Comments on: Noble Intentions http://www.managementblog.org/archives/2009/05/14/noble-intentions/ It's not a lesson in learning to be nice to people. Management is about leverage and impact. Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:40:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Matthew De George http://www.managementblog.org/archives/2009/05/14/noble-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-79962 Matthew De George Mon, 18 May 2009 08:44:03 +0000 http://www.managementblog.org/?p=1104#comment-79962 The problem is the concept of the 'management team' itself. In my analysis a management team is a cartel! Which means that when a management team come to agreement - meaning they come to agreement on the value of certain actions and decide the most appropriate action based on their combined assessment of the value of each alternative action - then they are in fact breaking the 'price system'. In a real cartel this means they agree on a price, bypassing the price system, and hurting consumers. In the 'management team' cartel they are agreeing on the next action, bypassing the planning process, and hurting capabilities (and consumers). The problem is the concept of the 'management team' itself.

In my analysis a management team is a cartel!

Which means that when a management team come to agreement - meaning they come to agreement on the value of certain actions and decide the most appropriate action based on their combined assessment of the value of each alternative action - then they are in fact breaking the 'price system'.

In a real cartel this means they agree on a price, bypassing the price system, and hurting consumers.

In the 'management team' cartel they are agreeing on the next action, bypassing the planning process, and hurting capabilities (and consumers).

]]> By: Tom Foster http://www.managementblog.org/archives/2009/05/14/noble-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-79259 Tom Foster Fri, 15 May 2009 01:05:10 +0000 http://www.managementblog.org/?p=1104#comment-79259 Hmm..Beneficial or foolhardy? Hmm..Beneficial or foolhardy?

]]> By: Kevin http://www.managementblog.org/archives/2009/05/14/noble-intentions/comment-page-1/#comment-79175 Kevin Thu, 14 May 2009 15:54:18 +0000 http://www.managementblog.org/?p=1104#comment-79175 My running theory is that at least 80% of people think similarly, accepting general rules of logic and causality that are common to the human experience. If my theory holds, then the majority of our differences in opinions and courses of action are caused either by varying information or varying priorities. With that as a backdrop, I would venture to guess that Mr. Brown's veto of the management team's consensus was birthed out his distinct perspective as the President (with the unique information and priorities commensurate with the role). So was the veto beneficial (e.g. an employee's priority might be his / her career whereas the President's priority might be the corporate legacy) or foolhardy (e.g. the President is removed from the front line and therefore not aware of a change in customer behavior)? My running theory is that at least 80% of people think similarly, accepting general rules of logic and causality that are common to the human experience.

If my theory holds, then the majority of our differences in opinions and courses of action are caused either by varying information or varying priorities.

With that as a backdrop, I would venture to guess that Mr. Brown's veto of the management team's consensus was birthed out his distinct perspective as the President (with the unique information and priorities commensurate with the role).

So was the veto beneficial (e.g. an employee's priority might be his / her career whereas the President's priority might be the corporate legacy) or foolhardy (e.g. the President is removed from the front line and therefore not aware of a change in customer behavior)?

]]>