WHY EMPLOYEES LEAVE ORGANISATIONS?.....- Azim Premji, CEO- WiproEvery company faces the problem of people leaving the company for better pay or profile.
Early this year, Mark, a senior software designer, got an offer from a prestigious international firm to work in its India operationsdeveloping specialized software. He was thrilled by the offer.
He had heard a lot about the CEO. The salary was great. The company had all the right systems in place employee-friendly human resources(HR) policies, a spanking new office,and the very best technology,even a canteen that served superb food.
Twice Mark was sent abroad for training. "My learning curve is the sharpest it's ever been," he said soon after he joined.
Last week, less than eight months after he joined, Mark walked out of the job.
Why did this talented employee leave ?
Arun quit for the same reason that drives many good people away.
The answer lies in one of the largest studies undertaken by the Gallup Organization.
The study surveyed over a million employees and 80,000 managers and was published in a book called "First Break All The Rules".
It came up with this surprising finding:
If you're losing good people, look to their immediate boss. Immediate boss is the reason people stay and thrive in an organization. And he's the reason why people leave.When people leave they take knowledge, experience and contacts with them, straight to the competition.
"People leave managers not companies," write the authors Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman.
Mostly manager drives people away? HR experts say that of all the abuses, employees find humiliation the most intolerable. The first time, an employee may not leave, but a thought has been planted. The second time, that thought gets strengthened. The third time, he looks for another job.
When people cannot retort openly in anger, they do so by passive aggression.
By digging their heels in and slowing down. By doing only what they are told to do and no more. By omitting to give the boss crucial information.
Dev says: "If you work for a jerk, you basically want to get him into trouble. You don 't have your heart and soul in the job."
Different managers can stress out employees in different ways - by being too controlling, too suspicious, too pushy, too critical, but they forget that workers are not fixed assets, they are free agents.When this goes on too long, an employee will quit - often over a trivial issue.
Talented men leave. Dead wood doesn't.
Suraj Kumar Kotla
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Why to fly by Kingfisher Airlines...
Why to fly by Kingfisher Airlines...
1. It's not expensive.
2 . Tickets are easily available.
3 .Good Service
4 . And
1. It's not expensive.
2 . Tickets are easily available.
3 .Good Service
4 . And
Meet the Chak de Girls!!!!!!!!! CHAK DE INDIA
Meet the Chak de Girls!!!!!!!!! CHAK DE INDIA....................
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
The Rise and Fall of Indian Socialism (Why India embraced economic reform)
India became the poster child for post–World War II socialism in the Third World. Steel, mining, machine tools, water, telecommunications, insurance, and electrical plants, among other industries, were effectively nationalized in the mid-1950s as the Indian government seized the commanding heights of the economy.
Other industries were subjected to such onerous regulation that innovation came to a near standstill. The Industries Act of 1951 required all businesses to get a license from the government before they could launch, expand, or change their products. The government imposed import tariffs to discourage international trade, and domestic businesses were prevented from opening foreign offices in a doomed attempt to build up domestic industries. Foreign investment was subject to stifling restrictions.
But the planners failed. Manufacturing never took off, and the economy meandered; India lagged behind all its trade-embracing contemporaries. Between 1950 and 1973, Japan’s economy grew 10 times faster than India’s. South Korea’s economy grew five times faster. India’s economy crawled along at 2 percent per year between 1973 and 1987, while China’s growth lept to 8 percent and began matching rates for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other Asian tigers. Even as that reality became clear as early as the late 1960s and early 1970s, India’s policy makers refused to give up on economic planning. Experts and elected officials settled for what they called the “Hindu Rate of Growth,” which, according to official figures, was sluggish at about 3 to 4 percent per year. That would be respectable for a developed country like the United States or Germany, since they start from a higher economic base. But for a country like India, it’s abysmal.
Attitudes finally began to change in the 1980s, as India’s persistent budget deficits forced austerity measures in the middle of the decade. A foreign exchange crisis in 1991 precipitated major shifts in public policy thinking. The government brought spending in line with revenues and moved away from fixed exchange rates, allowing the Indian currency to reflect world prices. (Fixing exchange rates at a government-determined price tended to overvalue the rupee on world markets, discouraging foreign investment.) The government began to open the door to foreign investment while Indian companies were allowed to borrow in foreign capital markets and invest abroad. Inflation was brought under control.
The new policies fostered a booming information technology industry, which grew to billion-dollar status in the mid-1990s and exceeded $6 billion in revenues by 2001. The technology sector didn’t suffer from as many burdensome regulations as, say, steel and airlines. Nor did its success hinge on traditional utilities and basic infrastructure, depending more on new technology such as satellites. A 2004 World Bank report notes that “Services, the least regulated sector in the economy continue to be the strongest performer, while manufacturing, the most regulated sector, is the weakest.”
At first, Indians were simply subcontractors to more sophisticated multinational companies. Then Indian companies began to generate new technologies on their own as they tapped into the global marketplace. The software used to power Palm Pilots, for example, was developed by an Indian firm, not outsourced to technicians or programmers. Today 1,600 tech companies, including the billion-dollar multinationals Infosys and Wipro, export products and services from India’s high-tech capital, Bangalore. U.S. companies with major Indian investments include Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Oracle. While I.T. exports led the industry’s early growth, future growth is expected to be based on the expansion of the domestic economy.
