vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
When have qualifications ever mattered at the CEO level? Once you make it there you can always find some public company to hire you, even if it's just to be a scapegoat for some unpopular decision or to put a sympathetic face on a dirty situation, like GM.
Today, when finding reliable tenants is a tough task, they leave no stone unturned to search for suitable tenants for your property. The best part is that when you have the support of a good property management company, you can sit back and relax, as they would take away your entire burden about the handling of your property.
What do you this hypothesis?  The A-hole logic might by the flip side of our leadership culture. We are constantly being told to work on our leadership skills. But how many of us ever work on our followership skills. Not many--the very name triggers spellcheck. The reality is that most of us can't afford to be autonomous and independent and the A-holes are successful because they do the job for us, albeit unpleasantly.
"You can get on boards by having good leadership skills and knowledge, being invited, and having good connections.  You can often start by joining the board of some ""smaller"" groups such as a small non-profit once you have enough relevant experience where you can actually dish out advice.  This is in addition to your normal job where you presumably are doing well and are respected.  It all starts by having enough skill (and/or connections) that someone recognizes that you can provide value at the Board of Directors level.  Or you know someone who just wants a ""yes"" man for his (or her) company."
That could be direct managers at the employee's side, or it could be administrative help at the department's side. Either way, it's necessary to be efficient. Then there's the problem of including all stakeholders. If you are junior and work out a solution to a problem with a junior in another problem, but in implementing it you break a whole system (which I've seen happen), you've just caused a lot of harm to the organization. Neither of you may fully understand the implications of your solution on other things. People with responsibility for those things need to be included in the discussion and take responsibility for any implementation. I hate bureaucracy and sometimes it can be a major inefficiency and roadblock for getting simple and obvious things done. But bureaucracy can also improve efficiency and value and a lack of it can be pathological. I've seen marketing and sales people continually take engineers off of important development work in order to build demos for potential new clients, all of which failed to materialize. Why? Because the marketing and sales people were chasing *leads* for contracts without any review of the technical solution, the ideal one, what the solution to the customer needs *really* involves. What was needed to improve efficiency was a ""bureaucratic"" process that reviewed the market opportunities with the technical offerings of the company and either reject opportunities early on or plan and schedule how best to chase the leads. In my experience, what works best in most cases is open communication but clear guidelines (a) on what is appropriate or not to go direct, (b) that the communications are about ideas only and coming up with solutions, and (c) that actions or implementations require bringing the ""chain of command"" into the loop for comment or objection before doing anything. Complaining to management isn't usually of much value and doesn't change much. But, identifying the problem (that is part of the complaint), identifying a workable solution with stakeholders, and asking for permission via the chain of command is usually a good way to get things done without creating the problems of a free-for-all."
Err, isn't this article simply stating the obvious? I've been working for the last 18 years and I know those signs by heart, seen them on others, and on me even...   The manager who can not spot those signs deserves to be deserted, the problem is with the manager who spots those signs and does nothing!
Shareholders get to vote for the board, the board appoints the CEO. This makes the CEO care, which in turn makes everybody else working in the company care. Also, if the company wants to borrow money a good share price, as sign of a healthy company, gives them more favorable conditions from lenders. And some more points others already made.
"Like almost everything in economics, it's a tradeoff. Terms like ""good"" imply an absolute value. It *can* be good or bad depending on the circumstances, the exact amount it is being set to, and the importance of the things being traded off to different individuals, independent of their per-conceived personal opinion of minimum wage itself."
Keep a diary, before buying write down why are you buying the stock, how long do you plan to keep it. Put down reasons when you would sell it. For example you buy a stock because it has lot of cash reserve, it is a focused company, good management. You would sell when management leaves or it starts to use its cash for  acquisition that are not fitting in profile.
"Lack of empathy forces your business to run at 100% turnover. Respect breeds respect.  The ""college kid working for beer money"" can suck a dick because he doesn't exist. Someone working for a little extra cash is not who we're talking about. As this Subway is showing, everybody knows it too.  The people doing the heavy lifting are the ""part-timers"" working 39 hours a week."
Fuck integrity. coming from someone who busts their ass for a living my bosses are idiots and have rammed a whole bunch of really bad ideas my way. do i tell them their idiots and not do it? hell no. i like being employed. principles go right the fuck out the window when it comes down to your job.
