
Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies - scdoshi
https://thinkgrowth.org/why-good-people-leave-large-tech-companies-af2b6fea4ee
======
RealityNow
This post rings eerily true. Recently had a company all-hands where the CEO
said basically the exact same lines. The whole "if you don't love working
here, then you should leave" bit made me cringe. Easy for you to say when
you've got a significant equity share in the company.

The saddest realization I've had working at companies is how power-hungry
people are, how little respect the people in power often have for those
"below" them, and how important politics is even in a field like engineering
that you'd expect to be meritocratic. Sweeping decisions are often made in a
small room of a few "higher-ups" without any input or regard for those "below"
them. Providing counter-arguments that question the decisions of the executive
caste is often seen as a threat (how dare you question your leader?). The shy
and humble rockstar coder who kicks ass gets little recognition while the
smooth-talking sycophant gets accolades and climbs the ladder.

Corporations are authoritarian tyrannies with strict hierarchies. America was
founded on the principles of democracy, but we tolerate tyranny in our
workplace. The only way to change this is to remove the asymmetric dependency
of the employee on the employer (eg. UBI).

~~~
sanderjd
I'll take the unpopular position of supporting a small room of a few "higher
ups" making decisions. This is exactly what you want: a small number of people
with a lot of skin in the game making important decisions. Good leaders gather
feedback and counter-arguments beforehand, but then make a firm decision, and
it's diminishingly rare for that decision to please everyone. The people who
are not pleased should still follow their lead, despite thinking the decision
is wrong. Sometimes the decision is wrong and sometimes the people who think
the decision is wrong are the ones who are wrong. There's no way of knowing a
priori, and someone needs to be empowered to take the leap on doing what they
think is best, and it makes sense for that person to be a "higher-up".
Decision by committee or by democracy is too inefficient for a business.

~~~
sitharus
It's the feedback and counter arguments that are often lacking, and being
unwilling to admit the decision was wrong.

I've been in this situation a few times and it's very hard to push back on a
decision that's been 'made' even if it's not appropriate for the team you're
on.

~~~
RealityNow
Our CEO has flat out told us that it's incredibly hard for him to get honest
feedback from anyone (except for maybe the board and investors), and another
executive echoed this. Nobody wants to question the almighty CEO to his face.

Nothing against the CEO. He's an extremely friendly and approachable person.
Most people just fear questioning authority and power, and the CEO in a modern
day corporation is revered similar to a king in a monarchy. It's always been
like that at every company I've worked for.

~~~
Clamhead
It's not possible to implement some type of anonymous feedback system?

My company sends out periodic anonymous surveys as an attempt to garner
feedback from the employees.

The only problem I see is if employees, for whatever reason, don't believe
such a system is truly anonymous and thus refuse to give honest feedback. I
don't see that being a common trend though.

If so, it probably signals more serious problems between employees and the
higher-ups ...

~~~
e59d134d
Too many companies have eroded employees trust by lying that something is
anonymous when it is not.

I personally will never trust any such survey at work.

~~~
lovich
I live when we are emailed "anonymous" surveys with a query string. It's even
better when they are engineering specific surveys because at that point you
have to question if they even think you can do the job if they thought they
could get blatant tracking like that past any engineer

~~~
imhoguy
I saw such everytime too. These tracking params are to guarantee that the
survey is filled only once by a person. But tracking is possible if email and
the survey match is stored somewhere. It is all up to trust.

------
andrewstuart
This is why its always possible to hire great developers - because some
companies and hiring managers think that people should be not just great
developers, but willing to jump through ridiculous hoops to work there.

If you want to hire people, drop the attitude of "we don't want people who
aren't willing to prove how much they want to work here". Instead, give them
every reason to want to work for you.

~~~
danek
Fwiw, one "advantage" of "wanting to work there" is that counterproductive
management practices can survive longer. If I'm your boss and am treating you
like trash, and you complain, I can just say "oh it sounds like your
commitment to this company isn't very high, shall we discuss your future?"
That will work a multitude of times with a gaslit employee who really drank
the company kool-aid.

~~~
andrewstuart
Also, companies can use "level of enthusiasm for working here" as an excuse
for their poor recruiting practices.

"OH, the candidate dropped out of our recruiting process? But he was only at
interview four after 6 weeks.... well it doesn't matter because clearly he
didn't want to work here enough - we want people who really want to work here
and are willing to do what it takes to get a job with us."

Even worse: "But he'd only done our coding test after 5 weeks, there's still
three interviews to go."

The recruiter usually gets a phone call at this point "Got anyone else, this
time someone who actually wants to work here?"

