Why Employees Leave Organizations

"If you're losing good people, look to their manager .... manager is the reason people stay and thrive in an organization. And he 's the reason why people leave."

Wow! What a profound revelation. Anybody who's ever read Dilbert would be familiar with this problem.

Basically, the real problem lies with power-hungry, over-ambitious managers, because these are the guys who will do anything to get ahead. And that includes stealing ideas, suppressing their staff, creating unnecessary posts to promote their lackeys, even falsifying data.

"If you're losing good people, look to their manager .... manager is the reason people stay and thrive in an organization. And he 's the reason why people leave."

Very true nothing left to add

Hello Optimusprime

I can agree to all of that.

The problem with many Managers, is that they do not actually know how to manage, and thus become petty tyrants.

The Company retains the Manager, because all the way up the chain of command, the problem is often the same.

Sometimes the Manager is an Engineer who is able to perform good Engineering, but has poor Managerial skills, which have to be learnt, like other skills.

Rather than the bad Manager admit help is needed, oppression continues, with the situation remaining in many organisations.

Kind Regards....

Hmmm,

I have the feeling that we're working in the same company!

No, I didn't exactly hear someone talking about what you described but my colleagues and I were talking about something similar just a few days ago over lunch.

People leave for different reasons. Some had left for higher pay but, meeting them some time later, we find that they felt that they were being treated unfairly while they were still with us.

Some felt that the owners were over-zealous with the cost cutting, making us work harder. It didn't matter that the pay was increased to compensate for the increased work load. The feeling that they could not cope with the stress (or were unwilling to cope) pushed them to look for better working conditions.

One problem is that the system of poor management progresses up the food chain. I used to work for a large multinational engineering firm that had many embedded managers who dramatically mismanaged their professional staff resource in the pursuit of more profits. More profits for them equals greater potential for promotion in most cases, because the managers up the food chain worked under the same system when they were in the lower positions. We had one senior manager brought in to fix some of the issues, and soon she discovered many of the managers were micromanaging most of the younger more talented engineers, and were createing greater liabilities for the company (but they were generating profits attributable to the managers on paper). Soon the senior management decided her changes were not in-line with thier agenda. She was fired, and they promoted one of their marketing/PM people to the role of regional manager. Soon after the company began complaining about the huge increase in turn over amongst the younger professionals. So much of the problem is in promoting people to manage professional staff who are not proficient technical professional, and then having them sticking their noises into the technical work trying to streamline the cost of professional work and training, while increasing expenses/overhead and/or decreasing oversight for marketing and management technical training. Many of these copmpanies place way to much value on their managers and marketing personnel, and devote too many resources to them, when the real value from these personnel is insubstantial (it is their manipulation of more senior managements perception of their value). An accounts manager doesn't mean he has experience to manage technical professionals.

The name "manager" should be changed to problem shifters

No, Damagers

Agreed, I actually was in this exact position myself (perhaps not as talented a your boy Mark ). I joined a company and within 4months I had left and the only reason was my manager - he was a too controlling and loved to micro-manage. Prior to my leaving one of my work colleagues transferred to a different department because of our manager.

I had an exit interview when I was leaving and I told the "HR people/experts" my reasons but nothing was done about it - my old manager (according to my ex work colleagues) is still the same.

It's actually quite amusing to see/hear the "HR people/experts" blaming the managers - well if they are such HR experts then why does this continue ? This is more a reflection on the failings of the HR experts then the actual manager.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Hello my friends,

I'm a Dilbert's fan and I agree (I've seen too many live examples) with Dilbert's Principle.

The problem recalls me the tale of mice who wanted to install a bell on the cat necklace to hear when it's coming: Yes, but WHO puts the bell?

More than ten years ago, the company I was working for, contracted a "consulting firm" to improve the company performance. The company had more than 1000 engineers. First action of the consulting firm was to perform a sort of anonymous test to all technical personnel, trying obviously to detect common feelings, problems, trends, etc. Surely they detected... but how to present the results to that people who have contracted you?

After a couple of years of "consulting" we did the same work but need to fill some dozens of new forms... Oh! I forgot it.. some photocopiers were moved a little bit!!!!

Kind regards

One of the biggest problems in the modern workplace is HR.

Hmmm, HR. Human Resources.... The very name defines the problem.

Treating human beings as a resource inplies a certain lack of regard and care.

Far better was the old term for those in that position; personnel...

http://the-blue-lobster.blogspot.com/2008/02/words-we-choose-stop-me-if-youve-heard.html

The Words We Choose Stop me if you've heard this one: A capital walks into a bar, and… Wait, you've never heard of a capital walking around? OK. A talent walks into a …. You've not heard of a talent walking either? A resource? No? Of course not! People walk into bars.

OK, ok, a little shameless self-promotion of my blog, but it's exactly relevant. The more companies try to view people as "assets", the more they will get the reciprocal attitude that companies are nothing more than income generators.

