From: dapetersen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Toothpick (-:))
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: A business major catching up.
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:56:36 GMT
Organization: Petersen's Homestead

Toothpick comes rushing in, looking frazzled, but still smiling.

"STOP!  I declare a post moratorium.  I can't keep up!  I've been reading
every night for 4 days and I'm STILL 200 posts behind.  Now I know how the
white rabbit in _Alice in Wonderland_ felt!"

Toothpick looks quite hyper as she runs about muttering, "Wheretostart, whereto
start?!"

SHe decides to comment first on the followups to her business post...

(My apologies, all.  I HATE being so far behind!)

On management, I wrote:
>>Specifically, Jilara's statements about business generalists having no skills
>>at all and Bear's statements on getting more people out of organizational
>>work.  Now, I have a liberal business background with a double major: 
>>Organizational Behavior and Personnel/Employee Relations.  In layman's terms,
>>I studied a lot of psychology as it relates to workplace issues and a lot of
>>specific personnel related functions (compensation, interviewing, training,
>>etc...).

StM replies:
> "And if and when you reach top `management,' how many of these skills will you
> still be using?   Not many, I'd wager."

I'd accept that wager. (-:  THe psychology is as usefulto me now as it was the
day I learned it - and only becomes more useful as time goes on.  In fact,
I'd say it will be the most useful in upper mangement, where trends and 
tradition often keep a firm stranglehold on behavior - even when that behavior
doesn't promote the best results.  For example, groupthink - the phenomonon 
whereby certain types of groups (and really, all groups in general) tend to
agree to promote harmony when disagreement is needed to foster discussion and
a clearer view of pros and cons of a particular action or decision.

>>"But to say that my business skills are worthless knowledge (not your exact
>>words, Jilara, I know) or to imply that managers are useless figureheads or
>>that business is not a creative field (again, Bear, not your exact words), is
>>to my obviously biased thinking a big mistake.
> 
> "Again, please bear in mind the distinctions between the roles of various
> levels of management."

Yes, of course.  And I would not argue that all compaies are run efficiently
or that some companies cannot use a good middle management trim, but for
the most part, I wouldnt' change my statement.

>>Managers are necessary, much as many people complain about them.  Mangers are
>>leaders, and society cannot function without leaders.
> 
> "That's not clear; at least not in all cases.  The Wide Field/Planetary Camera
> Instrument Definition Team gets by pretty well without anybody being much more
> of a "leader" than anybody else.  Of course, we have to have one person who
> finally makes the major decisions, but I don't think of Jim as being much more
> of a leader than anybody else on the team.  Of course, the people on the team
> weren't just randomly selected from the populace at large, either.

If you don't perceive Jim as much more of a leader, he's probably doing a very
good job! (-:  And of course, group dynamics depend on the type of work you're
doing, the number of people involved, and hundreds of other factors, many of
which are so subtle they may not even be conciously perceived.

>>I believe that the problem with most ineffective managers comes from the
>>fallacy that everyone WANTS to be a manager.
> 
> "There's another fallacy at work here:  That someone with managent training is
> automatically qualified to manage whatever he puts his hand to.  I personally
> know of two companies (both doing computer hardware maintenance) that were run
> into the ground by decisions to hire "professional management." 

Oh, I agree totally.  I;ve certainly had training, but I *know* I have a long
way to go.  And knowledge of the company is *essential*, as you pointed out
with your specific examples.  There needs to be a balance between recognizing
indicators usually considered danger signals and determining what is a danger
signal for the particular company.

My education, at least, focused the last year almost entirely on case studies,
teaching the skills needed to analyze a specific company.  For one class, I 
remember, I had a sharp-as-nails prof who picked two companies with similar
'danger signals.'  Those signals meant two different things for the two c
companies.  Trying to use the same generic solution for both problems solved
one, but hurt the other.  In other words, it was an exercise in analysis
as opposed to formula solutions.

>>So we take, for instance, technical people who have done a great job and
>>promote them to head of some technical department.  But often, that takes
>>people away from the very work they enjoyed!  It can put them in a position of
>>authority over people who were once their peers.  And often, no one trained
>>them or taught them how to be a manager."
> 
> "This CAN be a problem.  It was mentioned in one of the management courses I
> took as an undergrad.  But it's no worse a problem than taking someone who's
> been trained to be a manager, and putting him in charge of an organization
> that's supposed to be doing something, without ever training him in what the
> organization's doing.  And the latter problem was NOT mentioned in the
> management courses I took."

As I said, it was addressed in many of my courses.

>>"To me, management is a delicate balance between company interests and
>>individual interests. 
> 
> "That's true.  But this means that you truly understand the company's interests. 
> And management training alone is NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW YOU TO ACCURATELY
> ASSESS THE COMPANY'S INTERESTS.  You also have to know, at a fairly detailed
> level, exactly what the company's business is, and how it works."

Yep.  I agree.

>>"And as for business generalists causing a lot of the problems, I think it's
>>the specialists who can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> "It's also the generalists who can't tell the trees apart.  All they see is a
> forest.  Using a logging analogy, their attitude is all too frequently:  "We've
> cut down trees and planted new ones.  The forest is still there.  So what if
> the trees that are being replanted aren't growing fast enough to replenish the
> forest?  So what if the age distribution of the new trees is far from optimal
> in terms of maximizing yield of the forest?  So what if we're harvesting one
> species of tree and planting a different species?  The forest is still there,
> and it still looks the same to me."  They just don't know enough about the
> trees to tell the difference."

That's not being general.  That's a lack of education. (-:

>>To run a small company successfully, it's ESSENTIAL to consider the 'big
>>picture' - to think about how one action in one area impacts another area. 
> 
> "True.  But management training alone won't let you do this."

I tihnk I was referring more to generalist training.  At Miami, at least,
I was required to take at least two classes in every functional business
area, with two 'capstone' classes focused specifically on integration of
those areas.

Even then, there's only so much college can teach.  Experience is really
the best teacher. (-:

>>When a company gets so large or so complex that the functional areas start
>>competing with each other to the detriment of the entire company, you've got
>>problems."
> 
> "You've also got problems when, given that two functional areas are competing,
> the person with decision-making authority doesn't understand the detailed
> dependencies between the two areas, and instead makes his decision based on the
> balance sheets of the two functional areas."

That's true, but let's face it, business exist to make money (unless they are
non-profit).  I *do* believe there are other things to consider, so don't
paint me as a "bottom line is the bottom line" type of person, but when it
comes down to it, often the bottom line is what gets the attention.  After all,
if you can't stay in business, you won't have to worry about anything else.

>>"And for the record, scraping the bottom of my brain for ideas from that 
>>original post on education, I *DON'T* believe having everyone study business
>>will solve anything.
> 
> Actully, the person quoted simply said, essentially, that if you want to make
> lots of money, get an MBA."

And actually, from what I've heard, read, seen, and experienced, MBA's are 
getting starting salary's not too much above what someone with an undergrad 
degree is getting.  But perhaps in the long run, that's true.  I can't say.
Then again, I'm biased...I want 'real world' experience before I decide
what to study futher. (-:

Toothpick - too harried to run her .sig program. (-: