The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2016, 10:25 PM   #1
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
Is it primarily a function of the fact that the businesses are conglomerating and thus are themselves bigger? A smaller company always does things faster.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 10:59 PM   #2
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
That makes sense, they're congealing, and we know that's slows things up.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 03:37 PM   #3
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
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.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.