Managers are the force to leave th organisation.

i totally agree with this. Managers always in close with top management. So to increase their perks they always took impossible challenges and pressurise their staff to achieve them. If Somehow staff achieves the targets then medal goes to manager only. Staff gets only wordy appreciation.that`s none of use. because we work for money. We get salary for regular work. If working so hard if we don`t get benefit in terms of money, and when someone going to give more than that,then we have to leave the present company.

Also, mainly freshers face the problem, under the name of learning managers squeeze them to work like donkey to achieve their personal goals and icrease the figure of their salary.

IS THE TOP BRASS OF COMPANY LISTENING.

Hi,

Thousand reasons to leave…we can not stop them…the problem is how fast we prepare the substitute or train a new graduate engineer become professional. But remember they will leave once ready. It's about balancing a life… we cannot stick with the current team…must have plan "B" in our pocket.

Enjoy your hot coffee....

Cheers,

This manager leaps into the fray and .......................agrees with most of what has been said, a managers role is to facilitate his teams application of their skills not his own, he is there to councel, to assist with resourse provision, to praise when things go weel and to comiserate and motivate when they dont.

I cannot speak for others but we (managers) should ask ourselves why we left the tools to shuffle the paper. In my case I was sick to death of being treated like a moronic machine, original thought and ideas suppressed or claimed as the ideas of others, so I towed the line and got the managers post. I treat my team as equals I listen and mentor and most importantly of all I praise and reward publicly and on the rare occassions I have to criticise, quietly in private: and I never let a team members mistake cloud my assesment of them, remember to fail in the right environment is actually to learn so therefore every failure is mearly a training event. Most of my team have been with me for over 15 years and we have a waiting list to join my department both from within the company and without, oh and nearly forgot to mention, my team produce the best profit line in the business, in short a good manager sets people free to be creative.

Have to own up above guest answer was down to me just forgot to log in

No offence intended but,

The expression "self praise is no praise" jumps to mind . So as a manager you are claiming that you are a great manager, I wonder if that actually differs from any other manager out there ?

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

You can call it self-praise but I think he gave a good description of a "good" manager. Making mistakes is a learning experience and should not be taken against the person.

A few weeks ago, my boss and another supervisor decided to do something that was not in the maintenance schedule. The parts were there and the crew was available. On the day of the maintenance, the defective part was removed and they tried to put in the new one.

Faces went pale, cold sweat seeped out of brows, eyes opened wide. The new part wouldn't fit! There was no choice but to make a dirty fix but it took several hours more to do.

The plant manager was understandably upset. He berated my boss in front of others and threatened to fire him (he didn't say that precisely but you could "hear" him say it) if it happens again.

It was a mistake. Something that can happen when you're under pressure and have a lot of jobs to do. Curiously, since we had to run slower because of the dirty fix, our output has been consistently higher than the previous months. Go figure.

Vulcan, I agree that the description given was that of a good manager and I happen to be in the position where I currently work for someone like that.

My point was that how many managers would say the same think about themselves, come to think of it, how many engineers/other professions would also say the same thing about themselves - no one want to say that they are "bad" at their job - it is just human nature.

It's also quite amusing to hear all the stories from the "floor" - when things go wrong then it is the managers fault but when things go right then it is not due to the manager it is due to the engineer/technician etc etc.

I am not a manager as I don't think I have the ability to manager people, that is a skill in its own right.

Kind Regards

Mr W.A Snow

Mr Snow,

My intention was to make it known that not all managers are brown nose creeps and that far from seeking adulation I make the very serious point that the right way is extremely profitable both monetarily and socially

Exemmet, I was not wishing to offend you by my comment, if I did so then please accept my apology.

I used to work for a manager who thought he was the best manager in the world, when in fact he was far from this.

Secondly, I think that managers sometimes do not get the credit that they deserve, my comment "when things go wrong then it is the managers fault but when things go right then it is not due to the manager it is due to the engineer/technician" was referring to this.

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Mr Snow

No offence taken and appology not required.

When we do well we all get praised when we dont we all work to get it right next time with lesson learnt.

For the record our team work for a great company/boss with values as our own

I'm with you,

there is a saying that people who blow thier own horn is only because no one else would blow it for them.

I was a manager at different levels for 12 years, I could not stand it.

was I good at it, I do not think that was for me to decide.

but contridictory to the OP, the good people that left the company their regret was leaving me. I did not find out about this until years later.

How, some invited me to thier wedding, others after years have past wrote me a letter of thanks for what I did for them.

Were they my friends, I tried to separate them at the time, but I did have contact with them outside of work informally such as gatherings, golfing, sports and such. And yes they would beat me if they could and have.

I asked why and thier response was, I sacrifice for them. How? one was a vulenteer fireman, one day he came in one morning he smelled of smoke and said he was called last night and battle a house fire till 5:30 AM.

