Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government IT

Ask Slashdot: Would You Fire Your CEO? (cio.com) 205

Posted by EditorDavid from the because-why-not? dept.
As America celebrates a national holiday honoring organized labor, long-time Slashdot reader itwbennett shares this story about the modern workplace: Three years ago, talent management and human resources company Haufe U.S. created a workplace democracy in which C-level leadership is elected by the employees for a one-year term. In an interview with CIO, Kelly Max, who is currently serving as Haufe's CEO, explains how the company got to this point and what they've learned from the experience.

"If you're going to talk about how your employees 'own' the company, if you're going to tout how they all have a voice, why not go all the way and see what happens? Because why not? You already have people working for and with you who elect you every day, who either agree or disagree with you and follow you, so we wanted to make it very transparent," says Max.
This raises an inevitable question for Slashdot readers: would your own organization work as a democracy? So leave your answers here in the comments. Would your company's employees fire your CEO?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Would You Fire Your CEO? More

Ask Slashdot: Would You Fire Your CEO?

Comments Filter:

  • ...next question?

    • Next Question (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Does this story have too much Bennett Hasselton [wikipedia.org], the mastermind behind the algorithm to end the lines for ice at the Burning Man festival [slashdot.org]?

    • How about your immediate manager? His/her manager? You country's president/PM/king/queen/chairman etc? I suspect many of us would say 'yes' to most of those. It's a bit of a stupid question really.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mrvan ( 973822 )

        Yes, Yes, NA/Yes/Fuck yeah/depends*/NA

        *) After firing the King I guess we would need a new one, and our queen is kinda hot ;-)

    • And all of the chumps he brought with him.

    • We would have been better off if we had NO CEO for our company the last 17 years. We've had a succession of worthless "loot and scoot" CEOs that do nothing but destroy the long term viability of the company whilst stuffing their pockets with the company's money.

      Now she's selling off portions of the company to make the books look good.

      Quite a shame. If she were fired though, she'd leave with tens of millions for driving the stock price down.

  • Under one condition (Score:3)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @07:51AM (#52828529)

    It will be out of a cannon and the parachute he gets isn't golden but mead of lead.

  • What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpaghettiPattern ( 609814 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @07:55AM (#52828545)

    I am not pleased with our CEO. We all aren't. It's a way of life.

    I'd settle for one that understands business strategy well and who knows how to keep the company profitable in the mid and in the long term. But those are few and far between.

    The employee's choice will inevitably be the most popular one. Which most of the time isn't one bit better than the status quo.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by mattwarden ( 699984 )

      I'm always impressed that software devs and project managers and database architects understand business strategy so well that they only need about 10% of the contextual information about what's going on in the business, and no access to financial statements... and yet can tell that the C-suite has it all wrong. Have you ever thought about being CEO? We would love to have you.

      • Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SpaghettiPattern ( 609814 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @10:43AM (#52829127)

        I'm always impressed that software devs and project managers and database architects understand business strategy so well that they only need about 10% of the contextual information about what's going on in the business, and no access to financial statements... and yet can tell that the C-suite has it all wrong. Have you ever thought about being CEO? We would love to have you.

        A quote from Machiavelli:

        Nor, I hope, will you think it presumptuous that a man of low, really the lowest, station should set out to discuss the way princes ought to govern their peoples. Just as artists who draw landscapes get down in the valley to study the mountains and go up to the mountains to look down on the valley, so one has to be a prince to get to know the character of a people and a man of the people to know the character of a prince.

        I personally had to learn the hard way what business strategy is. Had (wait I still have) a company fully based on my skills. I realized that I hadn't a clue as to how I could influence the factors around me and so I quit well in time and went permanent to do what I do best. Then I studied business strategy. (Boy was I naive.) The upshot is that I now can argue as to how a technical decision supports our strategic position.

        I now see pretty quickly whether a CEO has a strategy or not. Developing a strategy requires analysis, input from many different disciplines and is a hell of a job to take on. Management by decree has nothing to do with strategy. A strategy is documented reasonably well and enables people within the organisation to naturally contribute to it.

        • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mattwarden ( 699984 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @11:00AM (#52829213)

          Your quote does not apply. I did not say that you can't discuss strategy unless you're a CEO. I mocked the ridiculous attitude that many technical people have about how CEOs have no idea what they are doing and the software developer has it all figured out. It is the lack of humility I am mocking, plus the ignorance of the very real fact that people lower in the org only have partial visibility on one or two silos of business operations, and have no access to financial statements. There is a reason for financial reporting, and people without this data will make conclusions based on things they see (eg, the premium coffee service being canceled) and generally end up making the wrong conclusions. So why would your first assumption be that the people who have all this information and do have experience with strategy are idiots and have it all wrong?

          That's what I am mocking. And the magnitude of this egotistical silliness is unique to tech.

          • I mocked the ridiculous attitude that many technical people have about how CEOs have no idea what they are doing and the software developer has it all figured out.

            It's not only technical people and it's not only CEOs. We can all do somebody's job better than they can. Heck, after a few beers make that everybody's. The giveaway is when the word "just" appears in the perceived job description.

            There is a reason for financial reporting, and people without this data will make conclusions based on things t

            • I don't know why /. can't listen to criticism of their childish PHB yapping without assuming the criticizer worships PHBs. /. is just wrong on this, and I'm just saying so, because I've been here a long time and it gets old. You can have a few beers and believe you could be president of the US... even if that is "normal" in some sense, it doesn't mean you look like anything but an idiot doing it.

              • That's because you apply the same argument that is usually applied by politicians and lawyers, that only the very important people are knowledgeable and wise enough to have a say and the rabble should eat cake. There are a lot of obviously braindead decisions that are never going to work.
                Or maybe's that's us reading too much into it.

                • That's not at all the argument I made. And in fact I objected to the machiavelli quote up the thread for the very reason it implied I am making this argument you suggest, and I clarified that I am not. But the prejudices of /. appear to be too strong

            • "Clearly not all CxOs are utter mongs or there'd be no companies left."

              Think for a moment about what you said.

              Get it?

              Not yet?

              Ok, I'll write down for you: If all (or a vast majority) CxOs were utter mongs, there would be exactly the same companies that there are now. It is if only a reduced percentage of CxOs were utter mongs that they would be crushed away by their rivals but then, we see evidence that there're at least a reduced percentage of CxOs being utter mongs. See now what does that mean?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        I'm always impressed that software devs and project managers and database architects understand business strategy so well that they only need about 10% of the contextual information about what's going on in the business, and no access to financial statements... and yet can tell that the C-suite has it all wrong. Have you ever thought about being CEO? We would love to have you.

        At the CEO level I think nerds might be way off the mark at times like "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." because average people don't think the way we do. When it comes to funny new systems / technology / organization / methods though we're often the ones stuck trying to make things work after the executives have read buzzwords in trade magazines and the salesmen has collected their commissions. I think we very early get an idea who knows what they're doing and not but as a "support" organizatio

        • Yes, indeed. There are many cases of execs getting into details they don't understand, and they should leave that to the experts. And I know exactly what you mean by the buzzword bingo excitement. I could sell the exact same idea to a tech exec, in one situation attaching a cool sounding buzzword (eg microservice architecture) that may or may not actually apply, and in the other situation just playing it straight. The former will be way more effective. I don't fully understand why, but it is.

          A big part of t

      • The main job of the CEO isn't the administrative details of market position or business strategy or finance or whatever. The CEO has people to attend to those things for him. The CEO's main job is leadership.

        And piss-poor uninspiring leadership is pretty damn obvious to those in the rank and file.

        • I'm sorry, but this is a very immature view. There are very different types of CEOs and different organizations need a different type, perhaps changing as the organization and its market evolves over time. You seem most familiar with the internal organizational CEO, who spends most of his/her time on organizational structure and either inspiring others himself/herself or bringing in people who will. There are also very externally focused CEOs who spend most of their time on sales and partnerships. There are

  • on my 2nd CEO this year.
  • I doubt my CEO would notice if you fired him!

