Nice People Thread No. 14, all Nice and Proper

silvercar

Mrs Generali and I always said that the person that can make the biggest hourly rate when the kids are young should care for them.

For a lot of people, the person that makes the biggest hourly rate needs to be the person working the longest hours in order to provide the household with the greatest income.

SingleSue

It was actually a female interviewer too, she was just really anti children and family. In her view, it got in the way of working...so glad I didn't get offered the job (got down to the last two) as it would have seen me working very very long hours for most of the year with precious little time for anything else.

That was ok in my younger days but it would have been a little ambitious with my health now.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

SingleSue wrote: »

I was asked if I had plans for anymore children as I am still just about of child bearing age.

Generali wrote: »

Nobody has ever asked me about my plans about having children in an interview. I can't think why.

I've never asked or even thought that question.

I operate a strict meritocracy.

People will then either be committed to the company or not.

If the answer is "not", I respect that, but then don't come along moaning about lack of senior positions for women (or fathers who take time off to raise kids).

SingleSue

silvercar wrote: »

For a lot of people, the person that makes the biggest hourly rate needs to be the person working the longest hours in order to provide the household with the greatest income.

Me and hubby had the same agreement prior to James arriving as I was the main earner by at least 3x his salary (actually closer to 4x by the time I went on maternity leave) and worked longer hours. When it came to it, he saw it as too much of a slight on his masculinity to actually do it, not helped by all his friends, his boss, his mum etc who said it was my role to stay at home as I was the woman.

SingleSue

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I've never asked or even thought that question.

I operate a strict meritocracy.

People will then either be committed to the company or not.

If the answer is "not", I respect that, but then don't come along moaning about lack of senior positions for women (or fathers who take time off to raise kids).

I used to chase after the senior positions, was actually in a senior position prior to having children and had reached that position again before my marriage disintegrated, albeit on a part time basis.

Now, I would be perfectly happy with a nice quiet role, no real responsibility or requirement to be a leader, away from the lime light.

I would still be commited to a company though, just not chasing the senior roles.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I've never asked or even thought that question.

I operate a strict meritocracy.

People will then either be committed to the company or not.

If the answer is "not", I respect that, but then don't come along moaning about lack of senior positions for women (or fathers who take time off to raise kids).

For me the point is that if companies are run solely by middle-aged white men then they generally don't perform as well as companies run by companies run by a more diverse group of people.

People have kids and (should) have a life outside work if they are going to be successful, rounded human beings. Sitting in an office for 70 hours a week with a gazillion squids isn't my definition of success. How do we get the best people to the top of companies rather than the ones that sit in the office for the most hours?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

For me the point is that if companies are run solely by middle-aged white men then they generally don't perform as well as companies run by companies run by a more diverse group of people.

That's an interesting stat we both read on perfomance vs board makeup but as you rightly pointed out at the time correlation does not equal causation.

People have kids and (should) have a life outside work if they are going to be successful, rounded human beings. Sitting in an office for 70 hours a week with a gazillion squids isn't my definition of success. How do we get the best people to the top of companies rather than the ones that sit in the office for the most hours?

Fire the ones that are not productive.

Many companies operate a "churn the bottom 10% each year" policy and are better for it.

Capitalism is all about meritocracy.

The harder you work the further you progress.

I don't believe this is inherently a flawed system...

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Capitalism is all about meritocracy.

The harder you work the further you progress.

I don't believe this is inherently a flawed system...

I agree 95% however, we should be looking at the best ways to run a company and that means bringing people into the fold that can't work all weekend.

It's not a trivial problem to resolve but there is a lot of money at stake to the companies that manage to do it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

we should be looking at the best ways to run a company and that means bringing people into the fold that can't work all weekend.

Every company seeks to bring the best people into the fold.

However the people that advance the furthest are the ones that deliver the best results

That option is open to everyone.

Which is why it's a meritocracy.

Surely performance is the only measure worth measuring?

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Every company seeks to bring the best people into the fold.

However the people that advance the furthest are the ones that deliver the best results.

That option is open to everyone.

How they go about delivering those results is entirely up to them.

In some ways that reflects fallacious thinking prevalent in corporate life IMHO.

For example, a mate of mine is a sales director of the UK arm of an Asian company that you have definitely heard of. He has spent the last years fighting with people that want to promote the best salesmen into management. As he puts it, that way you lose a great salesman and gain a lousy manager.