I told him to go home and get some sleep and make up the time when he can. Owners were pissed, my response was, too bad it was'nt their house. End of conversation.

No,......working 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM for someone else, it was not worth it, thats when I started my own business.

damm, there are other incidents but my horn out of tune...........

oh yah, one more thing, I did not realize it at the time, but most of the people that worked under me, considered me as thier friend and they were mine.

phoenix911

One more thing I like to add. These employees talent, I looked at it as a resource, and I utilized and challenged it to their ability.

Nothing wrong with the word Human Resource.

Congratulations,

We all know this is the right way and at my level (I don't consider myself as "managing level") I try to do the same.

Unfortunately I think you're not the most frequent type of manager.

Kind regards

Your management style sounds like more of a head coach on a sports team. And I think that is a most effective style of guiding and motivating people. That is the style I try to embody in my meager managerial efforts. I coached softball for 11 years and learned a lot there on how to get the best out of a ball team. A business team is still a team and responds better to a coach than a "boss". Years ago the company I worked for had an excellent management style that motivated employees, treated them well and made work fun.We got taken over by a company with a heavy-handed top-down command and control system. The aquisition was like corporate colonialism. We were the natives and they were the settlers. (Ask the Inca or Cherokee how that story went.) It was like,"Me Boss-you worker. Shut up and do what you're told. If we want to hear your opinion, we'll give you one". Worst bunch of managers I ever saw! It was almost like it was a macho thing in mgmt to see who could abuse their subordinates the most. Our new lab manager stole ideas from lowly technicians just to show he had something to offer for improving a program.They lied,they manipulated people. This group of managers had all the ego and thirst for power of Napoleon, but none of the skills necessary to guide it. The company went down hill fast and they had big lay-offs. When my egotistical manager read me my dismissal letter, I shook his hand and thanked him, then sent him a nice, sincere "Thank-You" card the next day. I was working for a competitor two weeks later.

The word manager also applies to the indirect managers in the higher office of the company. Many employees will leave if their is a conflict of ethics or morals within the company.

Such as created more problems around the world than they solve. I would never work for the World Bank!

I agree wholeheartedly.

poor as well as incompetant managers can dismantle a workers ambition and a companies direction faster than anything else.

I believe that to become a manager you have to have worked the floor first. I`m not a technician, but I always wanted to become one and as a kid I always took stuff apart. My first job (while attending school) was close to being a secretary. But since I always had a passion for learning (which hasn´t changed), I went around the shops, talked to people and even started working in lathes.

Now I am the enemy (I mean a manager). I worked the floor for 9 years, did the dirty stuff, graduated BSME, fixed stuff, ruined stuff and so forth.

If you can´t do the job, how are you going to mentor? If you have no idea about how stuff works and why, how the hell are you supposed to help your employees?

Managers need to be leaders. They need to know at least the basics of the workings. If you have no clue, I believe you cannot manage.

Obviously your managing people, not machines. But, if you treat people with dignity, honesty, truth, be a role model (people expect you to do the things you asked them to do), than the battle is half way won.

Seriously, if you ask a person to do a job which you are convinced yourself that you wouldn´t, couldn´t or shouldn´t do, how can you demand it when you haven´t the slighttess clue of what you are asking for?

Wow...

After 30 years of Engineering Consulting and Management now I understand why I left...

But I solved the problem...

I started my own company and now my boss and I see "Eye to Eye" on almost everything...

The only real bad managers I ever dealt with were job scared themselves. They gave the people under them just enough information to fail often enough. So they looked really good when repiaring the mistaken or desciplining the employee. But I riped them a good one. I saw their game and I devopled my own production sechudle without telling them with setting and speeds. I was running 3 times the production they were for almost 4 months with better quality. They even had a book with spec to run machine the employees were not allowed to see or read. They kept it locked away.

The CEO ask them to explain what was happening and they could not. When ask me I told him that I was not going to intentional run the machines slower just to make the operation seem harder than it really was. He flipped out. Of course no one talked to me for about 4 months.

They had it made streaching 4 days of work in to 10 and often with overtime and a lot of reworks because the slower speed gave the wiring a change to twist and pull at the new coatings. With higher heats and faster speeds I got the run thru the machines so fast the wires had little chance to twist inside the casing. We were coating aircraft wire with 4 to 6 different coatings and tapes. Where they ran 340 degrees I ran 1200.