~~~
danek
Yes this too. Someone I know was interviewing at google (his first choice, he
did a few rounds), and then later at some other places. Google took three
months to get back to him and gave him a really good offer, but by that time
he had already accepted somewhere else.

------
maxxxxx
"But the CEO never noticed that the payoff had ended for the other 95% of his
company."

It seems a lot of C*Os forget this after a while. For a lot of rank and file
employees the stock price makes no difference.

~~~
ryandrake
Those awkward moments at medium-sized growing companies when the CEO gets in
front of the company for an all-hands and says "The company is doing so well!
Our stock price, as you have noticed, is way up!" The response being a couple
of "woooo"s from the long-timers and senior execs and the rest of the room
shrugging their shoulders looking at each other.

~~~
dawnerd
This happened at demand media right before IPO. Everyone was stoked to finally
be able to exercise their stocks. Great opening but we were all blocked from
selling. Once any of the non execs could sell the price basically screwed
everyone over. Unless you were an early employee you ended up losing money.
Not a good position to be in. Moral wasn't very high when I left...

------
AVTizzle
>> "I was visiting with an ex-student who’s now the CFO of a large public tech
company."

>> "(By coincidence, the CEO was an intern at one of my startups more than two
decades ago.)"

Admittedly, this isn't adding to the discussion at hand. Just one amateur
writer picking apart another's writing style, but...

Is it just me, or do those lines serve no purpose except to boost the author's
own ego and sense of self-importance?

I feel like they don't serve the reader in taking away the lesson in the
least. They really strike me as an attempt to remind the reader of the
writer's own value and importance.

Maybe I'm being too cynical...

~~~
Aeolun
Later on in the story it's become apparent that the line that the CEO is
touting is the exact same one that the author told him 20 years ago, so I'd
say that part is pretty relevant :)

~~~
chrisbennet
I noticed that but I didn't understand what he was getting at. Was he saying
that the CEO/former student was:

A) Repeating what Steve told him and Steve had changed his mind about that
advice?

B) Repeating what Steve told him but in the wrong context?

~~~
lovich
To me it sounded like the author had truly believed that advice at the startup
stage but now in a large company he saw how those words rang hollow as the
employees were no longer benefiting from the companies growth. He seemed
embarrassed that his words were being used to justify adding 45 ×70 minutes of
commute time to a team that wasn't getting early employee equity

~~~
chrisbennet
Thanks!

------
drawkbox
Just another revolution of the wheel of the infamous "How Software Companies
Die"[1] which has this balancing note: "The environment that nurtures creative
programmers kills management and marketing types - and vice versa."

When a product innovation company turns to medium size, the process comes in
with the executives and soon after innovation dies, but the product market
value is realized and efficient. The problem comes if the leadership isn't
repeating the cycle.

A company can thrive if they stay innovative and invest in new products always
though, most of those companies are engineer led because it leads to happy
development/value-creation: Amazon, Google, Microsoft (except for the Ballmer
era), Valve/Epic in the gaming industry etc.

[1]
[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/jokepg/joke_19970213_01.txt](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/jokepg/joke_19970213_01.txt)

~~~
watwut
Good management is fundamental to environment that nurtures creative
programmers. Such environment does not appear out of nothing - it is result of
a managers work.

------
mrbill
When I worked for a large multinational energy services firm, one of the
bosses I had (they changed every 2-3 years) was a huge bully. One of those
"great coworker, bad manager" types. My wife had passed away, and as a result,
my performance had dropped.

One of his lines (verbal in person, not on paper) was "If you don't want to
work here, there are plenty of people that do."

He was the only boss I've ever had that made me consider leaving a job I'd had
for 7+ years (at the time) simply because of who my manager was. Needless to
say, about a year later when he called a meeting to announce that he was
leaving for a competitor, my back popped as my shoulders un-tensed.

