Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

The World's Most Modern Management System 235

Posted by Zonk
from the better-than-the-whip dept.
NeoPrime writes "CNN has a story about an Indian IT outsourcing firm HCL Technologies, whose president feels that 'employees come first and customers second.' He further feels that every employee should 'rate their boss, their boss' boss, and any three other company managers they choose, on 18 questions using a 1-5 scale. There is even an electronic ticket system to flag anything they think requires action in the company. The company president explains, 'It can be I have a problem with my bonus, or My seat is not working, or My boss sucks.' This ticket is then routed to a manager for resolution. The article's argument: India has the most modern management system in the world."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The World's Most Modern Management System

Comments Filter:
  • Hmpf (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dedazo (737510)
    Unless they've also managed to upgrade all of their employees' emotional and intellectual IQ, I'd say they have the world's most modern recipe for unmitigated workplace anarchy.

    This sounds like a PR stunt.

    • Modern?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alien54 (180860) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:05PM (#15131742) Journal
      or merely the newest bell and whistle? I can imagine so many ways this could be abused.

      Remember the Red Stapler.

      Any system which fails to account for the chaos of human interaction and people running amock with their own personal agendas can hardly be called effective, never mind modern.

      • (Board room meeting)

        Why are we spending so much money on whistles?
      • The ticket system could be policed by peer pressure, with a social stigma attached to filing unprofessional complaints.
    • Re:Hmpf (Score:3, Insightful)

      Agreed on the PR stunt.

      Combined with the competitive market I've heard India has for IT employees, I would think this was just the equivalent of another 'perk.' I've heard that recent grads and experienced people in India are in extremely high demand.

      Thus you get a market like the IT market in the US during the dot-com boom. Anyone else remember the office pool table and high levels of tolerance for goofing around with a bit of fondness and regret?

      When your employees have a high tendency to star
      • Agreed,

        The rare commodity comes first - this is just an admission that he views customers as abundant and talent as insufficient.

        A realization which could spell the "peak" of technology outsourcing. As more customers realize there really isn't that much gold in them-thar-hills, outsourcing will slow.

        Prediction:

        The US trains more people with good IT and English skills than India - therefore a temporary excess of talent in India will be quickly tapped. (This is evidence that this has already occurred.) Moreov
        • I know it's an anecdote, but I may be seeing evidence of the lack of Indian IT talent, I think.

          I manage an SCM team for a fortune-15 company and we recently offshored a whole buncha development and regression testing activity to Bangalore. When it started to ramp up, it became pretty clear that having an SCM role in place out there would be an advantage -- we could avoid having to run a 24-7 on-call SCM shop here if we had the right supporting resources on-site and available to our good friends in India.

    • Re:Hmpf (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dgrati (877339) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:24PM (#15131912) Journal
      "Unless they've also managed to upgrade all of their employees' emotional and intellectual IQ, I'd say they have the world's most modern recipe for unmitigated workplace anarchy."

      You make an assumption first, indicating that this is an assumption.

      And based on that assumption, without verifying or qualifying it further, you make a conclusion: "This sounds like a PR stunt."

      I categorically disagree with your conclusion. Personal humility of a CEO is not sought after in the US (despite ground-breaking work by Jim Collins http://www.jimcollins.com/ [jimcollins.com]). If this indeed was a PR attempt, given that their market is the US, they would have chosen a different message.

      I work for a company where we rank managers the same way they do. The results are unbelievable for innovation and for employee satisfaction, which in turn leads to more innovation.

      It's part of a new school of thought called "bottoms-up" instead of "top-down". Interesting things happen when a non-linear dynamic system (such as an organization) embraces "bottoms-up".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergenc e/ [wikipedia.org]

      I sincerely hope that you and likes of you embrace the new revolution silently going about. Expression, communication and change are no longer a virtue of the powerful, may it be the Government, CEOs of a company or anyone else. Expression, communication and change are now emerging from the masses. Why should a company be any different? You get a whole lot of smart people, give them stock options and let them decided, bottoms-up, where they want to go, and see what happens. $.