I agree, I have worked with people who were good manager at ne corporation, upon transfer to another corporation ( and corporate environment) they became horrid. It was apparent the pressure of the changes in methodologies, contracts, clients, and the prevalence of the pass-the-buck syndrome compound with their deisre to out perform expectations cause them to micromanage things they should not be involved in, under-rate staff performances to keep office overheads down, pressure staf to complete non-billable company tasks off the clock, threaten professional staff to get them to work on non-professional task (non-billable so off-clock) to offset administrative staffing shortfalls (because of office overhead concerns), push for junior staff to market off-the-clock, cut-back on necessary training (even complaining and trying to circumvent things like HAZWOPR training), etc.. As long as they can get away with it and the overhead is down, the more senior managers do not really care how many people quit, and how often they go through replacements until the lients complain and stop using their services. Constantly rotating staff i have found does not bother most large engineering corporations, they figure to bill all the training time to clients anyways and collect revenues, it usually eventually bothers the clients. If your clients are State or Federal Agencies or huge Oil corporations, it tends to take a while befor their own PMs complaints get addressed, so these consulting corporations can continue collecting revenues throughout that period and hopefully find a new sucker who is lined up for when the current sucker no longer wants their services. Plus some corporations and the Federal government will cyclically become flexible to poor quality service in order to gain a provider who can provide service across a large service area and/or deploy a large volume of manpower rapidly, e.g. world-wide versus within one State. It is almost never the right tool for the job, but it is like a big sldge hammer, and it can fix the job work for it, though you may not like the quality of the end product.

I read through all of the comments to date, and it seems we have concurrence here. The best boss I ever had was a mentor and a friend. In fact, several years and many bosses later, we still call each other occasionally. His philosophy was simple (name changed to protect the innocent): "Randolph takes care of those who take care of Randolph." In other words, he'd give you your marching orders and let you go with the project. Do well, and he'd let the world know. Do not, and you'd be the only other one to hear about it... But you'd be missed by your colleagues eventually.

However, I think this is not a question about what is the best boss, but rather what the acceptable lower limit for a boss that you would continue to work for at a industry standard pay scale (As many corporation hire firms just to evaluate they pay scales for competitiveness relative to the rest of the industry and profitability). You probably do not need a mentor or a friend to work for, just idealize such a scenario. A reasonable boss should keep business flowing towards you or at least the contacts, provide work within your job description and some work that may function as training for improving your job description, and does not utilize you as a scape goat for problems, yell, apply undue stress/unrealistic timelines, or micromanage where he should not be involved (and legally should not modify engineering opinions as it is done in some corporations).

its not or ever will be a shan gri la.

As a manager you have to look at a balance of performance and the environment the employees are working under for out put.

And make compromises.

Is it easy, hell no your managing a multitude of personalities. And you have to motivate them to get the most out of them. And some of these personalities conflict with other employees, including your own. But you have to put you personal feelings aside because these people that even as a manager you have personality conflicts with are a very valuable resource to the company.

There are times when I felt like a babysitter. And the worst was managing engineers.

I had 108 people in 7 units all with different skill levels and needs for training, support and demands. It was like walking thru a mine field somedays.

and you were looking for the pin that fell out of your grenade in your hands.

before I started my own business, I said this to the people I managed, if you wanted my job you can have it. Some tried, and found out what I mean't was serious.

Hi,

Please do ever never compromise as what we had dealing with, especially to manage the engineers. What manager's needs are lead and drive them by the factual condition with emphatic approach. Once you had compromise then next period they will do same think.

Enjoy your hot coffee.

Cheers,

Very hot subject.I don't know how many more people will comment.My comments are:-

1.Leaving organisation for better prospect is good for employee but he should leave with happy handshake.

2.Every human being is different,boss may be good boss but can also be bad too.

3.What about Japan where people used to work in one organisation for life long.Is it loyalty to firm? or they never tried their prospects else where?.Of course now situation has changed there too.

4.I worked for one organisation for 33 yrs practically life long because I had good Boss who was Managing Director and I had been reporting to him directly.There were many Managers who came and had gone.

The reason for my remaining in the organisation was that I had free hand and powers to take my own decisions, politics was never encouraged by my Boss.My suggestions were mostly accepted. I was never greedy about more money and had offers in past but I thought peace of mind is more important.

My son changes his job every three years, he says "I don't want to be stagnant in one organisation".Well that is new generation.

Well such is the situation, brought mostly by the nautre of human resources and management. I have sat in meetings where corporate personnel have tried to educate us in some of the finer points of management in a cost benefits analysis looking upon people solely as a profit resource and individual profit centers (except the corporate personnel themselves, they never want to extend the analysis directly as they do not directly earn any profit for the companies). A few key things i have brought away, Wages are not increasing as fast as the economy amongst the younger generations. Much of the benefit of a senior engineer can be obtained through a associate engineer for far less money and benefits. It is always better to offer a little higher starting salaries and stagnate the wage increases, as it facilitates recruitments and people will remain in a situation typiclly for 5 years even when their pay rate increase is has put them substantially below market wages. Benefits are much cheaper for newer younger lower paid employees, and you gain more unpaid benefit from the inexperience and willingness to do anything for advancement opportunities. Younger employees are less likely to approach your clients after quitting, as they have a taint of such client stealing as unethical (funny how ethics change as we age), older staff is likely to take clients with them and try to tie-up client information to pass only through them.

