(06-12-2019 05:50 PM)doss2 Wrote: Why all the worry about a couple of 2 bit players who had little meaningful accomplishments. In business I never worried about some little worker bee that left the company. When top managers left I had concern about back filling the role they filled but worker bees, no concern.
agree
the worker bee types are just trenching tools...you use them until they break and once they break you throw them away and just get another one.
This outlook is so wrong on so many levels lol
However, it is historically accurate.
true
and whoosh on the satire, hilarious on the re-read.
Doss, please don't throw us into the trash and become a Xavier donor.
(06-12-2019 05:50 PM)doss2 Wrote: Why all the worry about a couple of 2 bit players who had little meaningful accomplishments. In business I never worried about some little worker bee that left the company. When top managers left I had concern about back filling the role they filled but worker bees, no concern.
Only in Lake Wobegon is everyone above average. In the real world, half of any cohort is, by definition, below average.
Dedicated and/or talented worker bees can make a manager look better than he or she really is. Is it fair or right or even responsible behavior to disparage them or their contributions? I think not.
(06-12-2019 05:50 PM)doss2 Wrote: Why all the worry about a couple of 2 bit players who had little meaningful accomplishments. In business I never worried about some little worker bee that left the company. When top managers left I had concern about back filling the role they filled but worker bees, no concern.
Only in Lake Wobegon is everyone above average. In the real world, half of any cohort is, by definition, below average.
Dedicated and/or talented worker bees can make a manager look better than he or she really is. Is it fair or right or even responsible behavior to disparage them or their contributions? I think not.
Agree 100%, assuming the comments further up in the thread aren't sarcasm. Not saying the worker bees are more important than managers, but a lot of lazy and/or mediocre managers and executives make tons of money off the backs of working class employees. Not everyone can be a superstar, but everyone can and should have an important role in society and the workplace.
(06-12-2019 05:50 PM)doss2 Wrote: Why all the worry about a couple of 2 bit players who had little meaningful accomplishments. In business I never worried about some little worker bee that left the company. When top managers left I had concern about back filling the role they filled but worker bees, no concern.
Only in Lake Wobegon is everyone above average. In the real world, half of any cohort is, by definition, below average.
Dedicated and/or talented worker bees can make a manager look better than he or she really is. Is it fair or right or even responsible behavior to disparage them or their contributions? I think not.
Agree 100%, assuming the comments further up in the thread aren't sarcasm. Not saying the worker bees are more important than managers, but a lot of lazy and/or mediocre managers and executives make tons of money off the backs of working class employees. Not everyone can be a superstar, but everyone can and should have an important role in society and the workplace.
Never said worker bees were not important, just saying I never lost sleep over losing one. Need to be concerned about a statistically meaning rate of losing worker bees.
Former GE head Jack Welch covered the subject well. And when Welch was at GE they were a powerhouse.
(06-12-2019 05:50 PM)doss2 Wrote: Why all the worry about a couple of 2 bit players who had little meaningful accomplishments. In business I never worried about some little worker bee that left the company. When top managers left I had concern about back filling the role they filled but worker bees, no concern.
Only in Lake Wobegon is everyone above average. In the real world, half of any cohort is, by definition, below average.
Dedicated and/or talented worker bees can make a manager look better than he or she really is. Is it fair or right or even responsible behavior to disparage them or their contributions? I think not.
Just goes to show Doss Probably was not much of a manager. He said it himself that a stock quadrupled in price. Basically he either got lucky or made one big good decision and made it big.
I hope he knows, the importance of the worker bees.
(06-13-2019 02:27 PM)HoopsJunky Wrote: Kyle Guy’s Dad played @ UC and Kyle grew up a UC fan.
Still follows UC on twitter
Mick not recruiting him tells me all I need to know about Mick and his defeatist approach to recruiting @ UC
This narrative is so oversimplified.
He DEFINITELY went after 5 stars. He just couldn’t close the deal or keep the deal on the table long enough. He felt it was best to move on from the ones that didn’t have interest. Chad spoke of this himself on this board.
Apparently Mick also touched on this in USA Today.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019 07:46 PM by ZCat.)
If Mick approached Kyle Guy and Kyle Guy said not interested then ok he tried.
If Mick decided to forego on Kyle Guy, without even checking with the kid, that's where I'd have a problem. You have to at least reach out to Guy to gauge interest because of his connections to UC. Guy was a highly ranked player who Mick might've had a shot at.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019 08:06 PM by mptnstr@44.)
(06-13-2019 08:05 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: If Mick approached Kyle Guy and Kyle Guy said not interested then ok he tried.
If Mick decided to forego on Kyle Guy, without even checking with the kid, that's where I'd have a problem. You have to at least reach out to Guy to gauge interest because of his connections to UC. Guy was a highly ranked player who Mick might've had a shot at.
I do not believe Mick offered Guy...which seems like door #2 to me
/
Another Dancing Bearcat
true