  • Sounds oddly familiar... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sisterk ( 444554 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @08:05AM (#52828599)

    Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO is your CEO?
    Woman: No one is.
    Arthur: Then who is your board?
    Woman: We don't have a board!
    Arthur: (suprised) What??
    Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking
            turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
    Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
    Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a
            special bi-weekly meeting--
    Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
    Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
    Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
    Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
    Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I *order* you to be quiet!
    Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
    Arthur: I am your king!
    Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!

  • Workers controlling the means of production (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mjlner ( 609829 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @08:05AM (#52828601) Journal

    There is one element of socialism in here. Not all elements, though, so you Americans can start breathing again.

    I'm actually all for the democratic control of companies. If nothing else, stupid voters/employees might end up learning that voting for incompetent or corrupt leaders will actually make you end up without a place to work.

    • They might also learn that less apathy and more engagement will lead to leaders that are more in touch with them.

      Quite frankly, there is no reason for either side of The Party in the US to be more voter focused. Most voters (and I'm only talking about those people that can actually be bothered to lift their asses out of their chairs to register as voters, i.e. nearly nobody) don't even have the foggiest clue what their candidates really stand for.

      Try it. Go out, ask someone who he's voting for. Then ask him

  • Benign dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @08:06AM (#52828603)

    The best form of leadership is a Benign/Benovolent dictatorship, this means they are reasonably popular but can get things done and can make the unpopular decisions when needed

    The reasons this works for a company, are the same ones that work for a country... ... but if a company stops being profitable they go bust and disappear, whereas when a country does the equivilent you just get a classical dictator

    Democracy is a terrible system of government, but it is the least bad system in the long term ....

    • The closest thing the US can get to something like this is the second term of a president.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      This is a very simplistic notion for several reasons. First, a company doesn't just have to make a profit to be successful; it has to make at least a normal profit. That means it's very easy for an unsuccessful company to survive indefinitely if proprietors imagine a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

      What's more a company in a good cash position can survive for years off their past successes while seldom turning any profit. Sears was once the sole national retailer in the United States, and it domina

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @08:15AM (#52828631)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • You answered your own question: Because the CEO cannot even possibly earn his keep. It is simply and plainly impossible.

      Everyone working for a company has to generate as much revenue as he costs, at the very least. Simply by the rules of the market. If you do not generate as much money as you cost, your company is better off without you. Of course not everyone is in sales or production, but the service you provide to the company has to be on par with the amount of money you cost your company.

      No CEO can poss

      • Everyone working for a company has to generate as much revenue as he costs, at the very least.

        Really? So, if you have a large office building that employs janitorial staff - those maintenance people should actually be billable and generate more than they cost? How does that work, exactly? How about the security guards - should they be focused on somehow being billable instead of on securing the building and its occupants?

        Lots of positions are pure cost at the individual level - those people are necessary in order to help the billable/sales people generate the revenue that pays everyone in the co

        • Re:Why just the CEO? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @10:01AM (#52828989)

          Security and its cost is part of risk assessment. And yes, there is a point where security costs more than it's worth. If the possible damage that could happen is 1000 bucks a month and it costs me more than 1000 bucks a month to secure it, then even certain impact realization would not warrant the security expense because it is actually cheaper to simply accept the damage.

          Security needn't generate revenue but it has to lower the assessed risk by as much as it costs. Simple as that. This is, by the way, another reason why the whole TSA security theater is completely bogus.

          • So, how do you address the overhead spent on people like janitors? I'm guessing you'll say that the cost of having nobody clean the toilets or of making every engineer, sales rep, and IT person haul their own trash out is that you'd quickly lose most of your employees. But that's also true of everyone who processes payroll, handles A/R, A/P and the rest. All necessary jobs or the place grinds to a halt - but there's no billable numbers to look at there, and no "if we don't have accounting staff, the costs w
      • Median CEO pay is only $160k [payscale.com]. That includes bonuses, stock options, etc.