"LOVE YOUR JOB, BUT NEVER FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR COMPANY BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN THE COMPANY STOPS LOVING YOU"

- Narayana Murthy -

Why Employees Stay

Top Companies Share Their Secrets

-Scott Cawood, Ph.D.

Should I post it here or should I create another forum topic?

Hi all,

It seems the thread has derived slightly to the "bosses" problem.

Maybe I'm a bit old and I don't understand (really I understand but don't agree) this schizophrenic situation in which we've get in. There is a lot written about leadership theories, people motivation and things like that but many people when reaches a managing position transforms like Dr. Jekyll in Mr. Hyde and his behaviour is just the contrary that should be.

I have my own opinion about "leadership": Leader must be recognized and well accepted by subordinates. They can only perform well if they have given freely their respect because they "Know" you are really "good". Leadership imposed by the force never will rend good results.

Kind regards

The article is spot on...

One of my sayings is 'you can kick me once, you might get to quick me twice...you don't get to kick me three times'.
Last job I had a good boss (Technical Director), he got pushed out sideways due to a running battle with MD.
They bought in a moronic 'boss' who would just about have made the grade as a progress chaser...add a Venomous HR manager to the mix and I was out of there...

Del

employees will not leave organization, generally speaking. for example, I m one of them. I wish tostay in a unit or two until retair. this means safe, peace, no risk etc.

But if your boss or leaders ( in our words) is a big stupid one. and company was made bery bad, you of cuse have to leave for another good one.

how to unit em;ployee is duty of boss. he must be wise and responsbility. he would know management, market and deal kindly with workers and staffes etc.

he know how to develope staff capabilities. etc. its noly every boss can do. hehe.

this is concerned with mangement issues.

I think yopu make a good point regarding the cultural and local business practices differences. In China, I believe there are fewer small profitable technical business opportunities, thus there are a few large employers, which happen to pay well relative to more traditional work in those areas. In western Europe and the US, there are many competing smaller technical employers who many times can offer better benefits and pay then the international corporations. Thus the prospects of obtaining another job relatively quickly with approximately equal benefit and pay is better. Additionally the competition between employers to retain highly educated technical talent is such that they many times do not really investigate the people they plan to hire, it becomes all about the interview and resume. Also, In many States , as well as other areas, you can be sued for discussing a employees work history if you are not very careful about what you say, thus many companies will not openly discuss former employees with other firms HR people.

Regarding management, obviuosly the US practices hav been very messed up for decades, and our government keeps bailing out the mismanaged large corporations, because they claim it would cause a world wide depression/recession, panic in investments, etc.. The AIG failure this week, or the continued bail outs of Chrysler are all good examples. There is no liability for mismanagement in these 1st world countries, the laws exist, but no one ever enforces them against managers (unless the story get too much public attention in the news, and politicians become specifically brought into the story).

you might be some right, but obviously you are a little cheating me. although I havnt been in usa. but I was told by those who work there that there is no such lots of suitable job for them to apply and often not a good paid. especially in recent financial crisis time. indeed, there are still some private spy to investigate an employee's front employer for their work credit,

there are some foreigner enterpeise in china emphasis on staff's train when they are entered at first, and the enterrise dont mind how long the employees will work for them. they said he can go soon, no lose, thats meannign that we do a good job for china. of cuse this is a large enterprise. and obviously the train is elementary. I think.

I was told in Danmark etc, noth europe countries, employee can critisize their boss. but this is impossible in usa, as you said.

Actually, in the USA one can criticize the boss, it's just best to be correct and polite when doing so. In some places here (USA) good paying jobs are indeed scarce. Much of this has been caused apparently by what we call "outsourcing". Unfortunately, the term usually means moving production facilities to China, India, Mexico, and other places where wages are thought to be significantly lower. Low enough to pay back the expense of relocation, training, quality control problems, shipping materials and products as freight, etc. Not always true, as many have discovered.

I seem to remember there is an investigation index I read in some magzine that this index is very low in usa, but higher in noth europe. but in england is zero.

I have heard this outsourcing term, especially in software field. Like progamming, 3D animation produce , audio sythc and products simulation desgin etc. there are many around our large yard here.

if they moved their machines here to produce products, we call it as foreigner investing enterprise. there are many in our district, too. like auto parts, electronic eqipment, led screen, food, even car, bus, etc.

I cn ssay such factories is everywhere in china and india etc.

especially in south chihna, the mobile phone, computer you are using most likely produced there.

And the funny thing is the americans hate the product quality from India and China, and the loss of work in the US, but they are overcome by their nature to want to buy something they think is way cheaper than it is worth. You could sell many americans almost any garbage if they thought they were getting a better deal on it than their neighbors.

