vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I guess it was a bit of a generalisation, I can see in businesses where contacts are important an MBA would be incredibly useful, I'm in online retail (fairly cheap items) and haven't particularly needed contacts, where-as a service industry could highly benefit from the people they met on the course.   I think my problem is more to do with the majority of people who do an MBA, or even maybe just the people I've met. I take your point, because I taught myself to be a better manager, good at customer service, finance etc. and it was a hell of a lot of work, and I'm sure I still have a lot to learn.
Good people cost good money.  There are engineers in India that are AMAZING.  Guess what?  They are just as expensive as amazing engineers in the US.  When you hire cheap employees you get cheap work. Doesn't matter where it is.  It doesn't matter though, senior management just plays the game.  Cut costs, bump up the stock, collect your bonus, find a new job where you can tell them all about how much money you saved your last company and repeat the cycle there.  Meanwhile 2-5 years later all of these companies start [suffering huge problems ](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/27/british-airways-says-computer-outage-causing-global-delays.html) because their IT has gone to shit.
I agree with IronAnvil. My research and studies in the area of Japanese production [method](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way) supports the idea that middle-management is mostly a drag on effective operations at virtually any organization. Here's a somewhat relevant [counter](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2554052/posts) to OP's post.
"&gt; As far as seizing a promotion. I don't understand why someone who is inferior in every aspect except personal favor is automatically the best candidate for a promotion due to backdoor politics. So what you're saying is that I should focus on my soft skills and less on everything else in order to get ahead? Well, that's a cynical definition of what I mean by ""seizing a promotion"", but it's not far off -- you just make it sound dirty. :) In the end we humans are social/pack animals. Nothing is going to change that anytime soon. Plus we live in a market based society: you need to prove why you should be paid more. How do you prove you should be paid more? One way is to seize a promotion by having them believe that the cost of replacing you too high if you walk. Get your hands around their balls and squeeze. Otherwise, how do they really know that you're ""superior in every way"" to others competing for the role. Your bosses are likely busy and stressed, they don't have time to evaluate every little thing you do; you need to communicate it. Honestly put yourself in their shoes. The first biggest mistake I see people make in their careers is to never communicate their successes. The second biggest mistake I see it to try to squeeze their balls after you're lost your leverage. Yesterday's heroes are forgotten; make hay while the sun shines; etc. Once you've got the those first two taken care of, you have to learn to not squeeze too much and ideally squeeze their balls in a way that makes them feel thankful that you're squeezing them -- think ""win-win"". After all, if you can help your boss squeeze his boss' balls, you better be giving your boss' balls a good old fashioned squeezing. Nothing about this is meant to sound underhanded or backroom politic-ie. No one can succeed on soft skills alone and no one can succeed on pure expertise. You need to blend the two and hone them to your environment -- or go find a more suitable environment.
"Yes, Steve Jobs slllooowwwlly learned to become better as time went on. He was never great at anything except presentations.  Steve Wozniak was never bad to begin with. And he also could have learned how to be better in presentations.  Do you understand what I am trying to say here?  Bad leaders with ""charisma"" are given unlimited credit while good leaders are not given a chance because ""no charisma"".  What do you think of Elon Musk? Does he have charisma?"
I'm a fan of flat organizations. Most important is to get things done in the most effective, rational and quickest way. Power games and politics are the downfall of good collaboration.  Having said that, isn't Musk known for micromanaging many decisions?
Their motivation should be the same as yours, just moderated for the fact that they don't have ownership.  The fairest thing is likely a percentage of revenue (.5 moving up to 1 or higher depending on competency, off of gross, not net) plus getting some of the expense account for lunches and whatnot when something big gets done.    This will also make them less likely to leave when other offers or opportunities come around.  Retaining the best staff you can possibly get will almost certainly pay for itself ten times over with happy clients who don't have to deal with bureaucratic bullshit, and when they do, they know the person who is responsible for it is likable and competent, and don't complain as much.
"That's it hmmmm.... Identifying and supporting products good for the business is what you need the CEO to do. A good CEO who can demo the company's newest product is a PLMs greatest asset. I'm not saying JObs was god, but to say ""that's it"" is off the mark."
Company culture is about the employees, not objects or events. If you look for good, friendly co-workers who can communicate, you'll have less problems with mean people who make work suck. If work doesn't suck and you enjoy being there, then it'll seem like less of a chore and you'll want to spend time there and be creative.
&gt; but since that's impossible (due to the bureaucracy) in most jobs  Huh? Dude, asking for a raise is never impossible. Go to your manager and make a well thought-out case. This is how it's done. It's not magic. Very rarely, in any professional environment, will anyone just hand you a raise because they think you're a nice guy. Keeping your head down and nose to the grindstone will not get you noticed.   Obviously, going elsewhere to get that higher salary should also be an option. I did it once too. But in the situation you describe, you'd be crazy not to go demand a bigger slice of the pie.
