媒体评「国企员工炫耀事件」，称「嘚瑟是权力惯出来的臭毛病」，如何防止此类现象发生？

使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路，支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网，支持支付宝付款，每月仅需 5 美元

## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##

知乎用户 经济观察报​ 发表

有关部门是不是没搞清楚，到底是要防止炫耀的内容，还是要防止炫耀行为本身。

如果要防止炫耀的内容，就应该防止领导干部把子女亲属给安排到体制内，这个不难吧？

可以有回避制度，也可以有限制比例制度，也可以有严格考察制度，也可以有个人资料和考试全过程公示制度。

更不能让领导干部喝 20 万一斤的白毫银针，再给儿子买十套房吧？

但是炫耀行为本身没啥问题呀。

领导干部子女可以奋斗了十年，终于付了房子的首付，喜提房产证，炫耀一下，没啥问题吧。

领导干部子女可以去援疆援藏三五年，拍个照片炫耀一下当地的风土人情，也没啥问题吧。

领导干部子女可以去山村支教三五年，扎根基层，拍一拍山村的落后条件和孩子纯真的眼神，炫耀一下支教前和支教后的变化，也没啥问题吧。

领导干部子女也可以去科研单位，搞个大发明，拿个诺贝尔炫耀一下，也没啥问题吧。

可见炫耀本身没问题，有问题的是炫耀的内容是贪赃枉法和穷奢极欲。

现在有关部门打击的不是炫耀背后的那些污浊，反而要打击炫耀行为本身。

这不是掩耳盗铃、缘木求鱼、南辕北辙、舍本逐末吗？

知乎用户 无良 HR​ 发表

因为他从权力中获得了好处，有好东西自然想拿出来显摆。

不得瑟的方法很简单，得不到好处就没东西炫耀了啊。

你让他一天完成 50 分的学习强国，打卡青年大学习，每周社区义务劳动捡垃圾，写材料做报表，一个月到手 2800，每天笑哈哈。

知乎用户 返璞归甄可爱 发表

这个逻辑特别有意思，又让我忍俊不禁了。

无论是几年前的严夫人还是最近的王澄澄，这些得利者已经靠着身边人的荫蔽获取了普通民众难以企及的社会资源，却还拿来高调炫耀，嘚瑟的背后是权力惯出来的臭毛病，仗着有权就无所顾忌，说到底还是没见过世面，不知敬畏。
所以奉劝各级领导干部，管好自己和身边人，要知道权力是党和人民给的，是用来为国家社会做事的，不是用来炫耀的。必须谦虚谨慎、兢兢业业，用好手中权力。别到最后被打回原形才发现，没了权力，你啥都不是。

它写了半天回避了 “蒙荫” 问题，反而把问题归结到“没见过世面”，难道说最后的结论不应该是不得公权私用吗？

这段话给我的感觉是他们清楚公权私用是常态，也知道改不了，既然改不了就低调点，别让老百姓知道，闷声发大财。

这篇文章编辑和老胡啥关系？

知乎用户 卧牛​ 发表

这些人心里的执念是：富贵不归故乡，如锦衣夜行，谁知之者。

别说是他们，就是普通的平头老百姓，孩子考个一百分，竞赛拿个啥名次，都会在邻居和亲戚面前炫耀一番。

两者本质上有些区别，但是目的上都一样，就是从别人那里获取到优越感。

但是，不管是孩子考一百分，还是竞赛拿名次，都是自己家孩子靠努力得来的，炫耀一下，无可厚非。

可是接二连三塌房的这些官二代不一样，靠着党和人民给的权力，返回来在人民面前找优越感，炫耀嘚瑟，颐指气使。

而且此类现象是无法防止的，这次只不过是媒体爆出来了，还没来得及爆的还有多少？

知乎用户 焚香抚琴​ 发表

这题目写得…… 请问，为什么要 “防止此类现象发生”？

对百姓来说，此类现象暴露得越多越好，至少能教会吾等蝼蚁如何 “人间清醒”。

虚假的阶级和谐遮不住民众心里翻来覆去计算的账本。

知乎用户 乐徒 发表

你问我怎么防止？我的回答是防止不了。

这才是你能看到的地方小角色呢！大的东西，你看得到么？你就算看到你敢报道么？

理想主义总是低估了人们心中的恶、贪婪和卑劣，他们认为的共同富裕之理想，富人得需要多高的素质才能将自己口袋里面的白花花的银子交给穷人呢？而现实是他们不在你们面前炫富，就已经是最大的仁慈了。

贫富差距不缩小，骚年，很多问题都解决不了。更别提什么共同富裕了。

知乎用户 杨修丢鸡肋​ 发表

《就算是真的，你也不能说出来》

知乎用户 卡机戏码 发表

十年前在国内，关于官员财产公示的呼声此起彼伏。甚至有人大代表提交了相关的提案。

今天再看，这件事如火如荼的在各地进行，只不过财产公示被偷偷的修改成为了财产申报。

所以组织上掌握了所有公务员系统的收入情况、房产情况、七大姑八大姨的社会关系等等。但是这些信息谁不知道呢，就是咱们这些被代表的人。咱们跟狗一样趴在门口等待真相。人家从门缝扔出一根骨头。

就这些！

所以你信不信又有什么关系呢，不信就是传谣，信的话还有根骨头吃。在这个信息化高度透明、个人隐私毫无保留的社会中，你可以第一时间知道自己没去郑州但是突然变成了红码，可以第一时间知道自己的小鹏汽车有没有在停车场莫名的震动，可以第一时间看到自己的行动轨迹细致到街角的快捷酒店。但是你就是无法知道，人家一家子鸡犬升天到底 “不” 符合哪些规定。

十年前我们感叹社会风气沦丧，反腐居然要依靠网络和微博来实现。经过十年厉兵秣马、大刀阔斧的改革和发展，这些平台已经对相关的字句、拼音、同音字有了完善的防控机制，而我们的政府也在一次次的交锋中，把通报写的越来越工整，越来越滴水不漏。

所以现在反腐靠什么呢？靠傻逼！

知乎用户 露宿街头的胖子​ 发表

为什么要 “防止” 呢？

就应该鼓励二代们多嘚瑟

把能说的不能说的都抖露出来

不然群众怎么吃瓜？

纪委怎么完成业绩？

谁是为人民服务谁是为人民币服务又怎么区分得出来？

知乎用户 提笔忘字 发表

话说，
这是 2020 年的事，
两年了，这事有什么后续吗？

那这件呢？

还有著名的宾利姐

这些都没有后续吧，嘚瑟是权力惯出来的臭毛病？
不如说嘚瑟的是权力本身。

下面是媒体写的文章

无论是几年前的严夫人还是最近的王澄澄，这些得利者已经靠着身边人的荫蔽获取了普通民众难以企及的社会资源，却还拿来高调炫耀，嘚瑟的背后是权力惯出来的臭毛病，仗着有权就无所顾忌，说到底还是没见过世面，不知敬畏。
所以奉劝各级领导干部，管好自己和身边人，要知道权力是党和人民给的，是用来为国家社会做事的，不是用来炫耀的。必须谦虚谨慎、兢兢业业，用好手中权力。别到最后被打回原形才发现，没了权力，你啥都不是。

它写了半天回避了 “蒙荫” 问题，反而把问题归结到“没见过世面”，难道说最后的结论不应该是不得公权私用吗？
这段话给我的感觉是他们清楚公权私用是常态，也知道改不了，既然改不了就低调点，别让老百姓知道，闷声发大财。

想一想这些媒体真的挺讨厌的，把各种各样的特权滥用事件爆出来，却根本不会去讨论怎么解决，甚至暗示这是合理但是不能给百姓看的。

媒体不过为了完成 KPI，一次又一次地把这些事情推上热搜，热搜一撤，王公贵族依然幸福生活，媒体赚取大量流量，剩下老百姓依旧义愤填膺，还四处问 “那件事情有没有结果？”“为什么没有结果了？”

可笑，可悲。

知乎用户 子非瑜​ 发表

这种现象其实不用防，防是防不住的，甚至要鼓励，这都是反贪新绝招，想都想不到的。

以前揭发一个人，有小三举报，有小偷偷窃牵连，有利益链条谈崩了互相检举。

现在多了一种方式，地主家的傻儿子用高级黑的方式检举他亲爹，这也算孝感动天了。

现在我又两怕，一个是停职几天，风头一过又像威震天似的卷土重来了，风头是个很神奇的东西，风一起看似摧枯拉朽，但除了自我感动，仿佛也没什么效果，时光永是流逝，街市依旧太平了，河南 “微信号被盗” 的谭副校长，毒教材事件，这才几天，现在还有人追究结果么？

另一怕，是查来查去，明眼人都知道的事，他就是查不出来，查来查去，除了 “子不教父之过” 这个小过失，居然查出个绝世大清官来，清似水明如镜不亚于纱罩的万盏明灯，这种清官，不得派个展南侠来护驾么，这么清查，对得起人民群众的信任么，对得起几十万几百万先烈么？

知乎用户 列兵阿廖沙​ 发表

批判 “炫耀” \ne 监管权力 = 兢兢业业 = 为人民服务 = 有用。

批判 “炫耀” = 不再炫耀 = 我行我素 = 为自己服务 = 没用。

“没用” 的事情反复讲 = 息事宁人 = 转移视线 = 更大的 “没用”。

“有用” 的事情我不讲 = 掩耳盗铃 = 明哲保身 = 一起偷着乐。

知乎用户 马行知​ 发表

媒体：亏他还引用茍利国家生死以，连韬光养晦都不懂？老人家闷声发大财的苦心简直白费了。

知乎用户 笨呆薪火​ 发表

避重就轻了。

炫耀是好事，问题是，他们钱哪来的？他怎么进的国投，不是说国企招聘很公平，不会有黑箱操作。

他大伯三伯父亲又是怎么弄进去的？

以他父亲的薪资，怎么房子十套十套的买，还买别墅的？

财产敢公示吗？

房产证难道没登记他名字，追查不到，还是不想追查？

如果以上都做不到，建议改名资产党，别做了婊子还立牌坊。

知乎用户 黄裳 发表

高情商：有钱悄悄消费，别大张旗鼓，让这帮贱民发现你的尾巴，我也保不住你

知乎用户 望京一只妖 发表

应该让他继续炫耀的！

不然怎么抓得出嘚瑟的人。

要不就是极度自卑，要不就是极度自恋。

家庭教育没做好，全家以儿子为中心，没告诉他做人低调，也幸好他如此嘚瑟，不然网友怎么抓的出。

不管是自卑还是自恋，都是处于一种极度渴望别人关注的状态。

看他朋友圈几乎每一天评论都回复，而且很喜欢抒发自己的情绪感受，就是希望其他人能够感受自己的状态。

不过事实究竟有没有说的那么夸张就不得而知了，也许别人只是例行公事的举动，在他眼里就是对太子爷毕恭毕敬的态度，就差脑补出自己登基的画面了，这种人统统称之为自恋狂。

朋友圈就买件鳄鱼衣服也能打出一长串话，佩服他的脑活动

知乎用户 柴可猪斯基 发表

两个月前，我小区群里因为居民询问什么时候解封的时候吵架，都有摆出自己身份的，连吵架也有拿这个嘚瑟的，我甚至不知道这个人的职级多高，就能有这种的优越感。

是权力太大了吗？

等什么时候，我们可以真正履行自己的监督权利，并且不受伤害时也许才能防止吧。

知乎用户 季汉巴郡张伯歧​ 发表

这不是一个拼的时代，这是一个评与凭的时代。

普通人享受这样的讲道理：

一亮身份甭管有理没理，对方站的毕恭毕敬的：

说白了，问题不在嘚瑟，没有特权嘚瑟早帮你灭火了，绝对安排的服服帖帖的。

一场婚礼，一位神秘嘉宾很低调走了进来，见人都和蔼可亲点头打招呼，不一会全场都私下传开了，新郎官的这位舅舅竟是北方某省的大员。自此之后，那没结婚的表弟，身边总是美女成堆围绕，尽管他一再否认跟 “神秘嘉宾” 是别人想象的那种关系。

《人民的名义》中的高小凤，只要把与高书记合影的照片在大门口高高挂起，你猜，她是不是育良书记的侄女？执法时你敢来硬的，万一是真的那咋办？

有这种好处，S 子才不亮牌子，尤其是关键时刻，少艰辛多少事，少奋斗多少年？

这种凭带来的巨大利益，不是嘚不嘚瑟的问题。

有些人工作比较露脸，或者被写成故事成了榜样、英雄，带着巨大的光环成了大众日常剧的主角，当他们范错时，上面要保护来之不易的榜样光环，普通大众以像理解自己一样为之求情网开一面。

可没有被书写默默无闻的那群人，真的犯了点错就必须像只蚂蚁一样捏死吗？这里面真的个个都比光环明星贡献少、人品更差吗？

当所有人都知道评的好处时，谁不拼命露个脸？这个时代可以为万里之外从未谋面的他的去世黯然落泪，对周边发生与己无关的一切都无动于衷，当有热度时，所有的心都围着你转。

如果连法律的底线，都能在评的热度中改变，为什么不争呢？

知乎用户 Allenla​ 发表

这可是你说的要防止权力滥用的哈？

我就给意见了:

1. 官员财产全部公开，通过金融大数据调查巨额不明财产。

2. 资产税，遗产税，资本利得税，房地产税，资本离境税。(咱们官员两袖清风，这些税肯定收不到头上，对吧？)

3. 国企采用公务员考试模式，逢进必考。

我提了，你们会用吗？在这装模作样问个啥呢。

知乎用户 Roy 是我 发表

那就悄悄的

偷偷摸摸的

人不知鬼不觉的

天知地知你不知我不知他们自己知

坚持做一个低调体面的人

另外一边让阶级固化进行的更全面、更彻底、更长久

对舆论进行正确的引导

就能基本杜绝这种现象

知乎用户 dzbls 发表

我根本不信周劼只是爱吹牛，那些照片怎么解释？

避重就轻要不得

知乎用户 Burgundian 发表

从情绪宣泄角度，这么评述完全没有问题。但如果从理性角度，这么说就难以服众。例如一个最基本的疑惑是：

这位沐浴着父辈恩泽的 “普通员工” 为何如此高调，遵守潜规则、来个 “闷声发大财” 不好吗？

答案是，还真不行。因为周末就是要利用半真半假的留言，获得第四权力，为巩固在团体中的地位、唬骗女生而努力。由此可见：

周世蕃是一个纯粹的人，一个没有道德的人，一个脱离了高级趣味的人。

但我们对调查组的要求，是起点的公平，是拒绝或明或暗的门槛设置，并警惕对社会秩序的破坏与践踏，而不仅仅是放出一句 “职级晋升符合有关规定” 完事。

换而言之就是：

确认进电梯的程序没问题了，再来讨论里面的人到达高处是否符合规定。

这么说，调查组的老爷们明白了不？

他和他的处级父辈：对周劼炫富案的深度解读

❶ 一场 “苟利国家生死以” 的炫富

1842 年，因主张禁烟而被发配伊犁充军的林则徐，在西安与家人道别时留下了如下诗作：

苟利国家生死以，岂因祸福避趋之？

郭则弦在《十朝诗家》中对此评价为 “迹其生平，无愧此语”。

然鹅，180 年过去了，这一凝聚万钧之力的名句，居然被江西省国有资本运营控股集团有限公司员工周劼化用，毫不做作地应用于朋友圈炫富场合。并且周公子自比严世蕃，表达了拳拳的辅佐之心。

这应该是林则徐与严嵩父子都万万没有想到的。

而在事后江西国控的首次调查通报中，这位周劼被三次表述为 “普通员工”，但就是没有解释人民网总结的炫耀行为：

① 炫父是否属实？例如宣称 “省厅人事处的人刚打了电话给我爸”；
② 炫富是否真实，例如 “喝的白毫银针 20 万一斤”；
③ 炫背景是否存在？例如 “我办公室主任怕我吹空调冷，帮我加挡风板”。

我相信，很多人对人民网的评论隐隐觉得哪儿不对劲：

不管最终调查结果如何，周劼的 “凡尔赛” 都制造了社会矛盾，让很多人产生不公平感和被剥夺感。周劼都必须为自己的言行负责并承担相应责任。

事实上，在被各行业、各人员花式作死的 “炫富门” 极大震撼之后，广大人民群众的神经已经足够坚韧：

时至今日，你敢打出郭美美晒豪车的牌，我就亮出纪委书记夫人 “摇人” 的王炸，用 50 辆宾利堵得让你出不来；你非要列举曲婉婷在海外上演 “母慈女孝” 的名场面，我们自有 “工作生活分得清” 的某老师表态“事情很严重，责任在美方”…

所以，人民网与其担心人民的心理感受，还不如踏踏实实地关心**国企家族化**的问题：

普通员工周劼背后，矗立着至少 5 位江西省交通部门的父辈，其中包括 3 名 “苟利国家生死以” 的三位正处级干部（父亲、大伯、三伯）。这是因为他们天赋异禀、特别地适合交通部门的工作吗？

讲真，周劼在炫耀父亲 “进步” 的同时配以严嵩、严世蕃父子的 “帮扶” 故事，这是很有意思的。倒不单单是因为这对江西籍奸臣声名狼藉，而是因为：

严世蕃虽有 “鬼才” 之称，但却考不上科举，只能以严嵩的名势，先入国子监读书后为官，开启仕途。

所以，这位 “周世蕃” 心里打的什么算盘，大家都明白了吧？

要我说，在被 “父上大人” 不断上进的好消息五雷轰顶之后，周劼就该搭配一个 45° 仰望星空的表情嘛，如此方能表达他肾结石直接碎裂、随排泄物排出的震惊。

用大白话说就是：

震碎了周世蕃的牛黄狗宝，开始畅想 “以父荫” 的远大前程。


❷ 为什么要炫富？

很多人弄不明白，这位沐浴着父辈恩泽的 “普通员工” 为何如此高调，遵守潜规则、来个“闷声发大财” 不好吗？

这里面有多重原因。例如响应 “富贵不还乡，如衣锦夜行” 的上古思维，例如以炫耀掩饰自己能力不足的自卑感。

但从生物学与社会学角度，周某人在朋友圈散布 “亦真亦假” 传闻的行为，倒也完全符合人类本能。

在生物进化史上，智人（Homo sapiens）的认知革命是一件划时代的大事。他们以高达 1200-1400 立方厘米的脑容量，进化出学习、记忆与沟通的能力，使得 “社会性合作” 成为一种可能。这也是智人战胜更强壮的尼安德特人、成为人属唯一物种的主要原因。

但是，这样的进化是需要付出巨大代价的。

对于智人来说，大脑消耗的能量非常惊人。即使在身体处于完全休息状态时，占身体总重约 2%-3% 的智人大脑，却消耗了人类 25% 的能量，以及占用心脏输出血液的 15%。相比之下，其他猿类的大脑只占据了 8% 的能耗。

能耗超高的大脑对人类的直接影响有二：

**首先是肌肉的退化。**很显然，当人类在运动时，大脑的耗氧量将显著高于 25%。而人类的能量储备有限，优先拨付给大脑中的神经元，就很难保证发达的肌肉所需。因此，人类的体能甚至打不赢黑猩猩（虽然后者平均体长只有 150 厘米），这对于早期人类的野外生存来说是一个坏消息。

**其次是漫长的成长周期。**考古学家发现，智人的直系祖先怀孕周期是 12 个月，但人类只有 9 个月左右。原因是胎儿的大部太大了，外面又包裹着坚实的颅骨，所以只能提前生产出来，以降低分娩的风险。“适应性早产”意味着婴儿在长达数个月的时间内，完全没有任何独立存活手段。事实上，为了选择性获得生存所需的复杂认知，人类的 “新手期” 往往需要 8-9 年。

所以，孱弱的个体条件、漫长的 “发育打野” 期，使得婴儿的成长需要众多个体（甚至整个部落）的努力。由此，人类出现了强烈的社交属性，产生了紧密的社会关系——它是人类生存与繁衍的基础。

而社会关系的确立，最重要的前提条件是 “确定成员与自己的反应”，也就是知道团体成员中，谁对我友善诚实，谁对我隐含敌意。

这就需要一些特殊的技巧。

1998 年，Robin Dunber 出版了《扮演、流言与语言的进化》一书，正式提到：

流言蜚语（gossip）是人类社会形成后最重要的沟通方式，现代智人以此得知群体中的复杂关系，从而支持部落规模持续扩大，并发展出更紧密复杂的合作形式。

举个例子，由四个人（ABCD）组成的小群体中，想要知道相互之间不断动态调整的人际关系（注：只考虑 1 对 1 的关系组合，不考虑多人博弈），需要分析并储存 6 种组合关系，也就是：

AB、AC、AD、BC、BD、CD。

但如果是一个 50 人的部落，这种一对一的组合关系将高达 1225 种。如果考虑到部落中的群体性对抗（例如部落中不同的派系），人们需要获取并存储的信息是惊人的。

因此在生活中，早期的人们率先掌握了传播 “流言” 的技巧。这些传递出来的信息斑驳，需要个体判断真伪，并以此建立起对他人的 “印象”，形成真正意义的 “人际关系”（例如喜好与亲疏）。

而流言的高级应用就是社会建构（social construction）：

社会建构的核心在于现象的现实，即创造所有人都认同的共同信念。

例如，你认同血缘纽带会形成稳固的未来预期，所以才出现大规模的家族与传承；你认为年轻时共同的求学经历会形成相似的 “三观”，所以才会有广泛存在的校友概念；你认为同一地域的人们在生活习惯、思维习惯、文化认同上有共性，才会有老乡、城市、国家的存续。

