Good managers in mid-ranks or as far up as CEO levels, are hard to evaluate. It is not as easy as it is with an athlete who wins or loses events and games, or has statistics that can be measured. I know that the sports media have their experts but they make a lot of senseless noise, comparable to idle locker room or bar room chatter.
True, business sales can be measured, as well as profit and loss. But it is not that simple to evaluate executives who may or may not be responsible for the bottom line after all. I have always said a good executive may still lose money for his or her company. But less than a poor manager or executive would have lost under similar conditions.
So more arcane yardsticks must be employed, depending on the type of business under analysis or evaluation.
Moreover, what incentives do you give to get results? What is good pay? Or options? Do more and more money inducements really make a difference?
The definition of a good manager is difficult when the evaluation is equally hard to make. On-the-job experience does it, not text book explanations and suggestions.
No comments:
Post a Comment