vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The quality of the MBA is really what decides if it's worth it. You have to make sure the school where you are going to is highly regarded or even prestigious. There is a big difference between what you find prestigious and others find prestigious. The student believing it is an awesome school is not enough, the companies and recruiters must believe it too.  Make sure you do your homework on the ranking of the MBA program. Additionally, your undergraduate plays a role how well your MBA is perceived. A decent undergraduate degree complemented with an MBA from a highly ranked school will put you in a trajectory for a high salary and a management position.
"That depends on on the Global Macro you're applying for; your best bet is to look at their investment policy/strategy on their website. If that's not available, it's actually a good interview question (i.e. a question for you to ask the interviewer). To be clear, what I think is a good question for you to ask is ""so what's your investment strategy?"" It shows that the candidate isn't presuming anything and that s/he knows that there's an adherence to an underlying discipline.  In my opinion, don't pitch anything. If it was me; even if I did know their investment approach, I wouldn't pitch an idea in an interview, unless asked.  If they do ask you for your opinion, tell them your idea (assuming that you know their investment approach and what your pitching adheres to it). Interviewers sometimes ask such questions to gauge whether you have a ""finger on the pulse of the market"".  So in summary:  1. Find out their investment strategy. 2. If it's not online, then ask what it is in the interview. 3. Show that you understand the strategy. 4. Don't pitch an idea unless asked; if asked, show how your idea adheres to the underlying strategy."
It would be interesting to do an anonymous survey of upper management, to find out how many of them actually thought the retail stores would turn around.  It seems hard to believe they were deluding themselves, it seems more likely they each were trying to fool their own boss, or the shareholders, a little longer, so they could keep their jobs a bit longer, and pretending that their subordinates fooled them.
Can't say I agree with most of the replies here I'm afraid - I found the insights from books such as Who Moved My Cheese, How to win friends..., Sun Tzu, Jim Collins to be highly limited.   If you need to pick up business basics there simply isn't a better book than The Personal MBA - read it cover to cover and as you come across concepts that are interesting/relevant to what you're doing, research them further. Personal MBA won't give you the depth but gives you great breadth.   You asked specifically about Project Management - I found that an appreciation of the PRINCE2 methodology really helps when planning and managing projects. http://www.prince2.com/what-is-prince2   The official textbooks on Prince2 are overpriced and not as good as others available such as: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prince2-Study-Guide-David-Hinde/dp/1119970784/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1407186842&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=prince2+study+guide   You asked specifically about marketing - but not sure exactly what marketing you're looking at. Personal MBA will give you a great grounding - I particularly like the concept of Permission Marketing explored by Seth Godin. Research how analytics is used in marketing to gain insights about and target customers (the whole growth hacking movement borrows a lot from this) and research the psychology behind marketing (I really liked Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman although it isn't specifically about this). This will give you a great grounding in the 'hard' and 'soft' sides of marketing.   Apologies for rambling response - how it was helpful!
&gt; Good CEOs need to have a good grasp on accounting, finance, marketing, strategy, human resources and problem solving.  President Trump has been a CEO of a big company most of his life.  Do you think he has a good grasp on accounting, finance, marketing, strategy, human resources, and problem solving?
Finance is usually urine test, like most non-security/government employers. If anything, banks test once when you're hired or in the first few months after you start, then never again.   Lots of drugs on Wall Street. Uppers are probably especially prevalent among the analyst ranks.   Hiring good people is hard. They're not going to try to find a reason to get rid of you unless they want to.
Scientists and Engineers earn very well, are proud of their contributions and have safe jobs that grow with them.  MBAs, in my long experience, mostly lose their jobs because of the blanders they cause, have very stressful jobs, and their jobs are totally dependent on kissing the ass of the one above them.
I don't see that this system is very effective at rewarding productivity, which (particularly in software) is an inherently difficult thing to judge. That's why we've traditionally relied on human managers to make judgments between personnel in regards to compensation.  But yeah, you bet I'm selfish. If I can get paid more than someone else for doing the same job, I'm going to do it. And I'd prefer to work somewhere that allows me to do that.