因此，基于血缘、地缘、神缘、共同经历与身份所形成的现代人类社会关系，本质上依然是一种由想象建构的秩序。

这种 “共识感” 是非常重要的，它是人类发展壮大的基础，也是现代社会的稳定根基。


当然，“江西周世蕃” 理解不了这么专业的知识，他只有一个朴素的理念：以夸大的方式，掌握着群体内的第四权力（即正式的行政权、立法权、司法权之外的新闻媒体发布权），从而稳固在群体中的自身地位、享受欺诈他人的特权。

只不过周公子被自己的能力、眼界局限，把大好资源用在了 “骗炮”——有网友曝出，“周世蕃” 以朋友圈炫富方式周游撞骗，四处招惹年轻女性。

但凡你玩过 DND 游戏里的盗贼角色，也知道把技能点加到聆听、侦察、伪装、唬骗，可以干的事情多出太多啊。话说，拿着这么珍贵的脑子干这种贫瘠的炫富，生而为人，你不抱歉？

由此可见：

周世蕃是一个纯粹的人，一个没有道德的人，一个脱离了高级趣味的人。

❸ 炫权炫富是怎么伤害社会的？

网友还从周公子的朋友圈扒出，这个人喜爱读书，但又生怕被别人从书本里学去了什么。

他是如此的 “沉湎学习、无力自拔”，以至于如图片所示，在书本上为桎梏、淫秽等“生僻字” 认真地标注了拼音。

因此，这么 “人菜瘾大” 的劲头，能口无遮拦地“苟利国家生死以”，那是一点都不奇怪的。

以及，他在朋友圈中对 “小镇做题家” 的敌意，也是毫不遮拦。

其实，江西国控集团公布的周家官系谱一点儿也不起眼（仅仅处级干部而已），但他们系统性地盘踞在江西省交通系统内，形成一目了然的裙带关系、利益关联：

周家的发迹，始于省高速集团党委委员、工会主席的大伯。在他之后，二伯和周母进了南昌长运公司；周父进了江西省公路运输管理局客货运输处；三伯进了江西省交通设计院，官至党委副书记…

请问，这是新时代的 “内举不避亲”，还是封建时代“六朝何事, 只成门户私计” 的延续？

在人类历史上，作为社会关系中的底层逻辑之一，家族传承具有特殊意义。这是因为：

人类是一种体能与心智成熟较晚、创造高峰期有限的生物，真正能够利用聪慧的大脑做一番事情的时间很短，因而为后人留下 “遗产” 是一件非常重要的事情。

这其中既包括物质遗产，例如留下财富，供子孙生存与成长，以便继续自己未竟的意愿；也包括精神遗产，例如自己的见解或技能，让后人中的有识之士认同、继承。

我们的祖辈早就认识到，由于种种原因（例如气候、疫病、战乱、社会制度），物资遗产的传承是极其艰难的。所以孟子形容为：

君子之泽，五世而斩；小人之泽，亦五世而斩。

相反，精神遗产的传承相对靠谱，但却容易走调变味。哪怕是家族传承逆天的孔子一系，历代衍圣公中也不乏汉奸出现。

而要把两种传承有机结合起来，那更是难上加难。

这方面，北宋名士范仲淹为国人创造了一个较为优秀的解决方案。

1050 年，曾任参知政事（相当于宰相）的范仲淹宣布，以他全部积蓄在苏州购置 1000 多亩良田，划拨给 “范式义庄”，用于以下用途：

**1，维持族人的基本生活。**例如规定，5 岁以上的族人每月可领白米三斗，每年可领衣料一匹。
**2，维系族群延续的支出。**例如族人婚嫁皆可领取二十贯，丧葬给以二十五贯以内费用。
**3，鼓励开拓族群生存空间。**例如开办族内义塾，对本族子弟免费；族人参加科举予以全额费用补助；族人获取功名外出任职，给予相应的津贴鼓励。

为了防范内部贪污与倾轧，范仲淹规定义庄的财务独立核算，不受族长直接支配，同时义庄的土地不许雇佣本族人耕种，避免出现 “关起门来争遗产” 的糗事。

明眼人可以看出，这基本就是现代家族慈善基金的雏形，说是范氏宗族的 “专项基金” 也毫不为过。

它的优点在于：

一方面，可以保证族人基本生活保障，确保宗族人丁兴旺；另一方面，对子孙后代进行大规模的教育，鼓励不断续地产出社会精英。

事实证明，这一族群生存策略是成功的。例如从宋代到清代，苏州范氏涌现的进士就超过了 60 人，他们为宗族的存续与发展做出了很大贡献：

平庸的家族坐拥财富，难免被 “破家的县令、灭门的府尹” 等豪强势力盯上。正是由于连绵不绝的精英阶层（进士）涌现，周边觊觎的目光才不得不收敛，这才是范式的家族传承得以延续千年的奥秘。

所以说，在族群内部，平庸的个体可以获得繁衍后代的基本所需，并保留了 “子孙变异翻身” 的希望；优秀的个体则获得家族的鼎力支持，在建功立业之后再庇护、反馈家族，这是一个完美的“支持外卷、反对内卷” 的范例。

而在新中国成立尤其是改革开放后，无论是义务教育的推行，还是基本社会保障体系的组建，亦或是扶贫攻坚、共同富裕等 “第三次分配” 的尝试，都是一个升级版的 “范式思维”：

保证全国人民的基本生存条件，从子孙后代中选拔优秀人才，开启健康发展的向上循环。

从这个意义上说，周劼对 “小镇做题家” 的恐惧与仇恨，似乎就容易理解了：

自承 “学渣” 的周劼，利用父辈的资源在全民所有制的国企内攫取资源，德不配位下的诚惶诚恐压得他喘不过气来，故而必须发声壮胆、确立他在系统内的存在感。

而周劼的父辈们齐刷刷地汇集在该省交通体系内，他们是不是真的凭借能力、把握机会的时代菁英？这应该是调查组需要关注的问题。

我们要求起点的公平，拒绝或明或暗的门槛设置，警惕对社会秩序的破坏与践踏，而不仅仅是放出一句 “职级晋升符合有关规定” 完事。

换而言之就是：

进电梯的程序没问题了，再来讨论里面的人到达高处是否符合规定。

❹ 他的处级父辈，与你的残疾二舅

纵观历史，一个国家的优越性，归根到底是基于对制度先进性的自信。百年前无数先烈抛头颅洒热血，可不是为了建立一个世袭罔替、看不到未来的国度。

同理，我国人民对 “共同理念” 的认同，才是防疫政策顺利推进、国民经济复苏增长的根本原因。如果 “由想象建构的秩序” 不再得到认同，又如何做到：

一代人经历衰退，一代人重拾信心。

没错，我说的是泡沫散去之后的日本。


这两天，一部《二舅治好了我的精神内耗》的短视频红遍全网，说实话，我的内心感受是很复杂的：

一方面，我认为苦难从来不值得歌颂，而是需要反思；另一方面，它揭示出在经济下行大环境下，普通人是如何从身边的痛苦中汲取上进力量的。

所以，面对社会不公，普通人自当竭力打好一手烂牌。但上位者也应当考虑如何设计公正有效的制度。

科学哲学家卡尔波普曾问起一个社会问题：

该怎样组织我们的社会结构，使得无能的制度不会造成根本性的伤害？

欢迎参阅全文：

他和他的处级父辈：对周劼炫富案的深度解读​mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=Mzg2NjY2NjU3OQ==&mid=2247487238&idx=1&sn=bf3a388f2320f9f55ae51b6f6d3e2759&chksm=ce461e3af931972c1adce28c9a9b152c535d6e7a953cbcc9c5d290a03ec40480a0580b072b2c&token=1527523580&lang=zh_CN#rd

更多内容请访问公众号将军箭（jiangjunjian31）。左走天堂，右走金盆，弓开弦断, 一往无前。本号关注财经与民生，虽是自娱自乐，仍求立足干货！欢迎关注，欢迎转发！

知乎用户 deemer 发表

我们生活在这个社会几十年了，多多少少都遇到点事，也多多少少知道一些内幕，谁谁谁家的亲戚在哪哪哪工作，把谁谁谁安排到哪哪哪工作。事业编制里有多少是通过关系进去的。很现实，这就是中国特色。哪怕是同样在事业单位，谁能晋升跑的快，大家也心知肚明。你辛辛苦苦追求的，别人可能唾手可得。很多企业的 Pr 部门，都是花钱养着这帮人，因为他们的确有人脉有能力解决企业的问题，在他们圈子，就是一句话，一顿饭的问题。事业单位的隐性收入，社保福利，这些如果公布出来，和他们的劳动付出相比，能气死很多人。

知乎用户 繁体刘 发表

如何防止？

答案是，没有无产阶级专政，就没有一切。

反过来也成立，有无产阶级专政，就拥有了一切。

知乎用户 陈筠子 发表

嗯？

什么叫 “嘚瑟是权力惯出来的臭毛病”？

难道不应该彻查一个国企家庭是怎么攒出这种相对于普通人来说的巨款的吗？

难道不应该彻查他和他炫耀的那些人脉中有没有不正当交易吗？

意思是不嘚瑟，默默的凭借关系和省长市长打成一片，默默的用各种手段获得超出普通人的财富就是正确的呗？

我想起来个事，飞机上，经济舱是看不见商务舱和头等舱的，哪怕是小飞机也会用帘子隔着。

嗯，只要不嘚瑟就可以了。

知乎用户 也不过是仰望 发表

有关部门能不能搞清楚

现在的问题不是要怎么防止炫耀的情况发生

而是要整治下某些 “权力世家” 动用手中的一切资源，为自己和自己的家族谋取巨额福利的情况

一般反腐败反的都是表层现象——有没有受贿，资产和工资所得是否相符

但是，新时代的反腐应该要往更深的层次去深挖——如何杜绝权力滥用的问题

权力滥用很难找侦查，但是至少我觉得，可以先从这个事件入手，整治一下直系亲属都在一个部门工作、权力在各个家族成员里互相勾结的异常情况

立法要求公务员不能直接在直系亲属手下工作应该是可行的吧

知乎用户 哗哗呱呱 发表

“有特权？没问题，别让屁民知道就行”

这三观都歪到天上去了

知乎用户 周欣宇 发表

两件事。

一件是，根本不是炫耀的问题，而是他为什么有炫耀这个的资本

另一件是，要是不能炫耀权力，金钱，那该多无趣啊。

知乎用户 苦昼短 发表

众生平等


知乎用户 守望者​ 发表

这个人是假的，但他描绘的事是真实存在的，所以官媒们急了。

最玩味的是，明明江西有关部门已经以最快速度公布 “真相”，但我们“理客中” 代表官媒们所总结出的居然是“不要瞎炫耀，让外面那群无裤套汉们看见了可不好。”

大概在他们眼里，中式无裤套汉们是最温顺，易驯服的群体了。只要蒙住他们眼睛，堵住他们耳朵。便可 “江山永固”。

知乎用户 卡卡 发表

老百姓已经麻木了。

哪个礼拜没有 “打虎” 的消息？之前的 “老虎” 贪污个百万，就已经民怨沸腾了，现在千万不叫事儿，上亿才瞩目。

部级领导贪污个上亿有之、地方芝麻官搞个 “小目标” 也有之。不管是官大官小，反正数目上你追我赶的，都很惊人。

房屋、汽车、这种藏都藏不住的东西，以前都不敢多搞。现在，老虎们没有 10 栋以上都不好意思跟人打招呼；哈尔滨那位，名车居然整了上百辆。

就中央曝光的这些个老虎，哪一个不是长年贪腐的？一，两年能整到这种规模？

哪一个地市又是没有纪检部门的？好像没有一个。

纪录片里的每一个案例，都用了 “触目惊心”、“目无法纪”、“贪墨成风” 等等词语，基本上一半以上案例，都有瞒上欺下，民怨沸腾等情况。换言之，违法违纪行为早已有之，有的甚至是半公开的情况。

这问题就来了，他们是怎么持续这么多年，还步步高升的？

发现问题，却不研究真正解决问题的办法，任由它反复发生。一次两次的大家还能理解，长此以往，还怎么取信于民？这种问题问出来，大家又怎么能不觉得讽刺？

人们不禁要想，当一只老虎要大到危害一方、白骨遍地时才能被发现，那这到底是在 “养虎” 还是在“打虎”？

具体该怎么做可参考的已经太多了：香港、新加坡、欧洲、美国等等都有很多可以借鉴的制度。

还需要问这个问题吗？

知乎用户 Tiny Rick 发表

我说嘛，经济观察报不会这么刚嘛，原来是侠客岛。

知乎用户 梓非鱼​ 发表

引入种姓制度，

不通婚、不社交、无交集。

高种姓可以在内部炫耀，

可以偷着乐，

别给低种姓看到，

省得击碎玻璃心。

知乎用户 returnNull 发表

听我说，谢谢你，因为有你温暖了四季。

你说什么?

大声点儿?

什么防止?

你说什么?

防止?

啊?

防止?

止?

?

知乎用户 编乎空话的太多 发表

要不是周某这些主动 “坑爹”“坑老公” 的人，一些问题线索可能还会隐蔽更久。面对送上门来的“自我举报”，在全国舆论注视下，当地有关部门需要认真查一查，真正依法依规、有理有据地回应社会关切。如果能顺藤摸瓜查实更多问题，以此为契机整顿一下当地干部作风、官场生态，那就更好了。

“虽然不公平确实存在，但它们是这个国家最坚定的打击目标，我们社会里没有它们放肆嚣张的余地，它们是夹着尾巴被不断驱赶的状态。中国不是首富可以在市中心盖一幢几十层大楼当自己家、公然蔑视全城人感受的印度，也不是漫山遍野贫民窟环抱着一个精致市中心的巴西，中国对公平的追求是奋力、持久并且百折不回的。

江西那个人在我看来就像个梦游者，但这个梦游者却在很多人眼里是活灵活现的，它反映的是公众对不公平的高度敏感。这样的敏感代表了民意的一个永恒方向。官方切不可惧怕、抵触这样的民意方向，而要与它融合，成为它最具行动力的一部分。”

知乎用户 张导​ 发表

问题并不是炫耀

钱如果是合法合理挣来的当然你炫耀没问题

而是作为体系内的人员哪里合法合理来的钱呢？

知乎用户 狗吉狗吉​​ 发表

这才几年就忘了殷切叮咛

闷声＊＊＊

还是不能忘了学习

知乎用户 sinux 发表

核心是得瑟吗？是阶级

知乎用户 某某 发表

给所有的他们这种人拉个群，互相炫耀呗。

别让我这种普通人看着糟心。

虽然我知道这种事情避免不了，但我没见到就可以当没有。

总不能好处占了，心理上也占吧。

知乎用户 停止减重的馋嘴 发表

当年说民主集中制优势的时候，估计没少拿西方选票政治的毛病说事，不管是前几年还是现在，提起所谓的 “西方民主” 都得有人吐一口唾沫，“旋转门”靠不住！

现在官媒见了个年轻公务员，搁朋友圈自言自语炫富（说实话单看有点精神病那味了），事无巨细的说自己生活日常，得出来了一个比万有引力定律还伟大的结论: 公权力不要炫耀。

看见公权力滥用就永远是这一副经典装白痴: 诶呀，小年轻不懂事，年轻气盛想炫耀，下次记得收敛点。不知道的以为这公务员是人民大众的小女友呢，时不时得抽风测一下大家是不是还在乎它，得故意犯犯错。

如果不是这位把朋友圈当呈堂证供的主，怎么能清晰认识到现在真实情况的一角呢？

这个时代已经注定是所有职业神圣光环消失的时代，也是阶级开始明显世袭化的时代。

知乎用户 梦古寻 发表

20 万的茶叶你可以喝，但是你喝了还要发出来，这是不对的，人家掏空的只是国资，又不是其他人的，和普通人也没什么关系，你该不会以为国资人人有份吧！

知乎用户 林深见鹿 er 发表

三个字，烂透了。

知乎用户 阿明​ 发表

福利都给国企跟体制内，难怪人民都这么难过，好日子还在后头呢！

知乎用户 无者 发表

解决方法很简单：

官员财产公开

知乎用户 笑一笑 0258 发表

作为一个 “行不能惊世骇俗”、“言无法振聋发聩” 的屌丝，注定一辈子只能是博主 “衣戈猜想” 笔下的“二舅”，这不也挺好的吗？——在 66 岁之际出名了。

知乎用户 AA 普罗大众​​ 发表

有没有一种可能，纪委同志的工作量小了很多，这个是现成的资料

知乎用户 赞美猴小猴​ 发表

数字人民币取代纸币，由 Ai 监控货币流向，全国各企业数据通联 Ai，大数据分析，有问题的直接记录后公开向法院发出电子传票。只有机器才会没感情。中央指令可以贯彻到每一个人。中央的利益与全国人民利益一致。

知乎用户 五利 发表

如果领导的儿子真的是傻子要不要安排工作?

从集体利益的角度来看应该是要的，这点好处都不给谁给你拼命?

但是为了降低风险就应该把傻儿子安排到边缘部门隔离起来，饿不死就行了。但是在这次的事件里居然让这种人接触资源实际参与工作，这对组织是没法交待的。

知乎用户 带带小向晚 发表

当一群成年人集体装蠢，只能说明这帮人根本不想解决这个问题。

知乎用户 零武安 发表

全都对得上

知乎用户 fir 发表

国投和省投多有钱老百姓基本上没概念。

知乎用户 水户洋平​​ 发表

只有我觉得人家炫耀没啥错吗？你之所以会酸人家，不就是比不上吗？那就更应该努力奋斗！如果没人炫富，你怎么知道你和别人的差距有这么大？你大概会认为所有人都是和你一样穷的吧，这不就是坐井观天吗？

任何人想要进步，就得时刻清醒，明白差距，保持紧迫感，否则你就会活在自己的世界故步自封。看看这两年盛行的躺平，颓废思潮，我觉得真需要有人炫富把年轻人打醒了！人家这还只是在网上炫耀而已，你就受不了了？要搁清末，人家就打过来了！再比如美国整天炫耀武力，难道我们还能求美国别炫耀了，照顾我们的自尊心不成？

知乎用户 魔电龙枪 发表

你是想要夺权？

知乎用户 Yuxuan Deng 发表

闷骚就对了，显摆干什么！

知乎用户 刺猬手套 发表

不装了呗

承认有权的人就是在过着荣华富贵的生活，不提艰苦朴素的作风了。

强调的是 “炫耀” 是“臭毛病”，并不觉得这些炫耀的事本身有问题。

大家都打开天窗说亮话。

毕竟：

知乎用户 蛤蟆的油 发表

王羲之虽然出身名门，但是王家大宅就修在琅琊郡城内，周围除了其他说得上名的小世族，更多的是在周围耕作的农户。

王羲之小时候就爱看鹅，整天在下人的前呼后拥下去河边看大鹅，这看鹅也就算了，经常是看鹅的之后，他手下的小厮们给他端岭南茶，打着亭子一样大的遮阳盖，还要周围的民女陪她助兴。

一来二去，农妇们想在河边洗个衣服都费劲，于是事情闹到琅琊郡官府。郡长官不敢得罪王家，但也怕百姓聚众，于是就私下里给王家说了这件事。

王羲之的老爹对着围攻王家的民众说:“我儿子奢靡风气，都是我惯出来的，我会负责给他改正的。” 民众慢慢散去。

但是问题还是要解决的，王羲之老爸用手段兼并了自家宅子外面的五亩农田，把围墙修过去，在这里挖水池，养鹅，还花钱半拐半买琅琊郡未出嫁的少女在此伺候王羲之看鹅练字。大家再也看不到王羲之出门了，心里一阵欢呼。

知乎用户 青冥 发表

炫耀没毛病，顶多是个人素养。

炫耀的内容才是重点，媒体们不要转移焦点。

知乎用户 lilisteam 发表

防止不了的，不要再抱有幻想了，但是也不能太悲观，毕竟现在可以删帖子，禁言，还有白衣战士等物理消音手段，后续发展很值得期待。

知乎用户 weiheishao 发表

个人理解，东方社会（泛指亚洲，尤其东亚东南亚的很多国家例如马来西亚、新加坡），还没从皇权走出来。
官权，或说公权，是 “公家” 权力，服务大家的，不是皇权，大家服务的。马来西亚前首相纳吉布，贪赃枉法经法庭裁定有罪，入狱 12 年，但获缓刑，直到上诉完结（上诉庭也判定有罪了，现在等候最高法院判决），所以还逍遥法外。这段时间，其支持者还尊称之“bossku（我的大老板）"，口号“malu apa bossku（老板，我们没什么觉得可耻的）”，俨然把他当成政治受害者，这就是马来西亚人虽号称民主治国，但心态上还长久活在崇拜官家权力的结果。