Actually the quality from, china is improving all the time.

And it what type of compromises you want.

I bought a $400.00 D-Handle Milwaukee Drill and one of my fabricators burned it out the first day by misuse. And as the drill was smoking as he was drilling his response was, wow this drill sure is smoking. I was pissed when I heard him say that. I wanted to fire this fabricator on the spot. But I knew I was too emotional.

I went down to Harbor Freight and bought close to 750.00 worth of hand tools - D-handle, close quarters, 90 degree Drills, portabands, plunge routers, cut-off saws. The Milwaukee Brand price would have been close to $3,000.00 - $3,500. I did this to blow steam,

I treated these as consumables, and Guess what. My replacement costs on small hand tools dropped close to $4,000.00 annually.

But I consider buying these "cheaper" tools a rather good fiscal strategy. Because I treat them as consumables.

I still keep definitly keep quality Milwaukee and Dewalt items also. They are durable and built to higher tolerances, and let the fabricators choose.

I would agree that using cheap lower quality tool that can be deemed disposable is a good way to go when you retain cheaper less skilled labor to utilize the tools, a sthey will rapidly destroy any tool no matter the quality. Alternately you could also hire skilled labor that knows how to properly use the tools and use better quality tools that last longer. It all just depends on your business model.

Hello RCE,

When you have over 45 fabricators. with varying levels, as one would like to have every one a top fabricator, that is no business model, that is a pipe dream.

reality is, with that many fabricators they come in all grade and levels of experience and skill. (as well as personalities) One deals with it the best and most cost effective way.

I like to apply common sense to a business model, that is why I did it.

As an example;

When you where going for your drivers licenses, or if you were fortunate enough that your parents may have purchased your first car. I'm sure it wasn't a Ferrari or even a brand new Cadillac. Sharp as an edge as this sounds, it is only mentioned as a point I hope you understand that.

One more thing, did I catch hell from the more experience fabricators.... you damn right I did. That why I kept the tool room stock with Milwaukee and Dewalts as well.

Bottom Line. some of these as some of the experience fabricators call them the counterfeit tools. Allot of these tools that where abused lasted as long as the Milwaukee/dewalt, used by the inexperience as well as the experienced fab's.

Especially when they had to use them in harsh environments, only then did these experience fabricator respected and understood my decision, to have different grades of hand tools.

Actually that would be part of the business model als, the point where you balance the quality of the workers you retain against the cost. FYI common sense is a misnomer for your experiential knowledge based on the environment in which you have been exposed to those experiences or hearsay knowledge obtained from others experiences within their limited environments (we all have limited environments in which we gain experiences). So a manager working in a different environment might choose a different quality/skill level for employment relative to cost of labor. Thus a manager of fabricators for components to be used on a DOD research pilot project might have a different minimum labor standard relative to acceptable cost than one working on motorcycle components. You can always through the interview and application process screen out potential employees who fall below your retention limits. Thus increasing your minimum skill level for labor. However, the cost of retaining the more capable labor might adversely impact profit margins sufficiently to not justify the level of quality. This in part is why we outsource established production lines to cheap foreign labor sources, once the kinks are worked out there is less need for that level of skill in the labor force (and on some mass production processes you can get rid of labor and use robots, unless the local laws allow a level of near slave labor that makes automated production to costly).

I vote pheoxin911 a good answer,

as he said "Actually the quality from china is improving all the time." indeed right.

one hope to buy a good thing with a little money is human feature. every one will do it.

when you bought a not satified object, you will object its factory, is also human's nature. so yhou neednt say hate cina and india etc.

mentally every body has such sentimant. even our chinese also say hate korea, japan's product, but most of them hope to get one from these countries.

every one like his country and hope to use his nation's products. but it seems not to realize at the present.

there is a quality and price ratio issurs. is numan's nature.

of cuase its another things when you heard some people say, hate USA west countries very much. but when some thing happen, they escape faster than anyone else to USA and west countries for protection. haha.

there are lots of chinese corrupt officials like to speak such words. I hate USA, down with USA. but when they are exposed, the first country they escape to is USA. hahahaha.....

Hi cnpower,

I know a little bit many north and central european companies. It's not common there to criticise bosses. I've noted many times in the course of working meetings or even dinners that employees don't speak unless specifically required by the boss. They are a more disciplined culture than mediterranean ones (spanish, italians, greeks, etc).

Here, I know nobody who hadn't criticise several times their bosses.

