A Quote by James O'Toole

American managers often say they would like to pay their employees more, they argue that they can't afford to do so and, at the same time, keep the prices of their products competitive. As one CEO recently explained, "I would treat my employees as well as Starbuck's treats theirs, if I could charge the equivalent for my product of three dollars for a cup of latte!"
Remember the Golden Rule? "Treat people as you would like to be treated." The best managers break the Golden Rule every day. They would say don't treat people as you would like to be treated. This presupposes that everyone breathes the same psychological oxygen as you. For example, if you are competitive, everyone must be similarly competitive. If you like to be praised in public, everyone else must, too. Everyone must share your hatred of micromanagement.
We went on 'Fallon' and they had like one hundred-plus employees working on one show, and it's like, I can't afford more than two employees.
After 'Psychonauts,' we could have laid off half our team so that we'd have more money and time to sign 'Brutal Legend.' But doing so would have meant breaking up a team that had just learned how to work well together. And what message would that have sent to our employees? It would say that we're not loyal to them, and that we don't care.
The most important mission for a Japanese manager is to develop a healthy relationship with his employees, to create a familylike feeling within the corporation, a feeling that employees and managers share the same fate.
You could raise the price of, say, a bottle of ketchup to $1.03 instead of $1, and no one would know. Raising prices just 3% per product would add 50% to your pretax income. Why not do it? It's like heroin: You do a little and you want a little bit more. Raising prices is the easy way.
If you have to conduct layoffs, which is always a regrettable thing, there's kind of three things that are very important. One is to communicate well with your employees in order to help them understand why it is you're doing, and how. Second is to make sure that the employees who are part of the go forward, understand kind of what happened and are not like the ground doesn't keep moving. It's like, okay, we did that, we're moving forward, here we go. And then for the employees that you unfortunately have to let go, try to provide as much support for them as possible.
Who are businesses really responsible to? Their customers? Shareholders? Employees? We would argue that it’s none of the above. Fundamentally, businesses are responsible to their resource base. Without a healthy environment there are no shareholders, no employees, no customers and no business.
Your employees come first. And if you treat your employees right, guess what? Your customers come back, and that makes your shareholders happy. Start with employees and the rest follows from that.
Our philosophy at Zoom is to create a company that promotes self-motivation. I have told our managers not to spend too much time motivating employees. You have to create an environment where employees can motivate themselves. That is really important because self-motivation is more sustainable.
If Obama raises my company's taxes by 20 percent, how am I going to be able to survive as a company? Well, if I've got 30 employees, that means I'm going to have to lay off 10 employees so I can be able to keep up with the health and benefits and pension plans for my other 20 employees.
When we first started growing our employees, I was scared. I would often think, 'If we had more people, what would they do? Is there really enough work?'
Social lets consumers talk about the products. You may pay your way onto the Facebook feed, but after that, it's conversations by the users. That's not sufficient because it leaves out what is possible for employees to talk, for R&D to talk, or the CEO to talk.
I have too much product, and I'm trying to rein it in and sell more of my main collection. I wish you didn't have to design so often; it would be good if you could keep on selling the same things for a few years and not have to do new things all the time.
If CEO compensation was performance-driven, which I believe it was in IBM's case, nobody would ever argue. If the shareholders didn't make billions and billions of dollars, I wouldn't make millions of dollars. My salary was the same for 10 years. It was all performance-based.
If equal pay is that important to you, stay a single, unmarried woman. It's not the employer's responsibility to make up for the free choices of its employees made on the employees' free and private time.
The CEO announces that the purpose of the firm is to improve the lives of the customers and the lives of the firm's stakeholders and the quality of the planet. The company will give fair compensation to all the stakeholders and the CEO will not earn more than 20 times the median income of his employees. He will want his employees to rate him, just as he also has to rate them.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!