vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Besides overnight news events and auction mechanisms there is a more fundamental reason the price of a stock is always moving.  Theoretically the stock price will move slightly even in the unlikely scenario that absolutely nothing of interest happens during the entire night.  Let me go into that in some more detail: Stock valuation using Discounted Cash FLow One of the fundamental reasons that stock value is constantly changing is because underneath every stock there is a company that expects to make some kind of profit or loss in the future. We have to go into the fundamentals of stock value to understand why this is important: One popular way to determine the value of a stock is by looking into the future and summing up all the earnings (or cashflows) it has yet to produce. You have to reduce each amount by a certain factor that gets larger for payments that are farther into the future. Think of it this way: a dollar in hand now is better than a dollar that you get tomorrow. This method of valuation is called Discounted Cash Flow (abbr. DCF; see the wikipedia article on DCF) Time's effect on stock value Now take the Close price C, and the open price O. Let's assume that since there has been no news, the expectations for future earnings are the same for C and O. Remember that the discounting factor for these earnings is dependent on the time until the cashflow occurs? For O, this time is slightly shorter than for C, and therefore the value will be slightly higher (or lower, when the company is expected to incur losses). So now you can see that even without all the external forces that continuously push and pull on the stock price, a stock still changes in value over time. Hope this helps.
I'm looking at this because I'm just wondering what they base their criteria on.  How are they splitting their operations to have multiple headquarters especially when both are in the same country (it would make more sense if it was in another country although i'm not sure how they manage their operations. maybe they need a move like this etc)? Is one more focused on global operations while the other is on local? Their HQ is on the west coast so would they build a second HQ that's that close to their main base or move it to the east coast to spread it out? I'm just wondering why and what the reasoning is behind a move like this.  The impact a move like this makes on the surrounding area is large considering the local economics and jobs etc which was outlined in the post.  How will it effect traffic flows (including if freight is involved now), population concentration, commutes, etc. There's a lot of stuff to consider. Talent pools, development of the area.  I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be but just because I have an idea of the surroundings my guess matching their criteria would be Reston, VA. Its on the edge of the metro system connected to the major metropolis, concentrated near engineering and computer science jobs etc, off ways to the side to allow easier commutes instead of directly confronting traffic into a city like dc, and also near the airport.   There are probably similar places all around if you look for it.
Saving money for the future is a good thing.  Whether spending those savings on a business venture makes sense, will depend on a few factors, including: (1) How much money you need that business to make [ie: will you be quitting your job and relying on the business for your sole income? Or will this just be a hobby you make some pocket change from?] (2) How much the money the business needs up front [some businesses, like simple web design consulting, might have effectively $0 in cash startup costs, where starting a franchise restaurant might cost you $500k-$1M on day 1] (3) How risky it is [the general stat is that something like 50% of all new businesses fail in their first year, and I think for restaurants that number is often given as 75%+] So sometimes investing in your own business is financially risky, and other times it is not risky. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes it is not. Either way, saving for a future business that you may or may not ever invest in, is still saving money. If you never end up investing in a business, you can instead use that money for retirement, or whatever other financial goals you have. So it's not the saving for a new business that is risky, it's the spending. Part of good personal financial management is making financial goals, tracking your progress to those goals, and changing them as needed. In a simpler case, many people want to own their own home - this is a common financial goal, just like early retirement, or starting your own business, or paying for your kids' college education. All those goals are helped by saving money, so your job as someone mindful of personal finances, is to prioritize those goals in accordance to what is important for you. As mentioned by Stannius in the comments below, there is one catch here: if you are saving money for a short term goal (such as starting a business in a year), then you might want to keep it in low-interest savings accounts, instead of investing in the stock market. Doing this would remove the chance that your investments fail right before you need the startup money. Of course, this means that saving for a business that you never end up starting, could earn you less investment income on your savings. This would be the risk of saving for any specific short term goal that you end up changing later on.
Great for Facebook but why does a company like Sun Microsystems or FedEx sell stock?  In order to reach quarterly goals a publicly traded company has to make sure they stay in the black every quarter by cutting cutting cutting cost which may not be good for a long term goal of investing in new ideas or processes.
First a business should produce where it can most efficiently produce product.  If I make clothing and I can get 16 times the work force making 16 times the t shirts I would go there.  By introducing more t shirts to the market I make them cheaper to buy for consumers like yourself.  20 years ago did you own a computer?  How much was it to buy?  How much would a computer cost now?  What kind of things do you own now compared to 20 years ago?  Every has much more buying power now than 20 years ago.
