Managing Management

My son Sebastian, who owns several clothing stores on three continents, called yesterday, all upset. Apparently he had to fire three people, and the process had upset him greatly. I told him that being a trifle upset was normal, but that letting a bad situation continue would make him even more upset. Weeding out thieves and downright criminals is not that difficult (and certainly not upsetting) but letting the simply incompetent go is never a pleasant activity.  Yet if you are managing something, it goes with the territory.

All of which is a little segue into Simone's Theory of Management.

First. Try not to get too big that you as manager lose sight of all that is, or might be, going on. A recent case of just this error is Wal-Mart, and the massive bribery that occurred in Mexico. Such a happening would have been impossible in a 50 or even 100 person operation -- senior management would have spotted the mess almost as soon as it occurred. Unless, of course, senior management was in on the whole thing. If this is the case, however, we are not talking management theory, but criminal behaviour, something a bit beyond our present topic.

Second. Keeping an enterprise small is good, but not really practical if you are serving a global market. Hence 'bigness' will be the business, and a single manager or Chief Operating Officer (CEO) will be unable to oversee and control all aspects of the enterprise. The solution in this case is still smallness, but here it applies to a management team charged with oversight of all operations. The key aspect above all others is the selection of the members. You as CEO must have absolute confidence in their ability, and the selection process must be as rigorous as possible. Even then, this approach is not foolproof, but the odds of your enterprise succeeding go up considerably. Beats nepotism every time.

Third. Here I draw on my own experience with my sugar beet plantations, and my firm belief that all workers should be encouraged to see themselves as critical to the success of the enterprise, AND BE PAID ACCORDINGLY. I mean, why are we in business in the first place? When a CEO is paid about 50 times what a secretary in the firm makes, something is seriously awry. And an added benefit to this approach is that a union becomes not only unnecessary, but irrelevant.

Finally, I sent Sebastian an e-mail containing an excellent paragraph on management. It originally was directed to the military, but serves a similar purpose where running an enterprise is concerned. I have mentioned this quotation before, but the piece can well stand repeating. It is taken from Lord Lovat's fine book, March Past, where he cites General von Hammerstein Egord:

Officers are divided into four categories. There are those who are brilliant and industrious; these are suitable for the highest staff appointments. Then there are those who can be brilliant but are lazy; these will rise to the highest level of command. Use can be made of officers who are stupid and lazy, but those who are stupid and industrious should be ruthlessly eliminated.

(Note to Stephen Harper: The last of von Egord's categories would seem to apply to Peter McKay and Bev Oda. Deal with it.)

All for now.