Furthermore, India’s regulatory apparatus was crafted from a kinder, gentler form of socialism. For one thing, more than 90 percent of its workforce is in the informal sector, largely untouched by the regulations perpetuated by the federal government in Delhi and the state and regional governments. Furthermore, India is a liberal democracy, bounded by a constitution and a broad-based cultural tolerance for different lifestyles and points of view. Those same factors—grassroots respect for trade, constitutional governance, and cultural tolerance of diversity—have contributed to the rise of another industry symbolic of a progressive, dynamic economy: film and entertainment. “Bollywood’s” movie output rivals that of Hollywood and Hong Kong.
The key to further progress will be leveraging the country’s comparative economic advantage in information technology and services. “India has many of the key ingredients for making this transition,” notes a 2005 report from the World Bank Finance and Private Sector Development Unit. “It has a critical mass of skilled, English-speaking knowledge workers, especially in the sciences. It has a well-functioning democracy. Its domestic market is one of the world’s largest. It has a large and impressive Diaspora, creating valuable knowledge linkages and networks.”
As robust as India’s growth is, it probably could do much better. It will take a continued commitment to open trade to achieve higher growth rates, and it’s still unknown whether India has the political commitment to stay the course.
(Source: Magazine)
Other industries were subjected to such onerous regulation that innovation came to a near standstill. The Industries Act of 1951 required all businesses to get a license from the government before they could launch, expand, or change their products. The government imposed import tariffs to discourage international trade, and domestic businesses were prevented from opening foreign offices in a doomed attempt to build up domestic industries. Foreign investment was subject to stifling restrictions.
But the planners failed. Manufacturing never took off, and the economy meandered; India lagged behind all its trade-embracing contemporaries. Between 1950 and 1973, Japan’s economy grew 10 times faster than India’s. South Korea’s economy grew five times faster. India’s economy crawled along at 2 percent per year between 1973 and 1987, while China’s growth lept to 8 percent and began matching rates for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other Asian tigers. Even as that reality became clear as early as the late 1960s and early 1970s, India’s policy makers refused to give up on economic planning. Experts and elected officials settled for what they called the “Hindu Rate of Growth,” which, according to official figures, was sluggish at about 3 to 4 percent per year. That would be respectable for a developed country like the United States or Germany, since they start from a higher economic base. But for a country like India, it’s abysmal.
Attitudes finally began to change in the 1980s, as India’s persistent budget deficits forced austerity measures in the middle of the decade. A foreign exchange crisis in 1991 precipitated major shifts in public policy thinking. The government brought spending in line with revenues and moved away from fixed exchange rates, allowing the Indian currency to reflect world prices. (Fixing exchange rates at a government-determined price tended to overvalue the rupee on world markets, discouraging foreign investment.) The government began to open the door to foreign investment while Indian companies were allowed to borrow in foreign capital markets and invest abroad. Inflation was brought under control.
The new policies fostered a booming information technology industry, which grew to billion-dollar status in the mid-1990s and exceeded $6 billion in revenues by 2001. The technology sector didn’t suffer from as many burdensome regulations as, say, steel and airlines. Nor did its success hinge on traditional utilities and basic infrastructure, depending more on new technology such as satellites. A 2004 World Bank report notes that “Services, the least regulated sector in the economy continue to be the strongest performer, while manufacturing, the most regulated sector, is the weakest.”
At first, Indians were simply subcontractors to more sophisticated multinational companies. Then Indian companies began to generate new technologies on their own as they tapped into the global marketplace. The software used to power Palm Pilots, for example, was developed by an Indian firm, not outsourced to technicians or programmers. Today 1,600 tech companies, including the billion-dollar multinationals Infosys and Wipro, export products and services from India’s high-tech capital, Bangalore. U.S. companies with major Indian investments include Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Oracle. While I.T. exports led the industry’s early growth, future growth is expected to be based on the expansion of the domestic economy.
Furthermore, India’s regulatory apparatus was crafted from a kinder, gentler form of socialism. For one thing, more than 90 percent of its workforce is in the informal sector, largely untouched by the regulations perpetuated by the federal government in Delhi and the state and regional governments. Furthermore, India is a liberal democracy, bounded by a constitution and a broad-based cultural tolerance for different lifestyles and points of view. Those same factors—grassroots respect for trade, constitutional governance, and cultural tolerance of diversity—have contributed to the rise of another industry symbolic of a progressive, dynamic economy: film and entertainment. “Bollywood’s” movie output rivals that of Hollywood and Hong Kong.
The key to further progress will be leveraging the country’s comparative economic advantage in information technology and services. “India has many of the key ingredients for making this transition,” notes a 2005 report from the World Bank Finance and Private Sector Development Unit. “It has a critical mass of skilled, English-speaking knowledge workers, especially in the sciences. It has a well-functioning democracy. Its domestic market is one of the world’s largest. It has a large and impressive Diaspora, creating valuable knowledge linkages and networks.”
As robust as India’s growth is, it probably could do much better. It will take a continued commitment to open trade to achieve higher growth rates, and it’s still unknown whether India has the political commitment to stay the course.
(Source: Magazine)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)