totally exploits people, never allows advancement then your company will experience high turn over and the people that left, will join your competitors, steal your secrets, in the end it will cost you far more than the time, money and effort that your company would have spent building a little organizational capital and a sense of nationalism within your organization:

http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s=aef6f1136af7a3358346986c712d277b&showtopic=129

The critics will of course want proof of my points and say; “wouldn’t it be interesting to track

Is it possible to go from bottom line worker to CEO in a Corporation in America? In fact history shows it is. We have had CEOs of McDonalds rise from lobby trash patrol. The CEO and CFO of Enterprise Rent-a-Car went from car washers to their positions. Often even with such examples critics will say that it is not possible today? I disagree, but they make their point of contention very strong and say;

“How many people are going to start in the mail room today and be a CEO in 20 years?”

My answer to them is it will be Hundreds if not thousands. When debating this point you should start with the examples of the CEO of McDonalds who came from Australia a Franchise, before that an employee or the Enterprise Rent a Car example and I can name 20 or more. The list is long and those companies, which promote from within and are built to last or go from; “Good to Great” as per Stanford Business Researcher; Collins, as he shows in his books. The CEO of Starbucks was a line worker, team partner, district manager, etc, and today he runs the whole show. Thus this is a trend, which will continue, you can be pretty certain of that.

And those companies like Southwest Airlines which do promote from within, will be winners in the market place, due to the unity of the whole team. The market drives this and should, no one should have any other input, especially government in their attempt to make everyone equal. Still with all these examples the critics will say it is not as possible today as before. Yet all these examples are current ones or within the past 3 years. Indeed time will tell and maybe, the critics are correct, but again those companies which do may find success and unity in their companies. Besides such a statement is more of a bad attitude than historical proof or even probable reality. Sure there will be companies around which do not allow for promotion from within, but the best ones will, look at General Electric for instance? Still the critics will say that this fact is highly improbable in the future.

Yet those who debate this point have no proof and it does not make sense. They think those on the bottom will always be bottom feeders and can never be anything more. But why, think how many companies are out there? If your company totally exploits people, never allows advancement then your company will experience high turn over and the people that left, will join your competitors, steal your secrets, in the end it will cost you far more than the time, money and effort that your company would have spent building a little organizational capital and a sense of nationalism within your organization:

http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s=aef6f1136af7a3358346986c712d277b&showtopic=129

The critics will of course want proof of my points and say; “wouldn’t it be interesting to track

ng this point you should start with the examples of the CEO of McDonalds who came from Australia a Franchise, before that an employee or the Enterprise Rent a Car example and I can name 20 or more. The list is long and those companies, which promote from within and are built to last or go from; “Good to Great” as per Stanford Business Researcher; Collins, as he shows in his books. The CEO of Starbucks was a line worker, team partner, district manager, etc, and today he runs the whole show. Thus this is a trend, which will continue, you can be pretty certain of that.

And those companies like Southwest Airlines which do promote from within, will be winners in the market place, due to the unity of the whole team. The market drives this and should, no one should have any other input, especially government in their attempt to make everyone equal. Still with all these examples the critics will say it is not as possible today as before. Yet all these examples are current ones or within the past 3 years. Indeed time will tell and maybe, the critics are correct, but again those companies which do may find success and unity in their companies. Besides such a statement is more of a bad attitude than historical proof or even probable reality. Sure there will be companies around which do not allow for promotion from within, but the best ones will, look at General Electric for instance? Still the critics will say that this fact is highly improbable in the future.

Yet those who debate this point have no proof and it does not make sense. They think those on the bottom will always be bottom feeders and can never be anything more. But why, think how many companies are out there? If your company totally exploits people, never allows advancement then your company will experience high turn over and the people that left, will join your competitors, steal your secrets, in the end it will cost you far more than the time, money and effort that your company would have spent building a little organizational capital and a sense of nationalism within your organization:

http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s=aef6f1136af7a3358346986c712d277b&showtopic=129

The critics will of course want proof of my points and say; “wouldn’t it be interesting to track

And those companies like Southwest Airlines which do promote from within, will be winners in the market place, due to the unity of the whole team. The market drives this and should, no one should have any other input, especially government in their attempt to make everyone equal. Still with all these examples the critics will say it is not as possible today as before. Yet all these examples are current ones or within the past 3 years. Indeed time will tell and maybe, the critics are correct, but again those companies which do may find success and unity in their companies. Besides such a statement is more of a bad attitude than historical proof or even probable reality. Sure there will be companies around which do not allow for promotion from within, but the best ones will, look at General Electric for instance? Still the critics will say that this fact is highly improbable in the future.

Yet those who debate this point have no proof and it does not make sense. They think those on the bottom will always be bottom feeders and can never be anything more. But why, think how many companies are out there? If your company totally exploits people, never allows advancement then your company will experience high turn over and the people that left, will join your competitors, steal your secrets, in the end it will cost you far more than the time, money and effort that your company would have spent building a little organizational capital and a sense of nationalism within your organization:

http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s=aef6f1136af7a3358346986c712d277b&showtopic=129

The critics will of course want proof of my points and say; “wouldn’t it be interesting to track

r companies. Besides such a statement is more of a bad attitude than historical proof or even probable reality. Sure there will be companies around which do not allow for promotion from within, but the best ones will, look at General Electric for instance? Still the critics will say that this fact is highly improbable in the future.

Yet those who debate this point have no proof and it does not make sense. They think those on the bottom will always be bottom feeders and can never be anything more. But why, think how many companies are out there? If your company totally exploits people, never allows advancement then your company will experience high turn over and the people that left, will join your competitors, steal your secrets, in the end it will cost you far more than the time, money and effort that your company would have spent building a little organizational capital and a sense of nationalism within your organization:

http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s=aef6f1136af7a3358346986c712d277b&showtopic=129

The critics will of course want proof of my points and say; “wouldn’t it be interesting to track

totally exploits people, never allows advancement then your company will experience high turn over and the people that left, will join your competitors, steal your secrets, in the end it will cost you far more than the time, money and effort that your company would have spent building a little organizational capital and a sense of nationalism within your organization:

http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s=aef6f1136af7a3358346986c712d277b&showtopic=129

The critics will of course want proof of my points and say; “wouldn’t it be interesting to track an entry level worker and see if he or she goes all the way to the top in 20 years.”

Yes, that would be a fun study to do and it would be interesting indeed granted. But it still will not mean anything. Because if we look at 20-years going back we see proof that you can go from rank and file to CEO or high level well paid executive, if you are willing to Swim with the Sharks. No one says it will be easy. And remember our current trend as the average employee trades jobs every 2.3 years? Hell, in my company we had franchisees that were selling their companies within 2 years? And they were the boss of their own company and had a vested financial interest. We have a lessoning of longevity and personal fulfillment in the labor markets. People get bored and quit. Additionally if we track employees for 20-years will the employees at the same company the whole time? Doubtful. The loyalty from both sides has dissipated, I will grant those who argue this point. But all in all there is plenty of advancement available in America for anyone who is willing to go the distance and is willing to do what it takes to get there. Opportunity is not a gift, it is more an option, one that is exercised or not thru choice and preparation and is solely the responsibility of the individual, isn’t that the way it should be in a free society or modern day corporation? Think on this.