Terrible Company Culture and Work Environment

There's a really simple secret to happiness and greater productivity on the job.

First, put in long hours every day.

Second, check work emails constantly after-hours.


Third, do more with less, year after year.

That's it. That's the secret, according to findings from ... no study ever.

Yet that's exactly how many employees function on the job -- every day of every week of every year. And often employers either explicitly or implicitly expect it of them.

"The model for how to work has been the machine, and more recently, the computer. More, bigger, faster remains the prevailing mantra," Tony Schwartz, founder of The Energy Project, wrote in a study of 20,000 employees.


But, Schwartz noted, that's a losing formula for humans, who "are designed to pulse regularly between spending and renewing energy."

His study, done in concert with the Harvard Business Review, found more than half of employees did not have:

Regular time for creative or strategic thinking
Ability to focus on one thing at a time
Opportunities to do what they enjoy most
Opportunities for learning and growth
More than 40% also lacked:

Overall positive energy
Ability to balance work and home life
Ability to disengage from work
Meanwhile, other studies confirm what star athletes know -- working hard is useful but recovery time is just as important for peak performance.

Psychology professor K. Anders Ericsson studied professional violinists and found that they get the most out of their practice when it's limited to about four hours a day, with breaks in between.

Great writers often set aside their mornings to write, and spend the rest of the day doing less-intense tasks.

The takeaway for the rest of us?

"Even experts are unable to sustain full concentration for more than 4 or 5 hours per day," Ericsson said.

Of course, a four-hour workday with plenty of breaks isn't really feasible -- financially or professionally -- for most people.

But better managing time at work can be.

For instance, The Energy Project advises that people work in no more than 90-minute cycles and take rests in between. An occasional nap even.

People who do so report having higher levels of focus, creativity and sense of well-being, the consulting firm said.

Another big idea: Leave at the end of an 8-hour day. Go home, meet friends, workout, catch up with your kids, vacuum, whatever. But leave the job behind.


"Employees who work at least 55 hours compared to those who work 40 hours or less report feeling 21% less engaged and 27% less focused," according to Schwartz's study.

All this is easier said than done, of course, especially when you work for bosses who believe everything should be secondary to work, including your family commitments and personal well-being.

But that kind of leadership keeps the company and the employee from doing their very best.

While only about of fifth of people surveyed in Schwartz's study said their leaders model more "sustainable" ways of working, those who work for them felt far more engaged and satisfied on the job and much, much more likely to actually stay at the company.

Go figure.

 

OP is so funny! Says the person who takes the time to write a BOOK on a SATURDAY morning!
Find your own happiness (PS, its not posting on CP)

 

I love my job

 

.....so at least you realize there is no career at Exact. Just a job with a whole host of unprofessional used car sales people who cant sell - which likely describes you and your "job".

 

Do You??? If not get out, we don't need complainers. Just those who "get it". Who's to say this job isn't the best? Some of us enjoy the challenge of the sale, just saying.
And BTW, nothing is for certain any more in any healthcare field at any level. I prefer this culture to anything else I've seen lately.

 

Get it? What the heck have you been drinking. No one is "getting it" as in bonus. Heck it's mid September and no one knows how much they are getting paid.

 

People don’t leave bad companies. They leave bad bosses. They don’t leave flawed organizational structures and abandon lousy products and technology. They leave flawed leadership.

No matter how brilliant a company’s products and/or services may be, if management is dysfunctional, that company will have serious problems. It may not be immediate, but it’s nearly a guarantee that it will happen. This concept may sound like a no-brainer, but it continues to happen across all companies and industries, both big and small.

There is so much emphasis on IQ in organizations, and not enough on leadership. Now we have a bunch of technological geniuses who are socially and emotionally inept.

The problem? A complete lack of emotional intelligence, insecurity, and sheer incompetence on the most basic level.

Leaders set the tone of an organization. The outer environment is a reflection of the inner environment of those who establish the quality of the company. When the leader(s) are chaotic and manage without a solid foundation or strategy, the whole operation turns into fire drills, with everyone running around like beheaded chickens.

The only thing this creates is a sustained profile of hysterics and frustration.

The Dangers of Micromanagement
Micromanaging is a method of management in which an individual closely observes or controls the work of an employee. In comparison to simply giving general direction, the micromanager monitors and evaluates every stage in a process, from beginning to end. This behavior negatively affects efficiency, creativity, trust, communication, problem-solving, and the company’s ability to reach its goals.

The typical micromanager spends their time directing employees rather than empowering them. They are often very insecure. They spend more time with the details of business operations instead of planning the company’s short-term and long-term growth strategies. The fact of the matter is, time DOES equal money. When the designated leader of an organization is wasting time (and therefore money) on overseeing projects instead of focusing on specific growth opportunities, it’s time to reevaluate a few things.

There is a huge difference between leadership and simply using one’s title, position and given authority, to exercise political and/or bureaucratic power.




The effects of micromanagement can be disastrous for a company’s culture. Employees will soon realize that you are not listening to them. They will undoubtedly shut down, stop making suggestions or going to you with questions. Ultimately, employees will become disenchanted and will eventually quit to work for another company.

Much of the time, these quasi-leaders believe that they are the only ones who understand the business model and are the sole reason for the company’s revenue. They will often surround themselves with passive people who don’t question their authority, and fail to challenge or criticize their actions. These managers also tend to be extremely closed-minded to new approaches or ideas to solve problems.

It is for all these reasons that these types of managers will never hold a high level position at a large company. Of course, exceptions are noted, we often hear of executives who behave this way, but for the most part, they just do not possess the characteristics required to deal with projects and people in a productive and meaningful way.

People don’t leave bad companies. They leave bad bosses.

Micromanagers want things done in a particular way. We all do - the “right way” – translation – “my way”. However, when these managers communicate requirements, they’re simply telling them to execute. In this case, they’re not asking anyone to think for themselves. And employees who actually engage in their work, won’t be satisfied for very long.

Managers certainly do not always have the best and brightest answers. Letting employees become part of the decision process is so important for increased productivity and helping everyone feel valued.

 

You mean the "challenger sale" from the ancient SPIN selling author bahaha so 1990