探讨领导模式的大师：劳伦斯-彼得(二)(国外英文资料).doc

探讨领导模式的大师：劳伦斯-彼得(二)(国外英文资料) How did the meeting pass the resolution? Management is inseparable from the meeting. The opening of the meeting was varied, and the two parliaments of Britain and France became examples of the Parkinson conference. The British Parliament has a tradition of antagonism between the two parties, so its seating arrangement is also a confrontation between the two armies. The debate between the two sides was team rivalry, and Parkinson likened the debate to ball games.. Seat determination views (much like Chinas current Internet language, butt decides the head), the two main party members do not see whether the bill is reasonable, but the bill. As long as it is made by oneself, it must be correct; but as long as it is put forward by the other party, there is no doubt that it is nonsense. Thus, the formation of the resolution has nothing to do with reason, only with the number of teams and their impact force. The French parliaments seat arrangement was not a confrontation between the two armies, but a semicircle round the rostrum. In this way, it is difficult to distinguish between the two sides of the game, thus, the right to grasp the subject of the final decision is centrist. In this arrangement, the secret of how the bill is passed does not lie in the use of speeches and debates, but in the induction of centrist support in various ways. Of course, Parkinsons meeting law is more ridicule, but in the humor and satire behind it reflects the question worthy of academic thinking. The so-called middle class master the final decision, in the famous economist Arrow (Kenneth J. arrow) where a rigorous mathematical proof, that is, arrow impossible theorem. This was one of the most important achievements of his Nobel prize for economics in 1972. This theorem is the simplest formulation, selection is more than 3 personnel in more than 3 programs, in accordance with the principle of majority decision, unable to draw a single order of preference (see spec