I recently went for a training that consists of employees from multinational corporations. During the brainstorming sessions, one fellow gentleman started speaking about firing his colleague. This guy is actually a senior manager and he interviewed the departed. He was blaming the unfortunate guy told he knows all the job description and he was smart during the interview. So they selected him for the job. But in the job, he never raised to his potential and they sacked him. The senior manager was claiming in the brainstorming session the decision was correct. But lots of people in training disagreed with that. Majority people told the recruitment or interview process in the company flawed to test that lad's knowledge. I strongly believe this might not be a one of the situation in recruitment? How many of you came across similar experience in your professional career? Do you believe the things we put in the job description are the exact things the potential employees will be do
Introduction Have you ever heard about Valve? - The company that develops amazing video games- the global leader in video game software Industry. Games like Counter-Strike, Half Live, and Team fortress are some of the best from their archery. For management students and enthusiasts, the importance of Valve is not only about these games but also have an amazing organisational model that traditional companies inching to follow. Let's review what Valve is doing better in the level of management functions. This is my interpretation after doing the case study for my course. Valve is an example of emergence over hierarchy model, each employee is free to choose and initiate their own projects and disputes are resolved through consensus. Teams are formed by individuals around topics of interest. Each team has leaders chosen by informal agreement and there is neither supremacy nor financial benefit associated with it. Example someone shows an interest to do a project and everyone w