Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Is it primarily a function of the fact that the businesses are conglomerating and thus are themselves bigger? .
|
When a boss does not know how the work gets done, then subordinates are hired to explain it. Of course, it must be explained on spread sheets. So those subordinates need their own subordinates who also tend to come from business schools. Meaning they too need subordinates. Featherbedding is not created by unions. Management that plays money games and knows nothing about the product needs more layers of decision makers. With plenty of blame to go around.
Where this problem was solved, the solution was easy. Sergio Marchionne solved Fiat's problems by firing or replacing most all top management in 60 days.
Ford used another solution - reduce the layers of management from 48 to 5.
Bell Labs, once a benchmark of American innovation, no longer is so productive. Some of its famous graduates include Carly Fiorina who then went on to do massive damage to Hewlett Packard in only four years. She had no idea what electronic instrumentation did. HP's was a world's best (only the best hospital ERs once used HP equipment). So she spun these off for a fraction of their value. Then hired plenty of subordinates to explain what printers and computers might do. They then recommended a disastrous Compaq merger.
Increases in management layers (and therefore excessively long decision making) is a symptom of business school management. Where knowing anything about the product is irrelevant. And where answers must be extracted from spread sheet analysis.
Paul Weaver demonstrates his experience in Ford.
Quote:
|
When I went to Dearborn, it worried me that I knew nothing about cars - that I didn't even own one. Wouldn't this be a handicap to a your auto executive, I wondered? The answer was no. People at World Headquarters almost never talked about cars. Even the many colleagues who had risen through the ranks of NAAO and therefore had to know about automobiles didn't show it. ... What did interest my colleagues at Ford ... was the company's position in the auto industry ... It often seemed my colleagues would rather bear any burden or incur any risk than see a competitor gain the tiniest advantage. Issues like the character and quality of our products, or how customers judged and felt about them, struck few sparks by comparison.
|
Ford Motor at one point literally stopped all new car development. Doing nothing is a best decision when management has no idea about products.