The Seven Is Actually Useless But Highly Remuneration Work.

< p > according to my humble opinion, the most important persons in any organization are salesmen.

After all, if there is no salesperson, nothing can be sold, and the enterprise will not be able to manage it.

< /p >

< p > there are a number of positions on the other side of a large number of ordinary employees, who are not necessarily useful, but they are paid a high price.

Below are some of my posts listed below: < /p >

< p > < strong > 1. CIO.

< /strong > < /p >.

< p > If a company has many old systems and needs to integrate them with complicated plans, yes, I can see that in this case, the CIO is very useful.

However, purchasing computing power on the Internet (that is, Cloud Computing) is a big trend.

If applied properly, it can reduce the burden of maintaining the network inside the enterprise and ensuring that personal computers are free from viruses. There is little need for C level executives.

< /p >

< p > < strong > 2., chief ethics officer < /strong > < /p >

< p > listed companies can maximize profits only if they do not violate the law, violate government regulations or get involved in scandals.

Even this means outsourcing to Unaudited employment of slave workers or spraying of pollutants that kill children.

Since the "enterprise morality" is obviously a contradiction, why should we pay a C level executive to take charge of this matter? < /p >

< p > < strong > 3. chief operating officer.

< /strong > < /p >.

< p > maybe I missed something here. But if there is a CEO, why pay a chief operating officer? Conversely, if there is a chief operating officer, why do we need to spend a CEO? For an enterprise, the CEO and the CEO are the same.

Some companies have set up these three jobs at the same time. So who is running the company? I said, "move your damn head, decide who is the real boss, and get rid of the high paid and useless guys."

< /p >

< p > < strong > 4. changing catalyst.

< /strong > < /p >.

< p > the parasites in the world of these enterprises catch the fashion in the enterprise, then convene some unknown meetings, write some difficult reports, and provide some unnecessary or unwanted opinions, and then charge high fees.

By defining themselves as catalysts, they perfectly make themselves do not have any real responsibility for the results.

On the other hand, if there is any good result, they can say that they catalyzed the change.

Yes, that's right.

< /p >

< p > < strong > 5. market strategy analyst.

< /strong > < /p >.

< p > a company needs a market strategy. This is no problem.

But this does not mean that one person (not to mention a team) needs to be appointed to formulate such a strategy and to formulate strategies over and over again.

Strategy is a long-term mission. Once the strategy is completed, the challenge becomes how to implement it.

In order to prove their existence, market strategy analysts must constantly adjust strategies, which exacerbates the difficulty of tactical execution, and even makes it impossible to execute.

< /p >

< p > < strong > 6. industry analysts.

< /strong > < /p >.

< p > this is a group of people working for fashionable enterprises like Gartner, IDC and a lot of smaller ones.

I have met some very smart analysts, but their views will change frequently based on who actually bought their research reports, and I have seen them "fight" the butts of those who do not pay.

If you spend money on customer surveys, you can find a lot of industry analysts who are willing to say anything you want to hear.

< /p >

< p > < strong > 7. high tech journalists.

< /strong > < /p >.

< p > as a former high tech journalist (this is my job before becoming a full-time blogger), I dare say that many people who write professional high-tech enterprises report very limited business experience, and this is a certain authority.

For example: I once met a Businessweek reporter who thought that net profit meant profit generated through Internet sales.

< /p >