Original link: http://weiwuhui.com/10643.html
A certain type of event refers to something sexual.
But I don’t want to call it a peachy incident. Because this article mainly wants to discuss sexual harassment and sexual assault incidents in the workplace, it would be frivolous to use the word sex for such incidents.
Let’s first recall the event of a certain month in a large factory.
In fact, this matter is still a bit confusing to this day, and some key details still make people suspicious.
But I still want to say that it is problematic for the company to speak out to female employees. Even if the follow-up seems to be somewhat reversed, it still cannot undo the company’s sloppy mistakes at the beginning.
The female employee told several big leaders about this in the group, and the latter “cannot read it back”. This detail is solid, and there is no reversal. Whether what the female employees say is true is one thing, and how the leaders view it is another.
The factory leadership’s handling of the female employees’ voices caused an uproar later—including within the organization.
This incident has caused such a big commotion, and the objective result is also very harmful to the enterprise. In fact, many organizations should learn something from it.
A Weilai female intern posted a complaint against Weilai on the evening of March 3. In the past two days, there has been a lot of trouble on Jianzhong.com.
At noon on March 4, Weilai issued a response announcement. At 1 a.m. on March 5 (that is, today), the girl posted again, and looking back at Weilai’s official announcement, it was quite embarrassing.
Weilai’s announcement said: The girl resigned on 2.28.
The time point of 2.28 is very close to the time point when the girls made trouble. So there was such a view: the girls just want to stay in the internship, so they have to make troubles and use public opinion to force Wei to agree.
In fact, this statement is not easy to hold water. Because according to common sense, if a girl brings this matter to the public domain, there is a high probability that it is impossible to stay in Weilai. This approach has the decisive taste of killing fish and breaking nets.
The girl posted for the second time, showing Weilai’s email notifying her of the handover, as well as her internship certificate. The time points are all on February 13th – and it doesn’t look like a fake P.
Even if we don’t have a villainous heart, we can say that Weilai’s so-called 2.28 resignation does not imply any meaning, but is just an objective statement. But judging from the information presented by the girl, Wei Lai couldn’t even tell when the victim left the job. It is not an exaggeration to say that Wei Lai actually handled it very sloppily and hastily.
In a girl’s recent post, she mentioned five requirements she made to the company after being sexually assaulted.
She claimed that the company’s HR responded to items 1, 4, and 5, but for the follow-up results of 2 and 3, they all “talked about him”.
The second is: This matter must be reported to all employees of the company, and of course you must hide your identity;
The third is: find out how the criminal got into the company at that time.
As a person who has been in a corporate organization, I generally understand why HR did not respond to the third item.
An enterprise is a small society, and emergencies may lead to a power struggle within the company. This kind of thing is not uncommon. Sometimes it seems that it is at the level of interns, and it is not impossible to cause a big shock at the executive level in the end. HR caution is understandable. But it’s not that you can’t communicate with girls about your own tricks. Moreover, even if there is a correlation between how the man entered the company and his subsequent criminal behavior, it is not a strong correlation.
As a bystander, I really don’t know what this “talking about him” is all about.
But the second one is worth talking about.
Family ugliness should not be publicized. This common saying cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Because it may trigger a crisis response in public opinion. All employees send a notification, and God knows if it will be transferred to the public domain by the employees. One more thing is worse than one less thing, why bother to be gathered under the spotlight.
In the past two years, some companies are willing to send notification emails on internal corruption. This highlights two points: first, corruption is wrong; second, we will never tolerate those who poach the corners of enterprises.
There is a utilitarian calculation here: Compared with the crisis that may be caused by being stabbed into the public domain, it is more important not to tolerate this deterrent attitude. And to be honest, this possible crisis is actually very small. Such a thing as being greedy for the company’s money, I’m afraid it won’t make it to the top 100 searches.
Then, from the same utilitarian point of view, sexual harassment and assault within the company seem to be smaller than corruption in the eyes of the bosses. Although they always say zero tolerance afterwards, it seems that in terms of attitude, they are not more resolute than anti-corruption.
Of course, we do have to take into account that the victim may not be willing to send a notification email. After all, after seeing it, colleagues must have guessed who it is, and there is a high probability that they can always locate themselves.
If it is for this purpose, in order not to cause secondary harm, it is fine not to send a notification email.
But obviously, this is not true in Weilai’s troubles. Because the victim involved voluntarily requested to send a notification email.
The woman claimed that she had recording evidence in her hand, and could confirm that HR had said that this person was at risk.
The context of this sentence, the scene where it happened, and whether it is a suggestion or a decision are still unknown. But HR does have risk awareness, it should be true. It’s a pity that the result of risk awareness is a solution similar to that of a person who does not solve the problem but solves the problem.
Weilai’s response announcement was issued within half a day after the woman’s first post, and the response was quick. But as far as the announcement itself is concerned, there is basically no incremental information, and it only emphasizes a so-called zero-tolerance attitude. But judging from the refusal to report this detail, it seems that zero tolerance is the same thing.
The only information increase seems to be wrong: the girl did not leave on 2.28.
I can basically infer that Wei Lai was confused when he saw the girl’s post. It has quite a lot of details about this matter, and it has no grasp at all. But I wanted to show that I valued it, so I responded within half a day, and ended up with such a bunch of correct nonsense, plus one detail that didn’t match.
To put it in technical terms, it means that we have not done issue management and have not formed a crisis plan.
No, I’m not trying to say that Weilai’s PR is unprofessional, and a PR department may not even know that this kind of thing happened. It’s the inappropriateness of such things at the corporate level.
If you don’t take it seriously, you must not have done a careful investigation, and you haven’t done in-depth intervention (considering that a female colleague has encountered such a thing, you should lend a hand of psychological assistance), so the situation is not grasped, so there will be a hasty Such an announcement that seems to be stable and stable actually reveals such an announcement everywhere.
But the PR department can’t do nothing, so it did such a thing.
A secretary of the Youth League Committee of the senior class of our college who did not want to be named showed me a picture on WeChat:
“The 10:16 statement didn’t come out, why is Weilai’s zero tolerance for hot searches”, she said, “the public relations team didn’t do nothing.”
Across the screen, I seemed to see a slight smile on the corner of her mouth.
—— The first episode of pulling nitrogen ——
This article is transferred from: http://weiwuhui.com/10643.html
This site is only for collection, and the copyright belongs to the original author.