A Quote by Kris Gopalakrishnan

With a traditional human resources system, we would work with a company, select the product, customise and implement the system, and our job would be over. Some companies are changing and asking why do they need to own the HR system when they can connect to an Internet service and pay as you go?
Sometimes HR transformations have been definitions. Just because someone does an e-HR system or puts in a new talent system or changes the HR function does not mean an HR transformation has occurred. We identified four phases of HR transformation. Missing any of the four phases would be an incomplete effort.
I think that if you have a single payer system and an opt-out for people who want to pay more [for better service, etc.], I think it would be better - and I think we'll eventually get there. It wouldn't be better at the top - [our current system] is the best in the world at the top. But the waste in the present system is awesome and we do get some very perverse incentives.
What we need is a system of thought - you might even call it a religion - that can bind humans together. A system that would fit the Republic of Chad as well as the United States: a system that would supply our idealistic young people with something to believe in.
The legal system doesn't work. Or more accurately, it doesn't work for anyone except those with the most resources. Not because the system is corrupt. I don't think our legal system (at the federal level, at least) is at all corrupt. I mean simply because the costs of our legal system are so astonishingly high that justice can practically never be done.
The British use a system where the profits a corporation reports to shareholders is what they pay taxes on. Whereas in America we require corporations to keep two sets of books, one for shareholders and one for the IRS, and the IRS records are secret. For publicly-traded companies, the British system would tend to align the interests of the government with the interests of the company because the company wants to report the biggest possible profit. Though, all wealthy countries have high taxes as wealth requires lots of common goods, from clean water to public education to a justice system.
When artists connect to a system because they want to make a living, it's their own choice. In fashion, designers don't have that choice. I know everybody mentions Azzedine Alaïa, but he's been going for a long time in the system - showing to people, selling to clients - and I think it's admirable how he's transformed it into his own system in a way, but it's still a system.
I think we should be clear: Companies will still need software that furthers their corporate goals and even gives them competitive advantage. That would be purchased and developed, if necessary, in house, or on a proprietary basis. But it needs to run on the company's computer system eventually, and its perfectly possible that system/network can be "rented out" from a utility.
Our system freed the individual genius of man. Released him to fly as high & as far as his own talent & energy would take him. We allocate resources not by government. decision but by the millions of decisions customers make when they go into the market. place to buy. If something seems too high-priced we buy something else. Thus resources are steered toward those things the people want most at the price they are willing to pay. It may not be a perfect system but it's better than any other that's ever been tried.
Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.
To me, the most terrifying form of warfare would be if there was some simultaneous cyber attack on our grid, on the banking system, and on our transportation system. That would be quite a devastating thing, and yet in theory, absent some real protective measures, that could happen.
I think basic disease care access and basic access to health care is a human right. If we need a constitutional amendment to put it in the Bill of Rights, then that's what we ought to do. Nobody with a conscience would leave the victim of a shark attack to bleed while we figure out whether or not they could pay for care. That tells us that at some level, health care access is a basic human right. Our system should be aligned so that our policies match our morality. Then within that system where everybody has access, we need to incentivize prevention, both for the patient and the provider.
I'm a big believer in the system, but I just don't think we follow our own system and laws very well. I think ultimately we'll see the system collapse. Because no system has ever stayed around forever.
I strongly believe in the apprenticeship model because we see in a lot of countries the local education system is not providing talent that businesses need. So it is important that there is an alignment between what the companies need and the education system, so the education system can build the right programmes.
The Soviet system is how everything here works. It's very difficult to break the system. The system is big and inflexible, uneffective, and also corrupt. And that is our main goal: to change the system, to break the system, to make it modern.
Our system of government, our form of democracy, would not work for China, just like China's system would not work for us.
To have two separate game plans, you're asking for way too much of your team. That's why it's important to have quarterbacks that know your system, understand your system and have been a part of your system.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!