Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>There is a sense of pride in working for the industry leader.<<< Pride in themselves maybe, but in the company? I fear the attitude is that it's just a job.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I fear the attitude is that it's just a job. >> What is wrong with that? It is just a job and considering how poorly the regular frontline CMs are treated (and paid) I wouldn't expect anything else. Look, you have to be realistic about these things - jobs for life don't exist any more. I'm under no disillusions - if the market heads south again or my division is restructured (again) or an executive decides they don't need me then my job/role could be at risk - job security just isn't there any more so you have to be realistic - it is perfect Darwinism - survival of the fittest. I'm also open to offers for a better job outside the Company - who knows.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 They need to be out there with a litter picker talking to guests and other CMs. I understand that is still the process that goes on. ------- that is good news to hear
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I think it helps to a degree but you can't fill an organization with the fanbase - it would be ruinous. ------------------ absolutely agree there needs ato be a mix- but knowledge is not negotiable in my opinion, nor do I think you are saying that..I think we're on the same page
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>What is wrong with that? It is just a job and considering how poorly the regular frontline CMs are treated (and paid) I wouldn't expect anything else.<<< Wasn't talking about CMs, I'm talking about higher ups. Otherwise, I agree with you.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 for instance I work for a company of 400,000+ employees for 30+ years. WHen I meet customer they expect me to be at least knowledgeable in ALL we do. That is very difficult but U work hard to at least have cursory knowledge of all ventures and company directions... I think the same should be true of Disney managers. Know where your company came from and understand the top mission statements as well --this is for managers/ directors etc.- not suggesting all CM's know this..
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<I fear the attitude is that it's just a job. >> What is wrong with that? It is just a job and considering how poorly the regular frontline CMs are treated (and paid) I wouldn't expect anything else. Look, you have to be realistic about these things - jobs for life don't exist any more. I'm under no disillusions - if the market heads south again or my division is restructured (again) or an executive decides they don't need me then my job/role could be at risk - job security just isn't there any more so you have to be realistic - it is perfect Darwinism - survival of the fittest. I'm also open to offers for a better job outside the Company - who knows. ---------------------- Lee, I am glad to see your realistic approach. I have 33 years working for an industry leader and one of th emost recognized corporations in the world. When I started there were things like career paths,and what appeared to be actual corporate concern for it's employees- carried on through traditions and managers who had been there a long time. That all changed by the late 80's somewhat and late 90's for sure. My company killed traditional pension plans- changed that ao a small cash fund- froze salaries- rewards - career guideance , tuition reimbursement etc to 'stay competitive'- now even under record profits although it is stilla very good place to work that stuff is gone forever. There is no loyalty to an individual employee just like usually there is no loyalty the other way back to the company. You get paid for what you contibute today. Stop and you are gone. You might be gone anyway if another way of getting the job done is more profitable- or the company decides certain things don't have to be done anymore. Understanding that makes it easier to deal with- it's a business arrangement, nothing more. And Disney is a croporation as well- there should be no romanticism about what Disney is and isn't- it will only lead to disappointment.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Wasn't talking about CMs, I'm talking about higher ups. Otherwise, I agree with you.>> Depends on your definition of "higher-ups". Anything less than veep in WDP&R pays very poorly (particularly in WDW). Why? There is much alternative out there (demand still exceeds supply) and there isn't much comparability - if you work in resort ops there isn't many alternatives - either with the local theme park competition or at other hotels. The career hierarchy at WDP&R is a little screwy. Both of the domestic park operations have bloated middle management (think leads through to director level) - there probably aren't as many veeps (or SVPs or EVPs) as you'd think. WDI is even more screwy. You can have someone like Kevin Rafferty who is a career CM, responsible for virtually all of the marquee product over the past two decades and he is still a director. Yet there are folks in Global Development who are VPs and never delivered a single project in their time at WDP&R. It is an interesting organization to work for!
