Why does a system repeatedly emphasize dedication? In a well-functioning system, costs are usually borne by the system itself, with workload corresponding to compensation, risks to rewards, and responsibilities to authority. Individuals do not need to be repeatedly asked to contribute because their efforts are already priced by the system. However, when the system cannot or is unwilling to clearly bear these costs, it shifts to another approach—transferring the burden that should be borne by the system onto individuals' moral choices.

Thus, dedication begins to serve a new function: making extra efforts appear voluntary rather than structural. You will notice a typical phenomenon—targets keep increasing, resources do not keep pace, the compensation mechanism is unclear, yet the spirit of dedication is repeatedly emphasized. This dedication is no longer just a virtue but becomes a mechanism for absorbing costs.

From a systemic perspective, this is a very clear signal: when the system cannot pay costs through rules, it will use morality instead. If things proceed smoothly, this dedication is admirable; if the costs become too high, it indicates a lack of personal awareness, and the system itself does not need to be re-priced.

This structure is indeed efficient in the short term because moral mobilization is faster than institutional reform and cheaper than budget adjustments. However, its long-term consequences are also very clear. When dedication becomes normalized, efforts are undervalued; when sacrifice is expected, boundaries are eroded. Over time, the system will gradually rely on this state. Doing more is appropriate; doing less is mature; not fussing is correct.

In summary, when dedication is repeatedly used to drive system operation, it often indicates that the system has stopped paying for costs. When efforts are no longer priced, dedication becomes institutionalized. Ultimately, this also causes the system to lose its legitimacy.