~~~
jmspring
I had a boss like this. Talked with his bosses multiple times, no change. When
I left a couple of weeks prior to my one year vest and another colleague did
the same a couple of months later (both of us key/senior people), they noticed
a little bit. Eventually said individuals behavior and reputation impacted his
own goals when seeking funding. That said, upper management didn't do anything
until after the fact.

~~~
danek
Yeah I've noticed that usually you need at least 4 people to quit before
anything happens to the boss. Even if they know he sucks they're gonna try and
keep him on. No idea why, but it has the appearance of "he's part of the mgmt
club and you aren't"

~~~
amiller2571
I've had a boss like that and his boss didn't want to remove him because he
would have to admit that he made the wrong choice in promoting him.

~~~
danek
Excellent point. I'm pretty sure this is a thing, I vaguely remember reading
something about how getting promoted gives you some "invisible leverage" (my
words) because now the company has decided you are valuable and special and
they don't wanna look like they made a mistake. Thanks, this actually helped
me understand an instance of where several not very good managers got further
promoted and it made no sense to me.

------
dba7dba
My buddy told me a story of what he saw at his company. It was an interaction
between a CFO and a new lead developer at a small tech/startup company that
actually had been around quite a while.

It went something like this.

 _Dev: Can we get 2 21 " monitors for developers?

CFO: Why? Laptop LCD and that old 19" monitor seem to work together just fine.

Dev: Yeah, but we can be more productive if each dev can get 2 x 21 inch
monitors.

CFO: Uhh, no. I get more year end bonus for every dollar I save for the
company. So maybe we will revisit this later?_

------
supergeek133
Ugh. So much this. Story time.

Doing work with a 3rd party firm on some simple dev work (integration into a
few partner APIs). We're a big Azure customer, 3rd party knows this. Gives us
ARM templates for resources needed to deploy.

Get on the phone with the IT folks internally, state we need these ARM
templates deployed and monitored. Queue two week (plus) process, 100
questions, and department to department costs (all of it is outsourced) which
are quite outrageous.

The costs are so high that they probably wash any revenue/profit from the
partnership.

You know what? I have access to one of our Azure subscriptions. I'll just do
it myself guys, to hell with the consequences.

Usually this results in noise later, but screw it, I made us money now versus
incurring additional cost and made some money later.

~~~
pmontra
This is probably the right thing to do but... Do you realize how many people
you're going to piss off because with reduced work and costs they don't get
their share of the cake? Some of them might be in the management above you. I
wish you good luck.

~~~
supergeek133
Haven't been fired yet. :-)

Thankfully I work for someone who thinks making money is more important than
self-imposed rules that in most cases just slow us down.

------
mnm1
This attitude of "you really have to want to work here or you ought to leave"
justifies a lot of insanity. I've heard it from companies who make potential
employees jump through ridiculous hoops to even get a chance at a job. Here's
reality for people who suffer from this delusion: most people don't give a
fuck and are just looking for a job. They're applying to dozens or hundreds of
jobs (yes, even in software), and expecting them to know everything there is
to know about your company just to apply (like providing a detailed cover
letter) is downright insane. This is how companies with such an attitude
problem attract "yes-people," suckups and other undesirables and miss out on
real talent that isn't going to stand on its head just to get a chance at an
interview. Likewise, as the article points out, this toxic attitude is just as
bad at retaining employees as it is at getting them in the first place. What
I'd like to see is the second part of this story. How these people then hired
another 50 software engineers with actual talent in the bay area. Most
companies I speak to have trouble finding one or two, let alone 50. And all
because of an incredibly naive and stupid attitude of the company's execs.
This is indeed a case where the founders should have been replaced with proper
executives, though I'm not sure 'proper' executives would have made a better
decision.

As an aside, one shortcut to weeding out shitty companies is to simply filter
out companies that say shit like, "we are on a mission to change the world."
That's a guaranteed bad time.

~~~
sokoloff
People are applying to dozens or hundreds of jobs at once? How is that
possible? I'm generally only considering 1 new employer at a time, and the
most I've ever done concurrently was applying to two companies in CA at the
same time.