        You're probably thinking of the ridiculous amounts made by CEOs of the biggest companies (Fortune 500, S&P 500, etc). Yes they're mostly not worth it. But they only make up less than 0.02% of all businesses with employees (roughly 6 million). And only about 5% of all businesses employing 500+ people.

        The media wants to make a story out of the poor-rich pay gap, so they cherry-pick the data which best supports their argument

        • Those numbers are clearly bogus, they show top CEO pay being $423k.

          • Those numbers are clearly bogus, they show top CEO pay being $423k.

            Wouldn't surprise me at all. CEO's make their earnings via stock options and other deals, not via salary. Most figures discussed for CEOs include the total package. e.g. Larry Page's pay is $1. He still makes $70m / year in stock options, bonuses etc. But the key part is those are negotiated directly with investors in the company, so someone decides that yes this person is worth that much.

        • I know the story about the psychopaths, and that the amount is actually a lot higher the higher you climb the income ladder. Past the million, it gets scary.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Alomex ( 148003 )

      1) The amount they get (including bonuses) is not realistic compared to the work they do compared to others. Should they earn more? Sure. Should they earn 200 times more? No.

      Exactly. Unless you are a wizard CEO (think Jobs or Warren Buffet) a CEO is unlikely to be worth more than 10x a senior engineer. That still leaves you with a salary in the $1-2M range, which is pretty decent.

      I've met many smart people in my life: politicians, scientists, artists and CEOs. The only CEO who blew me away with his clarity of vision and thought was Nolan Bushnell. If you have a talent like that I can see them getting up to 100x a senior engineer, but those are the exception, not the rule.

  • Requires a knowledge of the job (Score:5, Insightful)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @08:18AM (#52828649)

    C-level leadership is elected by the employees for a one-year term.

    So how to "ordinary" employees (even ones from a recruitment company) know what qualities to look for in a C-level? Do they understand the legal obligations that C-levelship brings. Do they know what is possible or within scope for a particular "C"?

    Or do they simply engage in a beauty contest and vote for people they like, or who make the biggest promises: "vote for me as your CEO and I'll give everyone a pay rise and annual bonus"

    It all sounds lovely and group-huggy. But does it actually make the company more successful or a better place to work?

    • It's the equivalent of electing a student body president. Nothing more than a popularity contest.

    • Or do they simply engage in a beauty contest and vote for people they like, or who make the biggest promises: "vote for me as your CEO and I'll give everyone a pay rise and annual bonus"

      It all sounds lovely and group-huggy. But does it actually make the company more successful or a better place to work?

      That's how we select the CEO for our country. And it's usually easier to switch employers than it is to switch homelands.

      Regardless, the way we select CEOs now isn't gaining a lot of points for prosperity for many companies, much less the countries that grant them their corporate charters. In fact, the primary people who have been prospering lately have been the CEOs themselves, whether their companies succeed or fail.

      The original expectations that sovereign nations had for chartering incorporated businesse

  • C-level is at lowest in decades (Score:4, Funny)

    by jabberw0k ( 62554 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @08:24AM (#52828665) Homepage Journal
    Why would any company want C leadership these days, when C Programming Language's Tiobe Rating [has] Drop[ped] To Lowest Level [informationweek.com] in decades? Surely some Python or even a modern Perl leadership would be far superior.

  • Traditional corporations have a board (which is elected by shareholders, at least nominally) and then executive officers who are actually supposed to run the company. I don't know anything about business organization theory, but I'm guessing that in some pure sense corporations are already technically structured around the idea of some kind of democratic management.

    I think the problem is that in so many corporations, the board is relatively weak and not very involved in much oversight. They also tend to h

    • Yes. Every Corporation has a board, as a matter of state law pretty much everywhere. The board has a legal obligation to use reasonable business judgment, which gives them a lot of leeway. (Basically because the courts don't want to be involved in running a corporation).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by swb ( 14022 )

        But they don't work. They've got executive officers who are supposed to be overseen by the board sitting on them, they're loaded with fluffy famous people and back-scratching officers from other companies. Their elections are farces, controlled by ridiculous bylaws that make Soviet elections look like legitimate democracy. On paper they represent shareholders, in reality they are marionettes of management.