      • Re:Hmpf (Score:3, Funny)

        by arootbeer (808234)
        Interesting things happen when [a company's management] embraces "bottoms-up".
        There's a joke in there somewhere...I just know there is!
      • Re:Hmpf (Score:3, Insightful)

        Pretty much, someone at the company read a graduate management textbook, threw in some buzzwords, integrated it with some technology and VIOLA! The world's most modern managemnet system...
        If the company goes under, will it still be considered a success???
    • Re:Hmpf (Score:3, Insightful)

      Most companies (bigger ones) have an 800 number to report ethical violations/crimes.
      It is popular now to have 360degree reviews (i.e. you review you boss and those who work for you)
      I am confused about how this is new or modern?
      • It's new because in the US all such things are treated as jokes by management. Don't you think Enron had an 800 number to report "ethical violations"? In the company in the article, only the employees can close out those tickets. And they are all posted for everyone to see, which is almost never done in the US.

        It's not rocket science and it's not really a "new management system" - it's just one decent manager for a change. The fact that it's NEWS is what proves the point.
    • Horseshit. Nothing wrong with his approach.

      This guy is just a good manager. The only complaint I have about the article is calling what he does a "management system." Technically I suppose it is, but in reality it's just this one guy (and those employees who go along with him.)

      The other point people should note is that presumably in India the culture is different than the US and personal behavior is different. I don't know Indian culture that well - most Indians I've seen in the US seem to have really bad t
    • Valuing peoples opinion and treating them like adults result in anarchy? As adults we vote, drive cars and have kids, but when it comes to the work environment we need to be told what to do and monitored every step of the way? Read the books by Richardo [amazon.co.uk] Semler [amazon.co.uk] and see how a system like this can result in tremendeous growth for a company even against the turmoil of Brazil's economy. How did this get modded as insightful?
  • Sounds great (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Unlikely_Hero (900172) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:00PM (#15131685)
    but what happens when the employees start blackmailing managers?
    "We all want a raise of $AMOUNT or several of us will make tickets about you"
    I know blackmail like this always existed, but not its a lot easier.
  • Amazing! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:00PM (#15131697)
    This company appears to have actually implemented the electronic equivalent of a suggestion box! I call dibs on the patent for using a computer to implement suggestion box functionality!
    • I'll bet a days' wage that Amazon beat you to it. ...

      Wait, it was Schwab!

      http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2005/11/silly_s oftware_.html [typepad.com]
    • Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Informative)

      by 14erCleaner (745600) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:32PM (#15131992) Homepage Journal
      I call dibs on the patent for using a computer to implement suggestion box functionality!

      Too late! [uspto.gov]

      United States Patent 6,853,975

      Dirksen , et al. February 8, 2005

      Method of rating employee performance

      Abstract

      A method of rating employee performance includes: a) receiving a list of nominated raters from the employee, including at least one manager of the employee, a plurality of the employee's peers, and a plurality of the employee's direct reports; b) electronically soliciting and receiving manager approval of the list of nominated raters; c) electronically notifying the approved raters with instructions for rating the employee; and d) receiving employee ratings data from the approved raters, wherein the steps of electronically soliciting and electronically notifying are automated. The process also includes training all users of the system in a manner in which the ratings are calibrated by comparing case studies to specific behavioral examples to provide immediate feedback to the user in a training process which is fully automated.

    • And the equivalent to the storage for all those old paper suggestion box slips is /dev/null
    • It's not a suggestion box. In the US a suggestion box in a company is a joke - and usually empty - which tells you all you need to know about it.

      The article describes what is basically a "trouble ticket" system for the company as a whole and management in particular - and only the employees can close out the tickets.

      Try that in the US and most managers would fire the employees.

  • Interesting notion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TopShelf (92521) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:01PM (#15131706) Homepage Journal
    In an age when service is replacing manufacturing as the dominant segment of the 1st world economies, it only makes sense to see radical initiatives in the development of a corporation's human capital. Just as having the best factories enabled traditional industrial success, we might see some competition among service companies as to the development of their critical resource, the employee.

    NOTE: This would presumably apply first to profit generators like consultants and specialists, as opposed to back-office support staff. Still, it's a step forward...
    • This seems to be the very beauty of the system. Use the back-office employees, the ones that deal with everyday business, to evaluate the upper management or specialized employees.

      This resembles the movement of allowing the actual employees of a company define the design of ERP systems rather than management.

