I met Jim Lukaszewski in New York last June where we were both presenting at the IABC International Conference. We started a constructive and heated debate about 'command and control'
In the wake of the disastrous leadership that brought us the Credit Crunch James has written to take the asrgument further. He's worth a read:
"This discussion started because Marc characterized me as a proponent of
"command and control." It's a pejorative label. But, let's talk. My
question is, does any of this really matter anyway?
Seems to me that the discussion ought to involve how we influence those who do
make the decisions rather than fussing to find a better label. Much of my
professional life is devoted to helping other have influence.
It's staff discussions of stuff like 'command and control,' or bottom up
decision making,' that drives operators nuts anyway.
The process is more important than the label. Among the processes I advocate,
for anyone who advises a boss at any level, is the commitment to suggest a
number of options from which the 'boss' can develop a solution, or better
questions, or the next step.
My focus is on having real influence through the techniques I advocate, then
letting go. Who's bus is it any way . . . some pr guy's? or lawyer's, HR's or
strategic planner's? I think the driver and owner is the boss. Our job as
passengers is to help that boss drive better and accomplish more. Then they
also take the credit for it.
I frequently hear the frustration of some advisors because the boss ignores
their advice . . . so what? We are paid for our suggestions . . .it's the boss
who gets paid for choosing and for solutions.
The larger issue with the current and future generation of managers and upcoming
leaders is their business school, then peer and marketplace driven need for
relentlessly amoral decision making. Decisions that are totally dependent on
measurement, followed by scoring their personal victories by the size of their
cash accumulation. (That's really what's under the kilt.)
We now graduate MBA's by the thousands each year, each with visions of bucks,
Eros or Zlottes dancing through their heads. Forty percent of last year's
Harvard Business School graduates said Wall Street was their preferred post
graduation professional designation.
Judging by the current state of the world economy, and the 'leaders'
responsible for putting us all in this mess, whatever you feel about the
current business decision making models, . . . something about the rottenness
and arrogance of business leadership needs to change. Sending increasing
numbers of CEOs to prison doesn't seem to be helping.
Most of today's business school business guru's haven't ever met a payroll,
fired somebody, gone bankrupt, run a gas station or grocery store, dealt with a
truly angry employee, or had a significant business success (except a big book
deal). Just check out how a business school gets accredited.
When there is trouble, business people today are taught to blame employees,
clumsy customers, dumb public officials, or the media for their failures . . .
And where are we in this discussion? Arguing about command and control. You're
going to hate this but I have often said that most functions in public
relations can be done by a competent secretary or staff assistant. If we insist
on arguing the small stuff and being absent from the real issues and debates of
our time, why should bosses listen to us.
If ever there were a time when we needed something useful and powerful to bubble
up, this is it. But, of course, then, maybe we'd need some S.O.B to make it
work."
Posted by: Jim Lukaszewski |
James E. Lukaszewski, ABC, APR, Fellow PRSA
The Lukaszewski Group Inc.
Chairman and President
Comments