这样的地方，手握公权力，就会有当官我最大的心态，绝对还活在皇权下的愚民惯出来的。

知乎用户 大肥懒猫 发表

他炫是想证明他有

你不让他炫是不想让他把有的东西亮出来

不亮就不存在嘛

有但不炫，就没有阶级差别了嘛

大家听劝哈，只要大家都低调

就没有富人，就没有特权

就能共同富裕

大家低调一点没有什么不好，还有利于社会团结

知乎用户 王二 发表

权力腐败才是社会乱象的根源！

知乎用户 神兔二象性​ 发表

奉劝各级领导干部，管好自己和身边人，要知道权力不是用来炫耀的。必须谨慎用好手中权力。别到最后被打回原形

好好看，好好学

知乎用户 你管我叫啥 发表

如果我很穷，收入低，疾病缠身但没有钱看病，孩子上学凑不到学费。但我说我生活很幸福。这样说了会不会遭到有关部门的调查？说我得瑟？甚至取消我的低保资格？虽然都是假话，但周某人说的还有点依据，我说的就纯粹胡说八道，那么是不是我比他错误更大？可我经常这样说过，现在怎么办？

知乎用户 老头 发表

建议不要防止。

放在明面上，总比暗搓搓的要好。

知乎用户 Ree He 发表

问题不是杜绝炫耀，而是加强权力约束和民主监督。

知乎用户 Christ​ 发表

嘚瑟是获得权利后突发的臭毛病

但凡他的朋友圈多几个厅局级领导的孩子（打小生活在这个圈子），也不会这样。

我想说什么呢？

我想说，我们也就指着这跳梁小丑骂一骂了。深渊中潜伏着的庞然大物，我们都知道很多，也知道很恶，我们不知道多多，不知道多恶。不敢去招惹。

唉

知乎用户 Shine 行 发表

国企私有化

知乎用户 莫轻染 发表

经济观察报啊

那没事了。

知乎用户 汪小狗 发表

官员孩子没考上公务员，一气之下去了沿海工厂打螺丝，下班了还送外卖，干了十年，回到自己的三线小县城交够首付，拿着房产证在新家里拍照炫耀，他说一万遍老子真牛逼，我也给他点赞。

知乎用户 阿卜杜拉 发表

老胡智慧。不同老胡言，吃亏在眼前。

知乎用户 将运动进行到底 发表

特权阶级不是毛病，得瑟才是毛病？

知乎用户 林灰原 发表

防？你让谁防？怎么防？他们自己防自己？即得利益者会防那些不得利者和不是他们集团内的人，这个才是他们主动防的！制度有了却没有用，这个才是国家要防的！

知乎用户 木森林 发表

帝国主义也许被打倒了，但是封建主义和官僚资本主义则未必。

知乎用户 遣龙治水 发表

围着粪坑打苍蝇，真打一万年？

里面烂透了，为什么经过了当下这些年，把盖子稍微揭开一点，还是臭不可闻呢？

二舅不是人，成了赞美苦难的摆件，那这位周劼能算吹哨人，“戴罪立功” 吗？

知乎用户 西山绅士 发表

这么说吧

我同学进了国企

第一个要求就是别乱发东西（生活有关的也不能乱发）。

里面的水很深

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

意思就是可以滥用权力，但不要说出来

知乎用户 你竟然偷拍本宝 发表

重点是炫耀，而不是为什么他能获得，且合法性正当的应当是不证自明的？

知乎用户 快乐四剑飘 发表

鼓励多炫耀，否则我们还不知道国企领导过的是啥天上人间的好日子。鼓励国企一切福利待遇工资透明化。

知乎用户 月咏 发表

所以奉劝各级领导干部，管好自己和身边人，要知道权力是党和人民给的，是用来为国家社会做事的，不是用来炫耀的。必须谦虚谨慎、兢兢业业，用好手中权力。别到最后被打回原形才发现，没了权力，你啥都不是。

知乎用户 WhosPiPi 发表

有没有一种可能中国人的苦日子不是美国造成的

有没有一种可能只要把蛀虫清一清大多数中国人就不用活的这么累了

知乎用户 乐子人 发表

这新闻太搞笑了。

老百姓的不满是，“凭什么他们有，我们没有，说好的公平呢！”

媒体的关注点是，“瞎炫耀什么，闷声发大财不行吗？”

一言概之，拥有没错，炫耀不对。

知乎用户 毛宁​​ 发表

有些是嘚瑟，有些是耿直

你的调查结果能够反映出是嘚瑟还是耿直，这叫权力

当所有的炫耀查出来都是嘚瑟，这或许才是权力惯出来的臭毛病

知乎用户 圆桌骑士 发表

今天晚上的瓜，说的是江西省国有资本运营控股集团有限公司的普通员工周某，在朋友圈高调炫富，20 万一斤的高档茶叶、1200 一条高档烟样样都有，还炫耀自己的家族权力，爸爸是局长、大伯和三伯也身居高位，没想到被截图转发，彻底社死坑了整个家族。

下面就让我们来看看，具体是怎么回事。

首先要声明的是，这件事情吃瓜箘在 7 月 21 日也就是上周四，就第一时间知道了。当时觉得匪夷所思，于是按下不表，决定让子弹飞一会。万万没想到的是，昨天官二代所在的国企，发布公告，证实了此事，并表示将进一步核查。

既然是真事，那么就让我们来看看这位官二代周公子的表演，看看他是如何坑了自己的权势家族。

炫耀单位牛逼，非副厅级干部家的小孩，压根进不来，还炫耀自己在某交友网上找那种长时间，女友。

周公子痛斥自己的学霸同学，名校研究生又怎么样，光靠读书可以飞天？还不是进不来我的单位，到头来不如我这个学渣。


炫耀自己的父亲高升，同时暗示家族里的大伯、三伯都是位高权重人士。

副省长递烟，1200 块钱一条，想买还买不到，让戒烟三个月的他激动的发了一条朋友圈炫耀。

跟单位一把手吃饭，把自己和父亲比喻成奸臣父子，没文化真可怕。

办公室主任帮忙调风口，发朋友圈炫耀几次，还顺带暴露了自己的工作单位。

每天吃不完的饭局，周公子已经记不得跟谁吃过，只记得跟谁没吃过。

喝 20 万一斤的茶叶，2002 年的白毫银针，这一杯下去怎么也要千把块钱了。

炫耀去省政府开会，顺带着显摆了家里不差钱，自己不缺奢侈品。

迟到两个小时，这么不守信用的行为，居然还能发朋友圈出来，理由居然是陪原单位的老领导喝茶？！既然这么忙，那还约妹子出来干嘛呢。

一下午见三波人，既有上市公司董事长，也有银行行长，这行程堪比厅局级干部，谁知道只是个国企普通员工。

搞了半天，周公子的老爸不是厅级干部，而是以前的运管局司机出身。

不过他的大伯比较牛，妥妥的局级领导干部了。大伯，国企党委委员；三伯，国企人力资源总监；老爸，国企四级调研员。一家子都是高速公路的好领导，却出了这么一个坑爹不成器的儿子，把家族势力要给坑死了。

今天晚上就这样吧，各位瓜粉身边有没有类似的官二代，欢迎来评论区留言点评。

知乎用户 mr yuan 发表

我觉得，对于这些子女的炫耀，大家应该多点赞，多支持，多转发。

嗯，能帮纪委的就这么多了。

知乎用户 周勋小号​ 发表

个别现象，大多数在国企或者公务员的人，都是很有敏感性的。

几年前中央出了八项规定，稍微明白点的都自觉少分享朋友圈的吃喝玩乐，基层公务员的朋友圈基本只分享读书心得和行业政策。

这两年经济形势不好，基本懂点风向的也都表现出一种岁月静好的意思。

有点福利三瓜两枣就迫不及待怕别人不知道的，要么是愣头青，要么是土豹子当惯了

知乎用户 最爱豆汁​ 发表

我没看懂。

自己在自己朋友圈下面自言自语是啥意思？

知乎用户 乘风破浪的爷爷​ 发表

总有不少先富，打着无产阶级的旗号，领导着家奴，对后富们进行打压。

有的以正义之名。

然后很多无产阶级还很吃这套。

舆论和风向都在他们手里。

有点钢蹦的多说几句都得被拍死。

然后他们继续富，继续正义，看着无产阶级和小富们掐架吵成一团。

虽然挺好的，就是还有点别扭。

毕竟我们那时候户口都不让落，明明家就在那里。

为了保持企业子弟身份，都不让进。

现在责任一推当初没这事，当时可是卡着不让我们落来着。

后来国家出了社区政策，才把户口落下。

因为家里单位的户口是在编户口，这边不让落说违规，家里附近还落不下。

你说人有多坏？

这不是故意的是什么？

有些嘴巴歪的，总笑话上面政策好，下面执行歪了这句话。

难道不是吗？

上面查环保，可没让地方卖洒水机给农民，让他们一边收麦一边洒水吧？

利用政策敛财层层加码，疫情隔离还指定酒店加倍收费。

这难道也是上面政策里规定的？

知乎用户 号被资本家封了​ 发表

哈哈哈，臭毛病，真是轻描淡写啊

知乎用户 深蓝 123 发表

陈胜一句 “王侯将相，宁有种乎” 揭开了农民起义的序幕，从古至今这句话激励了一代又一代的人。

纵观周某晒出的内容，无外乎就是认识了多少 “达官贵人”，自己如何在权力的场域里游刃有余，并且日常享受到非一般人所能企及的财富与奢华。

这种炫的方式是最原始、粗暴的，因而可能也是最真实的。

一方面，他晒出这一切，或许说明他深信他所晒的及其背后所展示的某些逻辑，是很多人羡慕而又难以企及的，并且是可以在现实世界中通行的；另一方面，这些内容一被放置于舆论放大镜之下就引发广泛围观，也说明他朋友圈所展示的那个让人愤怒的 “世界”，很可能还原了不少人心中对现实世界的一种真实投射。

每次类似事件发生后，虽然舆论层面都是追问真相，并希望真相背后的与腐败、权钱交易相关的责任人得到严惩。但与此同时，另一种声音也会响起，那就是将这种怪诞之象的出现归咎为某个人 “太高调” 了，甚至大有 “怒其不争” 之叹。

这种复杂的舆论心态背后，或许说明至少相当部分人依然认为，在我们所追问的公平、正义的另一面，依然有一个如周某的朋友圈所展示的，无比坚硬的现实世界。

所以，一个社会中有一小撮人乐于炫富、秀权，其实并不是最可怕的。更值得每个人深思的是，这个社会的多数人，在内心里如何看待它。

知乎用户 职场时言 发表

如何防止此类现象发生？

以后国企公司每年召开一次大会，大会的主题是 “猥琐发育，别浪”。

知乎用户 abcdefg 发表

就是告诉那些先富的人，要闷声发大财，好吃好喝就算了，不要发出来给牛马知道了，线上给你们普及，线下肯定也会在开大会说的。

知乎用户 锋刃上的舞者 发表


知乎用户 世民李二 发表

如何杜绝，当然杜绝不了，毕竟，劣根性真的很要命。

比如说，某学生组织——学生会。

在一场大活动结束以后，除了一堆参演人员晒自己的美照以外，还会冒出来一堆学生干部晒自己的福利——学院提供的工作餐、自己部门剩下的物料、老师随手分发的小物件…… 以秀优越感。

无一不显露的得瑟，在即将进入社会的大学生身上就已经体现出来了。真的很悲伤。

还是在校学生呢，还只是学生会的部长、主席呢，就已经自我膨胀了…… 真的很恐怖。

防止此类现象发生的办法，似乎是提高个人觉悟？

毕竟，就学校里而言，不是所有学生干部都不可一世的——不才任职校广播站站长，和学生会在某些方面平行的部门。但，除了对应负责老师，没有其他人知道。

办活动也不会刻意刷存在感，到处借机自吹自擂，活动结束后默默整理一片狼藉后就和大部队一起撤离，该归还的归还，不捡漏、不占为己有。

毕竟，因为一贯的低调…… 并且，心怀敬畏吧。

不论是在学校或是步入社会，任何取得的小进步，哪有什么值得大肆宣扬的。

看着校广播站里其他几个所谓部长，咋咋呼呼地炫耀一些微不足道的东西，真的看起来很肤浅。

看着其他人的炫耀和显摆，真的很肤浅。

知乎用户 一只猫脑袋 发表

胡老两月前就高瞻远瞩的劝官员要低调行事，真是不听老人言，吃亏在眼前！

知乎用户 得闲搞基 发表

总结：你可以有权有钱有势，你可以在巨大贫富差距的顶端，但你要低调，不要让底层贱民人和人的差距如此巨大，不然他们会造反。

知乎用户 JET SU 发表

为什么要防止这类事情发生？这不得多加鼓励鼓励？

知乎用户 炎阳 发表

所以暗示你们不要嘚瑟，闷声发大财

知乎用户 狗头教主 发表

所以也就是说，媒体已经默认，事儿是真事儿，但不能往外说？

知乎用户 月神的兔子 发表

不嘚瑟？

都像这样？

每天吃面条？

那有啥意思啊…

知乎用户 嘿你好 发表

有权不嘚瑟，难道没权嘚瑟吗，哈哈哈哈

知乎用户 sk 邵楷 发表

从上到下，权利遗传，家族产业，门阀政治……

不用避免，只要别让底层屌丝看见就行了！

知乎用户 开悟也晚​ 发表

为什么不让他炫，他不炫我还不知道……..

知乎用户 死海 发表

看到没，人家仍然认为这次事件最大的错误是 “嘚瑟”。

放弃幻想吧。

知乎用户 乱扔果皮的人 发表

加强网络审核。

知乎用户 华叶 发表

从上到下

你一个也防不了

本来是两个世界的人

结果就因为这互联网

应该再建一道墙

百姓看不到 “精英” 们不想让看到的一切

这样皆大欢喜

知乎用户 我们去流浪吧 发表

阶级固化、权力家族化越来越严重！

知乎用户 美资知乎 发表

避重就轻和稀泥的高手。

知乎用户 ma littler 发表

如何防止此类现象发生？

防止什么发生？防止炫耀还是防止社会资源分配不公？

如果是为了防止炫耀，大可不必，这是他们父母的责任，让他们操心去。

社会的责任是防止权利被寻租，防止社会资源分配中的不公平，防止领导干部违法违规。

知乎用户 俨哥谈管理​ 发表

没办法的。

1】上行下效，榜样的力量是无穷的。

2】上行下效，父母是孩子最好的榜样。

3】笑贫不笑娼，炫富始终都是某些的特权，优越感能够产生多巴胺。

4】后继有人，子子孙孙无穷匮也。

真的没办法的，别费心劳力，多为国家民众想想吧，祖国的强大有自己一点点贡献，都是很幸福的事情，能够产生很多很多的多巴胺。

知乎用户 小黑与八戒 发表

没有这样的傻儿子，圈内的美好生活还不会被这么多屁民知晓的

知乎用户 贝德服饰集团 发表

为啥不能炫，下面人家不好好的

知乎用户 ORGIN 发表

这哪是跟你站一起呀？

这是以一个过来人的身份告诉某些人低调一点，发财可以别漏富，是吧。

知乎用户 长风弦歌 发表

这是嘚瑟吗？这是人家实实在在的生活陈述啊，少转移注意力

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

把权力关进笼子

知乎用户 galex 发表

好话不妨说，坏事不妨做，勿使喧哗可矣。

知乎用户 知行 发表

要我说这事真不赖权力，一个国企普通职工的权力算个啥啊，这人纯属是不知天高地厚 + 心理有点缺陷 + 心眼不够

知乎用户 爱吃葱的大咸鱼 发表

嘚瑟只是让权利的所得有所暴露而已，权利轻易攫取财富，权利相互勾连并俨然以变种的形式开始世袭才应该是我们关注且官方该解决的吧。权利时不时地就会任性一下，意思只要不嘚瑟，随意任性，随意传承？

貌似家族传承已然成了权利者的职责和使命，那……

知乎用户 巫野 发表

是不是应该这么理解，有权力默默嗨，闷头发大财就行，别喊出来让那帮奴隶知道，整天唧唧歪歪的不停。

知乎用户 麦客法兰 发表

挺好呀，支持

知乎用户 转眄流精 发表

为什么要防止？

知乎用户 半份天空 发表

防止不了，老胡都说了，要低调

知乎用户 后来 发表

防止啥啊？我们也没空天天盯着的好吧，比如盯着每次编制考试公示名单，谁谁谁谁走特殊通道，直接入选。再比如谁谁谁谁要搞五十台宾利车。

应该加强纪委查处力度，治深层次的病

知乎用户 娃哈哈可乐 发表

人民监督

知乎用户 李江 发表

世袭啦

知乎用户 树熊的大树 发表

允许它存在，却不允许它炫耀？

知乎用户 洺之 发表

你可以吃山珍海味，龙肝凤肉，但不要嘴里吧唧吧唧。

知乎用户 照妖镜 发表

权力惯出来的毛病是贪污腐败，不是让奴隶们知道自己的主人生活有多么奢华

知乎用户 silhouette 发表

侠客岛应该是有背景的

与胡一样

立场有问题

现在感觉已经与群众脱节了

民众关心的世袭问题与上升通道封闭，关心的是公平

这些官方代言人关心的是闷声发大财，不要吧唧嘴

不要连累到其他即得利益者

这出戏接下去怎么演

知乎用户 陈国辉 发表

“人民公仆” 为人民服务光荣

为什么不能炫耀

知乎用户 mkbk 发表

就是告诫这些皇子皇孙和贵族们，以后偷着乐，别让工农联盟知道

知乎用户 白城子 发表

06 年的 600 万和现在的 600 万房产是一个意思吗

知乎用户 皮布格鲁 发表

让这些潜在实权者多培养点家庭意识吧！

倒也是见过一些父辈为人谦虚优秀，凭真实才干位居高位的。可孩子不仅是扶不上墙的阿斗，还经常给兢兢业业老实肯干的父辈不停制造麻烦，让父亲的一辈子努力都付诸东流的人。

这一切都是命吧。

不过也说明了一个道理，一个人如果想走得长远，光靠自己是不行的。

所以不能总为事业而付出，也需要为家庭付出一点。

不然，小祖宗可能花一两年就能把老祖宗几十年的事业断送得一干二净，还名垂前十（热榜）。

知乎用户 大粒子​ 发表

大清亡了，八旗还在。

知乎用户 站直了别趴下 发表

不如资本主义

知乎用户 慕斯 发表

我希望这样的人多嘚瑟一下，更加高调，有利于十八大以来的反腐工作。

知乎用户 天道 发表

嘚瑟 、权力小小任性 、坑。 严肃的问题娱乐化拟人化，这就是中国

知乎用户 何来浪漫 发表

没办法杜绝，

也没办法阻止此类事件增多，

至少现在不能。

知乎用户 橘子橙 发表

这不是贪污腐败？媒体真是一条狗

知乎用户 EX 咖喱棒 发表

所以应该低调，是吗？

知乎用户 带薪休假 发表

你是问防止炫耀现象发生吗？你这问题可真好

去跟那些拍照时候捂手表，挡皮带的领导们多学习，就能防止了

知乎用户 Bryan 丶​ 发表

党员干部的屁股歪了

知乎用户 unimouman 发表

又是什么 “毛病” 又是什么“权力小小的任性”

哪个傻缺媒体说的啊，这是违法，违法懂吗，要有期徒刑的，要没收财产的

知乎用户 预言下一秒 发表

嘿 嘿 傻嗨们醒一醒

许可馨这么快就忘记了？有处理结果？有反馈？

许多事情是自己选择的，双向奔赴罢了

你选的嘛 偶像

知乎用户 浮生书梦​ 发表

所以有钱人炫耀嘚瑟是没问题的

小红书抖音微博一堆女网红炫耀是没问题的

只不过因为他是国企的，所以倒了霉

知乎用户 老猪佩奇 发表

如果是合法得来的，凭什么不能炫耀

知乎用户 猛男 发表

避重就轻。

师爷装糊涂的高手。

有问题的从来不是炫耀。

……

二代真是让老爷们操碎了心呀。

知乎用户 魔幻元年 发表

我说我杀人不眨眼，你问我你眼睛干不干！

搞笑了，这就是媒体人关注的点吗？不防止特权贪腐，防止特权嘚瑟是吗？

媒体其实是想温馨提醒特权者低调点，少嘚瑟，别再让老百姓发现了，要不然一次罚酒三杯，茅台都不够喝了！

知乎用户 月汐岩 发表

不应该杜绝炫耀应该鼓励炫耀，真金不怕火炼，是你能得到的，不是你能得到的炫耀出来大家看看就知道了。

知乎用户 难喝的玉屏风颗粒 发表

哪怕是真的，你也不可以到处说

知乎用户 流洛 发表

资本惯出来的臭毛病也没见媒体评啊 双标媒体。

知乎用户 严炜 发表

为啥说权力呢，他貌似也没有啥权力吧，家族集团开后门权力到时该好好查查，钱财房产能公示吗？

财产累积像马云那样没人说啥，比尔盖茨在 IBM 有人也正常。像强东创业发家致富过年每人发钱也没问题，撕葱炫富飘网红也就一酸有个好爹。

可他，周吉力，是一个既得利益群体的一个泡沫花啊，民族伟大复兴，大多数牛马，被默默开除族籍了

知乎用户 了无痕​ 发表

有没有一种可能: 在他们的交际圈（权二代）内，大家都是这样牟取利益的，所以在他们的认知里，这并没有什么问题。

知乎用户 徐徐探索 发表

谁几把看

今天晚上就去抽 1200 的烟，然后抽烟视频发到群里让所有群友夸我牛逼 x 必

知乎用户 简中互联网贱民 发表

尽情的装 b 自有人给擦屁股

知乎用户 带来奇迹的杨 发表

重罚那个截屏曝光的人。

知乎用户 糖宝奶贝 发表

现在的媒体居然找不到真正的问题所在，悲哀，悲哀

知乎用户 暗影​ 发表

“要低调”

