|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
melaclaro
Posts:17
 |
| 11/27/2006 11:19 PM |
 Alert
|
The following text is being transferred here on behalf of Joe Egerszegi from Chapter 10/Version 13/Section: "We Elect the Boss".
----- (Re: "We Elect the Boss")
Help!!! I have proposed this based on what would need to happen if I could dictate situations. I have NO genuine experiences to base this on, though I believe co-operative corporations employ similar mechanisms.
If this is dismissed as faciful conjecture, I'd only ask that those with genuine experience employing such mechanisms explain why. Now I'm asking for the WE to smarten up ME. |
|
|
|
|
melaclaro
Posts:17
|
| 11/27/2006 11:43 PM |
Alert
|
The following is being transferred here on behalf of David Truss from Chapter 10/Version 16/Section: "We Elect the Boss".
- - - - -
Quote from ("We Elect the Boss"):
"The candidates will take a test, or be otherwise evaluated by those upper managers, and at the end, each candidate will be assigned a ‘managerial factor’ that will be used to balance the input from the other group, the employees that would be managed by this new manager."
I am not sure this is such a great idea...
Scenario 1. Management does not like the person chosen by the group and changes their 'managerial factor'.
2. The manager has a false sense of what that 'managerial factor' should be.
3. The group does not get who they want in the position and either assume (#1 above), or they think the manager doesn’t value their opinion, (#2), or they believe that the election was just for show.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. I agree with Hans’ statement below, (his was the first comment on the bottom, mine came next but I didn’t know the size limit). Hans says there should be a discussion about internal group dynamics and I think this is crucial... Going back to the idea in the quote above, not only does the ‘managerial factor’ mentioned have the potential to destroy group dynamics, but in my humble opinion it also threatens the very principle behind the power of ‘we’.
Regarding the ‘managerial factor’ :
Scenarios:
1. Management does not like the person chosen by the group and changes their 'managerial factor'.
A serious no-no. The whole process of Managerial Elections MUST be an entrenched corporate culture, similar to any elections. Tampering with the results after the fact demonstrates disdain for a mechanism that attempts to bring greater information to the whole corporation. Diddling the results because 'Candidate X might give me trouble' simply shows how managerial accountability may not be wanted, but is certainly needed.
2. The manager has a false sense of what that 'managerial factor' should be.
I'd suggest that there would be two parts to the managerial factor. First, there would be a test based on conventional business wisdom, which the candidates would need to learn from a business school. The company would subsidize such extra-curricular education. This may be seen as an unnecessary waste of corporate money to school a handful of candidates when only one is needed, but his isn't the case at all; the more the work-force understands the business fundamentals, the more they can understand the underpinnings to a decision made higher up, and so the more they can help make things work EVEN IF THEY AREN'T THE ACTUAL MANAGER. Here, we're actually looking to make the wisdom of the 'me' greater, which in turn, helps the 'we.'
The second part of the managerial factor should use job-specific situations as the test source. The upper manager looking for this component will have a raft of past, pending, and future situations that s/he should present as test questions. They can troll for the inventiveness of the candidates this way.
These are suggestions, and while they may not be the only concerns that go into the managerial factor, I'd suggest that such unambiguous criteria should relieve any false senses a manager may have.
3. The group does not get who they want in the position and either assume (#1 above), or they think the manager doesn’t value their opinion, (#2), or they believe that the election was just for show.
Since the whole purpose of this mechanism is to entrench transparency, there are no 'closed boardroom' appointments or conversely, no belligerant unionists elected. The system is legitimate ONLY when most people feel they have been treated fairly. Again I'll emphasize that the majority, the 'we' have been extensively consulted AND CONSIDERED. |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/29/2006 9:40 PM |
Alert
|
I think contributions here and their focus clearly show why we have to ge the utline structure of the book sorted ASAP!
Namely, Chapter 10 is becoming an exploration of possibilities this way. Electing the Boss iidea floated and explored in more detail is fine. However, rather than it just being in the realm of possibilities, I suggest someone takes it on to find whether this is working anywhere?
Guess invite to MIT students and Wharton students , and any others willing is hre to put their research hats on and go fo it.
Let u see what you come up with here.
I look forward to it.
Lilly |
|
|
|
|
jm04469
Posts:18
|
| 12/28/2006 12:28 PM |
Alert
|
| Here I think it is important to establish the distinction between management and leadership. Folks in corporate America use this words interchangably when they shouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 12/28/2006 9:07 PM |
Alert
|
Sure, this is important distinction. However, besides getting to agree which is at play in the working situations that are subject of this book, I see no reason to pursue it further.
INcidentally, I would not use this title as I think 'management' is much lss important in communities than 'leadership'. This particularly because we are dealing with RELATIONSHIPS and management is primarily about dealing with THINGS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|