New Oriental’s Annual Gala Roast Song and the “Corporate Illnesses” So Many Companies Share — Does Your Company Have Them Too?

New Oriental’s Annual Gala Roast Song and the “Corporate Illnesses” So Many Companies Share — Does Your Company Have Them Too?

As the end of the year approaches, annual parties have become the latest theme taking over social media. One after another, “other people’s companies” appear in enviable form: one hands out year-end bonuses stacked into literal walls of cash worth hundreds of millions; another gives bonuses equivalent to dozens of months’ salary; yet another offers a grand prize of a family vacation to the South Pacific. In contrast, New Oriental unexpectedly went viral in people’s feeds for an entirely different reason. This long-established example of “someone else’s amazing company” became famous because employees openly roasted it at the annual gala. And what they mocked triggered broad resonance almost immediately. Many people admired New Oriental’s tolerance, while silently comparing it with conditions at their own companies, reposting the song while thinking about all the grievances they themselves dared not voice.

Setting aside the natural tensions among business units, support functions, and management reflected in the song, let’s focus on the “corporate illness” symptoms revealed in the adapted song Release Myself, based on Desert Camel. Perhaps it is precisely because these symptoms are so widespread that so many spectators felt such strong resonance. So what kinds of “corporate illnesses” does Release Myself actually expose? And for people in the workplace, beyond complaining, how should one respond to them?

1. Performance Reviews vs. Actually Getting Work Done

KPI-based evaluation is a pain point most companies cannot avoid. Without performance reviews, bosses feel that employees lack clear goals and that their performance cannot be measured. But once performance metrics are introduced, employees inevitably start chasing whatever the metrics reward. Work becomes about performance for performance’s sake. At best, this turns the evaluation system into an empty formality; at worst, it distorts the culture of the entire company.

Programmers, trying to hit code-line targets, forcibly split one line of code into ten. Salespeople, trying to maximize contract numbers and contract value, turn a blind eye to hidden risk clauses. If a company’s culture treats performance metrics as the only standard for judging people, then those most skilled at gaming the scorecard are more likely to gain the greatest rewards, while employees who believe they are quietly working hard are left full of resentment.

From a management perspective, because performance reviews are short-cycle and inherently limited, the more rigidly they are enforced, the more likely employees are to sacrifice the company’s long-term interests for short-term scores. This is something every policymaker in an organization ought to think seriously about. As for employees, if the goal is simply to cash out quickly and move on, then naturally the best strategy is to follow the KPI baton. But from the perspective of professional ethics and long-term development, everyone has both the need and the responsibility to raise objections to unreasonable parts of the evaluation system, so that decision-makers can take them into account.

2. Buck-Passing Between Departments and Chaotic Interfaces

Very few companies are born with a complete and well-designed organizational structure. Most companies develop first and then continually adjust and refine their structure as they grow. But these adjustments may come too late, may be constrained by delicate political trade-offs, or may simply be temporary expansions made at a certain stage of growth.

When departments start “throwing the blame” at one another, or absurdities arise like “ten different entry points for one renewal” or “five teaching assistants following one parent through the enrollment process,” the root problem is unclear positioning, authority, and responsibility across departments. Vague division of responsibilities is a classic symptom of corporate illness. In organizations with good relationships or very small teams, coordination between departments may rely on tacit understanding, personal relationships, or instructions from above. But in organizations with chaotic management or excessive scale, unclear responsibilities may become the main source of conflict between departments.

As the saying goes, where you sit determines how you think. If an organization has a performance-evaluation system while departmental authority and responsibilities remain unclear, conflict between departments is often especially intense. Each department is more likely to focus only on its own interests rather than the interests of the whole.

From a management perspective, regularly gathering relevant feedback and continually refining and adjusting the allocation of authority and responsibility is a necessary condition for keeping the organization functioning smoothly. For individuals within the organization, on the one hand, much depends on one’s own ability to coordinate relationships; on the other hand, perhaps a little more empathy and perspective-taking may help as well.

3. “The King of Chu Loves Slim Waists”: Leadership Traits and Their Influence

In any organization — especially in places where democratic norms have not taken deep root — the personal traits of the leader often determine the character of the organization’s culture. “Singing loudly for the boss’s social media posts” may be unavoidable, but what exactly the boss posts is the real issue. As the saying goes, what those above favor, those below will pursue with even greater zeal.

In state-owned enterprises or similar organizations where power is highly concentrated, a leader’s preferences often become the prevailing wind inside the company. This can have positive effects, but more often it is highly dangerous. A forward-looking leader may intentionally use personal influence to push certain initiatives forward, or may choose to keep a low profile and downplay personal traits in order to minimize their negative impact on the company’s culture.

At the same time, Confucius said, “Fine words and an ingratiating manner are seldom associated with true benevolence.” Leaders should always remain highly alert to subordinates who flatter deliberately, praise constantly, and never offer a different voice. In practice, this is often the hardest thing of all. After all, people naturally enjoy hearing pleasant things, while good medicine, though beneficial, is bitter and hard to swallow.

In any organization, everyone will notice people around them playing the role of the sycophant, and sometimes one may even be forced to play that role oneself. Part of this comes from a natural awe toward authority; part of it can be explained by the feeling that “in the world of work, one often has little choice.” If one finds oneself in such an organization, the first thing to consider is whether one’s own values are compatible with the corporate culture promoted by its leadership.

4. Bureaucratic Bloat

Take a simple question: “The chairman asks the president, the president asks the principal, the principal asks the director, the director asks the manager, the manager asks the supervisor, the supervisor asks the specialist, and the specialist still has to ask a part-timer.” If things have reached this point, the organization’s bureaucratic bloat speaks for itself.

More often, however, such bloat forms gradually, layer by layer, through repeated iterations. That is also what makes it the hardest problem to deal with. For individuals, there seems to be no especially effective remedy. And for managers, the task is a heavy one and the road is long.