My advice is to know what you need in an employee and ask straight forward questions to get the information you need. The time spent doing so is unimportant; as long as you get the information. Time is valuable, for both you and your applicants.   As another poster said, first impressions are important. It's also important to ensure you're getting a good fit. There have been times when I wasn't thoroughly impressed or decided upon hiring an applicant based on the first impression. It took some getting to know them to see the potential.   There is no written guide to the perfect way to interview. Ask the questions you think will get you the information you need.
"Ah, shit... sorry to hear all that... been there, done that.  The number of idiots in middle and upper management never ceases to amaze me.  Nor does the extent of the fiascoes and messes they manage to create, or the amount of money they manage to piss away in the process. (I've cleaned up more than my share, typically on a shoestring {and without all that much reward} -- alas, it's become somewhat of a ""special skill"" -- the downside of which is that once I get the mess all cleaned up and everything working like a clock... I get bored out of my mind).  So you have my sympathies.  Best wishes in finding a new work-home. (And keep running a tight personal-financial ship, it not only allows you to be a bit more confident in life {knowing you don't have to fear some individual or corporate jackasses' self-destruction}, but eventually it allows you to say ""F U"" to the whole mess.)  Cheers!"
What he is describing is incredibly common in Scandinavian corporate structure. I can send an email to anyone in the company. I can discuss things and ask questions across departments no problem.   Decisions however need to go through the hierarchy, but I can do all the groundwork and investigate the angles **before** I bring a proposed solution to my manager. It makes us agile and fast at solving issues and it just makes sense.  It does require people to not be obsessed with the power of their position and trying to take all the credit. Luckily that kind of attitude is not that common in at least the Swedish corporate world.
Not really.  Most people, when left to their own devices (and when they know they can get away with it), will not get very much work done.  This is why bosses and managers were a necessity in the first place.  It's also why 99% of the population can't handle running their own business: they have no self discipline.
There are advantages in bringing in an expert on branding – particularly when that person is a good listener, has a creative mind and, when they speak, has something useful to say. Consultants who meet all three of these criteria are rare indeed. Ones that don’t are never worth their fees.
Would my high-risk investment choices, aside from the main question, have any bearing on the road I want to go down and test (managing mutual/hedge funds)? Absolutely!  First of all, understand that hedge fund managers are managing other people's money.  Those people desire a certain risk profile and expected return, so your hedge fund will need to meet those expectations.  Plus, hedge fund managers don't typically get fixed fees alone - they also get a percentage of any gains the fund makes; so managers have a vested interest in making sure that hedge funds perform well.
"It's been a while but I've worked with a few Indians in the past.  One guy was a manager - very smart and a great guy but he micro-managed his people to death - literally checking on them multiple times an hour throughout the day.  Several Americans that worked for him quit because they couldn't take it anymore although the liked him personally.    Then I went to another place that used several H1B programmers and DBAs.  I had to manage a few of them and learned quickly why he worked the way he did.  They were all smart and hard workers but I would give the Indian workers a general task to accomplish and they would always enthusiastically say yes and disappear into their cubicles to work.  I would swing by a few hours later (expecting things to be moving along or done) and would often find that if they had hit a snag, they would stop, sit, and wait for someone to come check on them for further direction.  If they did in fact complete the task, they would still just sit there and wait for me to come check on them to tell me they were done.  It was really crazy.  I also found that even if they had no idea what I wanted, they would say ""yes"" and go back to their desk, so I had to start having them give me an overview of what they would do to solve the problem before I let them go off and start working.    I assume it's a cultural thing but it drove me nuts until I learned how to keep them moving.    TL;DR: Managing them was like herding cats."
"How about #9 - Honesty?  A lack of honesty between you and your employees can destroy your morale and increase turnover.  If you're laying employees off, don't sugar coat and lie about why it's happening, just be straight forward - ""Times are tough, we need the money so we make the quarterly earnings and meet shareholder expectations"" - not ""We're re-aligning our core competencies to better focus on our mission statement""  If you've ever had a boss outright lie to you and you knew it was a lie, you immediately lose respect for them and your perception of them is changed forever."
"Your co-workers all had kids when they where 16-19? What sort of place are you working?!? In my career, people under 30 with kids were very much the minority. I've mostly worked in fortune 500 companies and your description sounds really foreign to me. Most of my coworkers started having kids in their early to mid 30s. I'm 35 and childless and not singled out by that at all.  I don't see why being ""gym fit"" or having a college degree should entitle you special treatment. In my experience, neither are good indicators of a person's ability to perform. What it all comes down to is fit; ""job fit"" that is. Why are you still there? Are you trying to leave? Which part of the world are you in? In the end companies are about teams, merit is defined by who can do something the best while fitting into the company's culture and team. Just because you're the more technically savvy, doesn't mean you the best person for the job. When you're running a business there is a lot that must get considered before promoting someone. Remember, in companies, promotions are usually seized and rarely given. I mean, if you're not able to seize the promotion, why would be considered worthy of it?"