"You need a right hand. Call him or her the COO or VP of operations or Chief Dog Catcher. It doesn't matter. Your business depends on you outputting your core competency. You need someone you can trust to run the operational aspects of your business.   It's impossible to fill both roles and scale to any level.   Ninja edit: the other option is to offload some of the core competency to other employees, freeing you up to do what I affectionally call, ""CEO shit."" This is what I chose to do in my business and it has been very effective."
My advice would be to keep in mind they want to know 2 things.  Are you smart enough/hard working enough to do the job? You answer this typically with the resume which gets you to the second question,  Are you a normal human being they would like to hang out with/interact with for 8 hours a day 5 days a week?
Let me back up every point of advice I made for you:   Albert Schweitzer: (my first point)  &gt; The three most important ways to lead people are:… by example… by example… by example.  Albert Einstein: (also my first point) &gt; Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others, it is the only means.  Elon Musk: (my second point) &gt; Pay attention to negative feedback, and solicit it, particularly from friends.  Source: http://socialtimes.com/elon-musk-pay-attention-to-negative-feedback-and-solicit-it-particularly-from-friends_b184604  Catherine the Great: (my third point)  &gt; “I praise loudly, I blame softly”  Tom Brady: (my fourth point)  &gt; Coach Belichick holds us accountable everyday. We appreciate when he's tough on us. He gets the best out of us.  Doug Collins, Philadelphia 76ers Coach: (also my fourth point)  &gt; When your teammate looks you in the eye and holds you accountable, that’s the greatest kind of leadership there is.  Seriously, I think you need to re-evaluate yourself.  I think you have some self-esteem or self-confidence issues that are making you come off like a complete ass.
Studying it is one thing.  Actually putting all that in place and doing it well is another.  Even if they bring in people with experience, it is a huge change in how they do business.  Think about how a company like McDonalds had fallen on its face every time they have tried to do something a little more upscale.
"Here's what Suze Orman has to say about it: Good debt is money you borrow to purchase an asset, such as a home you can afford. History shows that home values generally rise in step with the inflation rate, so a mortgage is good debt. Student loans are, too, because they're an investment in the future. Census data pegs the average lifetime earnings of a high school graduate at a million dollars below that of someone with a bachelor's degree. Bad debt is money you borrow to buy a depreciating asset or to finance a ""want"" rather than a ""need."" A car is a depreciating asset; from the day you drive it off the lot, it starts losing value. Credit card balances or a home equity line of credit that's used to pay for indulgences—vacations, shopping, spa days—is bad debt."
Good marketing is bottom up marketing - finding out what the customers want and giving it to them and not pissing them off . Bad marketing is top down marketing - telling the customers what they will buy , spying on the customers and manipulating the customers . Good marketing involves giving the customers a good deal . This usually involves giving something for free - good advertisement - and something at a reasonable price along with good product and good service .
Maybe if it required immense talent or skill it would. All you really need to do is be able to handle people for several hours a day, which is a prerequisite to any job. Instead you get a bunch of salty, usually snotty individuals with zero marketable skills who couldn't get a job elsewhere or are lazy and know they can slack off like shit and not get fired working there. My best friend and roommate was one of those people and he worked there a year and barely got the minimum raises. Everyday he bitched about how dumb everyone he worked with was despite the fact he's one of the dumbest people I know. He thought the world owed him something and he didn't care how he got it. That was about 60% of the people there that I knew. On the other hand, the other 40% of people I knew working there were still young kids, but didn't think every person with a somewhat dumb question was an idiot. They showed up on time, got their work done, and were pleasant to be around despite having a shitty job. They were the same age and from the same background as my friend, but they didn't come to work with a chip on their shoulder. After several months most of them had been promoted to higher positions or even assistant managers, they were making considerably more money and had more responsibility. They could not be replaced the next day by someone with no training or experience and were worth even more to the company than their time a dozen former peers who acted like assholes.  If you let your starting salary or position dictate your attitude toward a job, you're never going to get anywhere in life. The world doesn't owe a huge salary and benefits. I'm hardly arguing for big companies that can and do treat employees badly, but having seen what that sometimes consists of, I don't tend to get my panties in a bunch over it anymore. I've worked my fair share of shit jobs in the beating sun and sweltering heat for shit money, and I didn't treat people like shit because of it. Hell I actually really enjoyed one of them. The difference is I never thought the world owed me something because two people had the idea to fuck one night.