      Don't forget, management does see the big picture, at the cost of the intricate details that may be pushing the company forward. That is why there is a need for multiple levels of management. And this b
  • I'm just wondering how many customers he'll be getting after this article pops up a few places.
    • You might look at it in a different way: the employee in this case is really the _product_. All his customers need is a good experience for *their* customers, and of course low prices.
    • I don't know, generally a place with happy employees will provide you with a good product. On the other hand, a place with neutral employees who arn't happy but not unhappy generally produce worse work than unhappy employees. This is mainly because part of being happy isn't just getting paid well and having a voice, its also having interesting work to do that you enjoy. Something sorly lacking in many jobs. And I doubt this place is any better. But then again, compared to the poverty of their country they
    • When you are in a Costco, look up their motto.

      Employees come first, Customers second and Vendors third.

      Wiki has some info and links to articles [wikipedia.org]

      And the NY Times Article [nytimes.com]
    • by Jon Abbott (723) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:45PM (#15132103) Homepage
      Southwest Airlines Chairman Herb Kelleher [pfdf.org] has said before that employees come first, and customers follow next. This is mentioned on their press bibliography page under "LUV in the air [southwest.com]". Today they have the highest market capitalization of any airline in the world and one of the highest profit margins as well. They are the third largest airline in the world [wikipedia.org] in terms of passengers carried. 'Nuff said.
      • Today they have the highest market capitalization of any airline in the world and one of the highest profit margins as well.

        It would be great, provided it can be that simple. Unfortunately it seams that other factors [time.com] played much more important (or maybe the most important) role in making Southwest profitable [house.gov]: "It is interesting to note that, without its fuel hedging program, Southwest Airlines would not currently be making a profit." That's how it is...

  • Modern? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GrumblyStuff (870046)
    I guess. But does it improve productivity? Encourage employee retention? Perhaps most importantly, do customers see the difference?
    • Your subject line makes a good point. This is only one implementation of a very old management practice. If my memory serves, the Chinese had a system so that beaurocrats could communicate problems nearly directly to the emperor in imperial China. Which can help to weed out corruption.

      Any way for lower level managers and employees to escalate problems, issues and suggestions above their immediate supervisor is a good thing. It only becomes good management if there is someone at the top that can sort thin
  • by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte.drunksnipers@com> on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:06PM (#15131750) Homepage
    Ticket status:
    [ ] Open
    [ ] Assigned
    [ ] Not a bug
    [ ] Feature request
    [x] Won't fix
    [ ] Closed

    Well... that's useful.
  • by postbigbang (761081) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:08PM (#15131770)
    People work for money, but they also work where there hearts and minds are. Companies have to make sufficient returns to stay in business, or no one has a job.

    The corporate mentality in the 'west' mandates return on shareholder assets. What's missing is that employees are an organization's best assets.

    That said, the propaganda machines are simply turning out fodder for an easily duped press. Twenty years ago, Japanese companies were the best run, and we know the end of that story: stagnation and dissatisfaction at virtually all levels, and an economy full of bad debt.

    India has a long way to go, as do we all. But calling then 'best' in the context of the article is to succumb to a clever marketing person's pitch to a gullible editor. Go there and find the truth. It's not what's described.
    • What's missing is that employees are an organization's best assets.

      Sigh...

      An employee is not an asset. He is neither owned nor acquired. He neither depreciates nor amortizes. An employee is *PART OF THE COMPANY*, and is investing labor just like the shareholder is investing money.

      I don't hear people talking about shareholders as a company's "asset", though the case is probably a little stronger than for employees: money is money, and so shareholders are largely replaceable. An employee can't be replace

      • You get return on good employees, and perhaps none on bad ones. No, they're not taxable in the property sense, but you can increase their value through training. As a composite, organizations get return on assets. This isn't to diminish an individual to the context of a machine, rather to amplify the fact that while many things are replaceable, good employees, happy ones (ok, disgruntled if they contribute as some people will never be happy) contribute to the success of corporate bodies. Shareholders contri
    • "What's missing is that employees are an organization's best assets."

      For some reason, that reminded me of this:

      http://www.satirewire.com/news/0105/loyal.shtml [satirewire.com]
    • Twenty years ago, Japanese companies were the best run, and we know the end of that story: stagnation and dissatisfaction at virtually all levels, and an economy full of bad debt.

      I have some sympathy for your post as a whole, but the relative problems of the Japanese economy must be put into perspective. Given Japan's lack of natural resources, their economic performance from 1950 through 1985 was truly remarkable. They benefited from a homogeneous and disciplined workforce, management with generally lo

  • Like im going to tell my boss he sucks.. Thats really smart.
  • by frieza79 (947618) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:10PM (#15131787)
    But do they have Hawaiian shirt Fridays?
    Thats the only true way to get employees to be more productive and happier, all at the same time.
    • I started that trend at work.