"I would get a new outside unbiased accountant who WILL show you the books. I might consider heavily hiring a new manager who is willing to work with you.   Perhaps an audit might be in order?   Regardless, if this manager continues to ""talk down"" to you, this is when you tell him he needs to be prepared to work with you or work something out.  In the meantime, I might consider looking into interviewing my own candidates for the job.  Where there is smoke...there is fire.  You want to have candidates ready for if they bolt when you have the ""talk."""
*[Tips til at kommunikere bedre med dine medarbejdere](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/08/08/tips-for-communicating-better-with-your-employees/)* Er du tilfreds med niveauet af kommunikation fra din agenturet ledere? Min organisation, partnerskab for Public Service, og Deloitte, for nylig analyseret regering-dækkende svar til tre medarbejder undersøgelsesspørgsmålene at se hvordan føderale ledere gjorde vedrørende deres kommunikation med arbejdstagerne. Resultaterne var ikke meget opmuntrende. Samlet set fundet analyse, at kun omkring halvdelen af føderale arbejdstagere regering-wide er tilfredse med den meddelelse, de modtager fra højtstående ledere, og procentdelen af positive svar har været faldende siden 2009. Kun 45 procent af statslige medarbejdere, for eksempel, reageret positivt når du bliver spurgt i en 2013 undersøgelse spørgsmål om de er tilfredse med de oplysninger, de modtager form *[forvaltning](http://theshearingroups.org/)* med hensyn til hvad der foregår i organisationen. Derudover rapporteret kun 48 procent af statslige medarbejdere at være tilfreds med i omfang som ledere fremmer kommunikationen mellem arbejdsenheder. Ledere var mere vellykket, når det kom til at kommunikere og prioriteterne for organisationen, med 58 procent registrering positivt.
In essence, networking, hard, and continuously working to improve my resume.  I am not certain about a certificate course, but if you can't say without hesitation that your modeling skills are strong, you should focus on improving there.    In terms of networking, build a list of firms you'd like to work for, build a list of the relevant personnel in each (example, if you want to do equity research, build a list of analysts in every sell side firm in your city), and then begin reaching out to them via phone or email to ask them for 15 minute coffee meetings.  Once you build up a few folks in firms that you know, touch base with them quarterly.  CFA may be something to consider if your focus is research.  It's a lot cheaper than an MBA.
I work in advertising now and my boss was talking about this, we have our clients requesting ad campaigns to attract new employees. He said it used to be a lot less common.  Also its hard to find good people.
I started out in compliance at a software company, despite having little interest in compliance. I did that for ~2.5 years, then worked with my manager to arrange to work 10 hours/week in the Marketing department, then after ~6 months of that, I moved to Marketing full time. If you kick ass in whatever job you have and work on extra skills (learning to code/improving at Excel will give you lots of options, such as software engineer or data analyst positions), you ought to be able to parlay the experience you've gained plus the other skills you have into something you're more interested in. Most companies would rather keep a good employee in the building than risk losing him/her.
It comes across as if you don't know much about what he or the firm does. Does he work in wealth management?      Someone looking for an assistant likely values organization and interpersonal skills over financial acumen.
This question is largely opinion based but I wanted to balance out the people jumping on you. There are lots of factors that go into salary/pay, such as what you contribute to the company and whather you go above or beyond whats expected of you. I would say seniority is one factor, or at least there is a case to be made that it is important. If someone has worked 5 years for me, that is five years that I have not had to search, interview, and train a replacement. I am not a business owner but I do employ people and when someone quits its an extremely stressful process. Not having to go through that, again in my opinion, is worth a small bump in pay. I cant comment on if its fair or not. That is opinion. What is fact is that whenever a broad group of people are given a pay raise for arbitrary reasons and other employees arent, its creates discontent, it hurts morale, employees leave, and in severe cases the business becomes crippled. So Im not sure if its fair, but is it a bad idea? Generally. See here and I highly recommend going here for anyone who thinks dramatically raising pay 'because its the right thing to do' is a good idea
It depends on the people.  I once worked in corporate finance in a fairly large (now very large) oil company.  In our unit we were entirely motivated by career, money, bonuses, etc.  I had a staff of middle-aged females working for me and at first I couldn't figure out how to motivate them.  I realized after a few months that they just wanted things like a pizza party once a month and the little crap like that.
