2023中级经济师必刷题《工商管理专业知识与实务》 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

本书按照相关部门近期新发布的中级经济专业技师资格试大纲要求和新颁布的律规编写，基于企业战略与经营决策、人治理结构、市场营销与品牌管理、分销渠道、生产及物流管理、电子、国际运营等知识内容，结合历年辅导的大批生的经验，按照前60天刷题的时间节点，设计了三个部分内容：刷题练，按照章节顺序呈现题，范围涵盖每个常知识点，让生反复练训练；章节思维导图，展示各章的重点内容，直观明了呈现知识体系；全机套卷，通过扫描二维码呈现机，提供模拟练。

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：2023中级经济师必刷题《工商管理专业知识与实务》在线阅读

在线听书地址：2023中级经济师必刷题《工商管理专业知识与实务》在线收听

在线购买地址：2023中级经济师必刷题《工商管理专业知识与实务》在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

本书按照相关部门近期新发布的中级经济专业技师资格试大纲要求和新颁布的律规编写，基于企业战略与经营决策、人治理结构、市场营销与品牌管理、分销渠道、生产及物流管理、电子、国际运营等知识内容，结合历年辅导的大批生的经验，按照前60天刷题的时间节点，设计了三个部分内容：刷题练，按照章节顺序呈现题，范围涵盖每个常知识点，让生反复练训练；章节思维导图，展示各章的重点内容，直观明了呈现知识体系；全机套卷，通过扫描二维码呈现机，提供模拟练。

• 作者：咸塘浜老黑鱼 发布时间：2019-06-07 23:33:43

  不是很喜欢《W高达》系列，买过看过就好了......

• 作者：翁小样 发布时间：2012-01-12 10:26:30

  瑞金花园看 http://book.douban.com/review/5281387/

• 作者：左家垅欢乐马 发布时间：2020-05-06 11:55:50

  本科无机课用的教材 所有内容集合在一本砖一样的书里 很多地方讲的不够清晰

• 作者：Pecari tajacu 发布时间：2017-03-25 11:15:39

  节奏控制的不太好，但还是比较有诚意的。

• 作者：伏笔未有续 发布时间：2020-07-05 09:42:12

  真的不怎么样。也许是法国人出题思路和中国人不一样？

• 作者：gee 发布时间：2011-01-18 23:58:00

  从特殊角度梳理历史，挺有教益。个别部分有点成王败寇，稍稍让人不舒服。没看全，只看了一部分。可以当参考书，需要的时候拿出来参考

• 近期读过的非常好的关于5G时代营销思路的书籍

  作者：麒麟 发布时间：2022-08-30 17:56:34

  

  这并非是研究经管专业的又一次新噱头。初次接触量子管理学、营销学方面的内容，是上一本阅读《人单合一：海尔量子管理模式》，应该说海尔10年前尝试人单合一模式和所谓量子管理不谋而合了，量子管理，其实是借鉴了物理学里的量子理论。

  比如光，同时具有粒子和波两种状态，就好比企业里的员工，独自发挥自我作用，又可以合力为企业共同努力，取其意象，便于理解表达，前沿科技发展总是能带动各行各业的思路创新。

  

  可以反思一下，几千年前的以物换物交易模式和现在的网购模式一样么？几千年前的金币银币和现在的移动支付一样么？肯定是非常不同了吧，科技的进步，会逼着营销思路的转变，不论是事业管理或者这本《量子营销》里重点探讨的营销学，都不得不面对科技转变带来的新冲击，如果固步自封，只能被时代所淘汰，就像当初诺基亚CEO说的：“我们没做错任何事，但不知道为什么，我们输了”，其实淘汰诺基亚的不是苹果，而是时代。我相信还会有很多企业面临洗牌，如果还没有意识到现代社会已经进入了万物互联的量子时代，那诺基亚就是前车之鉴。

  

  不知道大家有没有发现一个现象，在很早之前，我们总对骚扰广告推销电话很困扰，一有陌生电话进来，下意识的就会想，“一定是卖保险的。”不过，你有没有发现现在这种骚扰电话少了，真正卖保险的也不会突兀的给你打来陌生电话直接推销了。这是为什么呢？

