Jump to content


Biden's America


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

Wow, he's not even hiding the fact that he hates capitalism anymore!

 

But in all seriousness, we're only a few more moster jobs reports or good inflation reports from Fox News covering dozens of Chinese spy balloons transmitting CRT, LGTBQ and Communist ideology directly into the brains of suburban school children.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Your last sentence is what Guy is saying. For example, Google made about $50 billion in profit last year but laid off 6% of their workforce start of this year. Google could have easily kept those workers, but like many corporations the executives are motivated by short term stock price.

Typically the bottom 5 are poor performers. Broadcom does a bottom every year. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, nic said:

Typically the bottom 5 are poor performers. Broadcom does a bottom every year. 

That's certainly the PR that corporations give. Jack Welch started that nonsense years ago at GE by getting rid of the "bottom" 5%, and GE steadily went down hill after that. Turns out getting rid of people ends up being office politics and very little about performance. Plus it's virtually impossible to measure performance.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Turns out getting rid of people ends up being office politics and very little about performance. Plus it's virtually impossible to measure performance

I agree with you that companies have layoffs way too early and many times didn’t need to do them and instead ride out the tough times, but you most certainly can measure performance in most jobs. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I agree with you that companies have layoffs way too early and many times didn’t need to do them and instead ride out the tough times, but you most certainly can measure performance in most jobs. 

They can take measurements, but most companies can't even define what performance really means let alone measure it. Sure, they'll write up a definition, but it's just word salad. Most places have arbitrary numbered rating systems where the employees are given a numbered grade. However, what really happens is that the corporation forces the ratings to be on a Bell curve or some other "standard" that ends up destroying the actual measurement because each group or team has to fit everyone onto that curve.

Link to comment

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

They can take measurements, but most companies can't even define what performance really means let alone measure it. Sure, they'll write up a definition, but it's just word salad. Most places have arbitrary numbered rating systems where the employees are given a numbered grade. However, what really happens is that the corporation forces the ratings to be on a Bell curve or some other "standard" that ends up destroying the actual measurement because each group or team has to fit everyone onto that curve.

We use to have a number system and the joke was asking what number you got that year, because we literally all got the same score. The only time you didn't get the same score is if you really f#&%ed up, or you're manager was trying to get you a pay bump or promotion.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

That's certainly the PR that corporations give. Jack Welch started that nonsense years ago at GE by getting rid of the "bottom" 5%, and GE steadily went down hill after that. Turns out getting rid of people ends up being office politics and very little about performance. Plus it's virtually impossible to measure performance.

I was at GE when Jack Welch was cleaning house as a very young engineer. He cleared out a bunch of middle managers that were doing nothing but hiding out until retirement. They got golden parachutes, but By the time he was done there were only 5 or 6 layers between me and him. Where I work it’s not hard to see who performs and who doesn’t. Especially when you are involved on a project. Engineers with 10 to 20 years less experience are sometimes more productive. How much they get done. The quality of their work. How hard they work. Does someone else have to always help them get their work done. Having remote workers has made this more difficult, but a person can always look at an employees product and know whether they are good at what they do. That’s not to say that politics or how well someone is liked doesn’t creep into the equation, but in general if someone is kicking butt at work, they can be a pain in the butt and still keep their job… at least for awhile.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, nic said:

I was at GE when Jack Welch was cleaning house as a very young engineer. He cleared out a bunch of middle managers that were doing nothing but hiding out until retirement. They got golden parachutes, but By the time he was done there were only 5 or 6 layers between me and him. Where I work it’s not hard to see who performs and who doesn’t. Especially when you are involved on a project. Engineers with 10 to 20 years less experience are sometimes more productive. How much they get done. The quality of their work. How hard they work. Does someone else have to always help them get their work done. Having remote workers has made this more difficult, but a person can always look at an employees product and know whether they are good at what they do. That’s not to say that politics or how well someone is liked doesn’t creep into the equation, but in general if someone is kicking butt at work, they can be a pain in the butt and still keep their job… at least for awhile.

It’s a common fact that most people don’t lose their jobs because they can’t do the work.  They get let go because they don’t get along with other employees. That’s not necessarily office politics, it can mean that person is not a team player and he/she hurts production of the whole team. I’ve seen this many times in my own office. 
 

I had a guy who was very good at what he did.  But, everyone grew to absolutely hating to work with him. It got so the office wasn’t functioning the way it should because of it.  He’s gone.  

Link to comment

9 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

It’s a common fact that most people don’t lose their jobs because they can’t do the work.  They get let go because they don’t get along with other employees. That’s not necessarily office politics, it can mean that person is not a team player and he/she hurts production of the whole team. I’ve seen this many times in my own office. 
 

I had a guy who was very good at what he did.  But, everyone grew to absolutely hating to work with him. It got so the office wasn’t functioning the way it should because of it.  He’s gone.  

Not getting along with other employees makes sense to get rid of someone. That's not at all the same as laying off some percentage of the entire workforce.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Not getting along with other employees makes sense to get rid of someone. That's not at all the same as laying off some percentage of the entire workforce.

Oh, I agree. What Welch did was stupid. When I was younger and starting my career, I read his book and thought the idea was stupid then. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Oh, I agree. What Welch did was stupid. When I was younger and starting my career, I read his book and thought the idea was stupid then. 

How most of corporate America runs their business is stupid. It's too focused on share holders and short term revenues.

  • TBH 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...