Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Poweromics in Business - Rewarding Failure

Rewarding Failure (and Poweromics) are starting to be challenged in Business now too ... take a look at Robert Peston's blog and my comment (83) added to it below:

1. True entrepreneurs are innovative leaders who create long-term value, prosperity and growth (e.g. Dyson) ... people we should nurture, support and reward ... (rather than hinder!)

2. Traditional executives, normally from the finance community, are rarely innovative and tend to systematically destroy long-term value, prosperity and growth (e.g. by failing to innovative and applying simple cost cutting exercises) to obtain a large bonus for achieving short-term financial targets and goals* ... people we should challenge, stop and retrain in 'value management' ... (not reward with massive salaries, pensions, bonuses, and pay-offs for failure!) ...

Rewarding failure has had it's day ... and clear self interest, poor moral values and greed have also had their day too ... the application of Poweromics** is being challenged in Government and it's going to be challenged in business too ... 

More people can see it now and it's not going to go away ... for instance I'm writing a Poweromics** blog with more examples to make sure it doesn't ... and to make sure its addressed once and for all ... and anyone who is doing the same will be linked from it too ...

Poor management and Poweromics** have had their day - and with the help of the internet they will soon change forever, and for the better ...

David Clift, a Future 500 Leader

* 21st century leadership and management are completely different to traditional leadership and management, and focus on continuously improving the long-term value of an enterprise and the lives of people ... not creating fear and sacking them.

** Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed ... ... take a look at my previous BBC blog comments for instance.


  • Comment 87 (godfreybrown) 

    Re 64 William 1965

    I agree with you when you say no person who heads up an organisation (as opposed to owning the business) should be able to earn more in one year than the avarage equally well educated working person can earn in a lifetime. 

    It is nonsense to say for anyone to say that the sums of money our top bankers and captains of industry deserve to paid the vast sums of money they are now being paid. 

    As recent events have shown moany of them managed to get to the top either through nepotisim or the old boy network and as a result we have ended up with far too many business clones suffering from high levels of inbred business idocy and insufficient entreprenurial flair. 

    Re: 70 pawns or players

    I disagree with you when you say top bankers need to be sufficiently incentivised if they are to do the job we expect of them properly and what a good many who are earning considerably less could do equally well. There is nothing magic in being a top banker providing you have the right connections.

    I am totally in favour of someone with genuine entreprenurial flair and business accumin (such as James Dyson) earning vast riches for his ingenutiy, enterprise and genuine hard work over many many years. 

    Neither am I against top bankers who put their own money at risk to earn over many years to earn themselves a vast fortune providing it is on the understanding that if the bank goes bust, in the way that we have seen banks go bust recently, then they lose everything they own.

    It is a fallacy to say that there are insufficient numbers of suitable people about who can run these sort of organisations. Most large enterprises have very good succession plans in place and if the boards of these companies believe they need to recruit someone exceptional to do the job they want doing then it is time for some of them to be put out to grass because as the saying goes "they have reached their level of incompetence"


    Comment 88 (whatevernext1)

    Only 60% of "shareholders" voted against despite the climate being so obviously against such greed. Presumably the 60% felt public pressure is mounting such that they had to do something whereas in the past they turned a blind eye.

    The key problem is that the fund maangers are not the real shareholders - who are mainly pension savers - and fund managers and others in the City are on the same gravy train of paying themselves huge amounts effectively from our savings as the PLC directors.

    Labour has not changed corporate governance to allow those whose money is actually invested in these companies the ability to vote on key issues such as Board appointments and remuneration. 

    Why?-because they get huge political contributions from the City, PLC directors etc and former cabinet ministers and senior civil servants get lucrative appointments with PLC's and in the City.

    From expenses to corporate governance, corruption is rife, and we the ordinary public are the ones paying for it through taxes and raids on our pension savings.


    Comment 89 (alphaptarmigan)

    Today I attended an Investment conference, hosted by one of our biggest fund managers and this "Corporate Governance" issue generated similar anger from the attendees as the MPs expenses issue. Fund Managers were being encouraged to create a new forum to exercise shareholder power.I can't help but wonder that all this is symptomatic of increasing disatisfaction with the inequalities between the top and the middle/average earners in our society.

    Looks to me like we are gaining a new enthusiasm for democracy at all levels!