King Xuan of Han wished to employ both Gongzhong and Gongshu in governing the state, and so he sought the counsel of Miao Liu. Miao Liu replied: "In former times, King Wei employed Lou Bi and Zhai Qiang together, and the state was thereby weakened; King Chu employed Zhao Xixu and Zhao Yang together, and the state was thereby ruined. Now, if Your Majesty employs Gongzhong and Gongshu together, I privately deem this unwise." King Xuan of Han asked, "Why is that?" Miao Liu answered: "Gongzhong holds high station while Gongshu holds low; Gongshu is given to envy while Gongzhong is worthy. These two ministers bear jealousy toward each other, and yet Your Majesty employs them both—this will set them at strife. In their contention, the strong shall prevail and the weak shall fall. The strong, being employed by Your Majesty, and the weak, likewise employed, yet the outcome is that the strong triumphs and the weak is defeated—then the strong will seize sole authority, and the weak will find himself unable to preserve his own person. I fear that these two ministers will harm each other, and Your Majesty will be powerless to control the situation."
💡 商战启示录
Miao Liu's counsel reveals a core principle of governance: in critical positions within an organization, one should avoid simultaneously appointing talents whose abilities complement each other but whose temperaments clash and whose status disparity is pronounced—otherwise, internal friction will devour organizational efficacy. This maps directly onto modern business, with the most emblematic case being the power struggle between Steve Jobs and John Sculley in Apple's early years. Jobs was a technical genius (the sage), while Sculley was a marketing expert (high in status yet lacking product vision). Their philosophies diverged, mutual trust evaporated, and ultimately Jobs was ousted from the company he had founded, plunging Apple into strategic chaos and a dramatic erosion of market value. Another case is Uber founder Travis Kalanick's public conflicts with multiple senior executives, which corroded corporate culture, drove away key talent, and eventually compelled the board to force his resignation. In contemporary corporate governance, boards and executive teams must assess "portfolio risk": when two core executives possess complementary strengths but hold severely opposed values or styles, one should not simply place hope in "healthy competition." Instead, clear demarcations of responsibility, reporting hierarchies, or third-party mediation mechanisms must be established. Otherwise, internal rivalry will slide from "contesting ideas" to "contesting persons," resulting in decision paralysis, resource waste, and even organizational fragmentation. The correct approach is either to designate a single core decision-maker or to ensure the two parties operate within clearly non-overlapping mandates, with a strong CEO or board serving as the ultimate arbiter—thereby averting the scenario of "the strong dominating the state."