Quote:
| Originally Posted by FailingEnterpriseAdmin This culture you describe, where employees work "ethically" and are "honest" doesn't match my personal experiences with Enterprise employees nor does it match what we've been hearing here on the discussion board. From what I'm hearing, the way to get promoted is to persuade customers to buy CDW and persuade employees not to quit. How do we reconcile the very large gap between what you describe and the facts on the ground? |
While your personal experiences you describe with ERAC do paint a picture of ethically bankrupt employees, you're smart enough to know that using that experience to paint a broad stroke across the company isn't the best methodological approach (Again, see C Wright Mills). Your first reaction, most certainly, is to then point to the reoccuring theme on this website which paints a simliar picture of the ethically-challenged. One litmus test a source of information must pass before it is considered "fact" as you state, is from where and why the information is offered. The posts on this site would carry more validity if they were the result of a larger sect of employees who actually work there. Rather, they are a collection of greivences by those individuals SEEKING out a place to vent.
Without exception, I think the posts on this site should be considered very troubling by ERAC. Clearly, that ERAC model, as it is designed, creates angry, bitter current and former employees. But to say that your experience and the posts here constitute "the facts on the ground" strikes me as a bit naive since the audience here is hardly objective. It would be similar to an individual citing the Heritage Foundation's message board as a proof that the American public believes that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
I'm not implying that people can't or don't have these points of view. I'm simply making the observation to be a little more skeptical of information before you introduce it as "fact."