I doubt that Apple would let him go to deny him these stock options. My guess is that he was let go because he was no longer needed. However, this guy is likely justifiably upset. He had some restricted options that would have been worth a lot of money but are no longer good because he is no longer with Apple. This will probably be quickly settled out of court.
I hope so. Personally, if it is worked out without having to go to trial, then Apple needs to be more careful with how they deal with this stuff. People want to work, people want to work for their favorite company. Just because the founder passes doesn't mean you get rid of the people because of some personal differences.
Corporations need to breed more compassion towards situations involving other individuals. Whether an employee or a customer. Hiding behind corporate/legalese is just being a chicken.
Aw hell, I'm jealous that there are people making enough money that they can even find a lawyer willing to take a wrongful termination case at all. I was harassed out of my job and then out of the institution/employment and not one legal or union entity did a thing to stop it or compensate me for the abuse. I played by their rules because that's all there is. I lost because I'm not wealthy and I'm unwilling to play dirty (frankly, I'm unable to; so yay to all the evolutionary superiority of sociopaths in corporate America where they thrive and are rewarded). On top of that, the employer was my state government, so I feel screwed by my own government. I spent my retirement fund just getting through the days till I could file for disability (ptsd caused by abuse by my employer). Lawyer to fight my case? Right. Not.
So now republicans and libertarians can blast me with leeching off tax dollars. Hey never had to put me in this situation to begin with. I liked my work, I did it well and my clients liked me. It was all about an immediate manager who has psychiatric issues. I gave more than an employee should be required to in order to accommodate a sociopath's irrational and unreasonable behavior. Yet, here I am, the social pariah, while the sociopath still comfortably works there because management always sides with management (and fellow sociopaths).
Does this guy have a case? Probably. I've only seen a couple examples of legit termination with just cause (& knowing the work performance of the employee, i could appreciate the termination). Those were minimum wage, teenage or other labor/soft labor jobs where the employee turnover is high because the job slot itself is unvalued by employer and employee. Call centers, tech support, retail, etc. Professionals that aren't managers tend to just get shafted outright by policy or managers and the managerial hierarchy above them. Why listen to an employee's complaints when you're upper management? That's middle management's job. Oh, middle manager is the complaint? Sorry, policy says we don't believe in managerial deficiency. Every case of managerial level incompetence I've ever seen is rewarded with continued employment or golden parachute while the guy makes a lateral move to somewhere else he'll screw up.
Companies are not people. They're antisocial collectives of institutional thinking. Everywhere I've worked it's been the same: employer takes advantage of employees and customers until employees are so fed up that they leave or are forced out with passive-aggressive abuse tactics that cannot easily be documented by the victim. Until capitalism adopts some ethics, it will always be this way (& I think it's getting worse; all the employee social protections have been successfully worked around by social engineering tactics in HR departments and new language/law is needed to cover what existing law utterly fails to address).
So whats the REAL reason he was fired? This article seems kind of one sided to me.
what is odd is that he was with apple for a long time and magically lost his job after steve died. we all know steve didn't tolerate fools so i wouldn't just outright dismiss his claim.
i guess this guy wasn't involved in those stupid recent commercials apple put out. those made the MS Seinfeld ads look GOOD.
what is odd is that he was with apple for a long time and magically lost his job after steve died. we all know steve didn't tolerate fools so i wouldn't just outright dismiss his claim.
i guess this guy wasn't involved in those stupid recent commercials apple put out. those made the MS Seinfeld ads look GOOD.
The ads are typically done by Ad agencies.
Some Apple employees are there just for the money and some aren't. I don't think this guy was there for the money. Obviously, he and Steve worked on the presentations and OBVIOUSLY he was an integral part of the success of those presentations and if there weren't any performance issues. It sounds like a chicken way of dealing with someone that didn't have performance issues.
I don't take corporate rhetoric when it comes to handling an issue where individuals are involved. Because if there is a way to resolve things without resorting to termination. Termination should only be used for documented situations where the employee was reprimanded and the employee had a chance to work with HR and the others involved to find out if it is fixable or not. But to not have any tangible reasons to fire someone. I don't take the corporate attitude towards that treatment.
They fired him because his services were no longer needed. Yeah, it sucks, but I'm not sure it was lawsuit-worthy. Tim Cook is a different person, he doesn't want someone producing Jobs-style presentations for him. He wants someone who can produce Cook-style presentations.
They should pay him out for the stock though. That might be lawsuit-worthy.
