“A soldier who does not want to be a general is not a good soldier.” Napoleon’s famous saying, which conquered the world in the 19th century, has always inspired people to mobilize all factors (including unfair means) to climb up the rock. Originally, the position of a general was more attractive than that of a soldier - he could fight quickly, command thousands of troops, and dominate the situation; a general was more powerful than a soldier - he could fight in battles, make decisions about advance and retreat, and speak the truth. Coupled with the guidance of the concept that "soldiers who don't want to be generals are not good soldiers", those soldiers who do not hesitate to benefit themselves at the expense of others, are opportunistic, eager for quick success, cheat, and use any means to become generals continue to emerge. Does such a team still have combat effectiveness? What is the difference between "general" and "soldier" at this time - aren't they both defeated?

From an objective perspective, although everyone wants to be a general, But generals are in the minority after all, especially in contemporary times. The flat management structure has led to a sharp decline in the number of middle-level leaders who had a higher chance of success. On the other hand, society provides unprecedented diversified space and unlimited competitive opportunities. As a result, the concept that "soldiers who want to be generals are not good soldiers" quietly emerged. This perspective largely refers to a down-to-earth work attitude. There was once a famous cartoon like this: There were five applicants at a job fair. The first four all took "An employee who doesn't want to be a manager is not a good employee" as their motto and goal. Only the last one issued The opposite voice: "An employee who only wants to be a manager is not a good employee!" As a result, the last one was hired.

In modern society, only professionals are the best. Soldiers are originally a profession, and generals are by no means a natural promotion for soldiers. Before joining the WTO, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation publicly recruited a "general" online: a doctor of law under the age of 34 who had obtained it abroad. In this way, can a soldier with average desires, average experience, and average knowledge eventually become a general? This requires N question marks. Today's generals are not ranked based on seniority, popularity, and backers as in the past. You can become a general if you want to. Any job has a certain degree of professionalism. This is also the so-called "every line is like a mountain". The ancients understood it, but modern people may not understand it. Blindly advocating to be a general will only cause you to waste your time and gradually develop regrets in the process of constantly striving for glory that does not belong to you.

The best soldier should be a good soldier rather than a general. This is not only a matter of ambition, but also a matter of down-to-earth work. A good soldier will not be too ambitious and impetuous, but will do the job at hand in a down-to-earth manner, and will not be obsessed with being promoted to a general. Such soldiers are truly capable soldiers and will not be eliminated by the times. There is a veteran in a certain industrial and commercial bureau who is an expert in news and publicity. After leaving the job at the age of 51, while others enjoyed the helpless old age, he was retained. The royalties and bonuses were a large amount of income, and he lived a fulfilling life. And when several directors of the "general" leave their posts, they will naturally be unemployed forever because they do not have the skills to serve as soldiers. Who will let you "lead"?

Soldiers also have a lot to do. If the chariots, horses and artillery in chess cannot be used as generals, can they not be said to be good horses and artillery? Pawns have a wide range of activities, while generals, soldiers and ministers can only move within a small range. It can be said that generals are the most powerful. Well, the happiest? A conscientious soldier would not think too hard about becoming a general. The responsibilities of a soldier require him to be down-to-earth, diligent, go through life and death, and work hard without complaint. Soldiers have a lot to do and a lot of sweat and effort to put in. The saying here that "soldiers who don't want to be generals are also good soldiers" does not mean that you will lose your vitality and high spirits, but that in the diversified era of specialization, intelligence, and detailed division of labor, you can maximize your potential and Maximize benefits.

A soldier who does not regard becoming a general as his only goal may eventually become a general, but his success is not because of his vain desire to become a general, but because of his unique efforts. and giving. Perhaps just when the soldiers are working hard in obscurity and forgetting the duties and titles of generals, they may bid farewell to their status as soldiers and are not far away from being generals. The general did not think it up, but did it step by step.

A soldier who doesn’t want to be a general is also a good soldier, but a soldier who just wants to be a general is not a good soldier.