drunken behavior and licentious conduct.
Where do I apply?
Microsoft has been accused of paying a senior executive over a million pounds in a settlement to silence claims that she was passed over for promotion to the head of Redmond’s UK operations. An anonymous source told The Daily Telegraph that Natalie Ayres had been passed over for the top job in 2006, despite her 15 years with …
The anonymous source is saying that Gordon Frazier was given the job even before they completed the interview process. They should interview everyone first, then decide on the merits. If they did not hire her after the interview process had finished, then it would have been a different matter, probably.
Where you can no longer just hire someone for a job, the position has to be advertised and candidates interviewed.
What this frequently means is that when you know exactly who you want to hire, you still have to go through the charade of advertising and interviewing people, even though it's a pointless waste of time for all involved!
"According to Microsoft’s own figures, 24 per cent of the company’s workforce is made up of women, and around 40 per cent of “executive positions” are held by staff who are women and/or members of minorities. That said, just 11 per cent of the senior executives profiled on Microsoft’s website are women, and two of the company's nine board members are women."
2 from 9 at board level is what, 22%? That seems remarkably compatible with 24% of the workforce being women.Unless all senior execs are profiled on the website then the 11% figure needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
But in my experience a IT company with more than 40% women are doomed.
Women are good at a lot of things, even absolutely superb. But they have a tendency of being happy and content, never too keen on changing anything or inventing anything new.
Women unite and start your own companies, show me I am wrong.
There was this professor or something who had this idea that men in higher positions tend to employ women to defend themselves against other men producing a sort of an wall around them to protect them and that bye studying the company from this perspective you could find the weak bosses in the organisation.
Interesting questions, but I cannot find any logic in why a company with 30% women and 70% men
suddenly become better if it was the opposite way.
Fifty fifty as a democratic goal, to any cost, well, just shoot me.
What about average weight, blue eyes versus brown eyes, left handed versus right handed, religion.
Shoot me again.
one of the reasons a male-dominated board of directors might not want women in positions of power is precisely because so many women, like this one, will play the gender-discrimination card the moment they don't get their way. Was she passed over because she was female or because the new male incumbent had more experience, or was it because the board knew she would claim discrimination if she was passed over? What else would she claim discrimination about once she was promoted?
As long as women use political correctness to rise through the ranks, they'll always face that wall of opposition. I look at it from the perspective of, if a woman is willing to play the gender card to gain promotion, will she use the the same trick (or claims of sexual harassment or whatever) to get her own way once she is on the board? I wouldn't want to take a chance promoting anyone with that mentality, woman or man.
@ Stephen Roper I am with you, but you wrote :-
"Was she passed over because she was female or because the new male incumbent had more experience .. ?"
This woman is also talking about "experience" but promotion should not just be about experience. Competence is more important.
You can spend 15 years (or more) f#@=ing things up. I know people who have. Or 15 years just being mediocre.
Generally, bosses pay too much attention to "experience" and not enough to intelligence. They tend to want "experienced" but dull people. They hate people who are brighter than themselves.
So far, so what? "Microsoft discriminates against various employees for reasons unrelated to their job experience or qualifications" - seriously, where's the story? It's rife throughout the company - HR are borderline incompetent at all levels, and middle management cronyism is beyond ridiculous. If you are liked by/ "liked" by the right manager, and his/ her star is on the rise, you're onto a good thing. Hitch yourself to the wrong cart, and when they go, you go too. And for everyone else, there's an unremitting tide of BS about why you personally can't be promoted, get a payrise or a fresh challenge - really, they would love to, but they just haven't been given the authority to do it THIS year, but keep trying, and maybe next year.
It's kinda reminiscent of Stalin's Russia in some ways, with the party members being promoted and purged, and the proles trudging on, day by day, for the promise of jam tomorrow.
Utter crap: MS is consistently voted one of the best companies in the world in which to be employed as a minority. I have many friends who work at MS (UK, Reading) and the all say that it's the best place they've worked in terms of Women and Minorities being treated the same as the White Anglo Saxon Protestant Males.
I've worked in two companies that used to go in for this self serving "best companies to work for" crap.... until the proles copped on and started telling it like it was, at which point management announce that time and effort allocated to "best companies to work for" was better used elsewhere.
"Although women compete on an equal basis further down the organization, they hit a glass ceiling at around "level 65 or above," the source added.
What did the source add? The whole thing, or just the "level 65 or above" thing? Or did she say all of it apart from the level 65 or above thing, and there's a stray quotation mark?
"The only way to progress beyond a certain point is to become a male in female clothing,"
Does this mean that males and females are different, and work in different ways? If that's the case then maybe her style of working wasn't suitable for the job?
Equality has always bugged me, in that not everyone *is* equal. Some people are better at things than others. Generally men and women work and think in different ways, not better or worse than each other, just different. Which may, or may not, be suitable for a specific job.
For some reason stories like this always make me think of a character from Terry Pratchett's Discworld, a vampire who is constantly suing his employers for unsafe working practices... in a tanning salon, garlic packaging plant, pencil factory, holy water bottling factory... etc
"...Equality has always bugged me, in that not everyone *is* equal. Some people are better at things than others. Generally men and women work and think in different ways, not better or worse than each other, just different. Which may, or may not, be suitable for a specific job..."
Not everyone is equal in terms of ability, but the whole men and women thinking differently thing has been shown several times to be rubbish.
There's bugger-all point in looking at the distribution at one end of the achievment scale without looking at the other end. When you do you find that men don't just over-achieve, they under-achieve too. They get more first-class degrees; they get more third-class degrees. They get more company directorships; they get more years in prison.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019