I just read an article in Silicon Valley news that mentioned that Apple didn't want to pay for the restricted stock he was supposed to be awarded, so instead of paying for the stock he was promised, they fired him. so it wasn't anything to do with his performance, it had to do with Apple paying for the restricted stock he was SUPPOSED to get. If this is the case, HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. He lost his job where job performance or not needing was the issue it had to do with stock he was entitled to.
They found out he was using "PowerPoint" for his first drafts.
Cheers
The REAL reason, according to Silicon Valley News, is that Apple didn't want to honor a contract (from what it sounds) for a specified amount of restricted shares that Apple had to pay $98 a share and give it to the employee for their contract. You know some form of vested stocks that he had accrued. So basically, instead of Apple buying the shares and giving to the employee, they figured it's just better to fire him, not grant him his vested stock options, and act like it's legal.... One of the possible reasons is that Jobs isn't around to keep this guy employed, and to save the company money is a typically bad quarter.
It's all about the money, and I guess that Apple's head counsel probably didn't seem to think that this behavior is worth suing over. Well, guess again. Someone in upper management should be ROLLED over this.
I am not sure what to make of this, I know that SJ was not known for being gracious to people who helped him over the years, but the firing took place after Steve was gone and the employee was valued enough to remain with apple for many years under steve so im inclined to believe that his argument has some merit.
But the article really is only telling his side of the story and knowing apple they won't likely share their side. I hope that the firing wasent done as a business manuver as claimed in the article but it would not surprise me if it was, this stuff happens in big corporations all over and as much as I like apple, they are a big corporation as well and not above this kind of thing.
If there was wrongful termination and evidence of a committment to his continued employment by SJ then I hope he gets what he is entitled to. The biggest thing here to me is not so much the conditions of the termination, more so the fact that a good and loyal contributor to Apple's success is no longer with the company, whether its legal or not its just sad.
I really hope their guy is being a lying, whiny, vindictive attention whore and he was fired for just cause. I really, really don't want to believe he would be fired for the reason stated in the article. Some of the stories (true or not) coming out from Apple these days, particularly business practises etc are.. disturbing and cynical.
He was an At Will employee. Apple doesn't need just cause. If there is no record of such a promise of continued employment, he's got nothing.
Quote:
I hope there's not much truth to them, otherwise there's a problem. For a company with this much money, this shit should not be happening. I'd like to think Steve Jobs wasn't solely the glue keeping everything in check.
Uh, 'this much money" has nothing to do with it. People sue over such "promises" all the time. If he didn't have a contract and/or records of such promises, he's screwed.
If this is true then Apple should rehire this guy right away. If he was good enough for Steve Jobs he is certainly good enough for Apple Inc. The man's skills evident in the amazing keynotes should speak for themselves. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
I don't take corporate rhetoric when it comes to handling an issue where individuals are involved. Because if there is a way to resolve things without resorting to termination. Termination should only be used for documented situations where the employee was reprimanded and the employee had a chance to work with HR and the others involved to find out if it is fixable or not. But to not have any tangible reasons to fire someone. I don't take the corporate attitude towards that treatment.
This guy is entitled to everything he can prove in a court of law, just like everyone else. No more, no less. Speculation will only echo your existing view of Apple.
If this is true then Apple should rehire this guy right away. If he was good enough for Steve Jobs he is certainly good enough for Apple Inc. The man's skills evident in the amazing keynotes should speak for themselves. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
You see, the thing about Tribal Leadership is that Steve was a person that corralled the best talent. Some people think Steve is a genius because he "created wonderful stuff". But as far back as his time at NEXT (and the first Mac before that), it was clear Steve's greatest strength was people... Which is ironic because a lot of people think he is a dick. But Steve really was able to draw, and retain, the best employees in the world that did amazing, amazing stuff.
I am not sure Tim Cook is similar.
Like I said I feel Cook will do a good job but it will be a different Apple than under Steve. Then when Scott Forstall becomes CEO in maybe a decade, then we will see a new Apple.
There are many signs this decade's Apple will be different. Like I said I returned the MacBook Pro Retina, I am using my MBP 13" 2010 with a new Apple Cinema Display (DisplayPort) 27". I'd like to keep my iPhone 4S this year and not upgrade until next year if possible. Same for iPad.
I think Ives has the passion for giving presentations based on how he presents himself in the videos. He sometimes comes off a little intense, but i can tell he is passionate about his and his staff's contribution.
It's hard replacing Steve when it comes to presentations.
Having been in the computer industry, it was fresh air listening to Steve. He brought an honest sense of humor.