      Fun Shirt Fridays!!

      People are now starting to compete with me for the wow factor, but I have some neon green hawiian shirts that beat just about anything...
  • But, I see one of two things happening. Fear of using the system due to repercussions, or abuse of the system and a very large number of frivolous complaints.

    In my daily life I am part of a 2 person IT department, and my manager has no background in computers or technology at all... I'd love a system like this but I'd just be submitting it directly to her and that most likely would be where it would end... along with my employment.

    Ineptitude is the norm at most U.S. business and at all levels.
    • But, I see one of two things happening. Fear of using the system due to repercussions, or abuse of the system and a very large number of frivolous complaints.

      Since these are obvious, don't you think there might be a deterrent effect --- each side afraid to abuse their status because the other side might abuse it, too?

  • by mark_jabroni (547666) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:13PM (#15131818)
    employees come first and customers second

    Suggested Title : India discovers Government.

  • "...president feels that 'employees come first and customers second."

    I'd enter this industry just to compete with this knucklehead. Imagine getting to come in with your sales team after the first team just told the prospect that their needs are not your companies' top priority. Buh-bye.

    You want other players in other industries where employees come first and customers come second? Try GM in the auto industry, or United in the airline industry. Do they make/do anything you would willing buy? Didn't

    • by rossifer (581396) on Friday April 14, 2006 @04:28PM (#15132799) Journal
      You want other players in other industries where employees come first and customers come second? Try GM in the auto industry, or United in the airline industry. Do they make/do anything you would willing buy? Didn't think so.

      Your examples are unions, i.e. worst-case examples of management/employee relationships. How about Costco or Southwest Airlines? Both of those actually said that they put employees ahead of customers (pretty much preventing a union from ever forming). And yes, they do make/sell/provide things that I willingly buy.

      Personally, as an entrepreneur, I'm sold on the idea. My customer service employee knows that if there's a disagreement between him and a customer, I'm going to go to bat for him. The customers are almost always satisfied, possibly because he's happier and more comfortable in his job. Also he's more likely to be here in next year or five, which costs me a LOT less in training and recruiting.

      I'd enter this industry just to compete with this knucklehead. Imagine getting to come in with your sales team after the first team just told the prospect that their needs are not your companies' top priority. Buh-bye.

      If my sales team actually got to the point of telling a customer this, you're more than welcome to them. As in: we just kicked them to the curb because we weren't getting any value from the relationship and we're hoping that a competitor will get saddled with them while we spend our time and effort on more profitable relationships. We might even provide some sales intel to help get you the sale :)

      Regards,
      Ross
      • If my sales team actually got to the point of telling a customer this, you're more than welcome to them. As in: we just kicked them to the curb because we weren't getting any value from the relationship and we're hoping that a competitor will get saddled with them while we spend our time and effort on more profitable relationships. We might even provide some sales intel to help get you the sale :)

        Potentially the client might be impressed at being told that rather than having your team doing a half-asse

  • by Quirk (36086) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:20PM (#15131874) Homepage Journal
    Go back as far as The Peter Principle [wikipedia.org] famous for fostering Dilbert [dilbert.com] and all the PHB comments on /. or, fast forward a decade to Peter Drucker [wikipedia.org] and his shelf of tomes on management and you get a taste of the plethora of management practises that have come and gone.

    I can remember TV shows from the 80's that showed a Japanese factory worker alone in a room and armed with a club. The worker would pound on a management, effigy figure with his club. The worker's venting aggression on the effigy management figure was supposedly one of the underlying secrets to the success of Japanese businesses in the international market place.