Thanks for the reply.  To answer your question, it is always preferable to be paid in advance, however how does that impact valuation in a change of control transaction.   Using your airline ticket sales as an example.  I buy an airline today.  I get to recognize the revenue from any pre-sold tickets starting tomorrow and reduce my deferred revenue liability.  However, I don't get that cash as it has already been paid to the previous owner.  On the expense side I recognize the expense for the flight and have to pay the cash (fuel, staff, etc.).  So even thou the accounting matches, the previous owner gets the cash gets from the presales without having to spend the cash to service those presales.
"The most succinct answer is ""Banks are in the Money business"". Not construction, not real estate, not any of the other things they may find find themselves sometimes being dragged (foreclosure) or tempted (construction) into. ""Money"" is their core competence, and as good business people they recognize that straying outside that just dilutes their focus."
A good manager sets up systems, so you hardly have do to direct anything yourself. Manage by exception. Trust,  ask employees how things can be improved(they will have better knowledge of the task) and let them implement it if it's good.  At our place,  we have visual management things on TV screens so everyone knows what's going on,  metrics etc.  People are constantly trying to improve the performance of system without management pushing for it.   Empathy is highly important in management.  You have to feel what they feel.  The last thing you want is disgruntled employees.  Good luck getting people to do things well,  when they think you are a dick.   You can't demand respect... By definition.  You gradually gain it by being good at the job,  and making their jobs feel better.  If you can find out what people's real skills are then design the role around them. Don't force people into strictly defined roles. This is why people get fired. They're in a job that doesn't match their skills. Nothing worse then knowing your shit at a job,  but unable to move to a job you think you are good at.
Developing the right culture is easily one of the hardest tasks for a manager. Look to hire the right people who can motivate and set the tone for the rest of your firm. Once you do that, managing won't be as strenuous. Write down on a piece of paper the values you want to instill in your organization, and make sure your early employees embrace and showcase those values. You'll know right away who fits and who doesn't.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.thelowdownblog.com/2017/07/why-good-management-appears-to-be-best.html) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Management consultants know this well: There&amp;#039;s a saying that &amp;quot;Management consultants borrow your watch to tell you the time,&amp;quot; implying that good management is so obvious that everyone knows what to do.  &gt; What does the first-ever management survey at this scale tell us? Management Matters, a Lot We found that only one-fifth of plants use three-quarters or more of the performance-oriented management techniques that we asked about, but that these plants had dramatically better performance than their competitors.  &gt; Better Management Depends on Competition, Skills, and Learning from the Leading Firms What could cause these huge differences in management practices across firms? We found several major factors.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lfbtk/why_good_management_appears_to_be_the_best/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~159896 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **management**^#1 **firm**^#2 **more**^#3 **practices**^#4 **managed**^#5"
"He's talking about startups. Typically everyone wears a lot of hats, has a ""get shit done"" attitude,  and self-manages.  If you need managers at a startup, you've hired the wrong people.  Obviously, once you've finally built a well-oiled machine you'll need operators to run it."
Sure, you're happy to trust Page or Zuckerberg to put money to good use. But sometimes bad managers burn through company resources, desperately trying to save their jobs. Great managers with long term visions deserve a long leash, but companies with bad management can sometimes be helped with outside discipline.
This was my thought, and it echoes something I've heard from former managers.  You take the time to make a process or a segment of a process run very smoothly and efficiently, and then they hand that off to a junior manager and shift you to another process to do the same thing over again, because you're a good manager and you can handle it  Rinse and repeat
I can assure you a lot of middle and junior managers have the CEO qualities in them. They don't get offered that job because the board is too busy offering that job to their friends and acquaintances.   Middle Managers, Startup Entrepreneurs, Fantastic Engineers don't stand a chance. Friends of Friends are preferred over talent.    There's enough supply of CEO Material.
Some of the best leaders I have worked with are quite unassuming. A VP for a large corporation was what I assumed to be a humble, friendly guy. It wasn't until I heard him speak that I was blown away.  Several managers I have worked with also have been good leaders. They managed to shield me from a lot of crap
[The Peter principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle). They were good at some task, so they get promoted to a job with completely different responsibilities. If they are good at that, they get promoted again -- and again until they end up in a position where they suck at. And since companies really don't like to fire management people, that's where they'll be until they quit or retire.