知乎用户 小爬爬 发表

敲骨吸髓还他妈吧唧嘴是权力惯出来的臭毛病

以后一定要防止他们吧唧嘴

知乎用户 hg thy 发表

这种人越多越好，让这些底层的韭菜清醒一点！贫富悬殊是最好的避孕药！

知乎用户 陈果​ 发表

自己监督自己是最好的

知乎用户 Allen 发表

国企央企的人都怎么进去的？这玩意儿就是玄学。小镇做题家 985 本科硕士可能进去一部分，然后发现家属大专二本干着更轻松的岗位！！这玩意儿怎么解决？

知乎用户 hunter518 发表

国企咋了，谁还不是个国企了。

我中建还是央企呢。

我一年在项目待 350 天，做的都是几个亿的项目，你看我炫耀了么。

年轻人，一点都不知道低调。

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

7 月 27 日凌晨，江西省国有资本运营控股集团有限公司（简称江西国控集团）通报了对周劼朋友圈言论核查情况，宣布其已停职、配合调查，并回应了社会关切的几点问题。
都视频原创
，赞 344
通报梳理——
其一，周劼并无所谓 “深厚背景”，其父亲为四级调研员，母亲及几个伯父均已退休：
周劼本人出生于 1994 年，为江西国控集团股权管理部员工。
周劼之父现任江西省综合交通运输事业发展中心货运物流处四级调研员，曾任原江西省公路运输管理局客货运输处副主任科员、主任科员，2020 年 9 月晋升为四级调研员，机构改革后转隶到江西省综合交通运输事业发展中心任现职。经核，周父职级晋升符合有关规定。
周劼之母为南昌长运公司客运五分公司原副经理，2017 年退休。
周劼大伯为江西省高速集团原党委委员、工会主席，2012 年退休；二伯为南昌长运公司原职工，2017 年退休；三伯为江西省交通设计院原党委副书记，2021 年退休。
其二，周劼的家庭资产情况：
经查不动产权证和付款凭证，周劼本人及父母名下共计住房 6 套、总面积 705㎡，在 2006 年至 2022 年间先后购得，购入总价 654.7556 万元；商铺 2 个、总面积约 82.71㎡、购入总价 191.16 万元。其中，贷款 253 万元。
其三，周劼的多条朋友圈为编造：
经核实，周劼出于个人炫耀，不存在某省领导给他递香烟的事情。
周劼经常到绿湖豪城某茶叶店喝茶，据店主介绍，该店自营业以来价格最高的茶叶不超过 6800 元 / 斤，所发 “20 万元一斤的茶叶” 言论也是其虚荣心所致。
江西国控集团表示，下一步将根据有关情况和线索，继续深入调查，依法依规处理并及时公布。
Article
EID
Economic and Industrial Democracy Voice in French corporate
1-27
OThe Author(s) 2017 training: A critical issue in
Reprints and permissions: http://sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/014383 IX17704311 developing employee capability
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/eid
SSAGE
Dilip Subramanian Neoma Business School, France
Bénédicte Zimmermann
École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, France
Abstract
The article discusses the impact of organizational configurations on employees’ training capabilities. Inspired by the capability approach, it uses qualitative data to question under what organizational conditions firms in France provide their employees with the opportunities and means to participate not just in training programmes, but in those programmes they have reason to value. The results suggest the existence of three different training models - skill-updating, skill-developing and capability-enhancing - depending on the choice processes involved, the importance they accord to employee agency, and the training outcomes. While human resource policies offering training opportunities are important in French organizations, enabling indivi dual capability ultimately depends on employee participation schemes. The article further argues that this goal cannot be achieved through collective voice alone; in vocational training, individual voice plays an equally central role.
Keywords
Capability, France, participation, skills, vocational training, voice
Introduction
Continuing vocational training appears to be a pillar of the ‘knowledge society’ champi- oned by European political authorities (Commission of the European Communities, 2000). Associated with skill development, economic competitiveness and individual employability, it is assumed to improve employees’ adaptability and sense of initiative,
Corresponding author:
Dilip Subramanian, Neoma Business School, Mont-Saint-Aignan, 76825, France. Email: dilip.subramanian@neoma-bs.fr
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
and thereby enhance organizational performance, a source of competitive advantage for the firm (Vargas-Hernandez, 2010). Company-based training studies therefore mainly focus on how individual skills affect organizational capabilities, also referred to as ‘dynamic capabilities’, meaning the capacity of an organization to adapt to a changing environment (Easterby-Smith et al., 2009; Teece, 2007). Less emphasis is placed on how the organization contributes to shape individuals’ training capabilities.
Numerous studies examine the beneficiaries of training and its end results (e.g. Aguinis and Kraiger, 2009; Albert et al., 2010; Asplund, 2005; Bassanini et al., 2007). However, scholarship tends to address the organizational processes that structure train- ing choices, decisions and achievements in a fragmentary manner, apprehending these three elements separately rather than integrating them into a common analytical frame- work. More substantively, they pay little attention to the kind of training programmes or outcomes that actually possess value for employees.
Although the literature on learning does highlight how given organizational and man- agerial features influence learning opportunities and processes (Ashton, 2004a; Engeström, 2001), it mainly addresses learning on the job by doing, leaving training, and especially “formal’ training, largely out of its purview. In addition, studies on learning are typically interested in the processes that enhance organizational capabilities (Engeström, 2001; Fenwick, 2008); only a handful raise the issue of the relation between individual and collective capabilities and the kind of mechanisms that produce outcomes of value for both organizations and employees (Fuller and Unwin, 2004).
Consequently, our contribution is intended to engage with the critical issue of employees’capability, understood as encompassing latitude of choice and power to act, with respect to employer-funded training. We aim to explore how organizations contribute, enhance or impede employees’ capability in vocational training. To address this issue, we adopt a two- fold integrated perspective. On the one hand, our analysis seeks to articulate organizational and individual dimensions, thereby responding to the call made by some authors to provide. a better understanding of these linkages (Antonacopoulou, 2006; Lambert et al., 2012; Tharenou et al., 2007). On the other, in contrast to the existing research, we examine differ- ent dimensions of vocational training, namely opportunities, processes and outcomes, within a unitary framework. We argue that the processes underpinning vocational training provi- sion are crucial since they form the axis connecting opportunities - who gets training - to outcomes - what does training produce by way of benefits - and for whom. Finally, we seek to identify the organizational configurations that generate training outcomes that employees value, making this question the defining core of our article.
Whether or not an organization provides an environment that allows employees to develop their training capabilities, understood in the double sense of freedom to choose and power to achieve, is a decisive question. Its importance extends beyond that of per- sonal development and achievement for several reasons. First, both firms and public. bodies require employees to take responsibility for their employability - but as Sen (1992) pointed out, being responsible requires the freedom to choose and the power to act. Second, as research on high performance work systems in particular underlines (Appelbaum et al., 2000), collective capabilities do not depend solely on organizational features, they also build on individuals’ skills and, we contend, capabilities. Third, indi- vidual capabilities matter if employees are to demonstrate the commitment, enthusiasm and creativity employers expect of them on a daily basis at work. Therefore, it makes.
Subramanian and Zimmermann
sense to open the black box of the development of individual capabilities in the work- place from the dual perspective of the individual and the organization.
Drawing on an in-depth qualitative enquiry into 13 French-based companies, our analysis focuses on three case studies selected for typically exemplifying the three train- ing profiles that emerged from our enquiry: a pharmaceutical firm (skill-updating pro- file), a software engineering consultancy (skill-developing profile) and a truck assembly plant (capability-enhancing profile). All three firms rank as training-intensive organiza- tions, i.e. firms spending well above the mandatory threshold urged by French authorities (see below). But high investments are by no means synonymous with the development of employee training capabilities. Roughly similar expenditures can serve different pur- poses, generating different training opportunities, processes and outcomes. The plurality of ends and values associated with training, from both company and employee perspec- tives, is core to our discussion. Whether or not employees are offered the possibility to voice and discuss these values is thus a critical issue.
This explains why we have chosen to place the spotlight on employee voice. From a conceptual perspective, voice constitutes an essential component of the capability frame- work that we have embraced: capability can exist only when people are given, collec- tively and individually, the possibility to express what is of value for them (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993). However, in the existing literature on training, employee voice is typi- cally investigated from the collective standpoint via the mediating role trade unions play in determining access to employer-sponsored vocational training; individual voice is sel- dom considered. This is notwithstanding the fact that annual employee reviews designed to encourage workers to express their training preferences have been compulsory in French firms since 2014. Individual voice was thus a constitutive dimension of our research framework. Its importance emerged clearly in our empirical enquiry, and at an early stage: it played as critical a role as trade union presence and density in ensuring whether or not employees get training, especially training that holds meaning and value for them. Thus, our empirical research was, among other goals, aimed at identifying and apprehending the nature of the processes involved in securing access, or not, to individ- ual voice on vocational training matters.
The three corporate training model profiles that we have identified highlight how individual capabilities, regardless of the diversity of training purposes and opportunities, are ultimately contingent upon employee participation schemes within the company, which in turn are related to human resource policy, work organization and forms of man- agement. They bring to the fore the importance of employee voice in the workplace as a vital factor in generating individual capabilities. Our study shows that offering opportu- nities for training alone cannot contribute to the development of individual capability; employees must also be empowered to express their preferences freely, to ensure these are respected, and finally to convert them into realizations that hold meaning and worth for them. Emphasizing this point draws attention to the criticality of individual voice in creating a more democratic workplace. While collective voice, as articulated through various representative mechanisms, is central to achieving this goal, it cannot suffice. On issues such as vocational training, individual voice is also essential.
The article is structured as follows. First, we clarify the concept of capability developed by Nussbaum and Sen (1993), before providing a review of the French vocational training system and a brief survey of the training literature, devoting special attention to the
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
processes informing training delivery. In the second section, we present our methodology and the three corporate profiles our article builds on. Then, we examine the main features of training in these three firms within the scope of a unitary framework by taking into account how training goals, opportunities, outcomes and processes influence (or not) the develop- ment of employees’ capabilities. The final section argues that the development of training capabilities depends on the successful articulation of collective and individual voice.
Assessing training against capabilities Organizational and individual capabilities
The literature on company-related learning and training addresses the issue of capabili- ties mainly from the organizational vantage point. Such an understanding of capabilities is consistent with the notion of “dynamic capabilities’(Easterby-Smith et al., 2009; Wang and Ahmed, 2007), which seeks to identify the organizational conditions and processes that can enable firms to successfully deal with constantly changing challenges. In this article, we rely on another conception of capability, one formulated by Nussbaum and Sen (1993). The accent here is on capabilities as end and means of development - devel- opment being envisaged not only from the angle of economic progress, but as the exten- sion of people’s substantial freedoms (Sen, 1999). In contrast to the ‘dynamic capabilities’ perspective, this approach emphasizes individual capability, understood as the scope of opportunities people have to achieve beings and doings they have reason to value.
Associated with the freedom to choose and the power to act, capability designates the extent of people’s agency and the range of possibilities open to them. It places particular emphasis on the factors and processes that allow opportunities and resources to be con- verted into valuable achievements. Accordingly, training capability requires not just training opportunities; it also requires the means to convert these opportunities into out- comes that are likely to hold meaning for individuals and not only the organization. From such a perspective, procedural and substantial dimensions are of equal importance: the way outcomes are reached matters no less than the outcomes themselves.
One needs here to distinguish carefully between the notion of capability and that of skills to which it is often indiscriminately reduced. Capability acknowledges individual skills, but it further encompasses those elements on which skill development and realiza- tion is contingent, namely opportunities, resources and entitlements. The accent lies pre- cisely on these latter three dimensions, thereby underlining the importance of the social structuration of individual skills (Bryson, 2015; Zimmermann, 2014). Capabilities estab- lish the framework within which individual skills can develop and be performed. They owe as much to the individual as to her or his environment - including material, human, social, organizational and institutional dimensions. Hence the concept of capability that underlies our analysis implies an interactive process of coproduction engaging a person and her or his environment. This leads us to investigate the dynamics of organizational training as much in terms of individual outcomes as of the opportunities and processes the workplace makes available for this purpose.
Opportunities and processes constitute two decisive and distinctive, but overlapping, dimensions, of the capability approach. Sen distinguishes the process aspect from the opportunity aspect of freedom. ‘Freedom … involves both the processes that allow
Subramanian and Zimmermann
freedom of action and decision, and the actual opportunities that people have; given their personal and social circumstances. Unfreedom can arise either through inadequate pro- cesses … or through inadequate opportunities that some people have for achieving what they minimally would like to achieve’ (Sen, 1999: 17, emphasis in original). This implies that the individual capability to realize outcomes of value is contingent on the more or less harmonious articulation between process freedom and opportunity freedom.
Each of these three dimensions (opportunities, outcomes and processes) can be spelled out in the form of a question. If we consider the issue of opportunities, we need to explore what kind of training the organization makes available and to whom; what range of choices do people enjoy relative to the skills they may develop or the type of training they may undergo? In terms of outcomes, what can employees expect from training? Are they offered the possibility of converting training into desirable outcomes with respect not only to the company’s needs but also their own values? Finally, turning to the process aspect on which this article mainly concentrates: who are the organizational actors involved in training policies; what are the procedures that allow for choice among oppor- tunities and their conversion into training achievements? To what extent are people able to voice their own concems in matters of skills and professional development? While bringing employees and their agency back into the analysis, these three dimensions are intimately related to corporate training aims and organizational features.
The French continuing vocational training system in firms
The French training system corresponds to a corporatist model where skill formation is not the ‘sole province of the employer but is part of the more general consensus’ between state, capital and labour with the former playing an active role (Ashton, 2004b: 24). The first legislative measure imposing clear-cut obligations on employers was enacted in 1971. It established company-sponsored programmes as the principal means of promoting employees’ vocational training. Employers were required to allo- cate a percentage of their total wage bill for this purpose. This figure varied, rising to 1.6% for firms employing more than 300 employees before declining in 2014 to 1%. Employers who chose not to train were required to pay an equivalent tax to a joint training committee fund, financing, among other things, Individual Training Leave (Congé individuel de formation, CIF, see Box 1).
Box I. Three main training schemes.
The Company Training Plan (Plan de formation): here, responsibility and initiative for all training interventions lie exclusively with employers.
The Individual Training Leave (Congé individuel de formation - CIF): here the employee takes the initiative. Employers and trade unions jointly manage the funds to finance the CIF, whose main objective is social promotion and professional redeployment. The Personal Training Account (Compte personnel de formation - CPF), which has replaced the Right to Individual Training (Droit individuel de formation, DIF) since 2014: here too, the initiative lies with the employee, but training requires employer and/or state employment agency approval, according to a principle of shared responsibility.
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
The emphasis placed on corporate initiatives meant that private and public enterprises accounted in 2012 for 43% of all investments made in vocational training, with average spending standing at 2.7% of the wage bill (Dares, 2015). Training expenditures incurred by French companies as a percentage of total labour costs also rank among the highest in Europe. At the same time, training is a subject of compulsory collective bargaining every five years at the national inter-sectorial level. Likewise, it features in sectorial and company agreements, though there are no mandatory stipulations in the latter case. Nevertheless, in firms employing 50 or more employees, French labour law requires employers to present their annual training plans to worker representatives. But the pro- cedure can remain purely consultative, with no bargaining obligations.
Since its inception, the system has undergone extensive reform. In 2004, a law intro- duced the Right to Individual Training (DIF, see Box 1) whereby employees were enti- tled to 20 hours of training annually with the possibility of cumulating a maximum of 120 hours over six years. In 2014 another law transformed the DIF into a Personal Training Account (CPF, see box). In contrast to the DIF, the CPF can be transferred from one employer to another, and remains valid even during periods of unemployment. Initially conceived by policy makers as a vehicle for promoting upward social mobil- ity by awarding a ‘second chance’ to workers possessing little or no formal educational qualifications, official priorities have changed since the second half of the 1980s. Training has now become a central plank in the fight against unemployment and in adapting employees to changing job requirements. Paralleling this reorientation in policy goals, the nature and content of company-sponsored training has also undergone a pro- found transformation. The last few decades have witnessed a sharp decrease both in the number of officially certified training courses and in the duration of individual training sessions even as the number of workers trained has registered a massive increase (Dubar, 2008). Priority has been accorded to actions that do not impact on employees’ market value since they mainly entail an improvement in firm-specific, non-transferable skills.
Training aims
A significant feature of employer-funded vocational training is that it can serve a variety of objectives, not all of which are necessarily mutually compatible (Antonacopoulou, 1999; Grugulis, 2007). While the primary mission of training may well be to enhance organizational competitive performance by developing employees’skill sets, it can also act as a’powerful signalling device’to confirm that employers value their employees (Keep, 1989: 112). Additionally, it can constitute an integral component of the’new deal at work’where employers replace the promise of job security with that of employability (Cappelli, 1999; Thompson, 2003). It can operate as an effective control mechanism framing employee subjectivity and producing consent, or even commitment, to the domi- nant corporate culture (Ackers and Preston, 1997; Kunda, 1992). It can further operate as a communicational or marketing tool, designed to build organizational reputation, or social legitimacy and, thereby influencing the way external actors, notably clients, per- ceive the firm (Clardy, 2005; Subramanian and Zimmermann, 2013). In other words, vocational training can convey different messages to different groups of stakeholders: not only does it help promote the image of a’good and responsible employer’, in the eyes
Subramanian and Zimmermann
of both internal and extemal stakeholders, committed to providing employees with the means to realize their potential; it also secures the employer’s position on the market as one capable of guaranteeing high quality standards, thanks to a proficiently trained workforce.
At the same time, employer-funded training can serve more unavowed ends, such as marginalizing - temporarily - “troublesome’employees, for instance union activists and militants. By sending these employees to off-site programmes, they are physically dis- tanced from the workplace for varying lengths of time, thereby attenuating their’trouble- making’ potential. Equally, training can be a means of buying social peace in times of trouble, notably when mass redundancies are underway (Corteel and Zimmermann, 2007). The diverse, conflicting goals attached to vocational training thus contribute to delimit the space of opportunities available to employees; they also influence actual training outcomes significantly.
Training opportunities, outcomes and processes
Most of the training literature stresses two issues: which employee groups receive it (e.g. Albert et al., 2010); and what pay-offs do they secure (e.g. Aguinis and Kraiger, 2009). Existing research shows that participation in training is contingent upon a range of variables. These include age, gender, occupational status and education, and organi- zational size. Studies also point to the existence of widespread discrimination in access to in-career training (Lindsay et al., 2013; Rainbird, 2000), France being no exception to the rule. Thus, holders of temporary or part-time jobs fare no better here (Lambert and Marion-Vernoux, 2014; Perez, 2009) than they do in other advanced economies (Finegold et al., 2005; O’Connell and Jungblut, 2008). This is equally true for employ- ees with low levels of education attainment (Gossiaux and Pommier, 2013). Nevertheless, even formally well-qualified employees are unlikely to obtain training in organizations that view skill formation as secondary to their business strategies. This suggests that in certain instances the key variable in driving training is not so much employee characteristics as the overall organizational environment (Lambert et al., 2012; Grugulis, 2007).
Similarly, as in other countries (see Beck [2014] for the UK; and Pischke [2001] for Germany), in France, older workers (Greenan et al., 2012) rank among the most disad- vantaged category in receiving or undertaking formal training. Likewise, low skilled and unqualified employees find it much more difficult to renew and acquire new skills than higher skilled ones (Gossiaux and Pommier, 2013; Lambert and Marion-Vernoux, 2014). Scholars have attempted to evaluate the training outcomes for employees from a vari- ety of angles. They have focused extensively on its implications for wages but without finding any positive correlation between the two (Fougère et al., 2001; Goux and Maurin, 2000). They have analysed linkages between vocational training programmes and employees’ careers, again without reaching any consensus (Roberts, 2013). Studies have also explored the extent to which training expands skills and competences. Here, organi- zational context, in particular the way the production process is structured, is central in determining the advantages workers may expect to gain from vocational training (Felstead et al., 2007).
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
However, only a small number of studies have analysed employees’ own perceptions of the benefits of training (Antonacopoulou, 1999; Santos and Stuart, 2003). Even fewer have explored whether training interventions deliver outcomes that employees consider significant for themselves. This question is of central importance from the vantage of the capability perspective. Vocational training may well offer a range of intrinsic and extrin- sic rewards, but these need to hold value for employees themselves.
While the questions of who gets training and what are its outcomes have attracted considerable scholarly attention, this is not the case with respect to the processes under- pinning access to and delivery of employer-funded training. Studies do, however, show that employers rarely take into consideration employees’ preferences even in those organizations which profess to encourage individual initiative and responsibility in train- ing (Antonacopoulou, 1999). At the same time, some scholars have argued that the more employees are confident of obtaining the training and rewards they desire, the more motivated they are to train (Guerrero and Sire, 2001; Lambert and Vero, 2013; Tharenou, 2001). However, motivation can also result from the degree of choice they enjoy in attending training programmes. Thus, the study by Baldwin et al. (1991) shows that employees who are both allowed to choose and offered the training of their choice dem- onstrate a strong receptivity to leam.
These observations bring to the fore the issue of employees’ voice and choice in the opportunities available to them. Scholars drawing on a situated learning perspective have underlined the decisive role direct participation plays in learning and training (Felstead et al., 2010; Fuller and Unwin, 2004; Inanc et al., 2015). They show that the extent to which the work environment stimulates worker participation can either create opportuni- ties for or barriers to learning. While managerial decisions are instrumental in determin- ing the kinds of processes involved, trade unions also can exercise a contributing influence. However, studies examining union involvement in vocational training have seldom adopted this angle. Instead, they generally concentrate on the relationship between the provision of training and union density (Boheim and Booth, 2004; Frazis et al., 2000; Green and Lemieux, 2007).
Methodology and company profiles
Focusing on the organizational processes that contribute to shaping employees’ capabili- ties for training entails recourse to a multi-level analysis combining individual, collec- tive, organizational and institutional dimensions. To achieve this goal, our research relies on a qualitative triangulation approach integrating in-depth semi-structured interviews with different categories of personnel, participant and non-participant observation, and documentary investigation. It draws on fieldwork conducted between 2003 and 2011 in 13 French companies of different sizes, technological systems, territorial location, secto- rial activity and levels of workforce qualification.2
These firms were selected from a panel of 2632 French-based private sector compa- nies, employing 10 or more employees, which comprised the population of a quantitative survey (DIFES1) investigating continuing vocational training programmes in France. In the results of the quantitative survey, the 13 chosen firms belonged to the category of
Subramanian and Zimmermann
training-intensive and capability-friendly organizations (10.5% of respondents) (Lambert et al., 2012). Our intention was to explore the training practices of these firms in greater depth while using qualitative methods.
