Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun
I don't know who said it earlier in this thread, but basically Clark Hunt has structured this organization to abide by the rules and restrictions of a Fortune 500 company.
I do not work for a Fortune 500 company, but I work for a company that is in the same field as many of the companies that are.
It's highly routine for employees to be disciplined or spoken with about Facebook posts and texting former employees. The entire workplace has security cameras, and management routinely reviews the cameras and irregularly disciplines employees for not doing their jobs if/when they believe that's the case. Inane disciplines like the candy wrapper happen, for good reason (and sometimes not-so-good). Everybody below a certain rung of power is completely kept in the dark. Any instances where a superior gets wind of someone below them shopping around for new jobs is met with a face-to-face meeting with that employee.
Etc.
It sounds restrictive, and it is. But there are some good reasons for the company to operate that way (for instance, the Chiefs is probably spy-proof). Some of the reasons are just paranoia and power-tripping, which is of course the nature of the game.
I believe every word of the article.
The truth is, we want our good ol' Kansas City Chiefs to be run like a mom-and-pop store. In some ways, like PR and employee satisfaction, that's certainly preferable. But the way the Chiefs run their show now is similar to a lot of large corporations who do this routinely for competitive advantage.
Combine Clark's management style with Pioli's Patriot Way and this is what you get. It's logical that there's going to be a shit ton of turnover and people put in really shitty situations because for decades, the Chiefs were run completely differently.
I'm not excusing it, just explaining it.
|
I work for a Fortune 500 company. Everybody knows they're being monitored. We're trained every day to be careful about what we e-mail, facebook about, etc... We all know that there is somebody always watching and that every word I e-mail about, talk about, etc... becomes discoverable. If someone accidentally or purposefully sends an e-mail with sensitive information, they are drilled to the nth degree, because they are that careful. And it should be that way. I don't care that I'm being monitored, but never do I feel like my privacy is being invaded. And they're not going to bother me about something petty. Look, we all know that when we're on company territory, I can't just write anything on my computer. I can't just steal stuff on company property knowing there are cameras around.
I can assure you that the environment painted in this picture is different from anything I've seen. And again, it's not about the aggressive accountability. I don't care about the gum wrapper example--I think that's a great thing. I think what is unusual in this instance is the extent of privacy monitoring and the culture that is built around enormous distrust of each other. Now, Apple is one culture where there is a lot more lockdown on information sharing, but to my knowledge, Apple doesn't come close to the kind of environment fostered in the story above. Because this isn't just about business. This isn't just about protecting secrets. This is about an abuse of power to micro-manage to every last detail, even stuff that doesn't really affect the business.
So do Fortune 500 companies do this? Probably. The good ones? Not to my knowledge.