Jones Lang LaSalle management :
Discourages the development of new skills.
Does not support new skills when developed regardless of the negative environment.
Forces an international structure and foreign working practices upon a workplace which operates best within its own national characteristics and goals.
Relies on heady internal back rubbing to support an external image of a superior service.
Makes judgements about employees' day to day work in hand without having knowledge about that work in hand and consequenlty its judgements are without foundation.
Displays unfounded superiority in the public domain which demonstrates the organisations reliance upon historic achievements and its inertia umbrella.
Enforces a production line approach whilst marketing itself as a human organisation.
Relies upon �who knows who� to make money due to the lack of genuine added value services.
Continues to support barriers to entry to the market through exclusive circles thereby stifling new creative talent.
Practices unregulated marketing leading to inaccurate pictures given to the market and to clients.
I apologize for not being clearer on some of the points you mentioned.
When I spoke of us chasing American business with international arm and legs I was speaking mainly to the Corporate Solutions business. I am sorry for the omission, I can see how it appears overly "American"
Also, when referencing the assimilation of JLW it was meant of more of a knock on the LaSalle Partners unit then the JLW side. I don't think we had a significant enough appreciation of the issues involved in running and international operation from the different currencies and exchange issues to protocols and customs.
It is a fact that LaSalle Partners overpayed for both Compass and Galbreath, two players that were not aligned with the current and future domestic markets.
Thanks for your comments, I'll be more exact in the future.
I have read with interest over the last few months the comments that have been posted on this message board, some constructive, some negetive and some down right petty. Having read the comments that have been set out under the above subject I thought it worthwhile to comment as a very minor shareholder and an employee.
I would like to go over a few of the points raised by lplegacy, who on the whole is pro JLL and loyalty to the company is to be commended. However, I do disagree with some of the comments he makes.
For example "we have not made a good job assimilating the JLW component and are struggling to get our feet underneath ourselves". I am from the JLW component, and although I was personally not involved in the merger, from my understand of the merger, it was Lasalle that bought Compass just prior to the merger and over-paid seriously affecting the merged company's performance.
Further, if I have read the accounts correctly, since the merger in March 1999, the European region has out shone the American region and Asian region. Company accounts are not my forte so I am willing to be set straight on this point from someone more in the know than myself if this comment is wrong. However, a comment that I do believe to be erroneous is lplegacy's comment that "the business we are chasing is based in the good old USA. Those potential clients may have international arms and legs but are based in the states". For JLL as a global company trying to maximise profits this comment is definitely incorrect but does not suprise me coming from a citizen of a country that has the "world series" in baseball when there is only representation from a few countries. Does the competition include any Mexican clubs and I am sure the Cuban clubs are not invited?! If we are a convenience rather than a necessity, as commented by lplegacy, then I would happily see the European or the English business de-merge from the company and return to being JLW.
One last comment on this subject, lplegacy wrote, "I do not see much of an improvement from Scott to Peacock, I think you need an American leading the charge", now again I might be wrong but was Scott not an American?
Just a couple of points, I promise to be more constructive in my next message.
It appears that AP will be shielded from the cuts to a degree. Why? What is the general perception on how this part of the world will perform in 2003?
I am particularly interested to hear opinions on the North Asian markets. Too many mixed signals being sent internally.
Easy tough guy! My point is that the majority of the corporate international business we seek is based in the good old USA. You need to chill out, take a look at the stock prices of our "competitors", not much better then ours.
Relax my friend, you get much too agitated.
Boy you think so big. Yea right. Tough
This is the same silly mindset that you take with JLL as opposed to the other leading real estate firms. You have bought into all the propaganda. I suggest you go put away your young boy ways and check out football beyond your team from school; politics that includes others' views outside of our own (USA) and have a chat with other professionals in real estate organizations.
Get with it UK Babe.
The business we are chasing is based in the good old USA. Those potential clients may have international arms and legs but they are based in the states.
Get over it. You are more of a convenience then a necessity.
Happy New Year.
One of the questions here is : do the requirements of one country�s financial regulator benefit the executive, strategic, organisational and personal structures of a world of countries?
The marketing particulars state : �Jones Lang LaSalle is the world's leading real estate services and investment management firm, operating across more than 100 markets on five continents.�
I do not give importance to a colleague from the sub-continent arriving on the premises and concluding �I hear I have you to thank for the bonuses this year�.
I think that the �enforcement� of one country�s regulatory requirements upon another�s is unreasonable. By �enforcement� I refer to the unilateral action taken by leaders of the organisation affecting thousands of employees without allowing the employees the right to be heard under the legislative system of the country from where the �enforcing� regulator has its origin. Certainly in the UK, according to literature published by the experts in the filed, there are rules developed over hundreds of years allowing the right to be heard.
The UK system, according to literature published by the experts in the field (again), is more accessible to its members than it has been historically. I ask: how can a financial regulator of one country enforce its financial regulatory requirements on another without the same development? I do not think it can; primarily because it gives no right for an employee to be heard. I will not ask the question here whether it is practical for an employee of one country to reasonably be able to arrange a hearing in another country.
I think that arranging a world wide organisation by structuring it within other countries� companies and then �enforcing� another country�s financial regulator�s requirements upon it is unreasonable upon the employees employed by a country other than the regulator�s country of origin. What I think of the leaders who make redundancies as a result of their actions I shall not add here. What I think is clear elsewhere.
I think that those actions of the leaders are unreasonable.
What line of business did (or do) you work in, CPS, PDS, TRG? I would be interested to know.
No doubt, ass kissers move quickly up the ranks, unfortunately I've never been the type. There are some good younger leaders in the Firm the problem is getting the old plug of ego-centric stuffed shirts out of the way. Don't see much of an improvement from Scott to Peacock, I think you need an American leading the charge.
If you think hard work is going to cut it...think again. This is from someone who worked in the front line.
My intent is not to be rude. The place has screwed up leadership and your hard work, great ethics etc. are not going to make a difference. If you want to stay, spend you time shmoozing at the office and forget the late nights at work.
International platform is good. However, the complete business model sucks and is not competive. The competitors that you pointed out are not biggies. Don't mean to bust your bubble or hurt your fealings. Have a good new year and God bless.