How could there even be dozens of companies that you'd want to work for at any
given time?

~~~
lovich
Maybe it's different in SF but out on the east coast I've seen people be
passed for the wrong version of jQuery on the resume, or literally "not enough
eye contact". Applying to jobs out here is kind of a crap shoot where you
shotgun out to a ton till you get past enough bullshit to be given in person
interviews where you can actually demonstrate your skills

~~~
sokoloff
> I've seen people be passed for the wrong version of jQuery on the resume

Well, those people dodged a bullet, then...

~~~
zebraflask
If you're putting jQuery on your resume, you might have bigger problems than
versioning.

~~~
gaius
I interviewed someone recently with FTP on their CV. Now, running a big FTP
site, that's CV-worthy. Contributing to an open-source FTP client, that's CV-
worthy. But no, this person literally listed being able to FTP a file as one
of their "skills"...

------
krylon
My first job after my training was at a really small company, about 10
employees plus the CEO/owner. And he was just like that CFO, too. The size of
the company does not necessarily make a difference.

Still, having done my training at a slightly Dilbert-esque multinational
corporation, I made a point of working for small-ish companies since.

Of course, small-ish companies bring their own share of problems, but all in
all, I prefer that smaller companies tend to be less bureaucratic.

And I like the personal touch - at one company (~15 people), the CEO/co-owner
walked up to each employee every morning and greeted them, shaking their hand.
He was in some aspects a fairly difficult boss, but that little gesture made
up for most of the difficulty.

The problem with a company treating employees like they were arbitrarily
replaceable is that employees will treat the company the same way. If a
company wants employees to identify with the company, to want to work at that
specific company, it has to do better than that.

------
quotemstr
The most important lesson for people in power in big tech companies: FORMAL
PROCESS IS THE ENEMY. Don't let the accumulation of gatekeepers and approvers
and other capital-P Process let things become 100x harder than they need to
be.

Do not confuse difficulty with prudence. Your organization will become slow
and ossified _by default_ unless you take specific steps to maintain
flexibility. One of these steps is to install a culture of change. Things that
are easily undone should not require approval to be done in the first place.

Do not allow long-timers in your organization use "caution" or "good
engineering practice" as an excuse to slow everyone else down. Emphasize that
the most important part of software development is moving fast. Let new people
try new things. Minimize the number of people who can say "no".

Most of all, do not just _believe_ people who talk about best practices and
software "quality" and stuff like that. Most of the time, they're just finding
fancy-sounding ways of saying "nothing should change unless I say so".

~~~
kbos87
I have a hunch that you've never worked at a growing mid-sized or large
company that is clinging to its startup roots and is averse to any sort of
process at all.

Being unwilling to adopt a necessary amount of structure and process is just
as much of a hindrance once you hit a certain size.

That may be a newer or less common problem, but it's a very real one.

~~~
el_benhameen
Agreed. I've often found that those who are resistant to any amount of
(reasonable) formal process are those (usually long timers) who were most
empowered by the implicit process and rules. In the end, they're also saying
"nothing should change unless I say so".

~~~
35bge57dtjku
This and the parent comment describe exactly what happened at the company I
just left. I wonder if the newly hired TPM will ever have any real power
there.

------
ck425
The company I work for at the moment has two values/myths that have worked
really well at preventing situations like this. Early on, just before I joined
at around the 150 person stage, the employees self organized values. One of
these was Daytime is Precious. Interestingly it was applied equally to the
idea of don't waste time (meetings etc) and to the idea that everyone has a
life outside of work. The second was the idea that teams are anonymous, and
decide themselves what they work on.

In reality these are ignored at times when required. But they're so embedded
in company culture that you need a pretty good reason to do so and more
importantly most employees are comfortable challenging management when they
do.

I'm not sure how to replicate this but letting employees set the company
values once you get to a certain size is likely a good call.

~~~
andrey_utkin
> teams are anonymous, and decide themselves what they work on.

Could you please elaborate how that worked technicall? Does that affect git
log authorship metadata? What about discussions on company chat/maillist about
the issues being worked on, are they also anonymous? Does this make tracking
real contributions of individuals impossible?

~~~
renolc
I believe they meant "autonomous" rather than "anonymous."

~~~
ck425
Yeah, this. Spelling fail.

------
erikb
I'm surprised that Steve is working for such a long time in the start-up
industry and seemingly hasn't caught on that the in-company politics won't
evolve, because the meta-company politics of the start-up world are already
efficient.