I've seen presentations from most of the major computer hardware/software corporations and most of them were boring conservative people that were so uptight, it didn't get the audience enthused about the product.
Tim came from a conservative background. It kind of like teaching a ultra conservative person with no rhythm how to dance to a funk song. Maybe that's the problem.
Either way, not giving this guy his stock and not giving him the opportunity to help Tim get his sense of style isn't right. Not giving him the opportunity to work in other areas of Apple isn't right either. Unless they have some other legitimate reason, they should figure out a way to work things out without having to drag it through the court system.
This guy is OBVIOUSLY a passionate Apple employee and nothing worse than firing one for something that couldn't be worked out to a mutually agreeable terms.
One question... Is this a California/US thing where the term "fired" is used instead of "let go"? "Fired" usually means the employee did something wrong. "Let go" is usually used when the company decides they no longer need/want the employee. "Layoffs" and "Retrenchment" usually refers to say 10-1000 people losing their jobs at once.
Really?! He should've known that there is no such thing as job security.
Not explicitly nowadays. But when Steve Jobs tells you, "you'll always have a job at Apple", most of the time, this is as good a guarantee in life as you'll ever get. Perhaps as long as you don't piss off Steve, but still, it's more of a guarantee than most people in life get.
first off, almost all stock options deals are backed by stock acquired at the time of the deal. I can't see Apple terminating someone to save money on Stock Options, unless they were offering options on stock they didn't have in their portfolio (stupid for Apple to do that... Apple doesn't do stupid). Yes, those options are worth a lot of money, but Apple has a lot of money, and make more every day. Apple has a lot of employees, and they wouldn't jerk one around like this as it would send ripples through out the organization... Apple needs to keep their people happy.
2nd. The only way to lose those options would be if they had a 5 year vesting, and he was terminated for cause... Not at-will (“business reasons” not connected to his performance,'). At will terminations from an employer side (forced severence) requires all options to vest immediately. Otherwise companies would offer 'A Billion shares' to each employee and cull the herd just before vesting date. So, either someone's lying about the termination status, or the options may not exist on the books ("Steve promised me 3000 shares AND a job for life....")
If the stock was in an employment contract then they have to honor it. The problem with these companies, Apple not the only one out there, many of these companies use every chance to screw the employee as they don't consider the employee rights, just the employer's rights because they figure most average employees not in upper management have a difficult time getting an attorney since in order to take a case to trial, they not only have to pay their bills, but have an extra $250K in their back pocket to pay for legal fees just to keep the case in court because the company will drag out the trail as long as they can. It's really sad companies do this, let alone a wealthy company such as Apple.
It kind of makes me not want to do business with companies that do this, but unfortunately, I don't like switching from mfg to mfg every time i hear this kind of treatment. I think that the people that are involved with this decision making, regardless of their title, should ALL pay out of their pocket for these settlements and the court should slap these people with fines and if the company's legal counsel advised this to the other decision makers that they are disbarred. If the legal counsel advises a corporation to do something illegal against an employee just to save money, then they should not be allowed to practice the law. I know that most employers that practice activities that are against the law, they figure that if they are slapped with fines, etc., that that's the cost of doing business. In my book that's bad business practices and that's grounds for termination and possibly other things against those that try to prevent another from working.
These At Will laws are probably in need of change. I think that companies doing mass layoffs have to clear it through the State before they do it, because laying off employees just to "make more profit" is not a good business practice either.
Someone needs to a 20 lb book called the Golden Rules and smack these people in upper management over the head, so to speak, regarding how to treat employees and customers for that matter.
They also need to get some refresher courses in business ethics and proper management techniques just in case they forgot or never took them in the first place..
Certain hiring/firing practices are a sign of bad management and they take it out on employees and customers as a result..
I am losing respect for many people in upper management, and THAT is a shame. They forgot what it's like having to work to pay bills and hopefully be able to make extra for retirement.
Upper management typically only takes care of others in upper management because they like bullying the little guy around, because THEY ARE afraid of being told they don't know what they are doing. It's the Good Ol Boys club all over again.
Treating people the way they treat people doesn't breed respect or loyalty.
I certainly hope Tim Cook takes care of this situation and doesn't end up being another CEO that needs to leave. It's hard enough getting CEOs that take care of their employees, customers, and do honest ethical business practices.
