Updated August 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM PST with comments from Glassdoor's CEO.
Glassdoor.com uses an online questionnaire so employees can rate their companies and CEOs. I took the questionnaire. It's all the usual stuff, like what do you think of the leadership abilities and competence of senior management, would you recommend your company as a place to work, that sort of thing.
I thought it would be interesting to track the stock performance of the
public companies with CEOs that had the highest approval ratings versus those with the lowest approval ratings.
Guess what I found?
Over the past five years, shares of all the companies whose CEOs had the highest approval ratings were in the black, while shares of all the companies whose CEOs had the lowest approval ratings were either in the red or flat. We're talking 8 of 8 in the black, 8 of 8 in the red or flat.
What does that tell you?
First, that we live in America, the great land of greed and capitalism. If you're stock is in the money, the CEO's a god. If your options are under water, he's a dog. And don't flame me, it's what employees had to say, not me. But for what it's worth, I don't think that's a bad thing. ... Read more
Many technology industry executives are surprisingly inept when it comes to planning and executing reorganizations effectively.
One of the most evident signs of dysfunctional executive management is reorg-du-jour (reorganization of the day, for those who didn't take French in high school). Nothing is more disruptive or counterproductive to the effectiveness of an organization than frequent reorganizations.
Not to pick on Yahoo, but the frequency, if not the execution, of its notorious reorgs has almost certainly contributed to its talent exodus and loss of productivity at a time when it can scarcely afford it.
That said, reorganizations go hand-in-hand with changes in corporate and product objectives and strategy that are often implemented to meet an ever-changing competitive landscape. To that extent, they can be critical to business success, if done correctly.
When do reorganizations make sense and when are they frivolous and disruptive? How can they be executed to minimize productivity disruption and worker frustration? Here's an insider's perspective on organizational change in two parts. First we deal with "how," then we deal with "when" and "why." ... Read more
What is it about meetings that brings out the worst in otherwise reasonable and intelligent people? Is it an opportunity to childishly engage and disrupt others? Or perhaps it's a chance to demonstrate animalistic dominance. Who knows.
All I do know is, for companies to operate effectively, executives, managers, and key employees need to know how to run effective meetings. Meetings are how conflicts are resolved and plans are agreed upon. They are how critical strategic and operating processes are developed, managed, and to some extent, executed.
Conversely, ineffective meetings result in lost productivity and frustration. They can also be a sign of a dysfunctional workplace, which can result in operating failure.
In my experience technology managers and executives are so inept at conducting effective meetings you'd think it's rocket science or a rare genetic trait. I have no idea why that is. ... Read more
What do you get when you mix Al Gore, global warming, whacky environmentalists, skyrocketing oil prices, lots of venture funding, and irrational exuberance? An alternative-energy bubble.
What, you don't believe that there's an alternative-energy bubble? Then you're just not paying attention. It may not be the biggest bubble in the history of technology--yet. And it may not be ready to burst--yet. But it's a bubble, all right. All the signs are there.
In solar energy alone, hundreds of millions of dollars of venture funds have been poured into the likes of Nanosolar, SoloPower, OptiSolar, HelioVolt, eSolar, SolFocus, Solel, Miasole, GreenVolts, Hydro Green, Infinia, Sopogy, Cyrium, SkyFuel, BrightSource Energy--the list goes on and on.
All the usual suspects are in the game: big-name venture capital firms, investment banks, private-equity firms, energy companies, technology companies, individual investors, a new batch of investment companies focused primarily on energy, and even a hedge fund or two.
There are lots of recognizable names, as well, including Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Microsoft founder Paul Allen, and Sun Microsystems founder and ex-Kleiner Perkins partner Vinod Khosla.
... Read more
(Credit:
Steve Tobak)
If you could push a button to lose weight, would you do it? Sure you would. That's why diet and nutrition crazes are so popular.
If you could take a pill and improve some part of your physique or become smarter, would you take it? Of course. That's why we see so many ads on TV and the Internet for that kind of crap.
What? Too smart to believe a pill can really do those things? That's cool. How about signing up at the local health or fitness club. Or buying self-help books. We're joining clubs and buying books in record numbers. But we're still not getting any thinner or happier.
Our society is obsessed with quick fixes. But that doesn't change the sad fact that quick fixes don't work. And nowhere is that more evident than in the workplace.
According to a publication from the Centers for Disease Control's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health called "Stress...at Work": "The nature of work is changing at whirlwind speed. Perhaps now more than ever before, job stress poses a threat to the health of workers..."
The report goes on to quote a number of studies:
According to Northwestern National Life, 40 percent of workers report their job is "very or extremely stressful" and one-fourth of employees view their jobs as the No. 1 stress in their lives.
According to the Families and Work Institute, 26 percent of workers report they are "often or very often burned out or stressed by their work."
According to a survey by Yale University, 29 percent of workers report they feel "quite a bit or extremely stressed at work."
The data is sobering, if not downright depressing.
(Credit:
Steve Tobak)
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there are currently about 146 million workers in America. That means at least 40 million of you are really stressed at work. Is it comforting to know you're not alone? No? Then you're probably not going to like this either. There's no quick fix. If there were, you'd all be doing it and the numbers would be going down instead of up. I mean, that's what a quick fix is, right? Quick.
Still, there is hope. The technology industry employs a technique called the scientific method. We postulate ideas--based on observation--then test them to see if they're true. A painstaking, iterative process, to be sure. But it works. When you troubleshoot problems with your computer and other gadgets, you're employing the same method, although you might not realize it.