        And at the end of it, how often are they actually engaged in the company's business? Close enough t

    • If you look at the stories of any of the more infamous CEOs, they usually had the boards wrapped around their fingers. The whole shareholder voting thing is also pretty broken. Look at a disney vote to remove their leadership. Something like 99% voted to remove, ..... and nothing changed.

      Then you get these family companies that go public, with the families owning 51% of the voting shares. You can have different class shares with one class having 100 votes per share an another 1 vote per share. Thus the f
  • But I'd definitely fire my CIO.

  • Capitalism is meritocratic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cloud.pt ( 3412475 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @09:16AM (#52828823)

    There's no way around it - be it by luck, opportunism, IQ, bank account, family, networking, entrepreneurship, share ownership, influence or the most relevant of all: charisma - leadership these days is acquired through different forms of merit, never democratically. A suffrage for C-level anything is just gonna place more emphases on the least "true-merit" traits of them all.

    This is mostly what happens nowadays on evolved democracies, and why they are, ultimately, in decadence. Think about it like so: there's this guy called Trump with no real quality other than bringing a lot of empathy to the table, because a lot of voters are being driven by his isolationism rhetoric which never fails to catch a big chunk of an ever-increasing patriot country's vote. And in my opinion, he's gonna win because the other candidate has a near-50% handicap, from the long-established, yet to be solved gender problem, even more relevant than the previous incumbent's racial minority trait, for the simple fact America has embraced different races a lot more than it has suppressed gender inequality.

    This is gonna be equivalent in a company, to a different extent but to similar outcomes - the bottom-of-the-pyramid voters are gonna side with whoever seems to bring more to their table, and candidates just need to find the rhetoric that identifies them as such. If this is, like american politics, mixed up with a candidate-picking system that pre-establishes a small pool of "desirables", no single candidate will truthfully bring anything to the bottom tiers. Winning will be a matter of the best liar. I would likely fire my current CEO if I had one (don't work in that kind of corporate structure) , but the question remains: would we be allowed to pick something better than the status quo?

    • That's a nice load of crap you're selling.

      We voted for the last president because he was Black (sort of). We're voting for Hillary because she is a woman (sort of). Those are stupid reasons. Neither of these jerks has a "handicap." They have an advantage because of traits that don't qualify them for anything.

  • My CEO is a she, and she's one of the most brilliant and intelligent person I know.
    I'd fire the whole middle management staff, though.

    • So she's either not that brilliant or new enough that she didn't get around to fire the duds and replace them.

      • You might have a point. She's brilliant enough that she's always travelling around the world for conferences, presentations or workshops, so she's doesn't spend enough time here to notice how many morons we have.

  • We've all done it at some point -- fired our boss by leaving for another firm.

  • I Come to Work (Score:3)

    by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @09:44AM (#52828931) Homepage

    I come to work in order to work and make money. I don't come to work to play politics all day.

    • I don't come to work to play politics all day.

      This. When I see the crap that upper management call "work" they can keep their paycheck. I was groomed into a leading role and basically given the option of management of technical with the caveat openly explained to me that a technical leadership role comes with a ceiling of influence and income. I chose technical with the justification that there's a limit to how many times I can write the word synergy without mocking it before jump off the side of a reactor vessel.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      Playing politics is work. ;)

  • Don't work for a public company (Score:3)

    by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Monday September 05, 2016 @09:46AM (#52828945) Homepage

    The biggest problem out there is the next quarter mindset of public companies. Today, public companies are too focused on the end of the quarter and maximizing shareholder returns which means that the employees and customers be damned if they can be squeezed to get another point of EBITDA over the next three months.