Quite different thing is what the boss does in such circumstances and it depends on the "mind class" of the boss. Usually those bosses who need to pretend to be very serious and important and treat their subordinates as slaves really are poor boys with a serious mental disease. (They have reached such position according to the Peter's or even Dilbert's Principle and don't feel comfortable)ç

In a company, as in any other human group, some discipline and order is needed to achieve some goals. Duties and responsibilities should be defined. A boss or manager has a level of responsibility higher than the people he manages but it doesn't give him any authority to treat his subordinates as slaves. This is really totalitarianism (I prefer this word to fascism, which is just one of their manifestations)

Kind regards.

haha, I vote you a ga,

any investigatation is only a reference, a statistic probability. I aways think that why there is a good industry in the north europe because they are good at criticize and self-criticize.

this may be their ancestor was born in pirate, os they like to fight and unit as serious dicipline in order that they could win the victory. and the boss gets use to it.

but american is antoher thing, they think they are big boyes, none is strong than them, so they refuse criticize from others. really?

we often laugh a very seroius discipline as a fascism. its a joke, dont take it serious.

this may be defference between cultrures.

It is all relative, while many engineers are claiming they can not find good jobs, the industry is claiming there is such a severe shortage of qualified engineers that they have convinced the Federal government to write off upto $10,000 in student loans for people educated as engineers who have gone to work as engineers. Admittedly the industry is keeping the payscales very low for the talent they want. This is not however, a shortage of jobs, it is a perception through the industry that the large number of readily available marketting and management personnel are worth vastly more then the limited number of technical professionals. It is the socialistic shift in US society, keeping the unskilled masses working is the priority and those who have talents should provide those for free if necessary if society needs their talents. This is why farmers earn so little, but the produce brokers are all multi-millionaires (and they never see the actual produce). The people whose work is a luxury in an industry, such as marketting, management, administration, cosmetic functions and other supporting services have become more valuable then the poeple who produce work products we deem necessary and in limited resource. this is what happens when a society become too stagnant and decadent, people start to believe they should be given those things they feel the need for free, and will pay large amounts for those things they want but do not need.

RCE, that is one of the best descriptions/posts/assertions I have read on CR4 in a while eventhough it off-topic. regardless you got my GA vote.

RCE

the industry is claiming there is such a severe shortage of qualified engineers that they have convinced the Federal government to write off upto $10,000 in student loans for people educated as engineers who have gone to work as engineers.

I did not realize that but would like info to back it. other than that, I agree with your post.

phoenix911

The reference is the American Council of Engineering Companies email newsletter from August (i believe, it may have been late july). They are one of the groups lobbying stongly for increasing the number of licensed engineers available in the labor force. They have proposed (summarize) plans to lobby against various State Boards plans to increase licensing requirements, reduce companies witholding on contracts, limit liabilities, etc.. It is an industry association meant to promote profits in the engineering companies, so obviously they have a bias towards increasing the workforce to increase competition and reduce wages, as well as reduce contract liabilities on government contracts, and reduce government oversight and regulation into questionable business practices. (Obviously, the current AIG banking situation will drive the government and public opinion in the opposite direction towards more oversight and regulation).

Now a days there is different terminology used for different industries. Old technologies like Mechanical,electrical,civil engineering is called "Brick & Mortar" industries. Whereas Information & Technology is call "New Technology". People who choose old technology are paid less but have to sweat in factories and put in hard work in tough working conditions.Whereas people who choose "New Technology" are paid fabulously more.They work in spunky offices and enjoy luxurious conditions.

Also there is another breed of MBAs,who are real parasites.They get placements from the top companies at very attractive packages.These young boys who have never seen such a large amount of money, burst it out in many ways.Their contribution to the organisations is very rarely worth compared to their pay packages.They are showy people experts in writing direct mail letters and giving rosy presentations to clients and their managements.

To-day many financial institution like Lehman,Morgan Stanley have busted only because of this tribe, as these companies were top hirers in the campus.Otherwise why Lehman a 150 years old bank should declare Bankruptcy.

God save the investors.

Actually, as Cnpower said, any employee could be simply fired. I do wish you're waiting calmly and not being disturbed by any threat while you retired with honour and max benefits.

Returning to topic, most of managers are the employees themselves and I suspect they might be not too delighted of their CEOs. Furthermore even CEOs are at their turn a hired working force. So here's ambiguty in defenitions always.

There are several HR, business codes which applied/employed over the world. I put apart Japan and South Korea experience, but in most countries we have balanced situation when every company's staff divides on 3 groups: (1) a very effective talented professionals[5-20%], (2) middle group [50-60%] and (3) complete useless ballast[the same 5-20%]. In a word there's a thumb 20/80 rule which means: 20% of staff makes 80% of work. Every one from poor clerk up to president could be related to one of these 3 group.

So if your manager is not a clinic idiot and do not create very significant problems for you [at least it has no happened every day] there are options always to find decently a shared points with him without needs to stay a bootlicker . He is not a fasci too bad man, simply he is the same as you're and he's employee too with permanently squeezing salary.

If you're a manager and going to stand off your subordinate, think throughly before as this is a professional whose work's results are contributingcrucially to overall company output and you'll be compelled to work with him afterwards.