In each company, we interviewed employees at all levels - from unskilled worker to managing director - and also elected employee representatives. Within each occupa- tional category, we used a random selection method. Each company provided us with a list of employees for different departments (mostly production) from which we selected our interviewees taking care to factor in five criteria in particular: age, gender, seniority, educational credentials and job grade, as shown in Table 1. This way we ensured that our interview sample size reflected the physical and socio-demographic composition of the total workforce.
This qualitative research design, which allowed for an in-depth exploration of the organizational and managerial processes governing training practices as well as indi- vidual attitudes, made it possible to refine the quantitative category of training-inten- sive and capability-friendly organizations into three sub-categories depending on the kind of training model they promote: ‘skill-updating’, ‘skill-developing’ or ‘capability- enhancing’ (Subramanian and Zimmermann, 2013). The skill-updating model favours training activities in relation to daily work practices, the objective being to ensure the adaptability of the workforce to, eventually changing, job requirements. The skill- developing model encourages employees to continuously develop their skills; however, training is driven by the aim of the overall growth of the organization and grants little room for individual development projects. In the capability-enhancing model, voca- tional training is aimed at the development of skills as well as capabilities, taking into account at once the firm’s needs and employees’ own development projects, and provid- ing support for these.
In this article, we focus on the three firms in our sample that most typically exem- plify each of the three training models.3 Toplog, a software engineering company in the information technology sector, represents the skill-development model; Bigtrucks, a truck assembly plant in the automotive industry, represents the capability-friendly type; and finally Vitalis, an aseptic syringe filling plant in the pharmaceutical industry, represents a model exclusively concerned with updating skill bases. No correlation can be established between our three models and specific sectors: other chemical firms among the 13 sample firms that we investigated fall within the skill-development model, whereas other firms from the automotive sector belong to the skill-updating model.
In the case of Vitalis, in the pharmaceutical industry, shopfloor-based ethnographic data supplemented 26 interviews with management executives, technicians and white- and blue-collar employees, including union delegates; in the case of Bigtrucks, in the automotive industry, we interviewed 27 people in all, comprising the same categories of personnel as above, in addition to a two-week period of non-participant observation; finally, at Toplog, in the software engineering sector, we conducted 26 interviews with managers, consultants and office assistants,4 and directly participated in three training sessions for consultants each lasting three days.5 Before analysing the training processes at work in the three firms, we briefly present a profile of each firm.
10
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
- 20
5ო ო
ထ
43
。
30 5
37
47
5 6
8
9 5
8 9
2 ப
(uวua.J u ,อวuaว!,) ayenpe.8 -Japun :Japu :(วua. u .S1.) อวy! euoneN Ja!H :NH aeaneeg : :(วua. u! .d, Jo .dv) ae Buea oous Moaq :SHa
‘uoesanu uapun (s)aiun aup yo uoendod eano ap uym uonqnsp apeouq iau วaa o se os uopeoyenb euoeonpa pue houas"apuas ‘ae u Suoe, sdnous Buowe wopue. 8uaas K paalye sem s’aoyo ןeo a yo uop
-soduoo ydeusowap-oos pue eskud a paaua. w.y yoea u adues maiaau no yo uonisoduoo au eu a.nsua o uoneoa.d aqeapisuoo pasaxa aMe ΟΙ
৮ S
syวn8 g
Sodo +
S
s! suk
Suλ
Suk
SJ
SJA
Suk
Suk
S 1Z+
0Z-I 0-5
S>
aчd
ase
១-apun ONH ১
วาSHя
IS+
OS-It
0৮-0৪ 0६>
ผ
Aaμoluas
suogeoyenb euoleonp ৪৪খ
xმవ saaMaaau jo uonqasa pqel
Subramanian and Zimmermann
II
Company profiles and training goals
An affiliate of a mid-sized European group, Vitalis specializes in the production of anti- coagulants used in the treatment of cardiovascular pathologies. Nearly half the 425 peo- ple it employs are located at its production unit in the greater Paris region where our fieldwork was conducted. Women constitute the majority of the shopfloor workforce. Toplog is a French software engineering group which ranks among the world leaders in this sector. The focus of our study is the consultancy workforce, which accounts for more than 90% of the 1728 staff at a business unit located in Paris where our fieldwork was undertaken. Over three-quarters of all consultants are men possessing a high level of formally certified knowledge.
Bigtrucks is an assembly unit for a Swedish lorry producer situated in the west of France. Of a total of 472 employees, 359 are operatives stationed on the assembly line. As at Vitalis, most frontline workers are both poorly qualified and relatively young - age levels averaging below 40 years - but men predominate at Bigtrucks.
The statistical data suggest that all three firms easily rate as training-friendly, spend- ing far more than the mandatory sum of 1.6% of the total annual wage bill stipulated by the French authorities before 2014. Over the last decade, average annual investments at Vitalis increased from 3.4% to nearly 5%, while individual workers received 15 hours’training per year on average. At Bigtrucks, annual training allocations fluctuate between 2.4% and 3% of the gross wage bill with 93% of employees undergoing an average of 31 hours’ training annually. Finally, spending at Toplog amounts to roughly 5% of its gross annual wage bill. Participation rates stand at around 70% of the workforce with each employee receiving 30 hours of training on average. Nevertheless, an in-depth study of actual policies and practices considerably modifies the image of these three high achiev- ing firms on the training front.
At Vitalis, where a Taylorist work organization prevails, training is mainly driven by the need to conform to safety requirements. Since the firm is accountable both to its customers (hospitals, doctors, patients, etc.) and to state monitoring agencies, impressive training statistics can help convey the message that its products, manufacturing infra- structure and processes are reliable and comply with prescribed safety standards. Training at Vitalis represents a mandatory commitment the firm has to make to satisfy external regulatory requirements; it is not envisaged as a resource aimed at developing skills, occupations or careers.
Toplog, which relies on a project-centred work organization with most of the consult- ants working on time-bound projects at the client’s premises, expects training to serve at least four different goals. Formal training is deemed compulsory because it plays an important role in developing the company’s reputation among both clients and on the labour market vis-a-vis potential new recruits. But training is also seen as enhancing individual and collective performance through the formation of different types of skills (from technical to soft skills). Finally, business unit managers use training as a tool for balancing staffing rates since an employee participating in a training programme statisti- cally falls into the ’employed’ category as opposed to ‘idle’ or ‘waiting for project’. Like at Vitalis, Bigtrucks’ neo-Taylorist work organization revolves around the assem- bly line, but training goals here are very different. The emphasis is on skill and professional
12
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
development with a view to promoting individual and collective performance. As most employees work on the assembly line, training is a tool to foster motivation and streng then internal cohesion as well as to ensure individual commitment to high quality production. Hence by consolidating the reputation of Bigtrucks’employees as “craftsmen of heavy duty trucks’ (HR director), training concomitantly operates as a sales argument.
Although training interventions primarily target the client at both Vitalis and Toplog, important differences prevail. At Vitalis, the message delivered to external stakeholders clearly takes precedence over training content and employees and firm outcomes. On the contrary, Toplog, specializing as it does in selling human intelligence, attaches strong value to training content and outcomes, the belief being that if training is good for the client, it is necessarily good for the employee.
Table 2 sums up the main contextual features of vocational training schemes in each company that our analysis relies upon.
Voice: A discriminating feature
We now present in more detail the different approaches to training that characterize the three companies with regard to the key dimensions of opportunities, outcomes and pro- cesses (see Table 3 for a summary). Significant variations can be found depending on whether the primary target of training policies is clients or employees.
Opportunities alone cannot suffice
The contrasting training aims result in different scopes of opportunity. At Vitalis, the training offer is extremely limited and access to training highly restrictive. Actual pos- sibilities for frontline operatives to acquire new occupational skills and/or upgrade exist- ing ones are limited to two occasions. The first is when new machines are introduced, the second when changes in work organization occur; neither event is commonplace. Not only does training at Vitalis tend to be wholly firm-specific in substance; the majority of in-house training amounts in reality to nothing more than short information sessions seldom lasting longer than 15 minutes. By passing off these briefing sessions as training, factory officials are in a position to include the time spent on transmitting these proce- dural instructions to workers in overall training costs. These costs in turn constitute the basis for the statistical data on vocational training schemes the company provides annu- ally to public authorities.6 In other words, the high expenditures officially registered by Vitalis under this heading do not in reality serve to nurture a more skill-proficient or technically knowledgeable workforce.
At Toplog and Bigtrucks, in contrast, both the training offer and access are extensive, and the skills produced can be firm-specific or transferable. While all Toplog consultants enjoy broad access to formal training schemes, ‘high potentials’, earmarked to become tomorrow’s top managers, are offered the most sought-after and prestigious schemes. But formal training represents only a tiny part of an impressive broader learning process at Toplog. When asked to classify different forms of learning related to theirjob, consult- ants systematically rank training last, since they feel personally committed to enhancing their knowledge constantly.
Subramanian and Zimmermann
13
anpeded uoneziue&uo weaa asuole1-oaN
paaeoipap paziplepues
syวn8g
sJapioud eu.aax auวนอว Suue.n koe
qo-aua-uo uLอว-8uo Aeuose
աa-աnpaw ןeaua8 pue oyads Kuedo
uonisinboe pue auaudojanap I!YS nuau อนว DIy
paziyeuosuad pue pazijenpinipu วuawnSue saes :suaom siyo yวnנ
kanp-Kneau se uolaeanda. anepijosuo uoisauoo jeu.aau! uauาSua.ns
pue uoleou aom aouequ อวuewoad annoaoo pue enppu
วuaudojanap Jaa.eo pue S
Suueנ o uu jenpiipu! + saunaipuadxa Suluiea
աnաiuiա uo suonduosaud jea
Kaens anisuauo รวนอ!ว
8odo」
ןe.ae pue e.a! pauauaว วaloud
paauauo aspapmouy jeuaew-uoN
suapioud jeu.laax Kuapee Suiuie.a Kuedwoე
qol-aua-uo ա.a-աnpa
ןe.aua8 pue yads Kuedwo uonisinboe pue auaudojanap II!S
nuau au DIy pazijeuosuad pue pazienpipuj
วuอwnSue sajes e se Suue saaeu Suyjes
Mo Jo azesuaduoo o Suue asaq ap ag,
anjen zayeu ,sauejnsuoo asea.วu วuaudoaap II!S
Buue o uu jenpiipu! + sa.npuadxa Suiue.n
աnաաա uo suonduosaud jeaๆ
KSae.ns anisuao รวนอ!ว
וכטן.eJa! วsμoke
paonpo.id sseu pazip.lepues sIe
sa.neay euawuo.lua pue Suue euonezue.o ‘z pq
suapio.d jeu.ax qo/-aua-uo
แนอว-มous วyads uedwo
uoisioud uoneu.ojuj pazje.aua8 pue aao
วuaunsue sajes e se Suiue aseu pue aues aye an.asa.d
aաouoo ןenpao.d
Kaeas ansuaag (sวuaned
“S.IOJop sedso) sawosn onpoud
ao jo.nuoo euonnansu Suo.a Suuen oa auu
jenpipu! + sa.napuadxa Suue. աnաuա uo suoduosaud jesa
ןeoפ saJnpal pu spo8 Suup
apow วนอพอ8euew uoneziue&.o μo
onpoud yo adk saunpal puogoziuo8o
uopשo uouung
วนอวuoว snכo
suonenBau qnd saunapal jouawuoJu
อวe.au! aมew
14
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
syonag
aisuax aΛIsuอנx
yoM jo Kaenb uo Suue o oedu uaau
|e oy sanqissod uosanuo ansuaaxa :aeu noqe eu.ax
suaueq Kuaua Mo ang sanqissod uois.lanuoo palw!ๆ
ayueu noqe euau uononpo.d s!s aqeJaysue
Sodo
aIsuax anIsuอx
Suu Kq pasoedu wopjas yuom yo kauen
e o sapqssod uoisanuo ansuaaxa :ayew unoqe jeu.ax
Kuo senuaod us!y, uoy sap!!!qissod uois.lanuoo anaoaas pue paשונ!
ayueu noqe eu.aau uononpo.d ss aqeaysue
ee p anbeow asu opuo : sape sap a opo : auuap e np asu opo : : np ae opapo :1 :uno aJo :0
Suulen euoleon uo aawuoo aapedg
(Suue enppu dia yo uoneuawajdu!
dia yo uopeuawajdu
o3 u!y) ia yo uoeuaաadա uo auawaa.Be annaoכ
uo auอwอa.8e anpoaoכ
uo วuอwอa.8e aaoכ O ‘‘1’ פa :suou
O ‘1פว’วפว ‘วlษว :suolu
1כפ ‘OJ :suo!un
მo aa၀၁
paנeכ!נe pue paseunoวua an8oep jelว.eJay-Jaau
susiueuวau วuอwaeueա
Maiอau! annedied yo axaauoo aup u ao
.
วuaudoanap aa.e enppu enuuy Maluaau!
Maiเอau! วuอwssasse วuaudojanap jenpipu jenuuy
aวueoad enppu enuuy
jeseudde enppu enuuy
o enp!pu sเaBeueu au!ๆ
aวuuy aaeod.o
speau aoaloud
aH aeodo
saye.q euoezue.o
SJosiJadns pue s.aseueu uononpoud ‘auaun.redap
H uaaMaq uoneadoo
วuอunedap WH
uอwมedap Kaen
paวuวsay paשונ!
S sassaoo.d pue sauooano ‘saluna.oddo Suule ગq
Suiuea Aq paoedu! 1ou μom yo Kaen
sqssod uosanuoo paa aye noqe euax
suaueq Liaua uy + sa!qissod uosanuo
paau :aye noqe euau aqeasuen ON
uolכnpo.d !s paשוב!
วuaudojanap .ออ.e ou! Suiuea Suanuo
uononpoud sI!s souooano
Suuo jonppu Suue. o ssy
Jayo Sululea yo adoos saunoddo Buup
SJanup euoeziue sossaooud Suup
suopıpuoo Suysızes u oM aenb anae o ay
Subramanian and Zimmermann
15
At Bigtrucks, given the low qualification levels of most employees, management strongly believes that training interventions should not only aim at adapting people to their jobs, but also offer a second chance to those who actively wish to improve their skills. As Bruno, a worker representative affiliated to the Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT) trade union, points out, ’there are openings and growth perspectives for a person on the assembly line who is committed to his/her job’. Indeed, training opens up the possibility of acquiring more advanced qualifications. The com- pany is prepared to finance off-the-job training schemes for employees identified by their supervisors as having strong potential; for others, the HR department supports those applying for individual training leave (CIF).
At the same time, non-certified training is accessible to all employees with the firm offering a combination of different types of knowledge and know-how. While some of this is specific to the company and to the automotive sector, knowledge of a more gen- eral, transversal nature (mathematics, languages, soft skills, etc.) which can be trans- ferred to the external labour market is also imparted.
Reflecting the contrasting training opportunities, the Toplog group runs its own inter- national university for high ranking managers, while the seven French business units have established a training catalogue accessible to all through the intranet. They also share a training academy where most soft skills are developed. Only specialized techni- cal and language courses are externalized. Bigtrucks too runs its own international acad- emy training managers from different levels, whereas technical sessions are provided on site led by internal trainers. Staff, including production operatives, can also avail of opportunities for on-the-job training at Bigtrucks plants in Sweden or the Netherlands (Zimmermann, 2014).
Outcomes: Converting opportunities into valuable training achievements
Our aim in this study is not to enquire whether training interventions succeed or fail in producing specific outcomes: expanding skill sets, helping employees to do their jobs better, improving the quality of work, or facilitating occupational mobility and career development. Rather, in line with the capability approach, our objective, more generally, is to enquire whether training schemes produce outcomes that are of value for individual employees themselves, while accepting that what is of value for one person might be different for another, and that even for the same person it could be different at different points of her or his life.
Consequently, the question is: to what extent can employees convert training into outcomes that matter for them? This was what we sought to identify in the interviews. For the respondents, training as a valuable achievement is associated, first, with occupa- tional, wage and career development and, second, with the ability to achieve quality work in satisfying conditions. Let us briefly discuss these points in each of the three firms, before exploring the underlying processes that allow people to achieve training that holds meaning for them.
A major characteristic of vocational training practices at Vitalis is that they offer prac- tically no opportunities for workers to aspire to enlarged responsibilities, enriched jobs or career development. So constricted and goal-oriented is the content of training that its
16
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
beneficiaries are in no position to leverage their competencies even within the intemal labour market let alone the external market. As a result, not only are all avenues for hori- zontal and vertical mobility shut off, the prospect of making their everyday work activity more meaningful is also ruled out.
In contrast, both Bigtrucks and Toplog offer possibilities for internal career pro- gression. Although Bigtrucks’operatives are poorly qualified, most of them lacking even a baccalaureate (high school leaving certificate), training and participative learning policies aim to enhance the quality of work and working conditions, and to stimulate occupational and career development. Possibilities of climbing the ladder within the company are real, but limited given the flat pyramidal qualification struc- ture and the low turnover rate (below 5%). At Toplog, congruent with the principle’climb or out’, employees are called to strive permanently to exceed their capacities, to keep raising the bar of personal excellence. Training obviously helps here. However, as the interviews underline, a career at this IT firm is by no means easily compatible with maintaining a high quality work environment, and even less with creating a sta- ble work-life balance.
Both Toplog and Bigtrucks enjoy a reputation for the high standards of training they provide; this boosts the employability of their employees. All of them stand an equally good chance of finding work on the external labour market. But the quality of the formal vocational training programmes does not explain everything. Given the specific nature of their product (Toplog) or work organization and management (Bigtrucks), these firms also offer opportunities for on-the-job learning resulting in the creation of general, transferrable skills such as quality assurance, team work and problem solving.
Despite these similarities, there is an important difference between the two firms: whereas most of the employees interviewed at Bigtrucks value the training programmes they attended, this is hardly the case at Toplog. How do we account for this? The decisive difference between Bigtrucks and Toplog lies not at the level of learning and training resources available within the organization. Rather, it lies at the level of voice - the pos- sibility of articulating preferences and personal-cum-professional development projects and of ensuring they are heard - and the nature of conversion factors that permit the transformation of training resources into valuable achievements for employees. Both voice and conversion factors are dependent upon the processes through which people interact and relate to one another within the company or to the organization as a whole. They point towards the environment provided by the firm and the organizational features that impact individual capability.
Processes: Securing meaningful training via organizational mechanisms
It is to this process dimension and its impact on employees’ capabilities that we shall now turn, exploring its crucial role in the provision of vocational training given that it oper- ates as the bridge linking training opportunities with outcomes. The kind of processes involved influence the extent to which employees are (or are not) in a position to express their voice in the overall design of training interventions, are free to participate in train- ing, and, more substantively, obtain the training they desire, i.e. one that corresponds to
Subramanian and Zimmermann
17
the personal and professional goals they, and not only the organization, have defined for themselves.
Collective voice matters. Trade unions and worker representatives (délégués du personnel) can contribute to shaping the company environment and the overall contours of voca- tional training. At Vitalis, very low membership levels mean that the two unions present in the factory, Force Ouvrière (FO) and the Conféderation Générale du Travail (CGT), exist at best only on paper. As a result, collective representative voice is exercised mainly through the works council (comité d’entreprise), whose legal power is quite limited because employers are not bound by its deliberations. In the case of Vitalis, the council has few opportunities to decide the beneficiaries or contents of training. Management has circumscribed its role to the minimum requirements laid down in law, and a bilateral accord on training has yet to be negotiated.
At Toplog and Bigtrucks, collective representative voice exercises a greater influence in determining the overall contours of training policy. Four trade unions operate at Toplog: Force Ouvrière (FO), the Confédération Générale des Cadres (CGC), the Confédération Française du Travail Chrétienne (CFTC) and the Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT). Of the nine elected representatives officiating in the business unit where our fieldwork was conducted, four belong to the CFTC and three to the CFDT.
Toplog has concluded a significant number of collective agreements in various areas, including vocational training. The firm has established a training commission, jointly run by the works council and management representatives. With an annual budget amounting to 0.8% of the business unit’s overall wage bill, the joint commission controls the content of and access to the soft skills and general training programmes offered under the Right to Individual Training (DIF), but its remit does not include Toplog’s annual training plan. Three unions exist at Bigtrucks: FO, CGT and CFDT, which as the oldest and strong- est organization is the management’s principal negotiating partner. Social dialogue is robust with collective agreements covering several aspects of working life, including the Right to Individual Training (DIF). The power of collective voice, however, extends beyond formal agreements, and contributes to shaping a broad framework designed to guarantee fair treatment. Management is aware that maintaining peaceful labour rela- tions comes at this price.
The existence of a strong collective voice can thus exercise a preventive structural influence. The quantitative survey we build on clearly established on a broader scale the decisive character of collective voice as a condition for developing employees’ capabili- ties (Lambert et al., 2012). But our results also demonstrate, and the Toplog case is par- ticularly illustrative of this, that collective voice alone cannot develop individual capabilities. Whereas collective representative voice engages with the overarching requirements of justice defining capabilities, individual voice is also required to enable people to express what they value.
Exercising individual voice. The main channel for expressing employee voice in training matters is the annual appraisal interview, mandatory under the 2004 law, and supple- mented by a professional interview every two years following the 2014 law. Despite the
18
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
legal obligation to conduct such interviews, their frequency, scope and content vary greatly from one company to another. Furthermore, they raise the question of how much room they reserve for individual preference and what kind of factors impinge on the conversion of the interview conclusions into real outcomes. These issues involve not only the procedural features channelling employees’ individual voice, they also depend upon organizational mechanisms.
Identifying training needs and selecting training schemes. Vitalis provides an eloquent example of the gap between ideal and reality with regard to annual interviews. Employ- ees and shop bosses are supposed to engage in a mutual exchange of positions to deter- mine both individual training needs and those of the department concerned. But not only are the annual interviews not organized systematically; even when they do take place, workers complain they serve little purpose since their training preferences are seldom implemented. As Thierry, a finishing shop worker, points out, ‘initially I used to ask to go on this or that training course. Now, when my supervisor raises the subject during the annual interview I just keep quiet since I know nothing will happen. So why bother wasting my breath?’ From a capability perspective, this case furnishes a good illustration of ‘adaptive preferences’ (Teschl and Comin, 2005) whereby individuals internalize their deprived circumstances so deeply that they do not desire what they can never expect to achieve.
Furthermore, awareness of legislatively mandated training rights is spread quite thinly among the blue-collar sections of the workforce. The factory noticeboard, for example, hardly ever carries any information on this subject. At least, six of the 10 operatives whom we interviewed had either not heard of the Right to Individual Training or were only vaguely familiar with its provisions. A number of them did not even know that the factory had hired a training instructor. Thus neither opportunity nor collective institu- tional resources, geared to forging a forward-looking training strategy and indispensable. to sustaining worker empowerment and agency, exist at Vitalis.
Toplog, by contrast, boasts a highly elaborate and formalized training process reflect- ing the ambitious objectives of the HR department. In order to inventory training needs, each employee undergoes two annual interviews: a performance assessment interview with the leader of the project in which she or he is currently involved and a career devel- opment interview with the manager of the skill centre she or he belongs to. Interviews are systematically conducted each year with each employee.
Although this procedure for registering training needs gives individuals an opportu- nity to voice their concern, it does not necessarily influence the choice and content of training, despite the fact that lifelong leaming is intrinsic to the company’s brand iden- tity.‘When it comes to selecting a training scheme, employees’opinions do not matter at all. I gave up after they rejected my demand for technical training which would have helped me to apply for new projects’, claims Paul, a consultant specialized in SAP (Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing).
His statement reflects a general sentiment, confirmed by Chloé, another consultant. She, on the contrary, complained of having been compelled to attend a training course for several weeks in an area of no interest to her. The reason for this was she had no new project to work on once her current project ended in June. Forcing her to train enabled
Subramanian and Zimmermann
19
her manager to respect staffing rate norms. Thus, although Toplog offers a variety of training opportunities and interview procedures allowing people to voice their prefer- ences, the ability for consultants to choose remains limited.
In the Bigtrucks model, individual voice and participation play a crucial role. Workers benefit from the company’s willingness to consider their preferences in terms of skills and occupational development.‘It is a company that trusts you and makes you feel respected. Being respected creates a sense of confidence’(Damien, operative). This is one of the methods Bigtrucks adopts to motivate its employees, banking on the growth of individual capabilities to enhance the firm’s collective capability. The model has proved its worth: Bigtrucks is consistently ranked as one of the leading heavy duty truck manufacturers worldwide.