    The best company I ever worked for was a wholly owned subsidiary in which the CEO/top manager and senior managers worked as a very effective team in keeping employees and customers happy - I should point out that we had a very flat organizational structure which kept things running very well.

    We then got bought out and the investors put us up for an IPO. As founders, there was some money thrown our way, BUT the CEO's total focus was turned to what the investor's wanted which meant he had almost no time to devote to the day to day running of the business (which he was excellent at) and, to fill the void, more new executives, who didn't know the business, were brought in along with more than doubling the number of management levels. After a couple of years, the CEO, decided to call in rich and we had a series of new CEOs (and their hangers on) that proceeded to destroy the company.

    All the work we had done creating a business that was destroyed in about three years and what made us special was lost along with more than two thirds of the employees with what was once a happy, proud workplace becoming a place for temporary employment.

    So, find a place that is wholly owned, doesn't worry about it's stock price, with a small, competent management team.

  • Look to Sears. The CEO there is Eddie Lampert, who used various financial manoeuvres to first take over KMart and then Sears. He has zero retail experience. He is known for only attending board meetings via videoconferencing (where he yells at board members). He has passed down illogical orders to the stores that have turned the skeleton crews into Lord of the Flies.

    So why haven't they fired him? They can't. His moves placed him as majority share holder as well as CEO. The board has no way to fire him. He is in a can't-lose situation now as with very few exceptions Sears owns the land their stores sit on (even in malls) so once he drives the ship under he has millions of dollars of real estate that he can sell.

  • That sort of thing already exists. Not sure if co-op or association is the right term in english, but man, wtf, why do people reinvent the wheel all the time, there is already a legal model for electing and firing your leadership.

  • I work at a large company. Even though I listen to key notes, etc... I don't have the background to make the decisions that are made, or know if they are any good. Maybe given a couple of months of research in determine how good the decisions are, I might be able to make an informed decision, but not today.

    If I had to decide, I would say no, purely for the reason that replacing a CEO causes disruption.

  • In many companies I have seen a much more subtle person who needed to go. The CEO was often a gungho type who pushed hard for progress and whatnot. But there was often one person who most people knew were sabotaging their efforts, that one person who everyone knew was keeping things down. That was the person who walked into the room and all conversations stopped, as they would use any spitballing conversations against you. Someone might say, "I should learn python" and suddenly that person was talking about
  • Modern corporations operate not to maximize employee satisfaction, but to maximize profit. CEOs have a mandate to appease shareholders and not employees. This often means doing things like freezing bonuses, cutting jobs, salaries that don't keep up with inflation, and cutting benefits. Of course employees would fire their CEOs. This is subjective. What are the goals of the corporation (99 out of 100 times it's to make money folks)? Are they being met thanks to decisions made by the CEO?

  • Sometimes the question is more interesting for other C-level executives.

  • I'm in a company that was acquired by a competitor, where the resulting company was in turn acquired by a much larger, overseas firm. That latter firm knows little I think except the balance sheet, so things are really managed by the CEO of the first acquiring firm. He isn't at all from our field, says the right things, and much of it bullshit. Most of the firm I came with is gone, on their own or when much of it got closed suddenly. So yeah, many of the employees he had would fire him, but it's probably 50

  • My CEO has only been on the job for about three years, and frankly, he is a vast improvement over the previous guy. He's doing a great job, and moving the company in the right direction. He clearly understands the industry a lot better than I do, so I'm not complaining.

    - Necron69

  • You mean the asshat CEO of a Fortune 500 company who got a 60% raise for having a lousy fiscal year and implemented a 10% layoff that put me out of work for eight months?
  • Does "fire at" count?
  • And the CTO too. The level of inefficiency in my place of work is mind boggling. Too much corporate politics. It's costing my company a fortune. We go through binge and purge fire/hire cycles and well as outsource/insource cycles. I can't even imagine the annual bill for this mess.

  • I haven't seen any mention of co-operatives [wikipedia.org]. They exist and operate among capitalistic competition. Some co-operatives thrive and some crash. And some thrive and then crash.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close