Well my previous company had factories in Shenzen and Shanghai, we would train chinese engineers and then they would leave to work for another company (the pay sucked so i cannot blame them)

As long as there are opportunities for young people why they should stick to one job?.The company doesn't belong to them and all profits are taken by the directors and shareholders. Until unless there is attractive incentive like sharing profits young persons would always look for more paying jobs.

To-day China,India, Brazil & Russia have booming economy so there are many new jobs in different Fields, that makes them to leave the organisation.

good answer, hehe, I was told that Japanese company was very cheapskate and pay less than other companies like usa and europe's. thats why young engineers escaped from their company. besides, their dicipline is very cruel, just like ruled by fascist . less young people can be tolerant. I was told they work as a slave. is that true? all is heard from others. hehe.

as to train, I dont know whats train they accepted, as you know almost of them are graduated from univesity. they are not peasants or labour workers. they can teach self from practice. all is only deluxe languages speaked by epke himself with his eye closing.

CNpower again i am Dutch my previous company was a Dutch Large company, they payed the Chinese Engineers less than other foreign companies.

In japan it is expected to work overtime, even when there is nothing to do!

But i am a strange foreigner so i go home when the official shift ends.

An engineer coming from school does not know how to design LCD circuitry, the properties of LC or how to test LCD'S this must be learned within the company.

So a university graduate knows all about the company specific test equipment used in a company and can program them instantly in C/C++/C#/Visual Basic/Lab view?

Large companies have their own protocols, test procedures and so own, even when i moved to Japan i was used of using viewdraw in Holland and then i had to change Orcad in Japan.

I know, I know, I hvnt metioned you at all here. What I speaked is to those that built up their factories in china.

I know as well, that japanese staff and workers work very industriously and carefully save every components for their workshop and factories. do more than their duties.

Thats one of the reaseons that japan can become a strong industry country in a short time. except under help with usa. but mentally, we dont like this country.

a student who graduated from electronic engineering department would be able to design LCD interface. he must know the property of the L,R,C circuit and its comporntes, or, he must be wasting his education in colleges.

of cause he must not know every thing in factroies like test instruments, how to programming ( in fact, none cant use them all, if not operate them theirself) and all kindsof chips he will use

if his major is machenism, he will not know what is lcd, dots array and you have to spend more time to train them.

I know factories have their own rutines, so every staff has to be trained. I ve just made a kidding.

you seem not be aware of amusing humor.

Hi C.N.Power,

Please read my comment under 48 above about Japanese employees.

Hi bill12780,

PS Sorry for the rant

Don't worry at all and take it easy. I think most of all had similar situations, but usually we survive.

I agree it's a problem of good or bad guys as in many other life aspects.

Being nearly sixty and after long years working, my opinion is you have to agree with what you do and not with anybody expects you do. If they are stupids it's their problem. Just push the "mute" button in your ears.

Kind regards

good response. little off topic

Well worth the 2 cents.

I had a secretary who She told me that I should be friends with my employees.

I told her this is a business, and one that makes money.

First off, friends was secondary to running the business and I want to keep a separation to that.

Courtesy and respect is what I look for from the employees, and thats a 2-way street.i

Did I get along with all of the employees, no. Did I like all the employees, no

And the same with them to me.

The common ground we had is courtesy and respect.

I did not have all the answers, neither did the employees. but we found them together.

But remember, I also challenge my employees with tasks the were difficult and only gave it to them because of their history to challenge. That was the only way I could see them grow.

Alot succeeded, some learn from experience I try to avoid the word failed, instead I would tell them as years go by, your worst experience is usually your best.

phoenix911

Actually, I had one boss who was a really nice gy outside the office, and was a good boss at a previous employer, but when we became part of a huge corporation, his need to impress the corporate bosses and fear for his own job made him start behaving horribly towards the staff. So sometimes a bad boss is a product of the corporate environment. This corporation in the Western US regions apparently has horrible turn over in it newly licensed and pre-licensed professionals (bad enough that they got very public attentions from the corporation to address the turn over). The western region just has a bad corporate environment that stresses the lower management out about increasing cost cutting and revenues earned, increasing marketting efforts, devoting office funding to retaining expensive marketing personnel, increasing local market shares and expanding into new markets, all while doing all the traditional roles of managing the personnel for efficient work production. So much of this then rolls down hills as the lower managers then expect these to be carried out by the professional staff on their own, off the clock of course as this budget has no room with the cost cutting and retention of expensive marketing personnel for direct project marketing.

In India one the largest two Wheeler mfr hired a CEO who was always hostile to employees, a kind of Bull Dog. Mostly all subordinates feared him as he would pressurise them and get maximum out of them. This attitude spoiled whole atmosphere in the factory and people were very much demoralised.This resulted in large turnover in the employees affecting the organisation.Last I heard off was that "Bull Dog" died of heart attack.