You see, the thing about Tribal Leadership is that Steve was a person that corralled the best talent. Some people think Steve is a genius because he "created wonderful stuff". But as far back as his time at NEXT (and the first Mac before that), it was clear Steve's greatest strength was people... Which is ironic because a lot of people think he is a dick. But Steve really was able to draw, and retain, the best employees in the world that did amazing, amazing stuff.
I am not sure Tim Cook is similar.
Well let's hope for the future of Apple that he (or the next CEO in waiting) is. Too often big corporations forget the most basic rule. Long before The Customer, the most important part of a company is its People. If you can identify and retain visionary, talented individuals, keep them happy, treat them with respect, keep them looking ahead instead of back over their shoulders waiting for the axe to fall, you'll remain a leader in your field. Anything less eventually leads to a culture of fear, loss of respect, an eventual brain drain, and spells the end of the game.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynameisjoe
I doubt that Apple would let him go to deny him these stock options. My guess is that he was let go because he was no longer needed. However, this guy is likely justifiably upset. He had some restricted options that would have been worth a lot of money but are no longer good because he is no longer with Apple. This will probably be quickly settled out of court.
I hope so. Personally, if it is worked out without having to go to trial, then Apple needs to be more careful with how they deal with this stuff. People want to work, people want to work for their favorite company. Just because the founder passes doesn't mean you get rid of the people because of some personal differences.
Corporations need to breed more compassion towards situations involving other individuals. Whether an employee or a customer. Hiding behind corporate/legalese is just being a chicken.
So now republicans and libertarians can blast me with leeching off tax dollars. Hey never had to put me in this situation to begin with. I liked my work, I did it well and my clients liked me. It was all about an immediate manager who has psychiatric issues. I gave more than an employee should be required to in order to accommodate a sociopath's irrational and unreasonable behavior. Yet, here I am, the social pariah, while the sociopath still comfortably works there because management always sides with management (and fellow sociopaths).
Does this guy have a case? Probably. I've only seen a couple examples of legit termination with just cause (& knowing the work performance of the employee, i could appreciate the termination). Those were minimum wage, teenage or other labor/soft labor jobs where the employee turnover is high because the job slot itself is unvalued by employer and employee. Call centers, tech support, retail, etc. Professionals that aren't managers tend to just get shafted outright by policy or managers and the managerial hierarchy above them. Why listen to an employee's complaints when you're upper management? That's middle management's job. Oh, middle manager is the complaint? Sorry, policy says we don't believe in managerial deficiency. Every case of managerial level incompetence I've ever seen is rewarded with continued employment or golden parachute while the guy makes a lateral move to somewhere else he'll screw up.
Companies are not people. They're antisocial collectives of institutional thinking. Everywhere I've worked it's been the same: employer takes advantage of employees and customers until employees are so fed up that they leave or are forced out with passive-aggressive abuse tactics that cannot easily be documented by the victim. Until capitalism adopts some ethics, it will always be this way (& I think it's getting worse; all the employee social protections have been successfully worked around by social engineering tactics in HR departments and new language/law is needed to cover what existing law utterly fails to address).
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
So whats the REAL reason he was fired? This article seems kind of one sided to me.
what is odd is that he was with apple for a long time and magically lost his job after steve died. we all know steve didn't tolerate fools so i wouldn't just outright dismiss his claim.
i guess this guy wasn't involved in those stupid recent commercials apple put out. those made the MS Seinfeld ads look GOOD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple joy
what is odd is that he was with apple for a long time and magically lost his job after steve died. we all know steve didn't tolerate fools so i wouldn't just outright dismiss his claim.
i guess this guy wasn't involved in those stupid recent commercials apple put out. those made the MS Seinfeld ads look GOOD.
The ads are typically done by Ad agencies.
Some Apple employees are there just for the money and some aren't. I don't think this guy was there for the money. Obviously, he and Steve worked on the presentations and OBVIOUSLY he was an integral part of the success of those presentations and if there weren't any performance issues. It sounds like a chicken way of dealing with someone that didn't have performance issues.
I don't take corporate rhetoric when it comes to handling an issue where individuals are involved. Because if there is a way to resolve things without resorting to termination. Termination should only be used for documented situations where the employee was reprimanded and the employee had a chance to work with HR and the others involved to find out if it is fixable or not. But to not have any tangible reasons to fire someone. I don't take the corporate attitude towards that treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
They fired him because his services were no longer needed. Yeah, it sucks, but I'm not sure it was lawsuit-worthy. Tim Cook is a different person, he doesn't want someone producing Jobs-style presentations for him. He wants someone who can produce Cook-style presentations.