I was thinking that. However, again sorry for the novice questions. Would I be better off getting a manager for the area, or just finding employees willing to work/contact me on a daily basis and I would manage from a different state? I mean the former would make sense to me but what do I know, never owned a business before.
"Well, you're a rarity, then. Every manager I've spoken to (and my personal experience on the hiring side) would indicate that it's a negative. The most common one being ""Does this candidate really have nothing else relevant that they could have put on their resume?""  It's totally trivial to make a couple months ""vanish"" on a resume. Yeah, it could come up in an interview, but at that point the resume has largely already done its job. Outside of entry level positions, having a fast food job on your resume is not going to do you favors."
"No kidding!   Fancy words to say ""make the right decisions and execute on those decisions correctly"".  Anybody does not know that?  Now for the hard part: how do you make the right decisions and how to execute decisions efficiently and correctly?   Here's my answer: nobody, including Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc always or most of the times makes the the right decisions or execute them correctly.  The successful people are those who abandon bad decisions quickly and adjust their execution when they see things don't work as planned.  Lastly, bad leaders and big failures are those who avoid decisions because of fear of making bad decisions. The worst leaders and worst failures are those who do not do basic checks and plans before making decisions or executing them."
This works when you want to command and have others follow. Great for most businesses.  If you want a workplace that generates ideas and inovation you or your hiring staff may not be the best at picking the best. I would say this is an extension of the Dunning–Kruger effect.  The best is a subjective judgement, dont forget.
It's best to start hard then get nicer if you want.  Make a quick example of anyone who gives you grief or tests you. Others will then quickly fall in line. Some people are like children and need a firm hand.  Firm, Fair, and Frank.  A little Machiavellian I know but speaking from experience it works.
Yahoo didn't know what it wanted to become, and as a turnaround CEO, if she had one job, it was to figure out what Yahoo wanted to become, establish that vision, and catalyze Yahoo's employees, investors and users around that mission. Mayer didn't even make a nominal effort to do this, she was preoccupied with details. Rearranging deck chairs. Possibly she's a good manager, but she's not much of a leader.
Business dealings are not kept secret from those within the company. You see it every day based on the strategy and objectives you're given as an employee.  Managers report to the CEO and he has to make decisions based on those reports.   And it really depends on the company.  But to say that CEOs are not important is clearly a mistake.
"Sun Tzu and Carnegie are fine for thinking about interpersonal exchange. But they aren't business books: What do i measure, why, and what does it mean; what does it mean to run a business. I think those are critical, and list of books should the capabilities you need  Strategy: ""Good to Great"", ""Esential Drucker""   Planning: ""Pocket book MBA PM""   Operations: ""The Goal""   People management:...   Innovation:...   Finance:..."
Training minimum wage employees and making them fear getting fired is not a sound business model alone.     Minimum wages, minimum expectations.  If you expect quality from people but don't treat them with quality, well good luck.  In the real world, you get what you pay for.  There's only so many people willing to work at minimum wage.   Those people aren't going to care about your business.
"There still is some buying and selling to do in a passively-managed fund.  The stocks might pay dividends.  If the fund manager didn't reinvest these dividends, the fund would begin to accumulate a cash position, which would cause it to stray from being an index fund.  Stocks come and go from an index as well; if the fund is to maintain a composition that matches a particular index, this must be taken into account as well. The role of the manager is to ensure that the fund maintains the composition that it was intended to replicate.  It doesn't involve as much ""stock picking"" that active managers do.  The manager has less leeway as to what s/he buys and sells, but there still is work involved."
The problem with this is that it really only works in a small firm where everyone knows everyone else. Once it gets bigger and all the managers don't know all the workers it becomes a matter of who can BS the skill level of their favorites better in the yearly review. Then the resentment isn't about normally unknown salaries, it's about whether other employee's levels are legitimate.  Don't get me wrong, opening up the conversation and trying to make it more objective is good, but this isn't some sort of common sense, one size fits all panacea.
There is also no support in management. Her boss is is doing the standard lazy manager bullshit. He/she prolly knows that your boss is an asshole and simply lacks the courage/conviction to do anything. You will lose know matter what here. Leave. Now.
Ah, then we have fundamentally opposed views. I think there is a common leadership skill that one can develop. A skill that entails communicating with stakeholders, negotiating goals, developing a strategy, and leading an organization to accomplish said goals.  You do not think this is its own skill?
