Organization Chart: Fill & Download for Free

I worked for a great US company in Singapore. And saw this as well.In the end, I can't tolerant the idiocy of my Indian manager and left the company. Guess what he wrote on my end year review? I was performing very well and helped a lot of projects in need, but lack of ownership to the company.If doing the right job is not a kind of ownership, what is?Now, just a few months later. Since I already left the field and get more information about the management, I feel so lucky that I left.So the following are the few tricks they play to get only Indians:1: One engineer with 10 years of experience was acting as servicing manager for 8 months. They find someone who never went to the field to take the job. In the end, the engineer was asked to assist the guy so that he can take over the role. (That engineer left and moved to other related company. Feel lucky for him in fact.)2: They created a lot of new manager roles so that they can send their friends in. 5 years ago, we had 1 manager and 15 guys. Now, 7 guys with 3 managers! (The rest left of moved)3: when there are better candidates, they even lower the rank of the position to be hired so that the candidate can't move to a lower position in the company. But that position is his boss!4: They force people out by abusing their power. Even as small as traveling expense. I got rejected on expense so much until I ask my manager:”Do I spend more than anyone else?” And he said no, i’m doing the report too bad. Well, i’ve been doing the same thing for years without any problem.5: Every year, they have to publish a organization chart. When they realized that all the managers are Indians,(In Singapore, they are not the absolute minority, but definitely low in numbers.) they gave an organization chart without picture! No one will notice that right? Except we are the only region in the world that does not have picture on the organization chart!Oh wait, we were the only region with only managers name in the organization chart. Obviously, we were not considered a part of the company. I guess I know where that lack of ownership comes from.6: When I was traveling weeks after the resign, I meet someone from the other department of the same company. So we had a chat. And I remember so clear what the other fellow said:” Your department is full of office politics. We are working hard for business and don't have that much energy for all those.” I really loved that comment.So in the end, Indian managers are definitely having some big problems. But due to the political correctly, they can do it. But we can't point it out. “Racialism “ I guess.Wondering how long will this answer survive before getting downvoted.

With one big exception, they aren’t secretive at all.You have websites likeChina Vitaewhich lists the major officials of the Chinese Communist Party. There’s no one that has any real power in the Mainland that isn’t in that website.You can get a pretty good idea of who is running what, and who is likely to be running what. You have the names of the major people from the top down, and you are likely to know what they are doing, and there is a ton of academic writing about how the CCP works. There’s also the “Beijing rumour mill.” If you live in Beijing, you’ll find that everyone has some opinion of who is up and who is down and who hates who.Also you if you interact with the Chinese government, you’ll find that they aren’t very secretive. In almost all situations, it’s perfectly obvious who made a decision and in almost all situations it’s also pretty obvious why they made the decision that they did.Now compare that your typical Fortune 500 company. I can pretty easily find on Google the organization chart of the CCP. Can you find the organization chart of Exxon-Mobil or Goldman-Sachs? For that matter, can you tell me the internal corporate politics of Google.The one area that the CCP is secret is their Hong Kong and Macau branch. The CCP started out as a guerrilla army in Hong Kong, and they’ve kept an underground secret society in Hong Kong that oddly enough, is illegal under Hong Kong law.

No.Men are physically stronger than women - this translates directly into their performance in sports and other athletic activities. Here is a chart that depicts the same (source).People are willing to pay far more to watch Usain Bolt sprint than to watch Florence Griffith-Joyner (I didn’t even know her name prior to searching for “World’s fastest woman”). Similarly, Federer’s matches would draw a far bigger crowd than Serena’s.Wimbledon has equal prize money for both the men’s and women’s singles. However, on their own website, they have the viewership figures which are starkly different.The Gentleman’s Singles Final had a peak of 6.4m and the Ladies’ Singles Final peaked at 4.7m.The peak here is maximum people watching the match at any given point. More people watching the same thing implies higher ad impressions, translating to higher price for the advertisement slots. This in turn would bring in more revenue for the organizers. However, they are both paid equally.This is one of those instances where the concept of “equality” has been abused. Equality doesn’t mean equal outcomes or rewards. It refers to equal opportunities and equitable treatment.Female models make far more than their male counterparts. For example, Gisele Bundchen raked in >$30 mn last year, while the highest paid male model earned just 5% of that. That is natural since there the female figure is considered more attractive and brings in more viewers.We can either have equal monetary outcome for both or neither. Just let us not be hypocritical here.