  传统营销途径非常的单一，电视、短信、电话、地推，辐射覆盖面积小，客户非常不精准，也就造成了早期的营销手段只能采取这种精度不高，效果很差的，大海捞针战术，雇一堆人，从早呼出打电话到晚上，能不能营销成功全靠撞大运，也同时造成潜在客户群体的不厌其烦。落后的营销手段，让营销双方都备受煎熬。

  

  现在5G时代，万物互联马上就要成型，已经初现雏形，微信里一句无心的聊天、短视频的几秒观看停留、百度上一次随意的搜索，都会留下足迹，然后又通过大数据分析，甚至每一秒的行为监控，对消费者做出分析，推荐适合他，并且他本人刚刚感兴趣的商品，做到超级精准的触达效果。现在的企业，如果做出的营销方案还是，收集客户名单电话打陌拜推销电话、或者印刷传单在马路边发小广告，我劝这种企业趁早倒闭算了，这种老牛拉笨车的落后营销方式，早就不适合现代了。

  

  那么量子营销应该是什么样子的呢？

  “永不下线意味着永远分心：在第四范式（我们现在所处的数字营销时代）中，人不断接触到新的刺激，平均注意力持续时间已经缩短到8秒以下，跟金鱼差不多。人们度假时，平均每天看80次手机，有些人每天看屏幕的次数超过300次。人们每天在不同数字设备上花费的时间长达6个多小时。而消费者平均每天会接收到5000条商业性信息的轰炸。他们学会了视而不见、听而不闻。。。”

  

  这是书中对于我们现在这个时代人们普遍接触信息的一个反馈，注意力支离破碎，各种信息扑面而来。

  接下来可以预见到的第五范式，也就是量子营销时代，将会是更加无缝衔接无孔不入的信息轰炸，意味着，一切的万物互联，带来无限的数据，五花八门的传感器扎堆消费者的生活，比如，家里的冰箱、洗碗机、洗衣机、扫地机器人都是联网的，各种传感器监测人们一举一动，甚至一次呼吸一次心跳的数据都被采集收集；5G网络0延迟，打破时空距离的界限、每秒100G的传输速度，自动驾驶、超远距离的机器人手术等等；人工智能（AI），可以创作出虚拟的偶像，比如微软小冰、苹果Siri，人工智能创作的音乐、小说、画作、偶像明星。。。；物联网、区块链、AR、VR。。。。随着全面进入量子营销时代，营销模式的转变也要顺应科技的发展，才能让企业立于不败之地。

  

  那如何改变呢？

  书中为我们介绍了新的困境和破解困境的新思路。作者说，为什么那么多人愿意忍受看视频正起劲的时候突然弹出来的广告呢，因为大家都知道，用自己的注意力换免费的视频和娱乐，也就是说，人的注意力，在如今是一种通货，是有价值的东西，但是，谁也不愿意浪费自己的注意力，于是就有了各种拦截广告的工具诞生，于是魔高一尺道高一丈，陷入一种对抗，但有些视频网站公司比如咱们国内的优酷啦或者外国的网飞啦，他们推出付费会员模式，很多人就为了祛除讨厌的广告，而花钱买会员享受注意力不被打扰的权力，这也就会让越来越多的人主动进入“不被广告打扰的空间”，对于营销人员来讲，这无异于一种巨大挑战，意味着他们的营销方案彻底失效。观众宝贵的有价值的注意力，通过对平台的付费，而保护住了，不被广告打扰，也就不存在营销。这就是困境。

  

  而破解困境的方式，作者也在书中指出了思路。他说，量子营销时代，“广告已死”，量子时代的一大特征就是去中心化，也就是区块链技术的思路，已经没有一种所谓权威的发布端口去对接大众了，因为大众就像粒子，每个粒子有自己的主见，但是体验式的营销方式，还是非常有效的吸引了大众的注意力，并且做到了精准营销，体验式营销虽然不是什么新鲜事，但量子时代，强调意见领袖的作用，这点我想非常像中国的“小红书”的模式，小红书就是由各行各业，各个领域，无数个博主，作为意见领袖，以他们的体验作为输出的端口，这个思路在书中也有各种的具体案例，广告从“讲故事”的模式，上升到了“造故事”的新模式，基于兴趣而生的体验式营销，具有前所未有的延展性拓展性，这也符合量子理论：

