In the last chapter, I was intrigued by how Bryant describes the different ways in which CEO’S run their businesses/companies/firms. I felt I had to write about this, it relates to our English class. I remember at the beginning of the year you told us it was a new class, and you were starting something new just like we were. It was like a new business starting out. There were unanswered questions, drafted plans, and confused students. But, the thing that helped it run smoothly were the two teachers (the CEO’S), and that is because I’m sure there was a list of goals set in stone for all the students that had to be accomplished by a certain deadline.
Bryant discusses the steps that one should take after they have written out their list of “measurable goals” (57). He interviews a CEO’S about how they take their set goals a step further. I found their methods both interesting and organized, but I disagreed with both of them. The first CEO, David Sacks, creator of yammer, went as far as developing his own acronym!! He explains MORPH is his own system, and this is what it stands for. M: mission, O: objectives, R: results, P: people, and How. “How as in, “How did you do by the end of the quarter” (59). After that everyone must use this exact method when coming up with their goals. I disagree with this because what if this method doesn’t work for people. What if it confuses them? What if they have their own system? This is why I disagree. I actually think it is immature and a little demanding for this CEO, to force everyone to use his own system. The real world is all about developing what works for one as a person, and people are supposed to have freedom. David Sacks system defeats the whole purpose of that.
The next CEO, Geoff Vuelta developed a very complex system where he evaluates his employees over 100 hundred days. He explains the reasoning behind it: … everyone wants to be led. they want to know two things. They want to know what they should be doing, and they want to know that what they’re doing is important. And you must, therefore, set up an environment in which they totally trust that” (61). I agree with this idea, people want to feel organized and like they have a purpose, but I don’t agree with when he takes his method further. 100 days is way too long to meet with one’s employees and it seems like it drags on the goals for too long. Also, the goals must be reported to everyone who holds a high position at the company, but he explains anyone’s goal can be altered. Even if it’s altered to help them, it defeats the purpose of self advocating. This type of system to me feels like it isn’t about advocating for one’s self. Instead, they are listening to the orders of other people instead of doing what is actually meaningful to them.
I was surprised that I disagreed with such successful business man and how my views about businesses and creating a plan for a company really differ.
I tend to agree with you: these methods seem forced and problematic. I'm not sure that CEOs should lead: perhaps what they should be doing is creating an environment in which the employees can be successful...and, as you note, not all employees work and think the same way. Being open to variations seems like the key. The CEO will never have all of the answers. Allowing the workers to have the answers, too, seems more likely to be successful.
ReplyDelete