A Real-World Example

In a large service-oriented listed company (part of a conglomerate with multiple listed companies, one of which was once a Fortune 500 company), a finance manager A (from the accounting team) was assigned a subordinate B (an accounting position with a salary of approximately 5,000 RMB). After receiving B, A expressed concerns to their direct supervisor C, stating that B’s salary was too low for the accounting role and that their capabilities were insufficient for the job (believing that B’s position with a salary of 8,000–9,000 RMB would be more suitable). However, C, A’s direct supervisor, suggested proceeding with the work and providing feedback or adjustments later if any issues arose.

In subsequent work, B indeed exhibited insufficient capabilities and low motivation due to the low salary, frequently making excuses to delay tasks. This led to frequent errors and delays in the tasks managed by A through B. A became increasingly convinced that B was unfit for the role and communicated with C again, requesting B’s dismissal or reassignment within the company (A lacked the authority to independently dismiss or reassign B or establish reward and penalty mechanisms). After multiple discussions, C began to acknowledge some issues with B but still lacked a detailed understanding of the situation. C’s response to A was that, according to the HR department’s rules, B could only be reassigned after receiving a C-grade evaluation for three consecutive months. C instructed A to minimize errors in B’s work during this period to reduce the impact of mistakes, with the goal of seeking B’s reassignment after three months. Unfortunately, B continued to make errors, and in one instance involving tax-related financial operations, a mistake by B required significant manpower and resources from multiple subsidiaries’ business leaders, the tax team, and the accounting team to rectify.

In this example, the information generated within the C-A-B accounting team management chain was transmitted solely within this chain throughout the entire process. C’s direct supervisor (at the deputy director level) was utterly unaware of B’s issues, and other departments (such as the tax team or HR) and subsidiaries (business units) were also uninformed about B’s situation. A, likely due to the nature of their position, only dared to report the issue to their direct supervisor C, as escalating the problem could harm C’s position and hinder A’s future development. Thus, only three people (C, A, and B) were aware of B’s issues. This led other departments, when collaborating with B, to assume B was a competent employee capable of performing the job, while in A’s and C’s eyes, B was a problematic employee unfit for the role. For A, this was a tragedy, as they were fully aware of B’s issues and reported them multiple times, yet could only watch errors occur repeatedly. After B’s major mistake, C likely minimized the issue and reported selectively, while the HR department’s systemic flaws remained unaddressed (no one escalated the issue to HR). B likely remained in the position for nearly three more months. We cannot blame C, A, or B individually—this is a common occurrence in traditional cybernetic organizations, driven by human nature and systemic mechanisms, making such outcomes inevitable.