I worked for AT&T from 1990 to 2000, i.e. through the years of terminal decline
that later culminated in getting swallowed by one of the offspring. Especially
when I was in HQ in New Jersey (1990-95), the place was positively crawling
with expensive and useless consultants, and when management had no clue what to
do next, they reorganized, of course! Everything you read in the Dilbert strip
is true, with the possible exception of Dogbert and the evil cat as HR
director. I think ours was human, but I am not 100% sure.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
YNWA
On May 13, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> That sounds like a constructive approach, Ken, but I maintain that it’s not
> the Anglo-Saxon model.
>
> Chris
>
> On 13 May 2014, at 17:34, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I’m not saying that Olympus shouldn’t have changed, but it has to be
>>> focused change, based on a realistic business model, not change for
>>> change’s sake.
>>
>> The company I work for is on a two-year cycle for reorganization in
>> the engineering side of things. It's actually kinda nice because when
>> we screw something up, we know that it will only be this way for a
>> couple of years. I was a bit disturbed about it at first, but having
>> been through two now, I'm actually quite impressed.
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|