Two hours? Phew, that's long. A few things that come to mind: Read job interview articles before you go... They always helped get my mind thinking in that direction. There are plenty online.  A two hour interview is, my guess, an attempt to learn about your personality and whether you wi fit in. I wouldn't try to fake this, just be yourself. Expect them to ask about who you are outside a 3.9 gpa - and be ready to answer. What do you have an appetite for? Is it outdoors, sushi, sports? Doesn't really matter, just be passionate about something. Don't oversell yourself. It's okay to be nervous but don't turn that into being some kid that talks too much and is awkward. Managers interview all the time, they just want a normal human being to sit across the table.
What would you consider good/worthwhile, and why it would give you satisfaction to benefit society? I've done various things that can be considered good/worthwhile, but the more I'm around people, the less I want to contribute anything to their well-being and the more I want to lash out at them. Unfortunately, getting substantial money generally requires interacting with people and showing up.  I would enjoy such things as profiting off Target gift cards, if I knew about the promotion or if the idea occurred to me, because it's profit for relatively little effort. The money that I've worked hard for doesn't mean that much to me because the cost was too high.
I think there's no single one size fits all way to do hierarchies and flat structures.  One can have very insular divisions where everything goes in and out of the division via the supervisor in charge of them, but all of the divisional supervisors having a very flat structure working among each other, for example.  I think this resolves a lot of the noise issue from low-ranking employees talking to people that they really shouldn't be while still maintaining the efficiency benefits for low level management which presumably has enough seniority to understand how things work (or are new people in those positions who are important enough to handhold them through learning that quickly).
"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their   returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if   they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called ""active management"". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors."
You are not seeing what I aim to explore.   Firstly, I am looking into whether or not CEO-charisma has any influence on consumers in their decision making process.  Secondly I want to see if their decision making process will differ between industries of certainty and industries of uncertainty.  That is why I chose a stable industry (bottled water) and an uncertain industry (computers).  In this survey I am using the Conger-Kanungo scale, which only has been used on internal analysis of the organisation so far. I want to see if the scale can be adapted to the external environment with the same results.  Edit: I just saw your second point. It does not matter who the CEO of Coke or Pepsi is. I took a hypothetical approach to reduce any bias in the survey.
*Target - All We Have to Do is Be Better Than Walmart!*  I'm sure having better paid, less miserable employees is good for business. Hopefully other large retailers will follow Target's example. The same strategy seems to have served Costco well.
The key to good investing is you need to understand what you are investing in. That is, if you are buying a company that makes product X, you need to understand that. It is a good idea to buy stock in good companies but that is not sufficient. You need to buy stock in good companies at good prices. That means you need to understand things like price to earnings, price to revenue and price to book. Bob
"People do not take the time to get to know you, and find out what you know (or not) before hiring you.  They are lazy.  And they are cowards.  They will hire only someone who appears to have the right credentials, got it?  There is no reason for them to put themselves on the line by telling corporate they ""have a hunch"" you'll be a good employee.  Almost guarenteed not to happen.  You have to make it easy for the person to hire you.  And that means you gotta get the degree."
"Actually, the main reasons to put incomptent people in certain roles are:  1. They will never advance and be a threat to your job.  2. They will cause problems, so you will need to hire more people to ""manage"" and fix issues.  3. They will accept the job despite you underpaying them. A real skillful person will not take an underpaying job.  4. You have no choice because HR ""calculated"" how much will be the salary for the job and you know that it has to be at least 50% more to get a person who knows the job. (I know that from experience, hiring many people to work for me.)"
Yea, because the question I asked was really indicative of what kind of employer I would be.  I was a manager at a retail store. My employees loved working for me. In fact, after I moved on to a job in the field my degree is in, my old employees still contact me to hang out. You're an idiot for trying to make any kind of assumption about the kind of boss I am from that single question.
Firing at the first sign of trouble is a good way to ensure high turnover.  If you're concerned about her missing work for personal reasons, then you should discuss those concerns with her and see if corrective behavior doesn't solve the problem; it might simply be a matter of your policies not being as clear as they should be.
Appear smart.  Seriously.     Don't talk about finance or ibanking because you don't know anything he doesn't and the odds of you sounding simplistic or stupid are high.     Look like a go getter and someone he would want to work with.  There are going to be 1000's of kids with resumes that are the same or better than yours, a resume is what gets you in the door (probably got this meeting) but being someone people want to work with gets you the job.     TL: DR - Don't be a douche