  “爱彼迎推出了一场夜游卢浮宫（Louvre）之旅。消费者可以在卢浮宫闭馆后慢慢地参观，与列奥纳多·达·芬奇（Leonardo da Vinci）的《蒙娜丽莎》（Mona Lisa）共进晚餐。与《蒙娜丽莎》共进晚餐！这也太酷了！用过晚餐，消费者会移步到博物馆前的玻璃金字塔，在特别准备的床上欣赏满天繁星，或者在四下无人的环境中安然入睡。总的来说，这是一场让人终生难忘的体验。当然，全程可以拍照留念。消费者回家路上或回到家以后会怎么做？他们会不会情不自禁地向全世界炫耀？他们会不会在网上发布自己的故事？如果有人问他们是怎样获得这段美妙体验的，他们会怎样回答？

  这场美妙绝伦的体验，与爱彼迎的策划密切相关。爱彼迎的业务是为旅游者提供住宿，利用绝妙的体验吸引消费者的注意力，增强他们对品牌的好感，给他们留下深刻的印象，与竞争对手形成显著的差异。”

  

  我个人认为，这本书虽然在某些层面介绍的有点过于啰嗦和浅显（尤其在介绍5G、VR、人工智能等方面时候的科普，因为这方面无疑中国是走在世界前列，甚至是制定行业标准的，所以这部分内容老外作者给中国人科普显然有点班门弄斧过于简单，但基于这本书也许主要写给外国读者，所以这并不是作者的错。）但这本书的重点意义在于，给了读者一个新的思路，一个提醒，告诉大家，科技进步了确实会影响生活的方方面面，以及人们的决策，如果你是公司的一个中层领导，一个创业做生意的人，你是不是按部就班根据之前老思路进行管理和营销？会不会没有意识到现在量子时代，所带来的转变？这是非常好的意义，一旦有品牌被时代所淘汰，就会有人出来鞭尸一遍诺基亚，那如何不重蹈覆辙呢，就是要有新思路，书中，后半部分的指导意义非常强，我个人非常喜欢，量子营销方案、对待消费者态度、伦理和品牌的报应，危机的处理方式等等内容都具有很强的指导作用，我觉得还是非常具有学习价值的一本书。

  

  

• Dilutant No.2

  作者：Souljourner 发布时间：2018-06-03 16:53:00

  I’m not a historian nor anthropologist by training, so all of this might just be my babbling gabbling twaddle, please exercise caution whenever you feel the impulse to subscribe to any of the ideas presented.

  And by the way I haven’t finished the whole book—as a matter of fact I’ve only flipped through a few pages and watched several book launch talks.

  According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, any isolated system tends to grow more disorderly over time— and if you think about it, the reordering of that “spilled water” really constitutes the subject matter of every single discipline ever existed on this planet (that is, of course, sparing art—this by no means indicates that it ought to escape “Die Sache”, but simply that it can, and great art always brings one in the guise of the other, think of Wagner). As it happens, we, in order to satiate an odd appetency for sublimation (an impulse harkens back to the singularity), are obsessed with the notion of reordering things— to bring things to the fore in unity, to restore harmony, to unveil the clandestine, to unravel the intricate, to tame the wild, to enlighten the obscure, and in this case, to divide the indivisible. What reemerged in the field of history and anthropology shortly after the cold war is a strange fascination to divide the world yet again, as if to compensate for the loss of a nicely cut “two-camps” geopolitical division of the cold war. You first get Samuel Huntington’s cry for clash of civilizations, and then a series of followers who, more often than not, are reluctant to acknowledge Huntington as the “inventor of the discourse”—from Mohammad Khatami all the way down to our subject of the day, the renowned Alan Macfarlane. This, as I would like to call it, “Sphearism”, is fundamentally problematic on many different levels; but I do believe Alan’s newest book touches upon something that might offer us a way out of this impasse, though he himself might be somewhat remiss when handling the issue.