I agree 100% with that and management should consider that however, generally speaking, when it comes to these very low skill jobs, there is going to be someone else out there that is capable of doing the job just as well that is willing to do it for minimum wage
" I'm not even sure how to respond to that one. The author needs some holiday cheer, I think. Large bonuses are given at the top, true. What does that have to do with a not-at-the-top employee's accountability? The points don't seem to be related. ""Managers really love forced ranking."" Not true. Forced ranking sucks, isn't fun and is difficult. I believe good managers care for all of their employees. (Bad managers are something else altogether...) ""Even if you rock, there isn't much money to go around"" The first accurate sentence in the article, woohoo! However, the author doesn't take into account at all that money isn't everything. Surveys of what motivates employees consistently shows that money isn't number one. Things like having a challenging job and working on important products usually come out over dollars-and-cents. And hey, we've built a real crappy economy. What do you expect? ""As you participate in the end-of-year performance management process, the best thing you can do is to stay neutral, remain dispassionate, and be quiet."" I really take issue with this statement. DON'T DO THAT (please). Use the opportunity you have with your boss to discuss her or his expectations and what you can change so that you meet them or exceed them. If you're already exceeding expectations, ask how you can take on new work, how you can contribute to the welfare of your fellow employees. This is how you get ahead. ""Nobody really gets rich, anymore, from being a regular employee."" Getting rich depends on how you spend and save, not so much on how much you make."
&gt; Nothing quite like having interviews with regional buyers and store managers as a primary source on a paper or project. &gt; Quite frankly, I think Mackey was pretty much just lucky. Most of the people I interacted with while I worked there had zero sense when it came to any sort of long term strategic positioning within the industry   Is it normal for Buyers and Store managers to have long-term strategic plan thinking?  Those people should be executing the current plan.
Best advice I've ever gotten from anyone that has helped my career tremendously is this; no one cares. No one cares if you're tired, or hungry, or busy, or bored. Just get your job done.   Mistakes are binary. Either you made one or you didn't. If you fuck up early, it'll hurt you immeasurably. Develop a reputation for being early, staying late and doing solid work.   You'll be fine.
You need to hire a veteran product marketing manager who can help you position and message your product, and will also be connected to whatever ecosystem you operate in.  Then you need to find and hire a talented Marcom person.  Products never sell themselves, no matter how good.  And people would rather buy average products from an established company that they know will be there in a year, then a great product from a company with no credibility.  A good marketing team will help you build credibility and brand for you.  Don't be that CEO who thinks he/she knows how to message and pitch their product.  Because that is always ultimately a failing strategy, proven over and over.
"I assume there is a large amount of competition. Ask yourself: ""What makes you better or different from other drivers?"" If you have an answer, then make it more obvious to customers. If you do not have an answer, then make yourself better or different from other drivers and let customers know.  Example: In Chiang Mai, you can get delicious street food just about anywhere. How do you separate yourself in a sea of strong competitors? One lady started wearing a cowboy hat, it was different. People take notice and remember the hat. People only remember the 'cowboy hat lady.' Now you can type into Google ""cowboy hat lady"" and her food stand comes up."
I'm confused by the content of your post in the context of replying to mine.  You are saying that one needs to build their team for their company to be successful and that includes treating your team members with respect.  I agree with that, but that doesn't mean you need to overpay them for the worth of the job they fulfill.
Network theory to the rescue.  Imitate the [PageRank algorithm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank): to have a good rank you need to have a link with every other people who also have a good rank. This means the obvious: you need to network with your banker and with the maximum of people who have high-rank links with him (bosses, friends, coworkers). This will maximize the chances of your discovery (like searching for a node in a [graph](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory)).
Eh, to be completely fair to Marissa, she was Google's first Product Manager. The entire point of a PM is that they're the CEO of their product and determine the strategy of the product going forward. Yeah she made a bunch of idiotic moves, but on paper, she was a pretty decent fit and had tons of experience in the same market Yahoo was in, and at an executive level as well.