If training in suitable subject areas can be taken, which will help you to be a better employee and contribute efficiently to overall company’s advancement, then your professional life can be secured. Your competency will be enhanced and your quality contribution to help the company achieve its goals will be recognized.
This is kind of true, but really if a company needs someone they will find a way to hire. Most time they just let open positions float.  My boss has been interviewing people every day for a month but hasn't found the 'right person' yet.   Now i see why companies 'outsource' their recruiting to head hunters. I prefer to just post my info and let recruiters call me.
And that means using your ""network"" to get your name in the door and your resume in the hands of the ""person that matters"" within the company (that may or just as often may NOT be the manager who makes the ""hiring decision"" -- it may very well be the most experienced person in his department; who then PUSHES the manager to interview and hire you) -- and you preferably do that BEFORE the damned ad is even written, and BEFORE the HR department is even aware that there is a ""need"" for a hire. (Keep in mind that there is often a span of several weeks, if not several months between the REAL awareness of a ""need"" and the manager/HR getting around to actually starting the ""help wanted"" fiasco-ridden process.) One key aspect of that is that -- via the ""in the door ahead of time"" -- even IF the company *requires* the HR process to be followed, the job spec can be ""constructed"" to match the pre-qualified candidate, and his/her resume can go to the top of the stack (already being in the manager's hands with a hearty recommendation/endorsement from one of his critical team members: i.e. ""HIRE this guy/gal!"") Unfortunately, it seems that -- for all the emphasis on ""networking"" these days -- colleges and other ""how to get hired"" classes, seldom (if ever) teach those techniques. *But if you ask around/look around within companies and identify the really ""good fit"" people, a LOT of them will have been hired by this method, and emphatically were NOT found via HR listings &amp; processes.*"
You'll know because you'll have to get people to work below you. For example, if you're hired you might have to find 2 people to work for. Those 2 people will have to find 2 people of there own. Those new people will have to find 2 people of there own, and if you draw it out on paper it looks like a pyramid.
Fast Food/ 1-hour photo mentality.   Everyone needs to be pre-made and ready to go or they aren't hireable. Hence why these employers can't find talent, nobody comes to a new job with 5-10 years of highly specific experience working in the same position they applied for, at the specific company they were just hired at. Everyone has a ramping up period to one degree or another.
You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job.  The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it.  They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors.  With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.
They used to. People got hired at entry level jobs and were trained on the job. They learned from the person above them and moved up the ladder. Then they taught the person below them while learning from the person above them. This continued for a whole career. Trades still work this way.  Now we've traded on the job training for minimum hiring requirements. We've traded moving up for having to move to another company. And we've traded proper raises for standard 3% increases until you quit and move to another company to do a job for which you have the minimum hiring requirements.
"Employers generally prefer to hire someone already working in the same position because they don't want to invest in training (and because they don't know what else they should be looking for when they hire instead).   While this might make sense on the surface, it fails to take into account that they are in fact paying for this prior training (i.e., experience) through higher starting salaries as well as productivity losses through [imperfect portability of prior work experience](http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/when-stars-migrate-do-they-still-perform-like-stars/).   This game of hiring musical chairs punishes both new graduates and job seekers who by default lack the ""right"" work experience because they're working in jobs for which they are [considered overqualified](http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-overqualified-for-their-jobs-2014-7).   Sure, you can blame them for not getting the right internships, but this ignores how competitive getting an internship is and how [companies are disincentivized to hire interns](http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234439) in the first place."
Are you looking to book a corporate comedian for your next important business meeting or convention? If so, you will see that you have a lot of options out there as far as hiring someone to perform for you at your event. Just like any other kind of corporate event you plan, hiring a corporate comedian is a process. A process that entails you to consider a lot of factors before making that all important hire. Look at these factors as a checklist, a list for you to work down and make sure you have all of your bases covered to insure a quality event in every way. Let’s take a look at some of these essentials to booking a corporate comedian.
Here's the principle. As your company grows, you tend to add people in ""layers"". The top layer is the first founder or founders. There may be 1, 2, 3, or more of you, but you all start working about the same time, and you all take the same risk... quitting your jobs to go work for a new and unproven company. The second layer is the first real employees. By the time you hire this layer, you've got cash coming in from somewhere (investors or customers--doesn't matter). These people didn't take as much risk because they got a salary from day one, and honestly, they didn't start the company, they joined it as a job. The third layer are later employees. By the time they joined the company, it was going pretty well. For many companies, each ""layer"" will be approximately one year long. By the time your company is big enough to sell to Google or go public or whatever, you probably have about 6 layers: the founders and roughly five layers of employees. Each successive layer is larger. There might be two founders, five early employees in layer 2, 25 employees in layer 3, and 200 employees in layer 4. The later layers took less risk. OK, now here's how you use that information: The founders should end up with about 50% of the company, total. Each of the next five layers should end up with about 10% of the company, split equally among everyone in the layer. Example: Two founders start the company. They each take 2500 shares. There are 5000 shares outstanding, so each founder owns half. They hire four employees in year one. These four employees each take 250 shares. There are 6000 shares outstanding. They hire another 20 employees in year two. Each one takes 50 shares. They get fewer shares because they took less risk, and they get 50 shares because we're giving each layer 1000 shares to divide up. By the time the company has six layers, you have given out 10,000 shares. Each founder ends up owning 25%. Each employee layer owns 10% collectively.
Yeah, it's a weird way to run a business, and a weird way to evangelize too.    But if he doesn't share their views, neither the employer nor employee would have been happy with the situation.    I think owners of small businesses should be able to hire based on any criteria they want, even if that means they only want to hire punk rockers, atheists, Amish people, whatever.  If it's a company of 10 people who all have to deal with each other everyday, they should be able to form a group of whatever kind of people they want.   In reality, small businesses do hire based on whatever kinds of people they want to have around.  It's just that most of them are smart enough to be subtle about it.
There can be so many different motives behind having a company conduct an employment background check. Depending on the criteria of the company, a background check can be done to investigate the aspirants’ credit history, criminal records, employment history, education, motor vehicle and license records, and civil records and so on.
If you are a temp-to-hire, or you are asked to setup a company then you are not an employee. They expect you to fund everything from your hourly rate. This includes pay, insurance, taxes, social security, sick, vacation, holidays... The rule of thumb for an established company is 1.75 to 2.25 times the salary rate is the rate they need to charge a customer. For example: employee get paid checks for $25/hour x 80 hours x 26 times a year.: 2080 hours or $52,000 per year. Company can only bill customers for 1800 to 1900 hours of labor. They need to bill at 2 times the salary rate or $50 per hour. They will collect $90,000 (1800*50). The numbers have to be run by the particular company based on their actual costs for benefits, overhead and profits.  If they were giving you $25 an hour as a contractor. They expect you to be making $12.50 an hour as an employee.
As an employer, why would I not want to hire someone who is philosophically similar to me? Now I only have around 10 employees, so my case is a little different, but if everyone can be free to believe what they want, can I as an employer believe to hire those that have similar interests to mine?   Fortunately I've never had to ask these questions (facebook is a beautiful thing).   I'm an athiest. Why wouldn't I hire an athiest first given that I work in such close proximity with my employees and is much more like a family or a close group of friends? I'm going to pick people who fit in. I find that if the chemistry is better, more productive work gets done.
One could make the argument that hiring generally was something which companies should do as little of as possible. So, looking twenty years ahead, unless we as a nation and generally, it applies also to the whole human race, **unless we set our sights a great deal higher than they are today, businesses just won't need practically any employees.**   And if we do set our sights higher, the employees businesses *will* need will be much more skilled than most of them are today. There just wont be any need for a lot of people no matter how eager they are to work, they just wont have any skills that a computer can't do better.
Getting hired comes down to positioning yourself effectively as the best possible candidate, someone a potential employer sees as a valuable asset with high potential. In order to do that, it’s important to understand the top concerns employers have with hiring someone who's changing careers.