  Before we dive into Alan’s work proper, let me just point out one thing about the works of Huntington et al. very briefly. It will be an inexhaustible and eventually futile effort to settle the debate between cultural boundaries vs culture continuum here, which I believe Alan, unbeknownst to himself, may have attempted to do so at one point in his book. However, there nevertheless are merits to be reaped when we discuss origins qua symptoms, that is, the principles by which we divide them. While Mr. Huntington uses his crayons to sketch profiles after the silhouettes of religions, Alan’s model is slightly different. He understands that religion is a western invention and can hardly be applied to every corner of the world, especially East Asia. The word “religion” comes from Latin “religio”, which Cicero asserted comes from “relego”, which again is formed by “re” and “lego”, meaning “re-select”, or “choose again”. This then is extended to mean careful, scrupulous, and pious. As Alan puts it, religion in the West is a “bundle of ideas”, values and belief that forms a close-knit system that dictates a great portion of both internal and external life. I don’t have to remind you how different this is from 宗教 “ancestral teaching”, which is a really loose and disparate discourse that is scattered all over the social spheres of the countries in East Asia. For example, Confucianism provides ethics but no gods, Buddhism provides some quasi-gods but less ethics, Shintoism provides ritual but is lack on many other respects, etc. Incidentally, from what I see, things like ancestral worshipping in China is forever elusively persistent and fundamentally latent, and is often less subject to the whims and caprices of the rulers than one would think.

  So then, Alan’s crayons are not just branded “religion”, they have a set of suffixes pertaining culture and ethnicity. But apart from several minute amends he made to the classic map of “clash of civilizations”, which is certainly debatable, he nevertheless by and large follows Huntington’s basic frame and produces a world map that is predominantly divided by national borders. But perhaps as an effort to escape Mr. Huntington’s shadow, he evokes something that he probably does not know how to fully control: this murderer’s weapon for over-determination of blood relationship here is called structuralism.

  Alan believes structuralism is about relations. And he thinks China is pretty much a “structural” society, compared to, say, the US, where tensions are focused on the entities per se, or the individuals. Two of the seminal schools that defines Chineseness, as he believes, are Confucianism and Taoism, where, it is the relations among things that is at the core of their teachings: Yin and Yang, emperor and subjects, father and son, husband and wife, etc. Therefore, he goes on to say, the fundamental building piece of Chinese society, is relations, which is precisely why it is extremely difficult to pin down a definite disparate delineation of the common core of the Sinic world. This is, mildly put, questionable: Alan probably failed to recognize that every single unit in his unfolding chain of examples are, as a matter of fact, dyadic; that they do not permit any infiltration of a third party; that they remain in a closed circuit that denies themselves external contact, and that in most cases one of the two elements are perpetually dominant. This no doubt goes against the classical structuralist mantra of negativity where every single utterance promises an infinitude of possible substitutes that could weave a seamless web of relations to supply an illusion of the real, and hence makes everything tick. This, as I happen to believe, is not how China works.

  However, I do not profess to know the answer to the questions “how does China work”, or anything that might approximate an answer—in fact, I believe very few can. The very amiable sinologist Kevin Rudd, on the other hand, might be one of them. In his latest remarks on this presidency of China, he spoke of the ruling ideologies of the Chinese. He believes to understand China one has to go back to Hegelian dialectics, Marxian principles, and Mao’s theory of conflicts. I believe you can easily tease out a number in all three of those theories: yep, “2”. I won’t go into any details to unpack them, but I believe the takeaway message is self-evident here: it is the pair of the dyadic relations, not the parties (excuse the pun) involved in any given relations, that persists ad infinitum, and that is what made possible the socialist ideas to take roots in the ancient soil of oriental wisdom, and that is at the core of the so-called Chineseness.

