| Topic Name: |
Go Ahead. |
| Message Name: |
Hmmmm..... |
| Date Posted: |
02/06/2006 |
| In Reply To: |
4. Actively try to sabotage the organization.
Not something I necessarily advocate, but an option nonetheless.
I'd be interested in hearing your analysis of why change was necessary on some of the larger changes of the last 5 years (Benefits reductions, Reorganization and Rereorganization of the IDG/ODG structure, Standardization of Client team operations to reach a lowest-common-denominator standardized product, etc.) |
| Message: |
That's actually an interesting option. I wouldn't advocate doing that either, but, in a sense, I think many disgruntled associates are quietly sabotaging the organization through significantly reduced productivity and less concern for quality results. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that such sabotage is done on a subconscious level rather than as a direct effort. I think the engagement scores alluded to that.
I think the changes were done as a reaction to some significant financial threat than as proactive steps to improve the firm. All those changes were meant to do one thing: to make the executive richer by making short-term cost cuts to artificially inflate the bottom line. Seems like such efforts are losing their value given today's reaction by investors to Hewitt's financial results.
|
|
