"Bill" wrote in message
...
tiredofspam wrote:
Sorry, I don't agree.

There have been many decisions to water down brands to save money.
Without going into a long dissertation, the MBA takes the choice away,
they don't add to the choices. Since they are all taking the quality
away and making it cheaper (not less expensive), what used to be common
place, is now no longer to be found. Good??? maybe for some bottom
lines. But not good in general. The downward spiral can not be stopped.

We are lacking talent, because we have made it so. Yes the consumer is
partly responsible, but the MBA is responsible, and so is corporate
America (kills free thinking and ingenuity) . So I think each gets a
third of the pie.

As it was explained to me, by someone much older than me, the VIPs in the
big corporations don't have much incentive to "rock-the-boat" (take
chances). I'm thinking of Ford and GM especially. But the likes of
Microsoft (and Cisco?) too. My point is that it's not just the MBA
"save a dime" mentality, but the corporate (compensation) structure--which
is to blame. It's something like, "I'll just take my bonuses, retire
nicely, and get outta here (without rocking the boat)".

There are also issues of "the garbage can model of problem solving" where
solutions that worked in the past are pulled out of the "garbage can" and
applied again. Net result is sometimes they will work again but it may be
just as likely mistakes are made...
Organizations don't learn well and they loose a lot of talent as a result as
people give up and move on...

Group Think is a huge issue too... organizations often think they are better
than others, smarter than the market, etc. As a result they miss threats and
opportunities.

"Johnny Appleseed" consultants are a problem too. They take their solutions
and plant them in a multitude of organizations. I've been unimpressed with
the majority of those I've encountered in that they typically don't bring
any knowledge with them that the organization doesn't already possess.
However, politically they may be able to effect change in ways that have not
been allowed to employees. For example management may need a nameless
somebody to blame, or the consultants come in under "halo affect," i.e.,
because they are consultants they must be smart. I recall one period of
time where we were fond of saying to consultants that "Yellow Badges mean
you're smart. " We don't think they ever figured out that all non-employee
contractors wore yellow badges... regardless of their role.

Another issue that cannot be ignored is that executives move around and
apply their "solutions" to multiple organizations.... both failures and
successes. I've experienced that several times (industries tend to be
incestuous when it comes to the professional and upper management levels).

I've seen multitudes of political failures in organizations... competing
agendas and infighting that leads to executives being walked out. It doesn't
mean the victor was right or better, it just means they won the political
battle.

Much of what I've read here about tools seems to be more along the lines of
price point decisions and value engineering decisions. The former are
decisions about what market you want to sell in....e.g., casual
homeowner/woodworker, serious homeowner/woodworker, professional woodworker,
manufacturing facilities. Within a price point/market there are
expectations... Delta used to sell into all those markets... now? Good
question given the sale/refocus. The later count on everything going right,
i.e., the design is right, the materials are really to spec, the machines
are set up correctly, the workers are given the right incentives, training,
authority, and responsibility to do the job well. A well known example is
"1/2" plywood" that measures 15/32" or 7/16" that meets 1/2" plywood
"performance standards?" A rhetorical question: Do we care if it's a 1/2"
thick or that it meets "1/2" plywood performance standards?

Anyhow.... I've been reading and taking it all in.... no real answers. I
know successful, insightful, and brilliant people who have no formal
education beyond high school (in one case not even that) who started and
grew businesses and made upper middle class/upper class incomes. I also know
people with masters degrees who are idiots in "the real world" (look up
idiot in the dictionary and a photo of one person in particular is there as
an example). Those with doctoral degrees (PhD, MD, JD, DO, OD, etc.) whom I
know are all over the map... some don't function well with tangibles, some
do. Some are brilliant in their field of study and useless outside of it...

It takes all kinds and a strong argument could be made that performance is a
random variable and leadership has little to do with it (look at politics
for easy examples!). I'd like to think, however, that leadership has at
least some impact. I recently stumbled across a TV show "Undercover Boss"
and I cannot help but think those people are successful and will continue to
be successful because they are relatively humble and understand they may not
know everything.... the antithesis of many with whom I've worked.

Enough of this! LOL

John