If you don't consider jobs and companies as something that should live longer
than you, it's totally fine as it is. Switching jobs is not a big deal, if you
have lots of new options and get paid well. When small start-ups get the next
innovation loop better than the current set of big companies it's fine,
because people still make money, just a set of different people.

People who want to make money by working, still make money. People who want to
make money by investing, still make money. New innovation really happens, no
matter if the current people on top get it or not.

------
partycoder
Because companies grow not only horizontally but vertically.

Vertical structures create encapsulation of individuals and that leaves room
to exploit information asymmetries.

e.g: stealing credit, favoritism, etc... rigging the game to their favor.

At the late stages of this game, people like this can get away with anything:
hiring and promoting their friends, openly insulting people, just openly lie
knowing nobody can do anything about it, etc.

------
arcanus
Anyone have a guess as to what company this was?

~~~
majestik
Tesla?

~~~
throwaway7645
That seems to fit: 1.) move from Palo alto to east bay 2.) manufacturing
company with software engineers 3.) lots of people leaving 4.) CEO changing
the world.

However, I'm sure many companies meet that.

~~~
maxxxxx
Wasn't there the story where Musk scolded someone who took off to be at the
birth of his child?

~~~
PeterisP
This somehow seems relevant - [http://nypost.com/2017/05/21/coachs-viral-
response-when-aske...](http://nypost.com/2017/05/21/coachs-viral-response-
when-asked-why-star-missed-game-for-kids-birth/)

------
iends
At my current company we have an inverted, but similar problem. Startup A got
bought by Company B. Company B doubles down on technology from Startup A,
which ultimately leads to a big acquisition by private equity for the combined
A/B.

Private equity firm cuts out RSUs and focuses on eeking out high margins
without raising salary compensation to offset changes. All the senior people
from Startup A and a number of senior people from B all jump ship within 6
months.

------
Eridrus
Despite the overall theme of this interaction, opening an office in the East
Bay seems more employee friendly than keeping them in Palo Alto.

~~~
tootie
If the company is still succeeding, then it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable
move. The company doesn't operate for the benefit of employees commutes. If
they can still attract and retain talent and have a more practical work space,
then great.

~~~
petre
Any company/CEO who wastes 45 x 2 minutes of my life on a commute is bound to
get a quit notice.

~~~
ghaff
A company that isn't either all-remote or encouraging of significant WFH is
going to satisfy some people and not others with respect to commuting.

------
jcrben
It's good that big companies do dumb stuff like this. Otherwise the world
would be even more dominated by oligopolies.

Hopefully they don't wise up.

------
mc32
Siloes is a big reason good people leave; a somewhat corollary is people think
that with experience at bigco and an alphabet soup of technologies they can
take that to another co and impress.

Some do impress but others have limited lateral experience and so don't fit
very well into any place but at prev bigco. But, but, I have five years of
experience in X at bigco Y.

------
bastijn
I can't entirely follow the article. What I read is a CEO of a 10k+ employee
company had to relocate to grow and sustain growth. A team of 70 people was
affected. He made the (right|wrong, pick as you like) decision 70 people
leaving now is better than 10k+ having to miss out on the future
opportunities.

That is what I read from this article. Though all is speculation as there is
no real information in there apart from a quote you can be for or against.

This is not "why good people leave large tech companies". It a sole example of
a very small group in a very specific situation. Relocation loses people yes.
But not amass and not as a hidden thing. The company is well aware of it. The
quote itself was there for years and it is not why people left.

Large tech companies that loose good software people for instance often do so
because they apply their hardware processes to software teams as well. In
addition they don't want to spend money of software, software has to come for
free right! The hardware is expensive but the software is a thing we had to
add as cheap as possible. That means deny requests for fancy work setups; my
hardware guys can work with one 19" monitor why do they need 2 24"?

Have no separate career ladder for the technical people, I.e. You can only
grow into exec or fellow if you switch to the people's route and forget the
technical (I.e. General managers, directors etc but no levels above lead
software architect of a (smaller) department).

Now that loses people.

P.s. I work in a large tech company. 100k+. We recently resolved the last part
but not yet entirely the former. Coincidence is that I'm being relocated in
January 2018. It brings about 20 minutes additional travel time for me, but
for most others it doesn't. Like the article. However, I'm not seeing how
losing me (and some others) would outweigh the benefit of having the entire NL
software group in a single location.

