Dure and impertinent towers built in time so fortified castles seem indestructible. You know listening to case studies, reading articles in magazines and books on the subject I realize more and more that's why so many businesses in our country do not focus their attention on the product or on people because, "apparently," the focus on some else. Perhaps thinking better than I could say that is a global issue, although I have no data or studies that support me to say this. As always I say what I write is my point of view. So we go step by step.
my attention to this "company" is directed mainly to the analysis in the castle tower, or rather in inaccessible headquarters and sleight of financial instruments that were intended to eliminate the risk of the company to better manage work activities, but, unfortunately, rather than eliminate the action to the primary activities. Bingo at it again, you say, what other article on the subject should not be doing business and how you should move instead. I wish I had the magic formula but it is not. But follow me because basically there is no universal methodology and all the people.
Here's the golden rule of the modello, il pensiero positivo alla quale ogni top manager vorrebbe dar seguito, quello che ogni imprenditore vorrebbe ma che poi non mette in pratica nella quotidianità, o meglio dire che la teoria non è seguita da un reale atteggiamento al metodo “aureo”. Si vorrebbe ma non lo si fa: Un’azienda ben gestita fa largo affidamento sulle iniziative individuali o di gruppo da cui attingere innovazione ed energia creatrice. Il singolo dipendente viene utilizzato al limite della sua capacità creativa e produttiva. L’intera organizzazione “con le sue idee e suggerimenti, con i suoi circoli qualità” è organica e imprenditoriale e non meccanica e burocratica. Bel manifesto pubblicitario.
As I said earlier, I do not have solutions but on at least one explanation I can give, always from my point of view. In too many companies exaggerate reality, finding the most interesting "on schedule" and "to manufacture" a product to sell. Already planning strategy without giving you the actual operating result. As if that was part of the planning work that allows you to alienate himself from operational problems.
Anyway, it is more intellectually rewarding and results in less stress. The long-term planning always leads formalized a dare importanza eccessiva all’aspetto tecnico. In quanto metodo, in quanto disciplina per un gruppo di persone, la pianificazione è preziosa. Forza, pianificate, ma quando avete fatto la vostra pianificazione, non usatela come unico canale di lavoro, mettetela in un cassetto e rielaboratela di volta in volta. Non lasciate che vi incateni. Non usatela come fattore primario del processo decisionale. Servitevene soprattutto per individuare il cambiamento quando interviene.
Vi consiglio una buona lettera Strategia di von Clousewitz, naturalmente non nella sua versione originale ma qualche libro dei suoi tanti estimatori.
continuing to analyze well the problem is you are on to some obvious causes, or rather walls:
• The first is simply the instinct of self-defense. That the intellect and the soul of the business man is to blame. The system encourages managers to turn the other allegations in this case the "management, control, authority."
• Second, prosecutors faced a problem of language. The criticism is perceived as an attack on rational, logical thinking to themselves, almost implicitly encourage you wanted to escape into the irrational and mystical.
So in any case you can always find out a fact, such a focal point: the old "rationality" is replaced by another, new, different and more useful . Bingo! Rather tombola.
Let me explain to us that we like operations (and not), the rationality of production comes from the old school of F. Taylor, but look at this case has ceased to be a useful discipline for a while '. Let's see if I can explain better with simple analogies: I think the world was flat, hemispherical is! The earth was the center of the world, we are a point in the universe. In short, it is difficult to bring down beliefs and knowledge in the face of new initiatives for individuals or groups to create new ideas to disseminate innovations.
The effect of what is written above the door to the general belief that many managers, executives, entrepreneurs do not want to leave. By the time I made a certain opinion on this topic by drawing up a list of these paradigms-hards died, some lived in the first person other parallel seen and heard in other studies courses update - meeting:
• The larger structure, the greater the economies of scale achievable. When in doubt, the consolidation of units, eliminate overlap, duplication and waste. Incidentally, the structure gradually zooms make sure that everything is carefully and systematically controlled.
• Producers who have low costs are the only ones to be sure to come out winners every time. The principle of marginal utility applied to the customer ultimately drives them to focus on costs. Those who survive are always those who produce at lower cost.
• you get rid of the disturbing elements, namely the 'champions' fanatics of a product. Not for nothing that we have a plan. We want the activities to develop new products for the requisite innovation and, if need, we will work to five hundred technicians, because our idea is the best.
• The manager's job is to make decisions. What makes the right calls, calls hard to balance the portfolio, you buy shares in promising areas. The implementation or execution are of secondary importance. If you want to ensure completion on time, change the entire management team.
• The task of managers is to ensure that one is in order and under control. Please specify in detail the organizational structure. We develop complex situations to anticipate any unforeseen matrix. Giving orders, decisions are taken net. You treat the people as factors di produzione.
• Sviluppare un buon programma d’incentivazione per aumentare la produttività. Se si danno alle persone sostanziosi incentivi monetari perché lavorino in modo corretto e intelligente, il problema della produttività svanirà. Venga ricompensato con larghezza chi produce i migliori risultati. Venga eliminato quel 40 % di pesi morti che batte la fiacca.
• Si verifichi il controllo della qualità. La qualità, come tutto resto, è il risultato di ordini precisi. Si triplichi il personale nell’area del controllo della qualità (ignorando che gli addetti al controllo della qualità per unità di produzione nelle aziende giapponesi del settore dell’automobile sono un terzo di quelli americani). Si disponga perché il servizio qualità faccia capo al Presidente per mostrare (agli operai) che è una cosa della massima importanza.
• Il business, in fondo non è altro che un business. Se il manager è in grado di leggere i bilanci, è in grado di gestire qualsiasi cosa. Le persone, i prodotti e i servizi sono semplicemente le risorse che devono essere distribuite per ottenere buoni risultati finanziari.
• Gli alti dirigenti la sanno più lunga del mercato. Se l’estetica (lei conto economico e dello stato patrimoniale è adeguatamente curata, l’azienda farà bella figura agli occhi degli Osservatori esterni. Soprattutto, si faccia di tutto perché gli utili trimestrali continuino a crescere.
Quello che segue ritengo che sia il corollario. Molti top manager, capi, responsabili ne hanno fatto/fanno una bandiera.
• Tutto è finito se si smette to grow. When they lack the opportunities in the sector in which we operate, we must make acquisitions in areas that you do not know anything. At least, you can continue to grow. How many people (95% of the bottom line) crying about these statements made to the sound of a sound logical principle!
Dura conventional rationality is true! As always, I repeat myself, but this is my point of view. I am not sure to find the manager at the twenty-first century and will certainly not know what I can tell him he can not dispose of the whole structure with simple analytical and quantitative components due to a static storage. That put everything in the reduction of costs can not become the primary target, while the increase in revenues into the background!
obsessed with everything and all costs, diverts attention from the quality and value, lead to give a refresher on old products rather than develop new products or new businesses that create disorder; door to face the problem of productivity through investment rather than revitalizing the labor force.
Dear reality is that the management, the general manager in analyzing what it is easier to analyze, we pass over a lot of time and leave the rest.
Hear what that says a management knew very much: rationality in the strict sense often tilts the negativism.
Good Peter Drucker gave us an excellent description of the influence detrimental to the analytical approach of the manager: The manager professional of today is often heard in the role of the judge that says 'yes' or 'no' to ideas as they emerge ... The high direction, which considers that its task is to sit in court, inevitably oppose his veto new idea. It is always "impractical".
your pensieo to you, see you soon.
Pier Giorgio