"Theres a difference between being ""materially better"" and having deep knowledge of company politics as part of your job.   A manager should be much more aware of how each person contributes to the whole, what their stengths are, who to talk to about what, and how, and why. Thats why non-managerial level people are called ""individual contributors"" -- they're focused on doing their part. Where-as managers are focused on how all of the individual contributors work together.  Its not about being ""materially better"" it's about delegation of task types and workflows."
Many companies and careers there are no rungs. If you hire 20 roofers and 1 manager not all those 20 roofers will get to move up to management, it just can't happen. And being a good roofer does not make them a good manager, it is necessary to understand the job of the people you're managing but management is an entirely different skill set on it's own.
Good to know. That is an awful perspective, IMO. Then again, I've noticed that management tends to be a self-selective group of people who ascend to their position more through some form of ritualistic brown-nosing than being competent administrators who manage resources in a judicious fashion.
I have no idea what you're talking about or why you think it relates to my point that good people cost money. You need good people in government.  Letting managers make case-by-case decisions only makes sense if you have good managers.  And I hate to break it to you - but lots of good people only do what they do for the money. This is true of doctors, lawyers, pilots, mechanics and janitors. To think otherwise is being childishly naive.
Learn how to do the job and don't be afraid to step in and help out. If you never do this people will assume you think you're too good to do the work they do and they won't respect you or your authority.   Being good at something gives you natural authority and people will seek you out for advice/direction.  Trust your employees to do their jobs until they prove otherwise. Management is a relationship and relationships are based on trust. If you want to be untrusted the very best way to go about it is to show you don't trust the other person. If you're not trusted then no one is going to follow your untrustworthy advice/direction.  Stay calm even when things are going terribly. Even if you're freaking out on the inside it's best to show a calm front. If you're constantly on edge it will amplify through your employees and a chaotic workplace is obviously less efficient overtime. If you lose your cool apologize sincerely.  Be positive. Always have something good to say about something and employees will more likely be able to stay positive. If you're negative all the time then again this is going to amplify through employees and if everyone is gossiping and complaining all day efficiency is going to go down.   Be assertive and explain why. Sometimes you can take input from employees and negotiate, but sometimes you just have to tell them what to do and it's important to include why because if you include the why people are much more likely to comply as well as to remember what you said.  All these things may not make you liked. If your goal is to be liked then quit because all bosses aren't liked by many employees. You will be more likely to be effective and at least respected.
You usually need good managers who can identify and motivate good employees, who will feel lucky to have the job and the salary they have, and who will come in every day trying to earn it. Posting everyone's pay on a bulletin-board negates all those ""soft"" skills, by putting a quantified, black-and-white, relative value on everyone's contribution. Even in a very large organization, the ""marketplace"" of employees is rarely large enough, and the quality of real-time metrics is almost never good enough to ""digitize"" the bell-curve of employee performance. You end up making it a square-wave that demotivates all but the most extreme outliers."
I wouldn't worry about a manager until you have multiple employees in that area... If you hire good people (that part is hard) you should be fine with a daily call or sometype of online scheduling where you can see status of your employees, their schedules etc...
"This is all well and good, but sometimes you just run into an intractable manager.  There are plenty of managers out there who are both cheap and are generally resistant to budging on negotiations.  In those cases, your ""4th best negotiation tip"" is to have a best alternative to the job in your pocket."
That makes a lot of sense.  Developers have hard skills and tend to communicate using facts.  Managers tend to have soft skills and communicate using fuzzy feelings and emotion.  From the developer's perspective, it feels like trying to communicate with someone who's crazy and wont get to the point.
Agreed. I've always held Leaders and Managers as separate roles. I've seen a lot of Managers who can't Lead at all, but every Leader is able to Manage. From my experience (which is only about 10 years across financial industries), Managers have been senior team members with an HR function. Not really defining vision, motivating, and driving their talent. They just hire/fire, and write reviews.
IMO, only a boss who doesn't understand the difference between sales and marketing would ask a marketer to be a sales person.  Most people who are good at one are not necessarily good at the other, but managers conflate them. Then when things don't go as hoped, they get a new sales person.
My father was a career Army Officer and earned his Master's in management; one of the many things he taught me was that if you want respect, focus on how you make the employee feel about themselves rather than how they feel about you.   From my own experience, you have to have faith in people, and demonstrate that by really truly giving them the power to make meaningful decisions. Ask more questions and listen more than you direct/give instruction. Chances are your employees know the problem better than you do.