They should pay him out for the stock though. That might be lawsuit-worthy.
I just read an article in Silicon Valley news that mentioned that Apple didn't want to pay for the restricted stock he was supposed to be awarded, so instead of paying for the stock he was promised, they fired him. so it wasn't anything to do with his performance, it had to do with Apple paying for the restricted stock he was SUPPOSED to get. If this is the case, HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. He lost his job where job performance or not needing was the issue it had to do with stock he was entitled to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
So whats the REAL reason he was fired? This article seems kind of one sided to me.
They found out he was using "PowerPoint" for his first drafts.
Cheers
Really?! He should've known that there is no such thing as job security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt
They found out he was using "PowerPoint" for his first drafts.
Cheers
The REAL reason, according to Silicon Valley News, is that Apple didn't want to honor a contract (from what it sounds) for a specified amount of restricted shares that Apple had to pay $98 a share and give it to the employee for their contract. You know some form of vested stocks that he had accrued. So basically, instead of Apple buying the shares and giving to the employee, they figured it's just better to fire him, not grant him his vested stock options, and act like it's legal.... One of the possible reasons is that Jobs isn't around to keep this guy employed, and to save the company money is a typically bad quarter.
It's all about the money, and I guess that Apple's head counsel probably didn't seem to think that this behavior is worth suing over. Well, guess again. Someone in upper management should be ROLLED over this.
I am not sure what to make of this, I know that SJ was not known for being gracious to people who helped him over the years, but the firing took place after Steve was gone and the employee was valued enough to remain with apple for many years under steve so im inclined to believe that his argument has some merit.
But the article really is only telling his side of the story and knowing apple they won't likely share their side. I hope that the firing wasent done as a business manuver as claimed in the article but it would not surprise me if it was, this stuff happens in big corporations all over and as much as I like apple, they are a big corporation as well and not above this kind of thing.
If there was wrongful termination and evidence of a committment to his continued employment by SJ then I hope he gets what he is entitled to. The biggest thing here to me is not so much the conditions of the termination, more so the fact that a good and loyal contributor to Apple's success is no longer with the company, whether its legal or not its just sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
I really hope their guy is being a lying, whiny, vindictive attention whore and he was fired for just cause. I really, really don't want to believe he would be fired for the reason stated in the article. Some of the stories (true or not) coming out from Apple these days, particularly business practises etc are.. disturbing and cynical.
He was an At Will employee. Apple doesn't need just cause. If there is no record of such a promise of continued employment, he's got nothing.
Quote:
I hope there's not much truth to them, otherwise there's a problem. For a company with this much money, this shit should not be happening. I'd like to think Steve Jobs wasn't solely the glue keeping everything in check.
Uh, 'this much money" has nothing to do with it. People sue over such "promises" all the time. If he didn't have a contract and/or records of such promises, he's screwed.
If this is true then Apple should rehire this guy right away. If he was good enough for Steve Jobs he is certainly good enough for Apple Inc. The man's skills evident in the amazing keynotes should speak for themselves. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I don't take corporate rhetoric when it comes to handling an issue where individuals are involved. Because if there is a way to resolve things without resorting to termination. Termination should only be used for documented situations where the employee was reprimanded and the employee had a chance to work with HR and the others involved to find out if it is fixable or not. But to not have any tangible reasons to fire someone. I don't take the corporate attitude towards that treatment.
Well put.
This guy is entitled to everything he can prove in a court of law, just like everyone else. No more, no less. Speculation will only echo your existing view of Apple.
Sounds like a dick move by Apple. Curious to hear the other side.
Long Live Steve, wherever he is.
You see, the thing about Tribal Leadership is that Steve was a person that corralled the best talent. Some people think Steve is a genius because he "created wonderful stuff". But as far back as his time at NEXT (and the first Mac before that), it was clear Steve's greatest strength was people... Which is ironic because a lot of people think he is a dick. But Steve really was able to draw, and retain, the best employees in the world that did amazing, amazing stuff.
I am not sure Tim Cook is similar.
Like I said I feel Cook will do a good job but it will be a different Apple than under Steve. Then when Scott Forstall becomes CEO in maybe a decade, then we will see a new Apple.
There are many signs this decade's Apple will be different. Like I said I returned the MacBook Pro Retina, I am using my MBP 13" 2010 with a new Apple Cinema Display (DisplayPort) 27". I'd like to keep my iPhone 4S this year and not upgrade until next year if possible. Same for iPad.