Employee voice is articulated through different channels. First, each employee has an annual ‘individual development interview’ with their supervisor. These interviews allow for the development of a personal career plan whether this involves staying with Bigtrucks, retraining or even leaving the firm. Second, workers can count on both line managers and the HR department to back their requests to attend publicly financed train- ing programmes (CIF), leading to formally accredited qualifications, as illustrated by the case of Frédéric. He is an operator who, thanks to company support, was able to apply for individual training leave (CIF) and obtain the qualifications needed to change track from assembling trucks to selling audio-visual equipment. Acquiring new qualifications can also facilitate career advancement on the internal labour market by enabling employ- ees to secure the necessary credentials to apply for higher category jobs. This is an increasingly rare practice in the French industrial sector where internal promotion mech- anisms for the less qualified have been progressively dismantled.
The role of organizational mechanisms. Interview procedures are, however, not enough for individuals to achieve valuable training outcomes. We have already addressed the role of collective voice; in addition, the way human resource policies, managerial practices and work organization dovetail also strongly influences outcomes. Our research points to the uneven role and influence exercised by HR departments in fostering, formulating and implementing training programmes. The HR cell is not the agens movens of train- ing in all instances. It can in some instances even act as an obstacle to efforts pursued by other power centres within the organization, as the example of Vitalis highlights. The contrasting role played by the HR departments is intimately connected with the strategic priorities underpinning training at the three firms.
Reflecting the low priority devolved to training at Vitalis, the HR department consist- ently refused to hire a specialist for this function. Only after warnings from the quality department, which was responsible for the integrity of the factory’s product, of the likeli- hood of state-imposed sanctions in case anomalies were uncovered, was a training officer familiar with the specific exigencies of the pharmaceutical industry appointed.
In the case of Toplog, while forging a proactive vocational training policy is a key HR department objective, implementing this policy is often frustrated or thwarted by managers and project heads. HR officials envisage training as a means of creating a cohesive corpo- rate culture, and consultants try to take advantage of this policy to affirm their right to training. However, both groups invariably face resistance from team managers, who tend
20
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
HR Policy
Capabilities
Management Methods
Work Organization
Figure I. Capabilities at the crossroads.
to consider formal training sessions during working hours as a waste of time and money for their skill centre. Consequently, HR policies can stand at odds with HR practices whose reach might ultimately be far less ambitious than the actual policy objectives.
In the case of Bigtrucks, the HR department, located adjacent to the assembly shop, is better integrated into the production process and works in close cooperation with line managers. Production bosses at Bigtrucks are no less willing than their HR counterparts to believe that training constitutes what Scott and Meyer (1991) have called a ‘right of membership’. In addition to human resource policies, two other dimensions strongly influence Bigtrucks’training outcomes, namely participative management practices, inspired by Swedish team work arrangements (Berggren, 1992), and work organization, each reinforcing the other in a virtuous dynamic (see Figure 1). This policy is sustained by a flexible work organization that accommodates worker absences from the assembly line so that they can participate in continuous improvement or problem-solving groups as well as training sessions. Moreover, each team is provided with a’floater’ to cover for absent employees. Thus at Bigtrucks, work organization, despite its neo-Taylorist character, pro- vides the requisite support to make off-the-job training possible, unlike at Vitalis where the pace of assembly-line work is believed to make such training impossible.
As the Bigtrucks case demonstrates, the development of capabilities in the workplace is the result of a virtuous circle where work organization, HR policies and modes of management are integrated in a way that fosters individual latitude of choice, power to act and potential for development.
Capability and the challenge of integrating individual and collective voice
Each of our three case studies are emblematic of an ideal-typical training model: skill- updating (Vitalis), skill-developing (Toplog) and capability-enhancing (Bigtrucks).
Subramanian and Zimmermann
2
Skill-updating training focuses on daily work practices. The objective is to try and ensure the workforce adapts to changing job requirements; but it does so without attach- ing any importance to skill transferability and professional development. There is no room for the expression of employees’ preferences or the promotion of professional pro- jects. The purpose of vocational training is above all to foster learning that is firm-spe- cific in content and delimited by functional job requirements, thereby restricting the benefits employees can hope to derive from the acquisition of new competencies. Such a training policy allows employees at best to maintain their position on the job ladder; under no circumstances, however, does it unlock possibilities for mobility or career advancement either on the internal or the external labour market.
Skill-developing training encourages the acquisition of individual and collective knowledge in a professional environment more broadly concerned with learning pro- cesses. It promotes different types of skills, including general skills characterized by a high degree of transferability; the firm accepts the risks attached to the likelihood of employees seeking to cash in on these skills on the external labour market. Nevertheless, training is driven by the overall development of the organization and grants little latitude to individuals’ own preferences in formulating their development projects.
Finally, capability-enhancing training can be defined as skill-developing training which additionally provides collective means for supporting employees’ personal devel- opment goals. Capability requires the possibility of expressing personal preferences; it also requires opportunities and the availability of collective resources (organizational as well as institutional) to help achieve these preferences and ensure everybody has equal capability to achieve.
Our enquiry has enabled us to identify three interrelated conditions that are necessary, although not always sufficient, to sustain a capability-enhancing training policy. The first bears upon the organization of work. It must be designed in such a way as to absorb absences for off-the-job training (whereby employees can acquire general, transferable knowledge) without affecting the efficiency and performance of work teams.
The second condition entails a constructive partnership between the HR department and operational managers in order to facilitate the implementation of a capability- oriented policy. Each side needs to take account of the constraints the other faces to ensure that the overall objective of individual and organizational development is achieved. For different reasons, such a partnership remains absent at both Vitalis and Toplog. The third necessary condition pertains to the participative character of the work organization, which in turn is related to managerial practices in general. The procedures connected with employee participation (collective representative voice, individual inter- views, but also problem-solving groups, continuous improvement groups, etc.) play a crucial role in the overall process. These practices bear a close relation to what Bonvin (2008) elaborating on Bohman (1997) has called “capability for voice’, i.e. the ability to express one’s opinion and to make it count.
Because voice implies the capability both to determine what one values - in the sense of Dewey’s valuation process (1939) - and to make oneself heard, it is a prerequisite, the very condition, of all the other capabilities. However, not all kinds of employee participa- tion meet the requirements for individual capabilities to flourish. Social dialogue which can take the form of collective agreements negotiated both at sectorial and enterprise level
22
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
has for long been the privileged means whereby employees are enabled to exercise their freedom to participate in the workplace. Yet the qualitative survey we conducted, as well as the more extensive quantitative survey we relied on (Lambert et al., 2012), suggests that while the existence of such a dialogue is crucial, it does not actually suffice to ensure employees’ training capabilities in the absence of other more direct forms of participation in which all workers are able to take part. On the one hand, in companies without a strong collective voice or negotiation on training (the Vitalis case being emblematic here), train- ing capabilities are limited; on the other, promoting social dialogue and negotiation on training (the Toplog case) is not enough for individual capabilities to flourish.
If our findings bring to the fore the criticality of individual voice, they also show up its delicate and ambivalent character. Giving employees the possibility to voice their concerns through regularly conducted interviews, as Toplog does, is not enough if there are few, and especially very unequal, opportunities for people to be heard and achieve outcomes they consider of value. Even the Bigtrucks case, which combines strong union presence and participative management, underlines the double valency of individual par- ticipation schemes in the workplace in that they generate both inclusion and exclusion. Participation unites those who are involved, but marginalizes, to the point of exclusion, those who reject the value ofparticipation itself. Participation generates among Bigtrucks"employees the feeling that they can influence both their work and their professional pathway. However, and this is the other side of the coin, when enshrined as a duty, par- ticipative arrangements also aim to foster employees’ adhesion to the company and its value system. To participate is an integral part of these values; it is anything but optional, and recalcitrant or uncommitted individuals will sooner or later be shown the door. Thus the capability people have at work to express and be heard on issues that matter to them raises the political question of company governance (Borzeix et al., 2015; Knudsen et al., 2011; Wilkinson and Fay, 2011; Zimmermann, 2012). Capability means being able to play an active part in one’s training and occupational development and this requires being able to contribute to the decisions shaping one’s existence, i.e. an ability to weigh in on one’s working environment not only technically but politically and mor- ally as well. Historically, trade unions aimed to achieve this goal. Capability, however, raises the critical issue of how to recast the forms of collective action so as to give broader significance to individual voice - allowing people to express what they value alongside collective representative voice - seeking to remedy unequal access to indi- vidual voice and to foster social justice.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article: Eurocap (‘Social Dialogue, Employment and Territories. Towards an European Capability Policy’) (Grant/Award Number: “HPSE-CT-2002-00132’) and Capright (“Resources, Rights and Capabilities: In Search of Social Foundation for Europe’) (Grant/Award Number:‘CIT4-CT-2006-028549’).
Subramanian and Zimmermann
23
Notes
1. On capabilities at the workplace, see Bryson, 2010, 2015; Koukiadaki, 2010; Salais and Villeneuve, 2004; Subramanian et al., 2013; Zimmermann, 2014.
2. Delphine Corteel and Bénédicte Zimmermann conducted the first phase of the enquiry with funding provided by the European research project Eurocap, ‘Social Dialogue, Employment and Territories. Towards an European Capability Policy’; a second phase was carried out by Dilip Subramanian and Bénédicte Zimmermann within the framework of the European research project Capright, ‘Resources, Rights and Capabilities: In Search of Social Foundation for Europe’. All the case studies were conducted between 2003 and 2009 with follow-up enquiries being undertaken in 2010 and 2011 to complete and complement the data collected previously. These second-wave enquiries were helpful in apprehending the impact of the 2008 financial crisis: training budgets, the scope of training opportunities and mobil- ity opportunities all experienced a shrinkage. However, what this second wave also showed was that the crisis had only minimal effects on the underlying organizational processes that define and determine the specific features of the training models under scrutiny in this article, namely the critical role of individual voice in identifying training needs and selecting training schemes. Nevertheless, we must note that the exercise of voice in capability-friendly firms occurred within a more limited scope of training choices as compared to the pre-2008 period. In other words, the crisis clearly curtailed the scope of training opportunities, but without affecting the processes involved in getting access to and choosing between these opportuni- ties. Reduced opportunities undoubtedly have an effect on the possibility of pursuing training resulting in professional development. However, as the processes remain in place, once the financial situation of the firm improves, the capability-enhancing model is in a position to live up to its promise. True, this model flourishes best in healthy economic conditions, but its defining features remain viable and operational even in crisis periods.
3. Among the 13 firms making up our sample, 7 fall within the skill-updating model, 5 within the skill-development model and only 1 within the capability-enhancing model. The defining features of each of our three training models are visible most acutely in our three case study firms, which explains why they were selected. The key features of each model in terms of opportunities, achievements and processes (namely, the articulation of collective and indi- vidual voice) apply to all the firms that belong to each model.
4. All interviews were conducted individually either in the interviewee’s office or in the office made available to the interviewer for the duration of her/his fieldwork. At Vitalis, our sample of 26 people comprised: the factory director, the production director, the quality director, 2 QA supervisors, the HR manager, the training officer, 2 department managers (syringe filling and finishing), 2 supervisors (inspection and finishing), 2 maintenance managers, 1 technician, and 12 operatives (5 filling and 7 finishing department; three of these operatives were also union delegates). At Bigtrucks, the list of 27 interviewees included the factory director, the HR direc- tor, the training manager, the production director, the quality director, 4 union representatives, 4 proximity managers, 4 technical experts and 10 assembly workers. At Toplog, the research was undertaken in two business units. The functions of the 26 interviewees were as follows: 2 business unit directors, 4 office assistants, the HR director, 2 HR business partners, 3 union representatives, 4 project managers, 3 team managers and 7 consultants.
5.
The use of contrasting methods (in our case the use of semi-structured interviews, non-par- ticipant observation and participation in training sessions) can help to compensate for the limitations of a given method, thereby resulting both in a stronger research design, and more reliable and valid findings. However, triangulation is not without its disadvantages: the pos- sibility of conflicting findings cannot be ruled out, resulting in difficulties of interpretation.
24
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
The practice of meticulously maintaining a field diary created the space whereby we sought to minimize the risk of researcher bias. Noting all aspects of our fieldwork, including subjective elements such as our feelings, opinions and reactions to what we saw and heard in our field sites, provided us with the means to engage critically with our approach. It also allowed us to exercise vigilance over how we interpreted our data in order to ensure the “trust worthiness’of our findings and “general integrity’ of the research process (Finlay, 2002). In addition, regular discussions bet ween the researchers gave us the opportunity to talk about our research choices, experiences and actions, and thereby challenge our presuppositions and personal assumptions.
6. The likelihood of other companies resorting to the same practice of reducing training sessions. to briefing sessions can hardly be ruled out. However, we found no mention of it either in the English- or the French-speaking literature.
References
Ackers P and Preston D (1997) Born again? The ethics and efficacy of the conversion experience in contemporary management development. Journal of Management Studies 34(5): 677-701. Aguinis H and Kraiger K (2009) Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 451 474.
Albert C, Garcia-Serrano C and Hernanz V (2010) On-the-job training in Europe: Determinants and wage returns. International Labour Review 149(3): 315-333.
Antonacopoulou E (1999) Training does not imply learning: The individual perspective. International Journal of Training and Development 3(1): 14-33.
Antonacopoulou E (2006) The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning 37(4): 455-473.
Appelbaum E, Bailey T, Berg P and Kalleberg A (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High- Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ashton D (2004a) The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in the work- place. International Journal of Training and Development 8(1): 43-53.
Ashton D (2004b) The political economy of workplace learning. In: Rainbird H, Fuller A and Munro A (eds) Workplace Learning in Context. London: Routledge, pp. 21-37.
Asplund R (2005) The provision and effects of company training: A brief review of the literature. Nordic Journal of Political Economy 31: 47-73.
Baldwin TT, Magjuka RJ and Loher BT (1991) The perils of participation: Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology 44(1): 51-65.
Bassanini A, Booth AL, Brunello G et al. (2007) Workplace training in Europe. In: Brunello G, Garibaldi P and Wasmer E (eds) Education and Training in Europe. Oxford: Ox ford University Press, pp. 143-178.
Beck V (2014) Employers’ views of learning and training for an ageing workforce. Management Learning 45(2): 200-215.
Berggren C (1992) Alternatives to Lean Production Work Organisation in the Swedish Auto Industry. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Boheim R and Booth A (2004) Trade union presence and employer-provided training in Great Britain. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 43(3): 520-545.
Bohman J (1997) Deliberative democracy and effective social freedom: Capabilities, resources. and opportunities. In: Bohman J and William R (eds) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 321-348.
Bonvin JM (2008) Capacités et démocratie. In: de Munck J and Zimmermann B (eds) La Liberté au prisme des capacités - Amartya Sen au-delà du libéralisme. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, pp. 237-261.
Subramanian and Zimmermann
25
Borzeix A, Julien CJ and Zimmermann B (2015) Réinventer le travail par la participation. Actualité nouvelle d’un vieux débat. Sociologie du Travail 57(1): 1-19.
Bryson J (ed.) (2010) Beyond Skill: Institutions, Organizations and Human Capability. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bryson J (2015) Putting skill in its place. Journal of Education and Work 28(5): 551-570.
Cappelli P (1999) The New Deal at Work: Managing the Market-Driven Workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clardy A (2005) Reputation, goodwill, and loss: Entering the employee training audit equation. Human Resource Development Review 4(3): 279-304.
Commission of the European Communities (2000) A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Brussels: European Commission.
Corteel D and Zimmermann B (2007) Capacités et développement professionnel. Formation Emploi 98: 25-39.
Dares (2015) La Dépense nationale pour la formation professionnelle continue et I’ apprentissage en 2012. N°14. Paris: Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training.
Dewey J (1939) Theory of valuation. In: The Later Works, Vol. 13. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dubar C (2008) Les changements possibles du système française de formation continue. Formation Emploi 100: 167-182.
Easterby-Smith M, Lyles M and Peteraf M (2009) Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management 20(1): 1-8.
Engeström Y (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualiza- tion. Journal of Education and Work 14(1): 133-156.
Felstead A, Fuller A, Jewson N et al. (2007) Grooving to the same tunes? Learning, training and productive systems in the aerobics studio. Work, Employment and Society 21(2): 189-208. Felstead A, Gallie D, Green F and Zhou Y (2010) Employee involvement, the quality of train- ing and the learning environment: An individual level analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21(10): 1667-1688.
Fenwick T (2008) Understanding relations of individual-collective learning in work. Management Learning 39(3): 227-243.
Finlay L (2002) Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research 2(2): 209-230.
Finegold D, Levenson A and Buren M (2005) Access to training and its impact on temporary workers. Human Resource Management Journal 15(2): 66-85.
Fougère D, Goux D and Maurin E (2001) Formation continue et carrieres salariales. Une évalua- tion sur données individuelles. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique 62: 49 69.
Frazis H, Gittleman M and Joyce M (2000) Correlates of training: An analysis using both employer and employee characteristics. Industrial Labor Relations Review 53(3): 443-462.
Fuller A and Unwin L (2004) Expansive learning environments: Integrating organisational and personal development. In: Rainbird H, Fuller A and Munro A (eds) Workplace Learning in Context. London: Routledge, pp. 126-144.
Gossiaux S and Pommier P (2013) La formation des adultes. Un acces plus fréquent pour les jeunes, les salariés des grandes entreprises et les plus diplômés. Insee Première 1468: 1 4. Goux D and Maurin E (2000) Returns to continuous training: Evidence from French worker-firm matched data. Labour Economics 17: 1-19.
Green DA and Lemieux T (2007) The impact of unionization on the incidence of and sources of payment for training in Canada. Empirical Economics 32(2): 465 489.
Greenan N, Narcy M and Robin S (2012) Changements au sein des entreprises et acces des seniors à la formation continue dans les années 1990 et 2000. Revue Française d’Economie 27(1): 129-162.
26
Economic and Industrial Democracy 00(0)
Grugulis I (2007) Skill, Training and Human Resource Development: A Critical Text. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guerrero S and Sire B (2001) Motivation to train from the workers’ perspective: Example of French companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(6): 988-1004. Inanc H, Zhou Y, Gallie D et al. (2015) Direct participation and employee learning at work. Work and Occupations 42(4): 447-475.
Keep EJ (1989) Corporate training strategies - the vital component? In: Storey J (ed.) New Perspectives on Human Resource Management. London: Routledge, pp. 109-125.
Knudsen H, Busck O and Lind J (2011) Work environment quality: The role of workplace partici- pation and democracy. Work, Employment and Society 25(3): 379-396.
Koukiadaki A (2010) The establishment and operation of information and consultation of employ- ees’ arrangements in a capability-based framework. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(3): 365-388.
Kunda G (1992) Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lambert M and Marion-Vernoux I (2014) Quand la formation continue. Marseille: Céreq.
Lambert M and Vero J (2013) The capability to aspire for continuing training in France: The role of the environment shaped by corporate training policy. International Journal of Manpower 34（4）： 305—325.
Lambert M, Vero J and Zimmermann B (2012) Vocational training and professional develop- ment: A capability perspective. International Journal of Training and Development 16(3): 164-182.
Lindsay C, Canduela J and Raeside R (2013) Polarization in access to work-related training in Great Britain. Economic and Industrial Democracy 34(2): 205-225.
Nussbaum M and Sen A (eds) (1993) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Connell PJ and Jungblut JM (2008) What do we know about training at work? In: Mayer KU and Solga H (eds) Skill Formation: Interdisciplinary and Cross-National Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109-125.
Perez C (2009) Pourquoi les travailleurs précaires ne participent-ils pas à la formation profession- nelle continue? Formation Emploi 105: 5-19.
Pischke JS (2001) Continuous training in Germany. Journal of Population Economics 14(3): 523-548.
Rainbird H (2000) Training in the workplace and workplace learning: Introduction. In: Rainbird H (ed.) Training in the Workplace. London: Macmillan, pp. 1-17.
Roberts S (2013) Gaining skills or just paying the bills? Workplace learning in low-level retail employment. Journal of Education and Work 26(3): 267-290.
Salais R and Villeneuve R Cambridge University Press.
(eds) (2004) Europe and the Politics of Capabilities. Cambridge: Santos A and Stuart M (2003) Employee perceptions and their influence on training effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal 13(1): 27-45.
Scott RS and Meyer JW (1991) The rise of training programs in firms and agencies: An institu- tional perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior 13: 297-326.
Sen A (1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sen A (1993) Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum M and Sen A (eds) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 30-53.
Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Subramanian D and Zimmermann B (2013) Training and capabilities in French firms: How work and organisational governance matter. International Journal of Manpower 34(4): 326-344.
Subramanian and Zimmermann
27
Subramanian D, Verd JM, Vero J and Zimmermann B (2013) Bringing Sen’s capability approach to work and human resource practices. International Journal of Manpower 34(4): 292-304. Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-foundations of (sustain- able) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal 28(13): 1319-1350.
Teschl M and Comin F (2005) Adaptive preferences and capabilities: Some preliminary concep- tual explorations. Review of Social Economy 63(2): 229-247.
Tharenou P (2001) The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and develop- ment. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 74(5): 599-621.
Tharenou P, Saks AM and Moore C (2007) A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes. Human Resource Management Review 17(3): 251-273. Thompson P (2003) Disconnected capitalism: Or why employers can’t keep their side of the bar- gain. Work, Employment and Society 17(2): 359-378.
Vargas-Hernandez JG (2010) How intellectual capital and learning organization can foster organi- zational competitiveness? International Journal of Business and Management 5(4): 183-193. Wang CL and Ahmed PK (2007) Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(1): 31-51
Wilkinson A and Fay C (2011) New times for employee voice? Human Resource Management 50(1): 65-74.
Zimmermann B (2012) Collective responsibility in the workplace from a capability perspective. Transfer 18(1): 19-30.
Zimmermann B (2014) Ce que travailler veut dire Une sociologie des capacités et des parcours professionnels. Paris: Economica.
Author biographies
Dilip Subramanian is an Associate Professor at Neoma Business School, France, where he teaches organizational theory and human resources management. He is the author of Telecommunications Industry in India: State, Business and Labour in a Global Economy (Social Science Press, 2010). Current research projects include the professionalization of front-line service occupations (with J-B Suquet and Robyn Thomas), and vocational training practices in French and German multina- tional corporations (with Bénédicte Zimmermann).
Bénédicte Zimmermann is Professor of Sociology at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and Permanent Fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg (Institute for Advanced Study) in Berlin. Her main research interest is the changing role of work in European societies. Her pub- lications include Ce que travailler veut dire (Economica, 2011) and together with Jean de Munck, La Liberté au prisme des capacités (EHESS, 2008).

