Reprinted from: http://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/s/2018-04-21/doc-ifznefkh2178252.shtml
Source: Discourse Ecology Research Original | Author: Hu Fanzhu, National Discourse Ecology Research Center, East China Normal University
ZTE ( 31.310 , 0.00 , 0.00% ) was blocked by the U.S. government, and the lifeblood of such a huge company was directly strangled. The company held a press conference at 15:00 on April 20. Chairman Yin Yimin personally issued a company statement. Summary: "With the support of 1.3 billion people, we have the ability and determination to overcome the difficulties. We will never give up! The flag of ZTE will fly forever!"
It is a pity that "one of the 1.3 billion people" Hu believes that this statement is really boring and backfires. In this regard, it is necessary to add "Hu criticism" from the perspective of "the rhetoric of the image of the country and institutions".
A sentence-by-sentence review: ZTE, what are you talking about?
- Do you have a rhetoric advisor at home?
The full text of the conference is as follows:
On April 16, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce cited ZTE for failing to deduct bonuses in a timely manner and for failing to issue disciplinary letters for certain employees involved in historical export control violations, and on November 30, 2016 and July 20, 2017 The decision to activate the denial order was made, citing misrepresentation in two letters submitted to the U.S. government, imposing the toughest sanctions on ZTE.
(Hu Cui: Introduce the ins and outs of the incident at the beginning, implying that "what the company made was just a low-level, detailed error". Next, it should immediately respond to what the company has done, but no, just talk about the consequences of sanctions)
Such sanctions will immediately put the company into a state of shock, directly affect the work rights of the company's 80,000 employees, and directly damage the interests of 80,000 families; It will have a direct impact on the performance of long-term service responsibilities by hundreds of millions of end consumer users, including the partners and suppliers within the fulfillment of responsibilities and obligations bring direct harm.
(Hu Cui: Don’t report the company’s response decision immediately, only state the dire consequences, implying “Is the U.S. punished too hard?” It’s not impossible, but what is the purpose of such a statement? Who should be held responsible next? What take this responsibility?)
I am firmly opposed to such a decision by the US Department of Commerce, unfair and unreasonable penalties, and even politicizing trade issues.
(Hu Critic: This is where the confusion begins. Hu believes that the US government's punishment is indeed "unfair and unreasonable", and it is obvious that the trade issue is "politicized". However, who is the cause of such a huge loss? Lingren, brother, why didn't you first declare what responsibility the company management should take for such a low-level mistake, and how should it take responsibility? It came up as "firmly opposed", is your objection valid?)
The U.S. side has infinitely magnified minor issues, which have a great impact on enterprises. The company is highly concerned about this, and the company will solve the problem through all means permitted by law.
(Hu Cui: Is this a "minor problem"? According to the company's understanding, it is "minor", but in the eyes of the United States, you have "defaulted", and the "minor problem" of the default led to a "systematic collapse", the responsibility Of course, everyone who eats melons sees that the United States is indeed suspected of taking advantage of the theme, but the company's actions clearly tell the society: the company is fined 6 billion yuan and can be easily implemented, but it is difficult to implement the deduction of 35 people's bonuses. This is a deduction. The emperor's prize?
The only thing I said to the US government was "opposition". Next, I should have an explanation for stakeholders such as "employees, shareholders, customers, partners", but it is such a paragraph :)
As a global enterprise that grew up in China, ZTE will take up the responsibilities of a Chinese enterprise and become more self-reliant. We have a strong motherland and 1.3 billion people behind us, giving us confidence and determination to overcome all kinds of difficulties.
(Hu Cui: Brother, I didn’t let you play like this. I said “opposition” to the US government, “opposes the politicization of trade issues”, but then said “We have a strong motherland and 1.3 billion people.” "Threatening" the U.S. government? Why are you "politicizing the trade issue" yourself? Isn't this a bit like "my dad is Li Gang", and the problem can't be solved like "thirteen", right?)
The company's board of directors, management and all employees will unite and perform their duties with due diligence, take various measures, do their best to safeguard the interests of employees and shareholders, and fulfill their responsibilities to customers and partners.
(Hu Cui: At this time, I finally mentioned that “employees, shareholders, customers, and partners” should be dealt with immediately. However, as a management, you are faced with stakeholders. In the event, your fault caused such a huge crisis, you What responsibility should be taken? Who should take responsibility? How? What do you say? It's really urgent!)
At the same time, we are also seriously reflecting, and we must increase investment in research and development.
(Hu Cui: You are "protesting" to the US government, and at the same time saying, "I won't play with you even if you want to play with me"?)
With the sustained and healthy development of China's economy, there is a huge domestic market, so it has the ability and confidence to meet challenges. As a global enterprise, ZTE opposes the use of unilateralism by relevant countries to undermine the global industrial chain. ZTE's products have a market in China, and with the support of 1.3 billion people, we have the ability and determination to overcome the difficulties.
We never give up! The flag of ZTE will fly forever!
(Hu Cui: It would be good to say these words at other times, but at the press conference, is it so appropriate? If you say "don't give up", you can "fly forever"? What about the "bad faith" stain of this "flag", Also "flying" together?)
2. A question: ZTE, if 35 people kidnapped you, you will kidnap 1.3 billion people?
- not funny joke at all
Who would have thought that such a huge tragedy, the turning point was only the bonus of 35 people, it was really "a bloody case caused by a bonus": the company can immediately pay a fine of 8.9 billion US dollars, not to mention that it will directly lead to the entire company immediately. "Shock", at least at the time, there was still a "300 million dollar additional fine" hanging over his head. However, but, unexpectedly, the company did not implement the promise of punishing 35 employees. What a great host!
However, is this really good for employees? 35 people have bonuses, and 80,000 people's jobs become a problem. Just to be good to 35 people, there are some ways you can remedy that, why are you making trouble with yourself? The bonuses of these 35 people are so difficult to deduct. How sacred is it that they can kidnap the interests of the entire company?
The handling of 35 people led to a crisis of more than 80,000 people. In order to resolve the crisis, the company moved out 1.3 billion people? What "we have a strong motherland and 1.3 billion people", what "have the support of 1.3 billion people". Claims to have the support of 1.3 billion Chinese people. Elevate business issues to national issues and ethnic issues. I wonder if ZTE thought it had the support of 1.3 billion people when it sold illegally to Iran? Are you trying to kidnap the image of the 1.3 billion Chinese people? The mistakes made by ZTE should not be paid by the 1.3 billion Chinese people.
Who made the decision that your company's management violated the settlement agreement at that time? Who should be held responsible? At least there should be an explanation, right?
Three Crisis Discourses: Why, Who Says, Who Says, What Should I Say?
- Please understand it
Crisis response, we must first understand why? who said? To whom: Say what? However, the chairman's brother seems to have no idea at all.
First, why?
The problem is very simple, try to resolve the crisis and control the loss within a controllable range. This loss includes the loss of corporate business (company-wide shock caused by the seven-year ban on importing US chips), as well as the loss of corporate image (not keeping promises and breaking promises regardless of cost).
However, the chairman's brother does not seem to accept this understanding?
Second, who said that? Now the chairman said that this can and must be.
However, the chairman at this time is not only the chairman, but also the top person in charge of the defaulting company, and of course the person in charge of the company's breach of contract.
Today, you are not a "referee", but a child who makes mistakes, and you must first "take the blame".
Third, to whom? To deal with the crisis, first of all, of course, for the other party (the US government), and at the same time, it can also take into account (company employees, shareholders, customers).
However, if the chairman's statement is to be read by American policymakers and hope that the other party can change their decision, it is tantamount to "shooting a stone in the foot" (whose foot does not know). No apology for violating the agreement, no corrective measures announced for violating the agreement, no announcement on how to hold the violators accountable, no first acknowledgment that the punishment was right, but the severity of the punishment was wrong. "Against", even threatening. Will the interlocutors (US government, US Congress, US media, US public) accept it, or will it just add fuel to the fire?
The United States is not a monolith, but a collection of different interest groups. Do you say that it makes it difficult for the interest groups who originally wanted to help you speak?
If the chairman's statement is to say to the company's employees, shareholders, and customers at the same time, then he should tell everyone that he and the management have brought them such difficulties, what should they bear? How to apologize?
Chairman brother, is your statement written for your superiors or for your superiors?
Fourth, what should I say?
Since a mistake has been made, since the intention is to minimize the big thing.
Then, first of all, you should apologize or even apologize (at least you should apologize to all employees, shareholders, and customers, they were brought into the pit by you in a confused way);
Second, clear corrective measures must be announced;
Third, it is necessary to explain who made the final decision to not fully perform the agreement at that time, and to hold accountable for this, and whether it has already been suspected of "malfeasance" for causing such losses to the company. penalty";
Fourth, he expressed his willingness to accept certain penalties. However, in order not to affect the interests of a large number of companies in the United States and the lives of 80,000 Chinese employees, and not to affect the global supply chain, please give the company a chance to survive. Instead of bragging about "there is a huge market in the country", "the support of 1.3 billion people", and "the ability and determination to overcome difficulties" - even if these are facts, it is not appropriate to say it here at this time.
Fifth, ZTE's press conference this time is like a "bear boy" who was caught in a big disaster. He insisted that my father is "Li Gang", and I have 1.3 billion brothers and sisters to take care of you. ZTE's move is tantamount to the fact that the more than 100 passengers who sang the national anthem at Japanese airports raised business disputes into moral kidnappings. In fact, ZTE must make it clear that it is only a "company", not a country. Since it opposes the "politicization of trade", don't jump into it, and don't say "1.3 billion" here. billion", why don't you think about the feeling that one of them is always "represented"?
In short,
First, for this incident to be effectively resolved, it is necessary to proactively repair the company's bad faith image, and to provide a reason to help you, not the other way around, to American interest groups who might help you.
Second, the second principle for solving this incident is not to elevate corporate behavior to state behavior, "1.3 billion people's behavior", the US government is not a graduate of Xiamen University; instead, it should be transformed into individual behavior as much as possible, with individuals taking responsibility, and the company jointly and severally That's it. Otherwise, it is disguised agitation for a trade war.
Chairman brother, I am doing it for your own good. I always think that ZTE is one of the best companies in China and one of the most promising companies in China. I also think that the US government has a big problem, but you can't let me and My buddy is disappointed.