Hobbesian Manifesto...of an economic sort

[English Dave]

Originally Posted by robeiae

Part of the problem here is the perceived 'career track' that is often associated with a job. The implied career track of a job can be a huge incentive for maintaining employee satisfaction and productivity. Those jobs without such a track become 'dead-end' jobs. How do you maintain productivity within an industry where this is the norm?

I doubt if Lawn Dogs have an eye on career track unless you incentivize them that way. Lawn Mower. Senior Lawn Mower. Supervising Lawn Mower.

I kid but I don't.

Anyone successful who employs people has to employ the RIGHT people. They only keep the right people if they feel valued. Finding and keeping the right people is the mark of the good CEO.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by English Dave

Anyone successful who employs people has to employ the RIGHT people. They only keep the right people if they feel valued. Finding and keeping the right people is the mark of the good CEO.

But of course, so when a new CEO comes into a mess and addresses the problem by taking an axe to the deadwood, he's automatically a villian? Or how about a current CEO who realizes his mitakes and seeks to correct them? And in so doing, both benefit from their stock otions increasing in value...that's a form of incentive, as well--authorized by the company's board and/or shareholders.

[English Dave]

Originally Posted by robeiae

But of course, so when a new CEO comes into a mess and addresses the problem by taking an axe to the deadwood, he's automatically a villian? Or how about a current CEO who realizes his mitakes and seeks to correct them? And in so doing, both benefit from their stock otions increasing in value...that's a form of incentive, as well--authorized by the company's board and/or shareholders.

I've obviously missed out on some part of the previous postings. Mainly the bit about sacking people.

Seriously, can anyone help out? I'd be grateful.

[SC Harrison]

Originally Posted by English Dave

I've obviously missed out on some part of the previous postings. Mainly the bit about sacking people.

Seriously, can anyone help out? I'd be grateful.

Basically, some believe if a business entity is forced to cut costs through benefit reductions or restructuring, those in upper management should not be rewarded for making these changes that adversely affect those lower on the totem pole. This belief is right but it's also wrong.

It's right because an ethical person should not want to benefit from another's suffering.

It's wrong because cost reduction with an eye towards increased profits is one of the main responsibilities of those in upper management. If taking these steps is going to adversely affect the ones at the top, they may be hesitant to take the steps, which can be fatal to the continued solvency of the organization.

I personally believe other forms of cost reduction and/or creative manpower utilization should be explored in depth before "sacking" occurs. It doesn't usually take away the need for layoffs, but it almost always reduces the number of folks who get the axe.

[English Dave]

Thanks SC.


I think that there are can always be times when you have to sack people. I used to be an accountant who specialised in 'Corporate Recovery' which is code for someone fvcked up.

[Dawno]

Originally Posted by RG570

CEOs provide "leadership"...haha!

They're slave drivers. Nothing more. They are utterly pointless, except as placeholders in a social hierarchy.

The saddest thing about this thread is that it illustrates just how deeply everyone has adopted the viewpoint of their oppressors.

Well, I'm convinced. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. I'm going out to join the Communist Party right now and throw off the shackles of my oppresors (good salary, paid vacations, stock options and health plan) after reading such a persuasive argument.

Tell me, what will my glorious future look like? I mean I've all seen how well the large scale alternatives to capitalism have worked so far and I'm a bit nervous.

[clintl]

A good CEO provides valuable strategic direction and leadership.

A bad CEO can destroy a company. I've worked for a company that had one of these. It wasn't pretty, and the only thing that saved the jobs that were saved was an acquisition.