知乎用户 UserName 发表

不可能防止。

因为人是社会性动物。当一个人凭借自身无法得到他人的关注、尊重、和认可，他就会想尽办法获得这些东西。

体制内好像总有个别领导的孩子是极其低能的。

具体表现在：

1、学业稀烂。

好点的高考能有二百多，差点的高中都上不了。

2、极度自恋。

3、飞扬跋扈。

4、大嘴巴子。

嘴跟老太太棉裤腰一样松，体制内的谨言慎行，察颜观色，三思后行全都没有。

安娜弗洛伊德曾经提出，两种家庭的孩子最容易出问题，一种是被父母极度忽略的，一种是被父母极度溺爱的。

前者常容易引起抑郁症，后者常引起人格障碍。

讽刺的是，抑郁症是容易被治愈的，而人格障碍非常、非常难。

因为抑郁症源自内攻击，患者常常认为全是自己的错，病态地反思自责内疚，而正是这种内归因，使治愈成为可能。

人格障碍则是逻辑自洽，他完全不认为自己有任何的错，都是别人不对，所有不以他为中心的人，他都会记恨并伺机报复。

父母傲慢地认为自己高人一等，并将这种优越感内化为孩子的潜意识，在成长中的每一个细节，让孩子凌驾于普通人之上。而当孩子长大以后，他本身稀烂的能力和糟糕的性格，又让所有人对他敬而远之。

他就会狂怒：“你们这群平民，居然敢蔑视我。”

他的愤怒不会比被嘲讽的小镇做题家少，因为小镇做题家能接受世界是复杂的，黑白之外，还有灰色地带。

但人格障碍的人，不会。

如果说网络喷子是二极管，那么这种自恋型人格障碍就完全只有一种观点，这是婴儿期全能自恋的特征。

人是看不到自己的，只有通过别人的反馈，逐渐建立自我认知。如果一个小孩，他从小接受的评价就是，自己是完美的，所有不和谐的声音都会被他父母清除掉，那么可想而知这个孩子的自我认知会扭曲到什么地步，他们就像是精神上的畸形儿。

问题是，当这种孩子走上社会，必然会遭遇打击，即使通过父母的关系进入体制，也难再回到小时候百依百顺的真空环境。随着父母退位，影响力逐渐减弱，他人的嫌弃会越来越明显，这是人格障碍所不能忍受的，为了重新获得曾经的高高在上的地位，就会忍不住自曝。

所以总有这种家属前赴后继地加入反腐大军。

以后还会有的。

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

是钱没捞够，要不早就出国吹去了！

知乎用户 马上就宽快了 发表

国企难道不是家族企业吗？跟我一个不太合得来同学一起去面试的，面试完我接到电话说通过了，她没通过，结果入职那天人家照样出现在我面前，说是姑父给找的关系…

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

防？怎么防？难不成你要闹革命？不推翻能防止得了？

知乎用户 无邪 发表

如何防止啊，其实很简单，看看邻国日本就行了；

公务员也可以被投诉，投诉多了，一样下岗，真正把纳税人的钱花的明明白白；

各级官吏，不要总是让人民群众被代表，自己出来拉选票，看看还能不能坐稳这个位置；

最后，所有官员的财产（含直系亲属），一律公开，接受人民群众的监督；

对了，忘记了我们是中国特色的社会主义，嗯，要坚持中国特色，

坚决不能搞资本主义那一套。

知乎用户 zhang 发表

我有一种感觉， 广大睿智的网友们给评判一下，是不是我脑子出问题了？

我怎么感觉，他不过是那个掀起幕布的孩子， 让民众看到了后台的内容，平常我们只看到是台前的表演。

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

现如今反腐全靠公干子弟啊。

知乎用户 勇士悍将威金斯 发表

知乎用户 炸鸡块 发表

意思是捞到好处别让人知道是麽？

知乎用户 酥东坡 发表

炫耀腐败导致获罪，搞得好像是因为炫耀才是罪过，而不是腐败本身。给当权者敲响了警钟，以后该腐败腐败，低调一点即可。真的是服了这个社会

知乎用户 淙淙流淌 发表

为什么要防止呢，让人民群众看看 “肉食者” 的真正面目，岂不是更好

知乎用户 408 号安保协议 发表

把权力关进笼子里

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

农村宗族势力被消除了，官员宗族开始了。

知乎用户 李少年 发表

媒体就是要为了不能发声的人发声。既然直接说播不了，那就反着说。这波似是而非的反串报道，我愿称之为神中神！

知乎用户 我是一团蒲公英 发表

严查公务员及其亲属的炫耀行为

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

每当这时，我就会想起那一套说辞: 中国落后英美好几百年，昔年西方列强靠掠夺，靠垄断行业起家，方才过上了高福利，朝九晚五的好日子；我泱泱中华不偷不抢，自然要艰苦奋斗，勤勤恳恳，献完终身献子孙。真是讽刺。

知乎用户 冬季的雨​ 发表

张麻子以为杀了黄四郎就一切解决了

可是队伍叛变

去上海的人就 “变成” 新的黄四郎

鹅城的百姓依然水深火热

鹅城的武举人和乡绅依旧横行霸道

这一切变了吗？

变了，黄四郎死了

真的变了吗？

好像什么都没有改变

那怎么办？

不怕

让子弹飞一会

知乎用户 Outsider 发表

翻译:“宣传口的同志们掩盖现有的阶级矛盾已经很辛苦了，请配合我们的工作，别再添乱了。”

知乎用户 白蛇 发表

前国企员工，国企内其实就是关系网，一般都是沾亲带故的，你要是没关系还可能成为了另类，而且职位晋升也要靠所谓的关系，中国的关系文化可谓是在国企内发挥的淋漓尽致。

但是，有些灰色地带的东西你带到明面上说，注定会被搞，这个社会就是闷声发大财的社会，你好没有人期望你好，但是你落魄都开开心心的来问候你。

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

周某人这事有趣就有趣在，圈外人无比厌恶，圈内人也觉得他是败类。

知乎用户 老王 发表

希望并鼓励这样的人能多出来炫耀

知乎用户 白衣夜行 发表

官媒是不是把方向一开始就搞错了

知乎新规矩，先问是不是，再问为什么

所以首先，到底是 “炫耀” 还是“吹牛逼”

炫耀，那就说明是真的，往后查就是了

查出非法所得，那就是真塌房

查出是合理收入，那就是做人不低调而已，怎么就给人家停职了呢

另一条线，如果是吹牛逼，那好像也不犯法，怎么就又给人家停职了呢

所以大概率是真的说了什么不该说的，你们我们他们都懂

知乎用户 二到荼糜 发表

你们啊，

不要总想搞个大新闻，要闷声发大财！

知乎用户 三重伟大者赫尔墨斯 发表

防止？？？

如何防止？？？

你是跟我开玩笑吗？

这么说吧，每一个 “嘚瑟” 的二代背后，都有 999 个 “获利后却保持低调” 的二代！

这才是我们感到后背发凉，感觉到绝望的根本原因。

知乎用户 a3cc 发表

上头都解决不了的事，你问我？

知乎用户 生命的构造真奇妙 发表

敌在本能寺

知乎用户 如梦似幻 发表

从源头出发，彻底政改，司法独立，国家才有希望！

知乎用户 阿喀琉斯之踵 发表

那就别开大奔去故宫了，还是开红旗吧

知乎用户 懒阳​ 发表

为什么要防止此类现象发生，反而不是这样的人暴露出来的越多也好。要是都那么会演，上哪里去抓蛀虫去。

知乎用户 Aaron 发表

周期率无法阻挡。

知乎用户 鱼瞑 发表

这哪儿是点评问题。

这是看不惯别人装逼，于是上去踩一脚，扇两个大嘴巴子，骂那个人是土鳖。

以此表明自己才是那个有逼格的人。

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

要防止别有用心的人对体制内人员的恶意

一心一意为人民服务。嘚瑟一下怎么了？

20 万一斤的茶叶，商人喝的，为什么副局长喝不得？

知乎用户 哈哈拉拉 发表

毛病是权利惯的，权利不惯不就行了。

知乎用户 拉跨人 发表

说明我们早就放弃了阶级斗争，开始觉得理所当然了，可以过得好，但是不能炫给普通人看到

知乎用户 27149 发表

你可以这么做，但是你说出来就不对了，不说出来就等于没做。是不是这意思？

知乎用户 吴大帅 发表

怎么能叫臭毛病？

周公子恩怨分明，孝敬父母，这哪里叫嘚瑟？

炫耀一下有啥错嘛？

大不了下次不让你看见就是。

（猜个后续，啥都查不出来，不了了之。）

（最后… 手动狗头）

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

这只是冰山一角而已

而且经过这个事，会有越来越多的傻的官二代突然醒悟潜伏起来

打草惊蛇，但是不打不行

知乎用户 Temo Alen 发表

奉劝监督机构多关心导致这种 “官本位”、“裙带关系”、“权力寻租” 现象的土壤，而不是仅仅止步于让领导管好身边人，“偷着乐”。那样只是扬汤止沸。

知乎用户 HP 十三郎 发表

这个伟大的社会主义国家，

不谈阶级，

谈让一部分先富起来。

谁先富呢？嘿嘿 (º﹃º)

知乎用户 守鹤的梦 发表

为啥要防止，反贪没证据不好查，这种自己跳出来坑爹送线索的还不允许么？

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

高考状元都不让炫耀了。

知乎用户 宇内制霸 发表

为什么要防止，这种现象不是越多越好吗，为纪委提供了充足的证据和线索，建议各大媒体多多提倡这类行为，让各个官二代们敢于炫，勇于炫，争相炫，才能让反腐倡廉的工作更容易展开. 如果这都不提倡，我很难不怀疑反对的人屁股到底干不干净啊

知乎用户 头疼啊 发表

你可让他们抓紧嘚瑟吧，多嘚瑟一会，我们就知道，原来我们的负重前行，是有人骑在我们头上岁月静好。

知乎用户 苏日力格​ 发表

权利是人民给的！！牢记！把权利关进制度的笼子里，我国越来越好了！

知乎用户 nidie​ 发表

哦，原来想的居然是防止这类现象。

这都什么精神上位者？

有这类现象才说明是好事，没有的话…… 那得了，大家生殖隔离，也不用再想东想西了。

知乎用户 风雨如晴 发表

？都这么嚣张了，不查一下那些钱的来路是否正当的麽？

知乎用户 阿卷​ 发表

为什么要防止这类事件的发生？虽然此类事件造成了一定的舆论风波，对当事人有一些不良影响，使得普通人得以管中窥豹，看到另一群人生活的世界。但事实就是这样的，我也挺想了解那个世界的。即使到达不了彼岸，看看风景也好，况且还可以从中收获乐子

知乎用户 取名字有什么用啊 发表

知乎用户 黑色幽默 发表

你为何要明知故问啊，解决这问题不是惩戒几个贪官，表扬几个清官，明有海瑞，清有于成龙，两朝的贪污问题解决了吗？方法就一个，不用在这问了

知乎用户 alexlee 发表

知乎用户 贺贺 发表

我反的是特权而不是嘚瑟

在特权存在的时候，我旗帜鲜明，爱憎分明地支持特权者去嘚瑟。

知乎用户 璟穆庵​ 发表

要大力灌输优秀的传统文化，如闷声发大财、夹着尾巴做人、锦衣夜行、不做出头鸟，让别人先上等等

知乎用户 渐入佳境 发表

翻译成人话：大家都是自己人，该拿就拿，但务必管好自己的家人，闷声发大财，别声张！不然兄弟这里实在不好做，这次的事哥们儿替你扛了，下不为例！

知乎用户 乏善可陈​ 发表

翻译：请大家闷声发大财

知乎用户 pex At 发表

我们应该防止什么? 防止他们炫耀，还是防止他们炫耀的内容?

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

公开透明，当地政府的开支，以及官员收入，资产子女经商从政这些信息都要受到监管。（有点不太可能，上几代出来的省部级以上高官的后代莫不是经商（国企央企负责人）从政（级别都是厅官往上走），利益链条太长，复杂）掌权的长期都是这一批人。

知乎用户 杨军的杨将军的军​ 发表

什么时候能公布公职人员的个人财产以及来源

知乎用户 独影 发表

中国的 “霉体” 还不如这个周公子真实，只会避重就轻，隔靴搔痒，抓软柿子捏，没啥水平还喜欢臭显摆自己的理性客观，自以为是道德审判者，想象这些 “妓者” 装腔作势，义正言辞的逼样就想吐

知乎用户 发条竖锯 发表

二代们配个政委，网络发言要经政委审核，就能防止了

知乎用户 Biubiubiu 发表

长太息以掩涕兮，哀民生之多艰

知乎用户 麟先生 发表

万恶的资本主义社会，就让它毁灭吧~

知乎用户 最近爱吃柿子 发表

我觉得炫的很好嘛，让我们知道这些官员到底有多富多有权，不公开公务员财产，就靠他们这些人炫耀出来!

知乎用户 多吃水果​ 发表

他们想管的只是吃饭时吧唧嘴的问题，并不想管这个饭是抢来的还是骗来的

知乎用户 文叨叨​ 发表

这种事今后会越来越多，防不了的。有权有势就是要作威作福，要不权势用来干嘛！古人说的好：“富贵不还乡，如锦衣夜行！”

知乎用户 IMOK 发表

你这文章写的毛病很大啊，还是把老百姓当傻瓜糊弄呢…… 什么叫不应该炫耀？什么叫低调做人？什么叫没见过世面？老百姓关心的是这个吗？还说什么应该锦衣夜行，没人在意你是白天穿锦衣还是夜里穿锦衣，大家就问你锦衣哪来的，应该怎么防止通过权利获得大量的锦衣？

这篇文章这里和稀泥式的问群众 “眼睛干不干”，重点是“眼睛干不干” 吗？

算了，没啥意思，从古至今几千年来一直都是这样，改又改不掉，“新时代” 也好，“跳出历史周期律” 也好，都是镜花水月。

知乎用户 邓凯 发表

嘚瑟比裙带官僚贪腐的罪名轻多了

知乎用户 andy 发表

反驳两点。

没了权力，你啥都不是。反过来说，就是有了权力，你啥都是。所以说，没有监督和制衡的权力是多么可怕。

权力是党和人民给的。不认同。如果是人民赋予的，那么人民也有权利收回。如果老百姓没有权利收回，那不能说是人民给的。应该说是党 (政军商) 给的。因为他们有收回的权利。

知乎用户 shing 发表

媒体在权力面前算什么

知乎用户 班尼是只鹿 发表

权力是用来享受的，不是用来炫耀的

知乎用户 新五 发表

这个问题该怎么回答？防止哪类现象？一般最重要的话都是最后说，重要的话说三遍，不是用来炫耀的，夹紧尾巴做人，有钱也就算了，还出来嘚瑟。

知乎用户 十年九一​ 发表

精神世界贫瘠，才需要虚荣来保持富足！

近几年，为啥大家对‘不公平’的事情，反应如此激烈？

从对‘娱乐圈偷税漏税’喊打喊杀，到‘小镇做题家’的抗议，都是对‘不公平’的反抗。

不公平，是今天才有的吗？其实，大家心里都有数。

这种时候，炫富 炫特权 炫阶级，就是摆明了对底层普通大众的嘲讽，在炫耀优越感。

他得到的，只不过是虚荣心的满足。

而对整天看他朋友圈，努力谋求一个国企职位的普通人，是赤裸裸的讽刺，是对普通人努力想跨越阶层的嘲笑。

认识一些国央企或事业单位二代，家庭条件都不错，但大多很低调。

尤其是前几年反腐行动，很多高调的人都被调查后，基本都遵循，低调做人做事。

财不外露，权不显摆！是聪明的做法。

所以，他家被调查一点都不冤，怪就怪，父母没有教育好。

没让他有更多充实精神世界的方法，只能靠秀优越感来达到。

希望，多点这样的二代。享受了时代和政策的红利，就应该接受大众的监督。

知乎用户 叶慢慢 发表

以权谋私、裙带关系不是问题，问题是你不该说出来

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

重启独生子女政策

知乎用户 不敢说可不敢说 发表

这个提问惊掉了我的下巴，竟然出现了周吉力第二，而且是官媒，周吉力不管怎么说还是个个人，作为官媒竟然发问如何避免炫耀权力

向谁提问的呢? 广大人民群众，这就好比牧羊犬向羊提问，如何解决牧羊人的傻儿子向羊群炫耀羊肉很香一样

站在你们的角度分析，这不是你们内部需要解决的问题吗，现在都这么明目张胆了，一点不避讳

提问问题的潜台词不明而喻，只要不炫耀出去，权力该怎么用怎么用，现在需要解决的是滥用职权的时候如何解决不炫耀这个引起羊群公愤的问题，竟然还向羊提问

这个社会是怎么了？这是道德的沦丧，还是人性的扭曲

该不会是这个编辑也是牧羊人家的亲戚吧，难道目的也是炫耀? 跟周吉力比高低?

