Dick Carpani for Mayor
Time for 'stockholders' to change 'manager'
Sir: Suppose you have a large corporation and you need to hire a manager to run it for you. You leave it up to the stockholders to decide who is the right candidate for this position and they decide who this individual will be by majority vote.
This individual should be knowledgeable and experienced and have sufficient education that can be applied to the daily requirements for this position. They should be pro-active rather than re-active and have keen foresight and an eye for the obvious. They should be a "people" person, nonconfrontational and willing to listen and compromise when required. They should not micro-manage and should be willing to allow other departments within the corporation to set working conditions with an understanding that they have to work within a pre-determined budget.
The individual should be a pioneer and always looking to make things better and forever bringing new ideas to the table to reduce costs, improve profitability and bring exposure to the corporation's main objective without downloading costs onto the stockholders.
Let's move forward a good number of years and look at the track record of this individual the stockholders hired. Although this individual has been given some latitude, they have been somewhat of a "me" person and, at times, forgetting that there is no "me" in team. They are confrontational at times, periodically showing their childish side when things don't go quite their way.
At times, it appeared that if the idea wasn't their's, it wasn't worth pursuing. They allowed politics to play a key role in decision-making, inevitably costing the corporation money in the long run. They would, from time to time, separate themselves from the members of their team for fear decisions being made would make them look bad, even though not being a part of the decision-making makes them look bad anyway.
Suppose this individual never let it be known to the stockholders that they were running a deficit and the corporation was millions of dollars in the hole, in part, due to poor management?
You have a corporation that has unbridled potential but always seems to be held back. There were slight glimmers of hope that things were going to change but it became the same rhetoric that trailed this individual through their tenure as manager of the corporation.
Oh, the deficit to the stockholders. Well, that's in the $90 million range and this individual is still at the helm.
Ask yourself honestly, if this was your corporation, would this individual still be on your payroll? If you are a responsible business owner and your primary objective is making the corporation profitable, attracting new business and acquiring positive exposure, your answer should be a resounding no.
Let's suppose this individual did an acceptable job, yet there still lingers this humongous debt. Should they stay on your payroll? The responsible answer should still be no.
Then, I ask you, why is Mike Bradley still mayor of this city?
Tuesday, October 03, 2006 The Observer
|Date This Page Was Last Up-Dated: October 08, 2006|