    From suggestion boxes to round tables it's pretty much all been tried in one form or another. Most likely the factors that make for successful operations are myriad and too complex to ever be set in stone.

    just my loose change

  • by Groovus (537954) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:24PM (#15131910)
    Seems like one of the least effective uses of technology would be to automate this kind of interpersonal relationship (leader/follower). There's no substitute for in person, face to face discussion of problems. This kind of system attempts to quantify and abstract things that simply don't lend themselves to such treatment. This proposed system smacks of fear of conflict and inability to mediate such conflict effectively. Maybe it's a cultural thing (India still does have some notion of caste system pervading their culture I believe) - but I can't see this solution being effective as a management strategy. Perhaps it will be used as a springboard to further exploration of problem relationships, that may not have been brought to light (in which case you'll have to engage in conversation anyway so you've not really bought anything), but to me it actually looks like another excuse for managers to become less involved in their relationship with those they supervise. "You had a chance to fill out the survey and there were no problems detected - so it's not my fault that you're unhappy." If the goal is to further treat your workers as cogs in a machine, and you equate that kind of functioning to efficiency, I guess this would make you happy. But I don't see it as a great way to manage actual human beings. I mean seriously - can you imagine trying to manage other interpersonal relationships this way? Give your significant other a fifteen item ranking survey on your satisfaction with your relationship with little to no extra explanation - let me know how that goes. I hazard to guess either you lie in your rankings, or you're going to have some serious 'splainin to do.

    When I've got a problem with someone, I go talk to them. If I want to know if people have problems, I go talk to them. It's the most efficient, effecive way of carrying out interpersonal relationships.

    • I'm a geek who has a little difficulty himself in face-to-face interactions involving conflict, so maybe I can see the other side of this - it may encourage comment and dissent from people in an organization who might otherwise not have the courage to speak, and who might see your more confrontational, in-your-face approach as threatening and bullying. By making it not be a face-to-face thing, it may encourage freer, more open, less emotionally charged discussion of issues that might otherwise fester benea
    • Perhaps some part of what you're saying is true, particularly when it comes to interaction with your manager. However, I think it's great that the system specifically subverts the chain of command when it comes to performance appraisals. In a typical company it is very bad manners, and very dangerous to your job, to complain about your boss to his/her boss when it's not a matter of something like sexual harassment. The person two levels above you never really knows how you feel, and your boss can get away w
  • whose president feels that 'employees come first and customers second.'

    The book, The Customer Comes Second: Put Your People First and Watch 'em Kick Butt is over ten years old, with the updated second edition [harpercollins.com] still around two years old.

  • NeoPrime writes "CNN has a story about an Indian IT outsourcing firm HCL Technologies, whose president feels that 'employees come first and customers second.' He further feels that every employee should 'rate their boss, their boss' boss, and any three other company managers they choose, on 18 questions using a 1-5 scale. There is even an electronic ticket system to flag anything they think requires action in the company. The company president explains, 'It can be I have a problem with my bonus, or My seat

  • Well, it all makes sense. We need to outsource our management. I wouldn't mind at all if my manager was half way across the world.
  • If by "modern" they mean "newest", then great.
    OK - so there's a 'trouble ticket' that reduces a dozen traditional forms to one.
    Otherwise, what's the difference between this and going to a traditional HR dept to complain about your boss, or you boss about your compensation, putting in a work order for a busted chair, or the way things are already done?
    Maybe it's simpler - the phone drones are so Americanized that their Indian bosses can't understand them anymore, so they better write everything down? I got
  • More or less

    http://www.tv.com/episode/516819/summary.html [tv.com] near the end of the episode.
  • by jpellino (202698) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:49PM (#15132134)
    A ticket can only be closed by the originating employee.
    I dare them to implement tickets that can only be closed by the customer.
    Hoo boy. Someone comes in off the street to do phone drone work, and they can hang a manager up indefintely because they don't like the food in sector 24?
    Also according to TFA the managers are pretty well vetted & trained, and then have to put up with every whine from a new hire? Think of the hire you've seen that punched a hole in your least expectations in record time and is the low water mark of your work experience - now hand them a pile of tickets that they can use to complain about anything. Anything. Endlessly. And I mean anything. And did I mention endlessly? Is this annoying yet? How about now? Huh? Hello?
    • by KenSeymour (81018) on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:18PM (#15132357)
      Since every ticket is visible to all, it would only take a matter of time
      for people to figure out who the troublesome employees are.

      If someone complains more than is warranted, it is useful for other managers to know
      that so they would not accept a transfer.

      After a year or two, you could do a report of the top complainers and fire the whole lot of them.

      But for now, the TFA says they are concerned about retaining employees.

      • I hope that's the other side of the coin - otherwise it makes for some infinite loops of employees who can just make managers dance. I think they fail to mention that they need to retain the RIGHT employees. Rertaining employees at all should be pretty elementary - second most populous country with the 10th GDP - I believe it's an employer's market if these outsourcers are paying well.
        • From TFA:

          Nayar is also looking to solve a problem that looms large for Indian IT companies these days: Attrition. The best employees are increasingly the hardest to retain. Nayar wants anyone who leaves for a job elsewhere to end up frustrated.

          Although India has a lot of people, I wouldn't be surprised if they still didn't have enough people who can do high-end technical work.

          Elsewhere in the article, they said this company was implementing one of CISCO's products as part of a
          "shared risk" contract.
  • I work at a company which has extolled repeatedly in town hall meetings with the VP's of the division that in order to keep employees they will do whatever is needed to ensure that the best talent doesn't walk out the door.

    In response it seems that significant raises are only given when you walk in the door with an offer letter from somewhere else.

    People who don't fill out a single thing on the employee input section of their review forms get just the same as people who put in volumes on what they've accomp
  • employees come first and customers second.

    I guess this explains why their tech support sucks.
  • I've worked in oppressive IT environments before, and granted, I'd love to be in a job that offered this benefit.

    -BUT-

    It's built on a colossally bad idea. The customer /has/ to come first for a business to stay profitable. How happy will your employees be if they're all laid off because customer service - already working against some Indian firms due to language barrier, etc. when dealing with outsorced services - suffers a decline?

    What needs to happen is the customer comes first, and the employee second.
  • A lot of my Indian co-workers say Indian managers are often bad because they act really hard-ass and start power tripping once they get in to management. And I've seen that with a couple of Indian managers I work with. So while their management philosophy may be advanced, I'm not so sure about how that interfaces with their culture.
  • ...Indian IT outsourcing firm HCL Technologies, whose president feels that 'employees come first and customers second.'

    Well, this certainly explains my experiences with Indian companies.

  • JobVent.com (Score:2, Informative)

    by Oofoot (302640)
    This discussion reminds me of http://jobvent.com/ [jobvent.com], where employees from any company rate their company and employees.
  • Double standards... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vasanth (908280)
    I am surprised to see that most people here think that this is a very bad idea... since on most occasions you see slashdotters talking about how management does not value their employees. I am sure the employees would server the customer better if they are happy with the job, as the employees are the ones who deal with customer on a day to day basis.. management can say what it wants... just because the management says customer comes first does not mean that the customer is getting good service from th
    • by nasch (598556)
      I was surprised as well. My first reaction was that it sounds great and I wish my company were more like that. Then I went to the comments, and at least 90% of them are negative. One thing I wonder if people aren't thinking about is corporate culture. If you had a company doing this, and the culture was such that abusing the system just "wasn't done" and tickets were taken seriously, then I see no reason why it couldn't work. It would definitely rely on such a culture, though. Just the IT system witho
  • I question the whole meaning of this. "Most modern"? What the hell does that mean? Modern generally has two uses, as far as I hear people using it: either a time period that existed roughly 50 years ago, or "current". So either their management style is from 50 years ago, or... it's current. None of that tells us whether it's good. It's probably just bad writing, and they probably mean "advanced", but even that doesn't tell us whether it will be good and useful and successful, or if it will just be a fad th
  • by TheNoxx (412624)
    They take our jobs, and then they have the chutzpah to get nice management?

    That tears it!
  • 'employees come first and customers second.'

    "Or sometimes not at all, baby, yeah!"

  • I've worked in environments where employees evaluated their bosses and it didn't (and doesn't) work!

    The shortest distance between an employee and a dead-end career move is negative feedback about his boss. Note that this never works even if the following precautions are taken:

    • anonymous feedback (no matter how anonymous the feedback system, a boss will figure out where the noise originates, or inappropriately or in a snit of paranoia assign it incorrectly)
    • promises of no reprisal

    (Sorry, thought I was a

  • But not like you would think. Eventually the employer will be in charge, so keeping a database of these "disgruntled" employees can be very handy some time in the future if the workforce needs to be trimmed.

  • ...if you can find managers that can truly accept the reality that wealth is actually created at the bottoms of hierarchial organizations.

  • As overblown and uncritical as I find the article, I think there's some virtue to this - which makes it worth watching longer before emulating.

    Basically, you implement a massive feedback system and use it to improve the employee/company experience. In short, it's something forcing people to interact, albeit through tickets - it's a culture-development tool. It helps quickly make a corporate culture by upping some forms of communication.

    I'll guess that after a few hundred tickets, managers and employees ju

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...