  So Alan’s misjudgment is not his misrecognition of the dichotomy of these relations, or the permeability of them in Chineseness—he is absolutely brilliant to point that out—but rather, it is that he fails to recognize these dyadic relations are all deterministic. “2” has always been the magic number for China, but the elements that have been separated apart are not necessarily equal; in fact, they are almost always unequal, to the point where one aspect rise to a preeminent position, and eventually dominates the other to form a relatively stable equilibrium. This is when “one” becomes “two”, as eloquently pointed out by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari: “one becomes two: whenever we encounter this formula, even stated strategically by Mao or understood in the most ‘dialectical’ way possible, what we have before us is the most classical and well reflected, oldest, and weariest kind of thought”. Indeed, we can probably trace this genealogy all the way to Don Miguel, and then to Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud, before arriving finally at Marx and Lenin. These figures, and perhaps every single one of the million Chinese who have gone through proper high school education, are only willing to say “one thing leads to another” instead of “one thing happens after another”, and therefore subliminally entrap themselves in an abyss where they delude themselves to believe this is a secure space to be alone with their reflecting gaze.

  This is not the only place where Alan haphazardly stumbles upon a magnificent possibility: another notable surreptitious find of him is Japan. Like Huntington, he has a penchant for separating Japan from the Sinosphere, thus creating a Japonosphere where Japan the country alone represents the entirety of its civilizational aggregation. Though this is blatantly biased given the fact that he has spent a good deal of time there and zero time in places like European Russia, the entirety of which he conveniently assigns to Eurosphere; it is nevertheless largely excusable considering the innate uniqueness of Japan, when compared with other Sinosphere countries like Vietnam and Korea. But one thing that I find difficult to be categorized as laudable is the fact that he employs a methodology which uses urheimat to account for the spinal cord of a culture. The fatal flaw of this Tocquevillian recipe lies, preliminarily, in that it relies heavily on paleoanthropology and evolutionary linguistic findings, and should a new subversive discovery emerge, it could render a whole book moot. In this case, when Alan goes to town explaining away everything that is going on in the Japanese society using the primal traditions of the shamans in the Altai mountains, he is probably unaware of the fact that the so-called Altaic language family, which propose to unite Tungusic, Turkic, Mongolic, Koreanic and Japnonic languages under a single super language family, is now considered a myth. The earliest of the Japnaese people, is now believed to be a mixture of peoples coming from Manchuria and Southeast Asian islands (or if you subscribe to the Tomb Raider game, then Yamatai)—their urheimat could be as different as a tropical island, instead of a cave in the ever-wintry ridges, and hence a different set of deities and shamanistic rituals might be in place.

  Again, this method of origin tracing might still be somewhat excusable and yield generative findings—indeed I do believe the connection Alan drew between modern Japanese psyche and prehistoric mountainous shamans are far from being a superficial one—but a more profound fallibility, compared with the one mentioned above, is that it struggles to tackle dynamicity and is prone to linear lithification. In other words, this type of tracing might be reluctant to assent to the substantive influence of an adventitious intervention. It is only willing to acknowledge the peripheral influence of a latecomer, but never it as a pivotal shaping force. Now whether Japan should be included in the Sinosphere, or to use a more decentering and now widely accepted term, East Asian Cultural Sphere, is not something that I intend to discuss here: for the simple reason that I do not care. Suffice to say, the incipience of Japanese culture is fundamentally different from that of the Chinese, but the former decisively dueted and decoupled with, dilated and diluted in, the latter.

  I should note here however, that to talk about in betweens is not how one should talk in between—though, again, we might discover some hidden gems. Here I merely want to suggest a possibility: a cheesy appropriation of Foster’s Rule, carefully dancing away from pseudoscience and metaphysics, might shed some light on the deviation of insular culture from their continental relatives. I’m thinking about the mechanization of British humor and its obsession with institutionalizations, the inescapable insulation of individuals in Haruki Murakami and the psychotic insecurities in Nihon oyobi Nihonjin no michi.

  Then again, we might achieve nothing following this trail. On the other side of origin tracing is a horrid void known as (post) structuralism, the center of which lies a Scylla named nihilism and a Charybdis named ahistoricism. If, as I happen to believe, we want to sail forth bearing the flags of anti-Othering and decentering, then our final destination would lie behind this ordeal.