You can employee the same logical methods in resolving the workplace issues that are stressing you out. But first you have to give up the quick fixes and make a real commitment to deal with and resolve your issues. You can't just go through the motions.
You can start by checking out these posts to see if any of the subjects resonate with you. No, they're not quick fixes, but as I said, there really aren't any. These posts offer insight and methodical steps that will set you on the right path.
1. Are you creating your own workplace stress?
2. Recognizing and preventing burnout
3. How are you doing?
4. Dealing with workplace conflict
5. How to manage a crisis, any crisis
6. The back-to-work blues
7. Conquering your fear of public speaking
8. Why you need to take risks
9. The secret to finding a great job
10.Do you have a dysfunctional workplace?
Bottom line
When you're trying to deal with workplace issues, the three most important things to realize are:
1. Nobody has all the answers.
2. There are no quick fixes.
3. By employing an intelligent, methodical approach, you can get to the bottom of whatever it is that's stressing you out and can initiate changes that will help.
Trust yourself; you can do this.
It's amazing how, in the modern computing world, an average workday can go to hell with no apparent warning. Check this out.
I woke up this morning with the usual list of 30 things I needed to get done, knowing full well that I wouldn't get to most of them. Just another day in the working world, right? Not exactly. ... Read more
Last week, my wife's Dell Inspiron decided to stop printing to our wireless HP all-in-one. It was apparently a problem with the spooler, whatever that is. At that point, I had two choices: leave it alone and hope for a miracle, or fix it and perform some upgrades I'd been putting off.
Let me back up and explain something. I hate working on my wife's computer. Whatever I do inevitably screws something up, it takes way longer than I would like, and well, let's just say, my wife is impatient when it comes to technology.
It's OK for a doctor or dentist to poke and prod her, but when I poke or prod her computer, she acts as if I do it for the pure sadistic enjoyment of screwing up her peaceful existence. ... Read more
Every so often, I wonder if Silicon Valley is all it's cracked up to be. Sure, the confluence of venture capital, universities, and lawyers make it a veritable petri dish for the formation of technology companies, but there are a lot of other great places for innovation, right?
Well, if you go strictly by market capitalization, and look at the top 10 information technology companies, 6 of them are based in Silicon Valley: Cisco Systems, Google, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Oracle. In fact, if you map these company's headquarters, they'd all be inside a circle with a radius of just 10 miles. Amazing, when you think about it.
And these companies are far from just "headquartered" in Silicon Valley.
Google and Apple are very much centralized from a product and technology development standpoint.
Intel has research-and-development facilities in Oregon, Arizona, and Israel, but a significant amount of its R&D occurs at or near its Santa Clara, Calif., headquarters. The same is true of Cisco, though the networking giant owns several large subsidiaries--such as Scientific Atlanta--that are based elsewhere. Likewise for Oracle.
HP is somewhat more diversified, with product development for its Compaq unit in Houston, plus R&D facilities in Idaho, Oregon, and additional cities around the globe. But still, more of its R&D occurs in northern California than anywhere else.
Three of the four companies not based in Silicon Valley have research and development consolidated near their corporate headquarters: Microsoft in Redmond, Wash.; Qualcomm in San Diego; and Nokia in Finland.
IBM, on the other hand, is the most distributed company of the 10, with R&D facilities in New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota, and a number of international locations, including London.
What does all this mean? Well, the data's essentially useless, unless you compare these companies to the same group, say 5 or 10 years ago. Luckily, I've got a good memory. It's not necessarily obvious from the data, but there does appear to be a trend toward more distributed R&D among large companies--if not domestically, then certainly internationally.
Although there are a number of new and growing U.S. technology hubs, none appears to be in a position to unseat Silicon Valley as the tech mecca.
Internationally speaking, China, India, Israel, Japan, and the United Kingdom each have technology development centers with tremendous growth potential. South Korea and Taiwan are nothing to sneeze at, either. Sure, they all have a way to go to match the confluence of resources and talent that Northern California offers. But the trend is there.
And while our qualitative analysis consists only of 10 companies, I do believe that it represents the industry as a whole.
In summary, as information technology penetrates further into the lives of more and more people, it stands to reason that innovation hubs will become more and more geographically distributed, if not also technically specialized.
And someday, a new technology may take root and ultimately supplant electronics as the driver of human innovation. It might be a form of biotechnology, nanotechnology, or something else entirely. In that case, all bets are off.
Updated 5/29/08 12:23 PM - Modification to paragraph on Intel R&D.
Occam's Razor essentially says that all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. The principle has implications in virtually every field of science, not to mention philosophy, aesthetics, marketing, business, you name it.
If for some reason you don't buy the word of a 14th-century Franciscan friar, it might interest you to know that Albert Einstein also believed the universe loves simplicity. I don't know about you, but I'm in no position to argue with that guy.
You'd think that keeping things simple would be the easiest path, but that's not necessarily the case. Sometimes it's downright impossible. Look at the personal computer, for example. The need for backwards compatibility with legacy programs and interfaces has forever rendered the PC more complex than any of us would like. ... Read more
A couple of days ago, I posted a story called "Why does the media love Apple and trash Dell." In an honest attempt (really) to explain a gap between the reality and perception of Dell's tech support, I somehow managed to denigrate the noble profession of news reporting and blogging.
What I was trying to say was that the media - as an industry - generally covers what will get them the most eyeballs, since that's how the companies (not the individuals, mind you) get paid by advertisers.
Of course, I never meant to imply that the industry as a whole or individual writers sacrifice integrity for eyeballs. I've had a long, long relationship with the media and that's simply not the case. ... Read more