I disagree with the other posters, the best sales person has a very easy job, but a great network of connections to clients. The company is paying a lot for the connections, because that's how they make money, and some amount of money for the salesperson's (less technical) work.  Depending on how much you trust the management above you to treat you well, you should either continue working hard and hopefully get promoted, or slouch, do no more work than your job requires, and write off any advancement at your current employer.
To me that says nothing good about the manager that said it. You can't quantify everything, and managing the intangibles is a big part of what a manager's supposed to do. If they're just dealing in numbers, they're just a bad approximation of an accountant.
I am sure favoritism has a role to play in promotions - I don't know if the MIT research controlled for like-ability. The point to the research though I think is that when managers see someone show up at work and stay for the full day that creates the illusion that someone is productive, regardless of what they might actually be doing.
"I'm a manager of a charity shop so work with a wide range of unpaid volunteers, which requires an especially soft touch (most of the time, everyone is different) or people will just leave. It takes longer, but the overall results are better and more long-lasting. Think of it like pushing a boat from the docks with your hand, always applying a small pressure to get the boat to gradually move where you want, rather than ramming into the side of a boat with a truck - sure it'll get you there quicker, but will cause lasting damage. It's also best to take it slow, as you need time to learn the business and people. Be clear about your approach with your boss, managing their expectations is important. Anyway, here is what I've learnt in my first year or so doing this job, plus things I've learnt along the way in my previous career as a software engineer (radical career change!) where I've managed people and been managed: 1. Be yourself. Don't pretend to be someone you're not, everyone will see right through you in an instant. You'll change over time as you get used to managing people, that's fine, but always be yourself through that. 1. Say ""thank you"" to everyone at the end of each day as you say goodbye. Mean it. Think of all the work they've done today for you. 1. Spread the shit evenly. Every job has crap parts, make sure you and everyone else gets their fair share and no more. I regularly hoover, clean the bathroom, wash-up, and so on. 1. Ask, don't tell. If you bark orders, people will do them.. but they'll put no effort into it and you'll distance yourself from them. Ask if they could do something for you. It's a politeness, nobody ever says no unless there is an issue which you need to deal with anyway. 1. Pick your battles. Is it worth moaning at someone for that little infraction? Or can you get over that message another way?
And this is why you should always treat your employees well enough that they stick around. It's amazing how easily managers forget the laws of supply demand. There is a huge demand for great workers and a relatively small percentage of even above average employees.
I like those managers who insist on everyone attending a meeting, even if its not relevant to them, and then later complaining how people don't engage and prefer to check phone messages.  If they're doing everything but engaging, it's because you're forcing the wrong people to attend.
Yep, worked in same kind of company. I have seen great people getting fired, when I could see them performing great with better guidance, or working in a different department. Instead they would put them on performance plan with unreachable targets. A guy I knew hit his targets while on perf plan, still the manager found some bullshit excuse to get rid of him. I ended leaving in the end as I saw it coming.
Generally a great list, though I have one complaint: managers that *aren't* willing or able to tell people to take a discussion off-line are the bane of my existence. This is the number one most important skill for leading any meeting.
Yes, work ethic is the key element.   I too hate to be negative but they have taken me on a couple run-a-rounds that were not pleasant.   The key is to micro-manage in an open room in cross-functional teams. The right hand feeds the left. Treating them like Americans works w/o raising salary by taking them to strip clubs or other entertainment that stimulates. But it's not easy.
Contrary to the popular belief, handling such remote workers in an efficient manner requires candidates to possess special skills and qualities, which are often quite different from the skills of onsite managers. That is why business organizations often seek the services of professional executive search consultants for finding the right candidates having the following qualities.
This article is BS.  Middle management is a corporate disease that allows business to grow bigger while providing less service.  The more middle management there is, the more the business will dodge accountability, and the less they will respond to customer input.  That is not a dig at the people, that is simply a *function* of middle management -they are a class of employees who deal with fundamental problem but do not have the authority to make fundamental decisions.  Ass-covering and drifting out of touch are the natural results.
"I remember once using a buzzword on an interviewer and he said something like ""great what do you mean by that"".  And I strung together a meaningless line of words and that was the end of that.  There is a lot of risk in pretending to know more than you do--particularly if you are not already in the top of the management structure.  You had also better know how to deal with someone who doesn't give a fuck and challenges you on every meaningless buzzphrase."