John Paul Fullerton's comment
>Good business is probably not that way. And yet most people's grandfathers
>seem to still have jobs as they near retirement, at least in my "Father
>Knows Best" version of the business world. Somehow people still support
>their families, even if their workplace doesn't emphasize the employee.
Raised and issue in my mind about what a defines a 'good company'.
I stumbled across a set of one liners extracted from the book 'Built to
Last', I recommend it to all. One of the lines is
"You can care for people, produce products and generate profits -
get the priority right."
The priority starts with people for that executive.
Built to last compares successful businesses, define as those that have
grown for many years, with companies that have atrophied. Having
attributes like those of LOs seem to be indicators of long term winners.
I am not sure what John Paul implies by his comment concerning
"nurturing" employees. Nurturing, I interpert as close to coddling. I
don't think any worker wants to be 'coddled'. I do think that they want
the opportunity to be more valuable to the company. This is more than
being 'equal opportunity' the more is helping the employee gain the
capability to take advantage of opportunity when it becomes available.
When I think of the square wheeled wagon metafore being discussed
in another thread I also think that everyone in a company is in the
same wagon. They succeed or fail together. It is in the best interest
of myself to help everyone grow and do a better job.
bhobler@cpcug.org ( William J. Hobler, Jr.) Bill
--"William J. Hobler, Jr." <bhobler@cpcug.org>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>