"&gt;No system is going to be perfect, especially one that is totally inflexible.  Certainly. But you come right back to the need for ""good/wise management"".  And part of that is constructing a system that doesn't have OBVIOUS and BLATANT loopholes.  &gt;&gt;But it is a lot easier to say no to someone when you can back it up by saying ""I think this is going to take 2,000 hours and the CEO has only granted you 1,000 hours. Figure out what you can live without and get back to me.""  And you have just given an example of a very BAD/UNWISE management system, and likely entirely arbitrary budgets (does the CEO know his arse from a hole in the ground?  Why was 1,000 hour budgeted? How many departments are going to be allocated 1,000 hours and yet have little or no use for them? {But of course, as will ALL ""budgeting"" systems, those hours are probably ""use it or lose it"" -- so the department head of dept A will be deprived because of the arbitrary/past-weighted allocations, and the head of dept B will end up wasting 1,000 hours on crap just to make sure he gets 1,000 hours again next year).  Bad management tends to build management systems that are even WORSE than their original management.  *And if you lived under your ""budgeted hours"" system for a couple of years... you'd be back here bitching about how STUPID that system is.*"
Most successful leaders are not born leaders. Various personal experiences and mistakes made along the way impact upon our leadership style and ability. For many of us, another perspective and a bit of constructive help along the way can add considerable value to the process, enabling us to fine tune our skills and learn how to get the best out of ourselves and fellow team members. In situations like this, an executive coach comes in handy.
Long-term planning of the company: strategic decisions. Basically every major company decision has to go through their approval - at most companies, at least, because the job's duties don't have a codified description.  I'm not saying she was worth it; in fact, this makes it far more clear she earned none of it. And studies show the most highly-paid CEOs underperform the average.
10 years into my career.  Here are my notes:  1. Don't work overtime as a salaried employee.  If there's more work than people then management needs to hire more people.  Sure, there are times when shit hits the fan and there's no other option, but that should be a 'once every two years' event, not a 'once every week' event.  2. Be a rockstar.  If you're spending time 'looking busy' because you finished a 3 hour job in 1 hour ship the results to your manager and ask for more.  Those results will be noticed and will move you from entry-level to mid-level to senior.  3. Skills pay the bills.  Always work on learning new things to bring value to your employer.  This is also required to move up the chain in your career, and leads into my #4.  4. Get paid what you're worth.  Maintain an understanding of what similar skillsets are paying in your area and either maintain or exceed that.  Your employer has an incentive to pay you as little as possible.  Show them comparable salaries for the same position paying more and make them match it.  If they won't match it find someone who will.  5. Don't correct your boss/salesperson when they are presenting to management/customers.  Instead, let them know after the meeting.   Your #2 points (both of them) are something that I struggled with when I was new in my career.  It was incredibly frustrating to *know* something, but not have anyone listen due to the fact that I was a 'kid'.  Unfortunately it's a part of life.  If you can do #2 and #3 on my list for a couple of years people will start listening.  It's a great feeling being a 24 year old kid in a room full of my boss's bosses, and my boss's boss's bosses and having them listen and consider my opinion, but it's not something that's given to everyone. You need to earn it.
The success of any business or company lies in its well-established organization structure. Just as a building requires proper construction to stand still for a long time, a proper structure is required for an organization to work effectively.  Here are some of the methodologies in which you can structure your business.  1. Chain of command Depending on the size of your organization, you can either build a long chain of command or a short chain of command. Chain of command refers to who you should report to within your organization.  2. Span of Control This is a basic element in an organization structure. It refers to how many subordinates can a higher authority person handle. For example, a CEO can handle 4 persons under him and then these 4 persons can further handle a specific amount of subordinates under them. This is referred to as a wide span of control. On the contrary, there is a narrow span of control also.   3. Centralization In centralization process, the decision-making power is focused at a single point. This is beneficiary for an organization to work effectively when compared to decentralization.  4. Specialization Again you can divide it into two categories. Employees working under high specialization get the benefit of mastering over a particular aspect. While those working under low specialization get the chance to explore every area but they can’t master their skills in a specific area. 5. Departmentalization If a company follows rigid departmentalization then there might be least or no interaction between different teams. Opposite to this, loose departmentalization provides the benefit of interaction and collaboration between different teams.  If you think that these things won’t work out or you need to have a detailed study on this subject, then you can feel free to seek the help of [Business Coaching] (https://www.getdrona.com/business-coaching/).
Businesses have long used some form of a traditional hierarchy structure to operate. This system involves employees reporting to supervisors, who then have their own supervisors — and so on. Most employees are accustomed to this structure. Given the rapid pace and competitive nature of the business world, companies are highly interested in innovations that will set them apart. Is fostering creativity the answer? Managers have the opportunity to take the lead and explore ways to make their workplace ideal for creative thinking and sparking innovation.   The Benefits of a Creative
Good sales people are difficult to find, so most companies offer them a decent salary and bonus to keep them incentivized.   At the end of the day, sales is what keeps a business afloat. I'm not saying the other job positions aren't important. Afterall, you need a product to sell or you won't be in business long. But great sales people are always in high demand. The more they sell, the richer the company gets.   The sales people are the ones generating revenue and profit for the company, so it makes sense if you look at it from that perspective. Although I agree with you--everyone in the company should receive some sort of bonus for exceptional performance.