One question... Is this a California/US thing where the term "fired" is used instead of "let go"? "Fired" usually means the employee did something wrong. "Let go" is usually used when the company decides they no longer need/want the employee. "Layoffs" and "Retrenchment" usually refers to say 10-1000 people losing their jobs at once.
Can someone clarify?
Not explicitly nowadays. But when Steve Jobs tells you, "you'll always have a job at Apple", most of the time, this is as good a guarantee in life as you'll ever get. Perhaps as long as you don't piss off Steve, but still, it's more of a guarantee than most people in life get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
first off, almost all stock options deals are backed by stock acquired at the time of the deal. I can't see Apple terminating someone to save money on Stock Options, unless they were offering options on stock they didn't have in their portfolio (stupid for Apple to do that... Apple doesn't do stupid). Yes, those options are worth a lot of money, but Apple has a lot of money, and make more every day. Apple has a lot of employees, and they wouldn't jerk one around like this as it would send ripples through out the organization... Apple needs to keep their people happy.
2nd. The only way to lose those options would be if they had a 5 year vesting, and he was terminated for cause... Not at-will (“business reasons” not connected to his performance,'). At will terminations from an employer side (forced severence) requires all options to vest immediately. Otherwise companies would offer 'A Billion shares' to each employee and cull the herd just before vesting date. So, either someone's lying about the termination status, or the options may not exist on the books ("Steve promised me 3000 shares AND a job for life....")
If the stock was in an employment contract then they have to honor it. The problem with these companies, Apple not the only one out there, many of these companies use every chance to screw the employee as they don't consider the employee rights, just the employer's rights because they figure most average employees not in upper management have a difficult time getting an attorney since in order to take a case to trial, they not only have to pay their bills, but have an extra $250K in their back pocket to pay for legal fees just to keep the case in court because the company will drag out the trail as long as they can. It's really sad companies do this, let alone a wealthy company such as Apple.
It kind of makes me not want to do business with companies that do this, but unfortunately, I don't like switching from mfg to mfg every time i hear this kind of treatment. I think that the people that are involved with this decision making, regardless of their title, should ALL pay out of their pocket for these settlements and the court should slap these people with fines and if the company's legal counsel advised this to the other decision makers that they are disbarred. If the legal counsel advises a corporation to do something illegal against an employee just to save money, then they should not be allowed to practice the law. I know that most employers that practice activities that are against the law, they figure that if they are slapped with fines, etc., that that's the cost of doing business. In my book that's bad business practices and that's grounds for termination and possibly other things against those that try to prevent another from working.
These At Will laws are probably in need of change. I think that companies doing mass layoffs have to clear it through the State before they do it, because laying off employees just to "make more profit" is not a good business practice either.
Someone needs to a 20 lb book called the Golden Rules and smack these people in upper management over the head, so to speak, regarding how to treat employees and customers for that matter.
They also need to get some refresher courses in business ethics and proper management techniques just in case they forgot or never took them in the first place..
Certain hiring/firing practices are a sign of bad management and they take it out on employees and customers as a result..
I am losing respect for many people in upper management, and THAT is a shame. They forgot what it's like having to work to pay bills and hopefully be able to make extra for retirement.
Upper management typically only takes care of others in upper management because they like bullying the little guy around, because THEY ARE afraid of being told they don't know what they are doing. It's the Good Ol Boys club all over again.
Treating people the way they treat people doesn't breed respect or loyalty.
I certainly hope Tim Cook takes care of this situation and doesn't end up being another CEO that needs to leave. It's hard enough getting CEOs that take care of their employees, customers, and do honest ethical business practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
You see, the thing about Tribal Leadership is that Steve was a person that corralled the best talent. Some people think Steve is a genius because he "created wonderful stuff". But as far back as his time at NEXT (and the first Mac before that), it was clear Steve's greatest strength was people... Which is ironic because a lot of people think he is a dick. But Steve really was able to draw, and retain, the best employees in the world that did amazing, amazing stuff.
I am not sure Tim Cook is similar.
Well let's hope for the future of Apple that he (or the next CEO in waiting) is. Too often big corporations forget the most basic rule. Long before The Customer, the most important part of a company is its People. If you can identify and retain visionary, talented individuals, keep them happy, treat them with respect, keep them looking ahead instead of back over their shoulders waiting for the axe to fall, you'll remain a leader in your field. Anything less eventually leads to a culture of fear, loss of respect, an eventual brain drain, and spells the end of the game.
He won't win. Steve is dead and no company is required to keep an employee for their lifetime.