this subtle act can become an ant nest and magnify the crisis.

The stability and efficiency of the organization is directly influenced by the rules and regulations.

The more effective the means can be determined by the articles of association, the more it can improve the management level, stability and even performance of the enterprise.

Too many rely on temporary regulations, often make temporary adjustments, changing from time to time, making changes, will make employees feel at a loss, so that the company is in a daze.

In 90s of last century, HUAWEI made great efforts to implement the HUAWEI basic law, and made a comprehensive definition of the company's vision, strategy, organization and culture.

For example, stipulating HUAWEI's "never enter the information service industry", many people do not understand it. They feel that they have broken their own retreat. They do not know that Ren Zhengfei is going to die and be born. With a unified direction and path, enterprises can develop steadily.

Without this, it is impossible for us to enter other industries in the face of difficulties, and it is impossible to persist in the highly competitive telecommunications industry.

Andy Grove, Intel's former president, has a famous saying: only paranoia can survive. Grove!

No rules, no Cheng Fangyuan, no restrictions, enterprises can not become paranoid.

The success of HUAWEI can be attributed to such paranoia.

It is hard to enforce rules and enforce rules without fail.

The wisdom of the Chinese people does not respect the rules and rules, and always wants to find another way. Even the basic executive power is lost.

Some enterprises lack clear strategies. They believe in the philosophy of "where to go on the watermelon skin and where to slide." there is no set rule in all things. They like to leave some room for themselves and make some adjustments later.

It seems flexible, but in fact, people can manage things and are full of loopholes.

In addition, some enterprises take passion instead of management, usually talk about corporate culture, organize employees to do exercises together, go outing, expand, shout slogans, and some more sensational activities, but they do not work hard in the strategy and rules and regulations of enterprises.

The problem is that corporate culture can not replace rules, and cohesive enterprises will only be confused if they do not know the direction and the specific path.

Ma Yun, a Alibaba, is very generous and highly valued corporate culture. Some people worry about whether he will manage a big business.

In fact, Alibaba has a clear strategy and strict rules and regulations. It is a company that advocates fine management.

This point, in the process of acquiring YAHOO China, has impressed the other side.

The "scare" of Hongqiao airport is not only a "mental retardation" to the behavior of an individual passenger, but also reflects the "management spirit" of an enterprise from a detail.