Talk:Charles Miner/@comment-188.54.11.106-20141225144046/@comment-107.137.235.135-20161027121333

Yes. This. This is exactly why Charles ought to have been fired. He didn't achieve a single goal.

As said above:  "...he was hired to find out why the Scranton branch was a success, and implement its policies in other branches instead he starts making changes in the only branch that's already making profits."

Charles utterly failed in a fairly simple assigment: See what's working at Scranton and how/or if similar changes can be made at other branches. Instead he instituted a totalitarion regime fueled solely by his ballistic approach to business, and zero concern for how he was affecting the sales staff and their ability to bring in big accounts. At the very, very least, he ought to have met with each dept and asked them what works, what doesn't. Go along on some sales calls. Most of all, he was never receptive to liateninhhhg to anyone. And that's what ultimately killed his role in Scranton.