知乎用户 一千零一夜 发表

所有人都知道分配问题出现问题了

历史周期律，没办法

为人民服务

知乎用户 月夜落雨 发表

防不了。等死吧

抄美国那套还有点救

知乎用户 马一刀 发表

你能怎样

知乎用户 嘉然今天吃什么 发表

禁止相关单位工作人员发朋友圈和微博

知乎用户 我头上有犄角 发表

国企员工作为工人，只不过是在实行符合他身份的言论罢了，工人地位高不是应该的吗

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

借党忙官之人——俗不可耐。

知乎用户 Fridai 发表

这几年央企国企的收入确实涨了很多，人家有炫耀的资本，没什么可说的，只能怪自己选择错误，或者没有一个能进国企的爸妈

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

发点每天日常，就被扣上炫富秀权的帽子，还有王法么，还有法律么？手动狗头

知乎用户 luuuuuufei 发表

把权利给牛马，TMD，让牛马去监督，当然老爷们可不干，毕竟老爷是要做老爷的。

知乎用户 吃枣完 发表

众所周知，中国政府的权力来自人民，所以这句话就是说人民太惯着这些人。没毛病哦！

知乎用户 Collins 发表

我好像没给啊

知乎用户 一点也不潇洒 发表

防止？防止个啥？有什么好防止的？这种人越多越好啊。

你要知道爹妈能到这个层次的孩子很少出现 NC 啊。

现在出现了一个，多棒啊，这代表一个家族权益链的漏洞，这代表其他人的机会。

其他人中也包括普通人。

知乎用户 竹中卧龙 发表

如何防止此类现象发生？媒体评「国企员工炫耀事件」，称「嘚瑟是权力惯出来的臭毛病」，防止哪个？国企员工炫耀事件？媒体评论称「嘚瑟是权力惯出来的臭毛病」？

这一眼看看不出重点，想来这可能是蹭热点吧，这个认证的经济观察报的编辑水平不行啊，立了个什么标题的，结果仔细一看，呵呵了，不止标题不行，这题目里的立意，简直是绝了。

除去事情本身的概括，摘录原文评论如下：“无论是几年前的严夫人还是最近的王澄澄，这些得利者已经靠着身边人的荫蔽获取了普通民众难以企及的社会资源，却还拿来高调炫耀，嘚瑟的背后是权力惯出来的臭毛病，仗着有权就无所顾忌，说到底还是没见过世面，不知敬畏。”

这个浓缩一下就是” 得利者已靠身边人的荫蔽获得资源，低调的享受就好，别拿出来炫 “。这是这次事件的核心吗？人民关注的是这个朋友圈所反映出来的贪腐和关系网问题，而不是他炫耀的这件事，不否定有人出于” 仇富，仇权 “，但这不是核心问题的啊。

二段原文评论：” 所以奉劝各级领导干部，管好自己和身边人，要知道权力是党和人民给的，是用来为国家社会做事的，不是用来炫耀的。必须谦虚谨慎、兢兢业业，用好手中权力。别到最后被打回原形才发现，没了权力，你啥都不是。“

浓缩一下就是：” 领导干部管好了得利团体，别炫，干点事，没有权利啥也不是。“光是这一段貌似没有什么问题，关键是你前面写的和这段连起来的味道就不一样了的，语文老师应该教过文章是一个整体，阅读理解需要联系上下文的吧。核心问题定位始终在” 炫耀 “上。

这选题做的简直是大门（贪腐和关系网）开着不想进，非要钻狗洞（炫耀）。

或者作为一个媒体人，已经不敢去报道揭露，并且认定显示不可撼动的了，但是又想蹭一波热点，简直是**” 牌坊达人 “。**

知乎用户 绍师 发表

以上答案我觉的都不是

我觉得真正原因是

我有钱，我很快乐，我比全世界大部分，我比中国大部分人都快乐，都幸福，都有钱，很多人来巴结我

而这个没有人知道，这是一件很痛苦的事情

注意：重点是没人知道，我很痛苦。

我想让很多人知道，这让我更加快乐

知乎用户 李文扬 发表

防止防止，你还在填试卷啊！

知乎怎么这么蠢的问题这么多，全 tm 脱离实践，要么装傻，要么发泄情绪，对现实一点积极意义都没有的问题只会加速你平台的消亡。

别再关心这种无聊的话题了，做自己的事去。

知乎用户 李云流 发表

这几个月因为与国资、合作社成立合资公司做法人变更的事情，被其特有的工作环境和思维方式折腾到身心俱疲。

其中一家是个 30% 小股，我们有需求做股转，他们迟迟不肯答应做变更，各种拖延，直到我们合伙人亲自去那边和洽谈，他们上层答应了这事，下面执行的又加了个 “审计结束再变更”，一直等他们审计几周后，我和他们财务总监对接又开始摆谱，表明股转又要审计，我说不用审计，他说你让你们财总给我说，他们谈完后他又要花时间确认要不要审计

这家整体感受就是态度趾高气昂，先优越起来，事情对的还是错的，能不能给你办成就是次要的看你态度够不够谦卑了。

另外一家是合作社 10% 小股，我们很早就打好招呼要变更，拿着材料去盖章的时候各种找茬要我们修改，但是材料是市监局模板无法修改，他说来说去看改不了没办法，只能在盖章的时候写了句 “仅供…… 变更使用”，我们强调市监局那边审核会不通过，他还是为了彰显自己的谨慎和才智写上了，市监局老师看到材料以后表示这很有可能通不过，那页盖章有三家公司盖章，都在全国不同地方，通不过就要全国快递重新来一轮

这家给我的整体感受就是教条化，并且认为自己考虑的周到加上不必要且没用的多余做法。一想到中国基层管理由他们来做，我就喘不过气。

这几个月下来事情是没做成功，对接的我是身心俱疲，也想考个试进去混日子还能看人低，明明就很无知，实在不知道他们哪里来的优越感

是都这样，还是就我遇到的这样，我职业生涯有限，只有一年，就遇到这两位。不妨谈谈

知乎用户 scarlett 发表

我朋友 33 岁了，今年副科级公务员了，高中都没读完你猜怎么当上公务员的

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

避重就轻，嘚瑟是问题吗？嘚瑟的东西的才是问题。

知乎用户 怪人 发表

为什么要防止, 我巴不得这些狼都爆出来

知乎用户 是三石啊 发表

现在很明显，人家起点是大部分人一辈子也到不了的终点。

目前的状态尽管有点吹牛，但里面的人都告诉不要太张扬。

提不忘初心到底什么意思，怎么理解。

知乎用户 大圣在烟台 发表

在社会主义这个历史阶段中，必须坚持无产阶级专政，把社会主义革命进行到底，才能防止资本主义复辟，进行社会主义建设，为过渡到共产主义准备条件——转摘自《关于赫鲁晓夫的假共产主义及其在世界历史上的教训》一九六四年七月十四日《人民日报》

知乎用户 二象性选手 发表

因为人家嘚瑟了你也拿人家没办法啊

顶多不痛不痒的发个通报

你还能怎么样

还不是官官相护

最多打打几个蚊子

知乎用户 明白那次的开始 发表

侠客岛把这篇删了

知乎用户 欢欢又来了 发表

惯出来的毛病还少了么？又不是什么个别现象，吃皇粮的臭虫那么多，时不时蹦出来几个，查了不是一年两年了… 改变 毛了？

知乎用户 奇龙 发表

你看 “臭毛病” 这个词，用得多好！

“毛”：一般指小或轻，如毛毛雨，没毛用，毛事儿没有

“臭”：亲昵的用词，甚至略带褒义，如臭弟弟，臭宝宝，臭男人，臭钱 —，嘴上说人家臭，心里却喜爱地不得了呢。

由此看来，臭毛病＝惹人喜爱的小问题？

知乎用户 浪得虚名 发表

建议改为喉舌评……

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

把权力管好就行，但是

知乎用户 刚子 发表

媒体以为是嘚瑟问题，实际上是分配问题。

怕就怕有些人闷声发大财，你被吸血都浑然不知。

知乎用户 sun long​ 发表

关键问题不在得瑟，而是哪里来的得瑟的资本？

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

其实大家也都心知肚明，这货炫不炫耀事实就在那里，社会阶层的差距也摆在那里，没办法的，社会牛马都已经被明着嘲讽成小镇做题家了。你还能咋办？只能继续当牛马呗

知乎用户 矜然诺 发表

“这些得利者已经靠着身边人的荫蔽获取了普通民众难以企及的社会资源，却还拿来高调炫耀”？

有问题的到底是 “靠着身边人的荫蔽获取了普通民众难以企及的社会资源”，还是 “高调炫耀”？

做错事没关系，展现出来 / 被人指出就不行。

指出的人是外人，可以直接封禁甚至查水表。展现出来的人是内人，只能劝说要低调。

“所以奉劝……”，多么忠诚啊，居然愿意冒着这么大风险劝说。

有没有一种可能，在正常的世界，对这些人根本不需要奉劝，直接抓起来就行？

“不可能，绝对不可能”。

知乎用户 路过捞 发表

私有化，让他尝尝市场经济的铁拳

知乎用户 阿白 发表

为什么要防止？要赞美，要保护发生者！毕竟这样的人不多了！

知乎用户 后知后觉 发表

涉及的是社会资源分配的公平问题。

不炫，难道就公平了？

知乎用户 枫林 发表

这就是人性啊，当一个人什么都没有的时候，就会去各种追求物质、金钱、权力等等。这些拥有之后，又会去追求精神上的满足，比如受人尊敬、受人拥戴。这本无可厚非，但是炫富本身就是一件拉仇恨的事情，更何况还是国企员工炫富，就更要不得了，违背了初衷，也不低调一点，难怪被核查，这能怪谁？

就算防止了这种事件发生，但是人的虚荣心永远防不了。

大部分人都不富有，失业的人还越来越多，这个节骨眼再炫富，无疑是雪上加霜，仇恨拉满。

建议现在还是低调点，大家心里现在都憋着一肚子火没地方发，心理本就不平衡了，看到这样的事情，难免都会有情绪。

要从根本上解决这类事件，就必须要缩小贫富差距，至少没那么大的差距才行，让炫富不再那么耀眼。

知乎用户 幻城 发表

为什么要批评他呀，我们应该好好地奖励这位同志，把他塑造成典型、榜样，鼓励全体同志都向他学习，有值得炫耀的事情就大胆地炫出来，我相信人民群众十分乐意看到这种情况

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

党员资产公开能做到的话，这事就没了

知乎用户 shipK​ 发表

重点是嘚瑟吗？

知乎用户 别吠一声就拉黑 发表

这都能上知乎热搜

知乎用户 梦里图灵 发表

人家那是在给潜在合作对象看呢，：

“看我实力 找我没问题”

知乎用户 芝麻大的西瓜 发表

可以看出，家庭教育很重要！

知乎用户 爱笑的土豆 发表

禁掉朋友圈

知乎用户 11 发表

公职人员高调没什么不对，反而是好事。如果是自己合法收入获取的高质量生活，有什么丢人的？追求美好生活是人之常情，得瑟一下怎么了？只有公开才能彰显公平正义。某些资深 “演员” 装清廉，人前骑自行车，人后一分不敢花，这才是心里有鬼！

刻意强调公职人员要低调才是可怕的，无异于与普通群众进行阶级隔离，更会将大量贪腐之徒隐藏起来掩耳盗铃。

知乎用户 匿名用户 发表

中国共产党领导的社会主义国家，目标是消灭阶级，共同富裕。

为什么现在在社会上总有对 “阶级固化” 认同？为什么？！

为什么现在大家又都深切缅怀毛主席？为什么？！

知乎用户 梦小猪 发表

感谢鹅厂，感谢朋友圈

知乎用户 江月何年初照人 发表

热榜问题？

就这点热度？

知乎用户 羽椋 发表

中国有句话，叫闷声大发财，我就喜欢这句话，这是坠吼的

知乎用户 王二十 发表

其实这就是现状 防止发生就是见一个抓一个 抓到不敢嘚瑟

知乎用户 杜小胖 3333333333​ 发表

近日，一位国企 “普通员工” 在其朋友圈内炫富秀权一事引起全国人民的愤怒。一名国企 “普通员工”，家里的豪车 豪房 名牌包包 名牌手机 好烟 却数不胜数。经媒体，网友的调查，这位“普通员工” 的父亲是江西省某交通系统的一个非管理岗位的科级干部 其母亲是一家企业已退休的经理 其伯父退休前是江西高速集团一个子公司的副总，属于副处级干部。不仅如此，这位员工在其社交媒体还称自己多次和领导干部吃饭拍照。

不得不承认，这家庭背景确实不错。

但是这并不是可以拿出来炫耀的资本，一个基层干部应该是要想着为人民服务，而不是为人民币服务，不是为炫富而服务！

对于此事件，我只能说这位国企员工是搬起石头砸了自己的脚，有关纪检部门已经在成立调查小组彻查该事件。相信过不了多久，这些人将会受到法律的审判！

至于为什么一位国企员工炫富秀权会引起全国人民的愤怒和批评，这背后的根源在于人民与官僚之间矛盾的激化，而矛盾激化的根本原因则是官僚主义，尤其是官僚资本主义的盛行。这是一个危险的信号，需要各大党员干部的警惕！！想想当时苏联时期，当官的丝毫不管民众死活，只顾自己享受自己开心，形成了一个个官僚集团，特权阶级。严重脱离的人民群众，背叛了无产阶级，背离的社会主义的初心和使命，那么其结果是什么？后果是什么？危害在哪里？这里就不需要我说了。

所以说，我们的党员干部要始终牢记为人民服务的初心与使命，始终和人民群众保持血肉联系，要做老百姓的父母官，做老百姓的 “门神”！

我始终相信，我们国家的干部是为人民服务的好干部，我们要不断汲取历史教训，努力提高执政水平，政治素养。推进国家治理能力和治理体系现代化！

知乎用户 勃兰登堡老者 发表

破格申报条件

　　为了不拘一格选拔人才，对确有真才实学，成绩显著、贡献突出的人员，可以不受学历、资历的限制破格申报高、中级职务任职资格。

　　（一）破格申报高级职务者必须具有下列条件中的二条：

　　1、获得部、省级表彰的学科带头人；地市级以上有突出贡献的中、青年专家；荣获国家、省级表彰的乡镇企业家或优秀厂长、经理。

　　2、获得国家科技进步三等奖以上；省、部二等奖以上；地市一等奖以上（含发明奖、成果奖、自然科学奖、星火奖）项目的主要完成者；获得国家级金、银产品奖或省、部级名牌产品奖或优秀工程奖的主要生产技术负责人；创国家级、省级新产品奖的主要生产技术负责人。

　　3、直接主持完成大型项目或全面负责大中型企业生产经营管理工作或对非公有制企业技术发展作出突出贡献，取得明显经济效益者；企业连续二年营业收入在 2000 万元以上（省确定的山区县 1000 万元以上）、或利税在 400 万元以上（省确定的山区县 200 万元以上）的主要负责人。

　　4、在技术发明、创新、改造、专利、推广、应用中，取得的经济效益连续二年（申报高级职务的前二年）占本企业利税总额（400 万元以上，贫困山区 200 万元以上）20% 以上的主要技术负责人。

　　5、对本专业技术岗位的工作创立了有价值的经验，并在省内同行业中推广的主要贡献者；担任中级职务期间，成绩显著，并获得省级以上先进工作者称号的；或者在地市以上报刊或会议上发表过两篇以上被同行专家认定为有价值的学术论文，或正式出版过有价值的著作或译著。

　　（二）破格申报中级职务者必须具备下列条件中的二条：

　　1、获国家科技进步、星火计划四等奖或省、部级科技进步、星火计划三等奖以上项目的主要完成者，或获地（市）科技进步二等奖以上项目的主要完成者或获省部优质产品或优质工程的主要技术负责人。

　　2、在地市级以上报刊发表专业技术论文三篇以上或专著。

　　3、直接主持中型项目或中型骨干企业的专业技术工作，且连续二年以上取得了明显效益者。

　　4、担任助理级期间，成绩显著且获地（市）级优秀企业家或先进专业技术工作者称号的。

知乎用户 职称评审 发表

怎么防？你让贼喊捉贼？

知乎用户 免罪天堂 发表

这种事以后一定会越来越少，直到没有的。

我说的是 “报道出来”

知乎用户 Vio1aLee​ 发表

得瑟是全力惯出来的臭毛病？不受制衡的权力本身就是臭毛病。

知乎用户 武汉吴彦祖 发表

什么样的权力能惯出来毛病问题？必然是不受任何约束的权力！

知乎用户 冷溪术士 发表

不许摆上台面，自己闷声发大财就完事了

知乎用户 Zado 发表

小骂大帮忙，完美回避贪污腐败等重点问题

知乎用户 风雨同舟 发表

爆笑如雷了家人们

知乎用户 柠檬薄荷 发表

权力又不违法，炫耀也不违法，防止这个干嘛？

到底该防啥？该查啥？

我一介草民，也不懂。

知乎用户 阡陌酒中仙 发表

这个教育效果比考公还好

知乎用户 罕见无比十万 发表

“我志愿加⼊中国共产党，拥护党的纲领，遵守党的章程，履⾏党员义务；执⾏党的决定，严守党的纪律，保守党的秘密，对党忠诚，积极⼯作，为共产主义奋⽃终⾝，随时准备为党和⼈民牺牲⼀切，永不叛党。”

知乎用户 坏人 发表

防止不了，而且你对他们没有办法。

知乎用户 李野吃 发表

还是权力不够大。

知乎用户 感恩 发表

把一切问题都归咎于 “舆论”，说明无能到除了引导舆论什么都做不了，没那个能力知道吧？

自己说的，是太高调，是嘚瑟。

别人说的，是污蔑，是造谣。

深得前苏联真传。

知乎用户 贾森​ 发表

官媒又在这故意搅浑水了

知乎用户 勃动和立子 发表

这也叫媒体? 这叫传声简！小骂大帮忙，我看国内是不存在一家传统意义上的媒体，都是新媒体。

知乎用户 momomo 发表

意思就是让他们偷着乐就行了

知乎用户 SeeyoKing​ 发表

侠客岛说的好啊，没了权利，你啥都不是。

那有了权利呢？

有了权利，百姓在你眼里啥都不是

知乎用户 静山 发表

如何防止这类事情的发生。

很简单严肃纪律给普通人更多机会促进社会流动，进体制有编制严格要求必须考试。。。

知乎用户 陈子文 发表

反腐，加大力度反腐，反腐常态化，反腐是基本国策。

知乎用户 苍穹 发表

国企？

倒像是一群人的世袭制家族企业。

一直在思考为什么号称人人平等的 gczy 会失败，最近慢慢拨开那些云山雾罩的口号，终于发现: 公社下农民基本成了农 nu，而国企本该属于全民却实际上存在大量世袭制，就这么个落后的东西，能不失败吗？

不要看他们嘴上说的是什么，一定要仔细思考实际情况到底是什么。

知乎用户 倚阑看日暮 发表

现在不止是 “宇宙的尽头是编制”，而是“宇宙的尽头是权力、权欲” 了

如果一代年轻人在这种 “权力、权欲” 心态、心理的支配下，才纷纷追逐国企等公职行业、职位，那么，“全心全意为人民服务”的公职承诺，还如何成为可能？

“公平正义” 的社会理想，又将拿什么去期待、捍卫？

知乎用户 有录留学 发表

怎么防止？简单，把贪污和抢钱定同罪，贪污成本加大，要拿命去博，那么贪污至少少了 90%。举例抢 5 毛也枪毙的，那么性质特别恶劣的贪污也应该直接枪毙（贪污十万就枪毙）。

知乎用户 男 K 也 发表

你是指防止贪腐家庭发朋友圈炫耀？还是指防止贪腐呢？

知乎用户 爹地 发表

这事情

一直在发生

大家也一直都知道

但

你奈我何？

知乎用户 我们飞向太空 发表

组织向低调朴素有内涵的赵德汉同志学习

知乎用户 佳禾 发表

我可不敢说。。

知乎用户 来了来了别叫了 发表

烂透了已经，与其想着防止，不如思考下重新洗牌？

知乎用户 家有恶猫 发表

看见没他们也只敢关注嘚瑟，而不是权利的滥用。把这种八旗子弟送到大明留学吧

省的旗里的包衣们看着不舒服

最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一，注册立得 100 美金