~~~
RealityNow
"Too bad, but we need the space. They’re lucky they work here. If they leave
at least they’ll have ‘name of our company’ on their resume."

It's not merely about the decision to relocate, it's the indifference towards
the engineers and viewing them as dispensable minions who are lucky to have
the privilege of working for this company, often without the equity and
earnings potential of early employees. Treating your workers as disposable
pawns is a sure-fire way to generate disillusionment and cause valuable
engineers to leave.

~~~
bastijn
That has been there for years. Sure it is nice and people object when they
hear it but I think in actual daily life people just ignore them as long as
they don't manifest in daily work. The people left because of the relocation,
not because of any other reason. The article doesn't explain the tradeoff the
CEO had to make. So blaming the quotes is jumping to conclusions. So I say
these quotes are overvalued in the article. Sure the popular thing is to fret
about them and blame them for this it seams but in truth it had nothing to do
with the people leaving in this article. They left because of travel times
(most likely, I don't pretend I can look into their minds).

In a big company most people don't like all of their exec and HR statements
yet they continue to work there because they know 90% of those statements is
bullshit anyways and will not manifest. Very different from a small company
mind you! Big companies change their bullshit slogans every 5-10 years. It's a
pattern. Go through twice and you know the drill. So you smile when your
department name changes and know the rest will stay the same no matter your
objectives containing some new fancy words.

------
iamleppert
After years of working at a big tech company, I left primarily because there
was no interesting work left to do, and the place had become very political.

Another sign its time to leave: when the company starts doing "reorgs". Get
out as soon as you can!

------
walshemj
Ah the tail wagging the dog again sounds like facilities and I suspect hr have
got to much power.

I know that the CEO when facilities where pushing for people to move to some
industrial estate near Heathrow with zero pubic transport links "word class
Telco's don't have a head office in a F%^king shed at Heathrow"

------
omot
Omg this sounds exactly what happened at Uber.

------
known
Good people leave their Bad managers;

------
jsmo
I left a large tech company for very similar reasons.

------
khazhoux
Executives: "You should care about the mission, not the money!"

(as they keep all the money to themselves)

~~~
hkmurakami
It's fascinating how in the recruitment process, hiring managers who expect
potential hires to act logically and methodically all but demand the recruit
to suspend his or her logic and mental methods when considering their personal
financial interests.

The dichotomy would be humorous if it weren't so sad.

~~~
geofft
I care about the mission. In fact, I care about the mission so much that I
know that it'll do the company a disservice to train me and lose me a year
later to another company with a similar mission offering me more money.
Therefore, it's in _the company 's interest_ to pay me a competitive salary!

~~~
hkmurakami
The best startup CEOs I know overpay their key people BC they know that losing
their best people hurts so much more than the same people helping whatever
company they might join next

~~~
MrMorden
So it sounds like they're paying over market, but not overpaying—they
recognize the cost of these people leaving and provide a salary that takes
said cost into account.

------
frozenport
I'd like to remind people that large companies are the only ones capable of
hiring junior engineers who might not be at full productivity at day 0. This
is especially true of the C++ ecosystem.

~~~
YZF
Good junior engineers can be productive at day 0. They just can't do the stuff
a senior engineer can do. They definitely can contribute though. A well
balanced team is a good thing for small or large companies.

------
linuxray
you did not mention something in this article. check again and re-post.

~~~
sumedh
Can you be more specific?

------
coretx
Hmm. Really?! I worked for various large corporates, studied for a MBA after
my IT career; found out about ethics and other ontologically speaking really
valuable things in life hence left. But really, besides personal spectives
and/or ego's.

:: Henry Mintzberg basically said it all in 2004 already:
[https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=zsYAeVgwHDQC&oi=f...](https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=zsYAeVgwHDQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Mintzberg+managers+not+MBA%27s&ots=nG2VlR0jSj&sig=rjMofuNE8G8ldQWnM96O6phzAaA#v=onepage&q=Mintzberg%20managers%20not%20MBA's&f=false)
ISBN-13: 978-1576753514, ISBN-10: 1576753514 " Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look
at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development"

~~~
Sonarius
Spam?

~~~
coretx
No, but i see that it looks like spam. Should have been more carefull. The
link is nothing but freshman year one MBA material.