Originally Posted By leemac <<You get paid for what you contibute today.>> Sadly that is a decent rule of thumb these days. My first employer wasn't like that at all but it failed for other reasons (Arthur Andersen). I'm still bemused as to what an organization really gains from the attitude that you are only as good as your next paycheck. It leads to a lot of angst and uncertainty that doesn't help anyone. You have to try and create a productive symbiotic relationship between employer and employee to get the best out of folks.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<They need to be out there with a litter picker talking to guests and other CMs. I understand that is still the process that goes on. ------- that is good news to hear>> You'd think it would be good news, and that it would lead to mutual respect between the CMs and the managers, knowing that the managers experience all the things that CMs do. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<You get paid for what you contibute today.>> HAH! Sure, in a fantasy world.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<You get paid for what you contibute today.>> Sadly that is a decent rule of thumb these days. My first employer wasn't like that at all but it failed for other reasons (Arthur Andersen). I'm still bemused as to what an organization really gains from the attitude that you are only as good as your next paycheck. It leads to a lot of angst and uncertainty that doesn't help anyone. You have to try and create a productive symbiotic relationship between employer and employee to get the best out of folks ------------ Ive been im management over 25 years- and I totally agree with you. Unfortunately when bean counters take over 'soft' value returns mean nothing. I had many friends at Arthur Andersen ( one of the few companies with as strict a dress code as we had) - and you're right, but I think that also had to do with the era-timeframe. If we're talking 70's-80's- companies really were more family oriented and there was some consience even at the higher levels.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<You get paid for what you contibute today.>> HAH! Sure, in a fantasy world. ---------------- as opposed to what you "may' contribute in the future it is entirely true. Now whether you agree with the amount or not is a different arguemnt- but I also refer back to Leemac's statement on what amounts to cost of labor. The reason only the higher ups in WDW get paid 'well' is not because the lower to mid managers are worth less, but more because they have little in the way of options in their fields to get paid more in that area. That is COST OF LABOR and what companies pay on for the most part, not what the job would be worth in another location, or some % of value to contribution if you are in a revenue generating role.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Wow. This is an insanely cyncial discussion for Disney fans. I'm not sure I can buy it that these cost cutting choices are okay because it's "realistic" as a business plan. I guess I'm leaning towards "short sighted." We can argue back and forth all day long, but I believe these choice by Disney to be "cost effective" today are exactly what's going to ruin their future. Generic fab five merch doesn't build the same level of fan loyalty and committment as HM. My son will not have the same connection to Disney that I have due to these kinds of choices. Period. So my son will simply shop around for the best vacation option in quality for price. He won't ignore Universal for a very long time (forever?) like so many Disney fans just because it isn't Disney. He will think a water park is a water park, a theme park is a theme park, and Disney doesn't do night life. So how's that going to work out for them in 10 or 15 years? I complain and get disheartened, but I still go back. I'm constantly hunting a feeling/memory/experience that I used to have and still sometimes get a glimpse of. My son won't. I just don't see how that is going to work out for Disney whether it is the "reality" of business or whatever you want to call it. And as for the shift away from company/employee loyalty, I personally believe it all has to do with Wall Street. The larger corporations get, the more distanced they get from their employees/patrons/investors, the easier it is to make harmful choices that look money saving now, but cost money over the long haul. Do they really know how to quantify the lost efficiency of a stressed employee? Stressed over possible job loss? Health issues? Money? Or do they really know how to quanitfy the cost of constantly training new employees and getting their productivity up to speed? I know they thing they can, but I think that's a bunch of hooey. I feel like a whole lot of text book stuff gets spewed, and the whole reason the world doesn't run like clock work is because things are NEVER that clear cut. Intangibles rule in the end.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I just don't see how that is going to work out for Disney whether it is the "reality" of business or whatever you want to call it. -------------------- no one wants to accept it for Disney including me- but the times right now ARE different. Step outside the box too far right now and you won't have to worry about Disney.. look at how many business icons are gone forever. Yes I want them to continue to invest in their own form of R&D like successful companies do during these types of times. But they are constricted spending wise just like every other company that does not deal in pixie dust.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 . Do they really know how to quantify the lost efficiency of a stressed employee? ---------- good companies do, I do this for a living in mine. If you have the solution for the global malaise please share- because no one company can fix this either.. it sucks I agree, but yes you can quantify lost productivity. --- <<Or do they really know how to quanitfy the cost of constantly training new employees and getting their productivity up to speed? I know they thing they can, but I think that's a bunch of hooey<< no it's not a bunch of hooey and yes there are plenty senior management officials very concerned about this. Services workers at some companies average a 300% turnover in the worst times- this happens for many reasons - seasonal work- employee issues - store closing etc. Smart business analytics is a newer line of analytics focused exactly on the issues you state.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Lol! At least you didn't call me out on all my scientific/business terminology! How should we measure a bunch of hooey? But that's interesting to hear from someone who does this for a living. How do you do it? Is there a formula? Model? Educated guess? Comparing productivity of new worker v. stressed worker v. happy employee? How do you determine who is which? Surveys? Observation? Productivity itself? Changes in productivity? What do they (you) use to quantify such an abstract thing? And how do you become confident that those numbers are accurate to a degree of reason? I am very curious since this clearly is a big issue in companies right now. Or is it proprietary secret stuff once you figure it out?
Originally Posted By Christi22222 >>But they are constricted spending wise just like every other company that does not deal in pixie dust.<< I am being totally serious here, but isn't Pixie Dust a part of their business model and one that has given them their edge in the theme park arena? What happens if you trade that edge in for the same business model everyone else has to make numbers look better? Are you saying that you think Disney is only doing this short term to tread water in the bad times and will go back to more Pixie Dust in the business model when the economy gets better?
Originally Posted By standor In the good old days , (before computers), as long as you were a good employee, you had a job for life. The company treated you like a human being, and you worked hard for the company. Since computers arrived, they don't need people. Computers run the world. a good example, try to talk to a human being when calling a company. Computers do most of the jobs in an automobile factory. It would be great if we could go back to the good old days. I know most of WDW is run by computers, so don't use that as an argument.
