91–100 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im really doubtful whether employees are actually happy working there. Never heard of Kyocera being anywhere nesr tge top of Best Places to Work surveys adressing employees satisfaction. This sounds like a big PR piece with no fact to support any claim.
"Best places to work" surveys are almost always gamed. I've never trusted them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im really doubtful whether employees are actually happy working there. Never heard of Kyocera being anywhere nesr tge top of Best Places to Work surveys adressing employees satisfaction. This sounds like a big PR piece with no fact to support any claim.
> Never heard of Kyocera being anywhere nesr tge top of Best Places to Work surveys I've never seen one of those surveys that were actually legit, though. They use completely subjective factors to measure & determine happiness or "best". To me, the whole thing is a lot like the Academy Awards where it's basically a fake award without any scientific rigor. I remember one year, I think it was 2005 or 06? Verizon Wirele…
Believe what you want. There's not scientific study for about everything that matters in life, yet there's stuff that is common sense enough it does not need to be demonstrated.
The companies who apply for this kind of surveys are confident in the first place that they are not treating their employees poorly, and that fact alone makes it more relevant than all these other companies that don't even both measuring how they are doing.
Back on the subject, Kyocera is a very traditional company, and if you want scientific demonstration that they are not saying bullshit, when you don't have it either, so what is your point exactly ?
“If you want eggs, take care of the hen,” Inamori said in an interview on Oct. 23. “If you bully or kill the hen, it’s not going to work.”
Shares are just tokens that can appreciate and depreciate in value (not unlike bitcoin). Price of shares usually has nothing to do with condition or more importantly future of the company. It depends solely on whim of people who have too much money and time and noting better to do with those. Idea that the company should be managed in a way that would raise the price of shares is silly. Trading shares is a game and w…
I agree, to an extent. But I did get burned by this mindset... I owned a non-trivial amount of MSFT back in the 90s, and they had never paid dividends. Instead, their share price seemed to be linked to the tech bubble and their own popularity. I bought as part of that herd mentality. Eventually, though, I realized that their share price was really not bound by anything concrete, so I sold. A month later, they paid ou…
Say what you will, but >After taking the CEO role without pay, he printed a small book for each staff member on his philosophies, which declared that the company was devoted to their growth. >"Company leaders should seek to make all their employees happy, both materially and intellectually," Inamori said. I'd take a pay cut to work at a place like that. Enjoying your work, feeling like you will be taken care of, and…
So would I, but I've noticed that the only really reliable marker of how well you'll be treated is salary (compared to market average).
So it really only makes sense to chase the money.
It's almost always the employers that offer you concrete benefits, contractually enforced promises and cash that will end up taking care of you and treating you with respect anyway.
The companies that tout vague platitudes (good working environment, friendly coworkers, good work/life balance, no bullshit) above concrete benefits (pay, hours, holiday, free lunches) are usually the shittiest employers in that market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further expand on this: > When Inamori talks about making employees happy, he doesn’t mean they’ll be putting their feet up. His brand of happiness comes from working harder than anyone else. It’s infused with the Buddhist idea of “shojin,” elevating the soul through devotion to a task. That's nice and all, but not if it comes at the expense of employee leisure time or pay.
He is using religion to enslave the people. How original.
It seems to be a little more prevalent in Japan but it happens in the west too (Goldman Sachs allegedly uses them to great effect, for instance).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, a lot can change in a decade, which seems to be what most results are centered around (a whistle blower from 1999 who wrote a book). But it isn't exactly ranked high by employees [0]. Also may want to explain what ブラック企業 means. I can take an educated guess but I'm not 100% certain I'm right. [0] https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://...
A "black company" is one which abuses employees in such a manner as to shock the conscience of a Japanese salaryman. Normal company: Work Monday to Saturday, Sunday off. Black company: two Sundays a month off... but you have to work on them anyhow Normal company: 70 hour workweek involving 20+ hours of paid overtime. Black company: the overtime is uncompensated ("service" overtime)/ Normal company: underperforming em…
Not trying to be derisive, I'm just genuinely curious if it's actual work, or if they clock in, spend 5 hours playing Fate/GO and 5 hours adjusting the spreadsheet a bit.
This bloomberg sentence fits well to my understanding of many businesses: their leaders don't use their brains, they follow the crowd. The author does a puzzling thing: he asks us to follow the good example but then wants to point out the special approach of Inamori. What is the advice? Follow Inamori and do what too many businesses do (follow, don't think)? Or do something original (and don't care about what everybody does)?
And what about statistics? Here is a report about one single success that worked and its leader tried to make his employees happy (perhaps both things are unrelated, tbp). That does not carry any weight, until there is a meaningful statistics about the success of leaders who did it like this. Currently, it is just another success story.
Even the hen-egg example is broken and the author did not see it. Take it literally: do we care for hens? No, we torture them until they die early, take all their eggs and make a good profit. The hen is dead? Get another one, she'll lay eggs too. The farmers who care for their hens are the ones in trouble: they have to compete with much cheaper eggs. And who really understands or pays for quality? A minority!