Business CEO's and business practices in general

[GypsmJim]

Is academia over-rated?

No. I think it is underrated.

I took my last University class over 50 years ago. Back then I would have agreed with you. All I "learned" was a bunch of useless garbage. What IDID learn was how to put up with it all. What I got was a piece of paper that got me a good job.

But today things are different. These kids are being indoctrinated quite well. I firmly believe that unless you have strong parents and had a good upbringing, you will graduate a moron.

 

[Bald1]

Actually, it wasn't a joke. Grandpa retired early in 1958, so obviously it was before then.

I understand you were serious about it. Part of me wishes it was still that way.

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

Unfortunately a lot of the CEO's now are Business school educated with MBA's and were taught that employee's are no longer to be considered a valuable resource but are considered expendable the same as tooling etc. Get them, use them up then get more. The bottom line is the only thing important so make the most profit you can as cheaply as you can.

This.
Over the years I have worked in and around industries with this philosophy. One thing I see left out is this: GREED! It is no longer about just making money...it is to make as much as you can as quick as you can before someone finds out. I've been in meetings where the corporate guys harp constantly on making more profits, cutting expenses and overhead, and how replaceable employees, supervisors, and managers are in this role. One project I worked was fairly high paying (billing and payrollwise) but required a certain level of skills. We had trouble hiring for these positions. I was told that the company "didn't care if (we) keep or lose the contract...." and that for the costs and return that project had, "we can hire a homeless idiot, put them in a uniform, and send them to work in (number forgotten) parking lots at minimum wage and make the same profit..."

That statement summed up everything to me.

 

[LVSteve]

Well, I can think of (what I consider) a better alternative right off the top of my head. Pick a new name. Change SOME of the stores (particularly in locations where demographic studies show it would be beneficial) to the new, more hip restaurant that appeals to the younger crowd (which is what they're going after). See how that works out.

Then -- depending on the results -- you can slowly change over the rest of the locations if you want to. Or maybe even build new restaurants and expand your clientele without alienating your existing clientele. Or, if the new look doesn't work, convert those restaurants back to the successful and thriving Cracker Barrel. (Not even remotely close to bankruptcy, by the way.)

What they are doing instead is a classic repeat of the New Coke fiasco. Instead of introducing New Coke as an alternative to traditional Coke, they completely replaced it. Took traditional Coke off the market. DISASTER! Back pedal like crazy, at huge expense! When New Coke might have been a very successful product if they had offered it as yet another drink that they sell instead of trying to force customers to change.

Noooo!!! Modern business thinking is like Communism but with more money. Everything has to match the model created by a suit (or small gang of suits), having stuff that is different might lead those that work there to think they are special. That will never do. How can you possibly produce easy to manipulate metrics for a larger bonus if things vary from place to place? Nope, can't have that malarkey.

Why do you think we now have to pay for parking on the Las Vegas Strip? Because some suits declared "but it's an industry standard". The concept that Vegas, or anywhere else for that matter, needed treating differently would never be accepted.