Have we learned charisma does not equal good manager?

GeorgeHowell

It is certainly a particularly Anglo-Saxon problem that those who talk a good job, and who are adept at self-promotion, backstabbling, brown-nosing, and corporate politics tend to rise fastest. As someone rightly says above, the prime example of this victory of style over substance has been Blair.

In addition we and the Americans have a culture of protection of those who have made it to the top, no matter how badly they have screwed up. It is true that the Enron crew and similar others did get their come uppance, but that's because they actually broke the law. However, the likes of Goodwin whose 'crimes' as far as we know do not extend beyond greed, incompetence, and moral bankrutpcy are never to be unreasonably disadvantaged as a result, as the establishment always looks after its own.

VfM4meplse

Is the OP suggesting GB is charismatic???

PasturesNew

It is said that a company that expects to fail will put a woman in charge, so that when it does fail they can suggest "well, she's a woman....."

I've been in that position twice. I was recruited to two separate organisations with a hidden agenda to fail. Both companies had a majorly expensive and failing department that they had to get off their books quickly, so they appointed me to be Manager and do what I liked. They just left me to it, with no apparent previous experience.

One I turned round from loss-making to breaking even in three weeks, then on into profits. The next one took a little longer as it was a slower product to shift, but when I was laid off it was explained to me that they hired me so they could be "seen to be doing what they could to save it", they never expected me to turn it around, but its fate was already agreed by the Board before they hired me... that they'd be seen to be doing the right thing, I was supposed to fail, then they could say "Look, we tried, never mind".

Companies are peculiar aren't they ...

Conrad

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

However, the likes of Goodwin whose 'crimes' as far as we know do not extend beyond greed, incompetence, and moral bankrutpcy are never to be unreasonably disadvantaged as a result, as the establishment always looks after its own.

Your point about the establishment has been much on my mind of late.
Ministers claim massive expenses for renting sisters room yet you can guarantee she wont be meaningfuly puniished, yet a Woman from Southhampton has recently been convicted for over stating her income on a mortgage application (as Mandy did a while back but was forgiven).

I was neave enough to think we had seen the end of the old boy network in 1997, yet from end to end most of those in priveledged positions have noses well into the trough and that even includes the likes of seemingly uber fair types such as Kirsty Wark of Newsnight who got £400k for a few days consultancy on the new Scots Parliament Building.

I bet even paragons such as the Dimbleby's claim massive tax payer funded expenses.

Sorry to go off topic on my own thread.

epz_2

I'll be honest, the only manager i have dealt with that actauly seem to know how to grow a business(1) have either been ex military or hard science/engineering degrees.

Now i know its likely shaped in some part by the sectors i worked in, working under an accounts reign is a joyless experience as their tight control on spending tends to cut back on the stuff that has potential to grow money in the longer term.

As i say in establish markets it might be different but one thing that !!!!es me off is when I see a 1st move advantage being wasted because of short term cost constraints in a business that could easily afford the resources.

My business strategy would always be to be so good that you crush the compilation and leverage that success to an adjacent field and increase revenue that way but what do i know, im an engineer.



(1) as in increase the long term revenue vs the short term profit

Addiscomber

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

If you want to be led by quiet introverts, then join the Civil Service. Flash Harrys are few and far between.

In your Department may be, but that was not my experience. Fast track graduates setting unrealistic targets because they had no hands on experience became the norm after the mid-80s.

GeorgeHowell

Addiscomber wrote: »

Fast track graduates setting unrealistic targets because they had no hands on experience became the norm after the mid-80s.

Exactly the same as the private sector then.