or very limited management structure, like 1 president, and maybe a small board elected by the employees. All employees get the same leave time and benefits. All employees have the same vote. Hours are flexible, and although a minimum of 40 hrs per week needs to be accounted for, accomplishment of tasks are more important than hours. There is no promotion to the next level, for there is no corporate structure for which to advance. Pay is based on performance...the better you are at your job, the more you get paid. Tasks are managed by task leaders, which is a "second hat" to their function, just like human resources is. In other words, the incentive to work harder is not primarily driven by power in the traditional sense, rather by money, thereby directly driving the improvement of your skill set. Your thoughts?
2006-10-20 02:49:14 · 10 answers · asked by BowtiePasta 6 in Business & Finance ➔ Corporations
Actually, I work for one. It really took me at least a year to get used to it...now I love it!
2006-10-20 02:50:26 · update #1
A dead end job? Well, maybe...if you make it so. I find that there is so much to learn in my skill set, that I could work till I retire doing what I do. Nevertheless, we have the freedom to bring in new work...start a new set of skills...find new customers. It's a different way of thinking, I have come to realize...more entreprenureal (sp?) less "corporate." So I guess if you motivation is lacking, it could be a dead-end job...but chances are any job for an unmotivated person is dead-end. Thanks for your comment.
2006-10-20 02:57:32 · update #2
That theory has pro's and con's to it.
I think it is good that your pay raise is based on your performance and that there is no compition within the company for advancement since there is none.
However, if there is no advancement wouldn't that be the same as being stuck in a dead in job? Yes you would be making more money the more you learn and the better you do, but essentially you wouldn't be going anywhere?
Good question though.
2006-10-20 02:52:19 · answer #1 · answered by sesamenc 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I used to work for a company something like that, and I loved it. We had about 60 employees, and had the owner and a general manager. No middle management. No supervisors, no team leaders. No problems.
Then, we were acquired by a huge company, and went from 60 to 60,000 employees. The benefits were better, but they felt we needed middle management. Well, the power went to their heads, and all of a sudden friends became bosses, and chaos resulted. I'm no longer with the company, but from what I understand, very few are happy. They've changed the structure of management several times. It's a mess. The old timers would love to see the old way come back.
2006-10-20 03:01:58 · answer #2 · answered by Momma Jo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it's a job i think i would enjoy then yes. If you're pay depends on ur own production, then i'd have to want to "produce" whatever it is that i'm doing. Sometimes too, when they're is no actual management structure it means more of an easy going setting. Therefore, maybe less stressful. Depends on what u want.
2006-10-20 02:57:13 · answer #3 · answered by Beyes 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds pretty good to me. I work a job where I have maxed out on the pay scale & unable to earn more simply b/c of lack of opportunity for advancement and the sad part about it is, I'm still here.
2006-10-20 02:54:04 · answer #4 · answered by Luckys Charm 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the old corporate structure is not the best business model for the millennium. It is not secure anymore. What we need to do is work as independent contractors for corporations and build a big business around independent contractors. If you go to my website www.ShacklesOff.com and click on business opportunity, then you can watch a video of this very concept.
2006-10-20 04:51:33 · answer #5 · answered by ShacklesOff.com 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds pretty good to me. I have worked a job before where I maxed out on the pay scale & was unable to earn more simply b/c of lack of opportunity for advancement.
2006-10-20 02:51:24 · answer #6 · answered by laneydoll 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reception is the primary factor of touch among a trade / business enterprise and a purchaser. Call me sexist, however ladies most commonly seem purifier, extra approachable (the factor of reception, definitely?) and extra stunning (now not in a sexual approach) than guys. Businesses desire the primary factor of touch a purchaser has a with their trade to be a exceptional, accomodating, non-threatening one, and, most commonly speakme, ladies are greater at filling that function than guys.
2016-08-31 23:55:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boy it depends.. I had being working in something what you said earlier ... but things change .. you cant just be working like that forever..
Regards
Sameer Shaikh
2006-10-20 02:57:43 · answer #8 · answered by Sameer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes!Noooooo problem!
2006-10-20 02:59:00 · answer #9 · answered by MadDog21 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds okay,if you are happy,go with it.good luck
2006-10-20 03:02:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