Being A Senior Business Executive: Need to Know
Blogs > MightyAtom |
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
| ||
Impervious
Canada4166 Posts
| ||
Kezzer
United States1268 Posts
| ||
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
| ||
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
| ||
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
| ||
ClanOverdosed
691 Posts
| ||
chongu
Malaysia2578 Posts
and ur Sargent and the lieutenant example is good, never thought abt it that way. and u learnt this from TV? | ||
MightyAtom
Korea (South)1897 Posts
Kurtis: sleep is always best BluzMan: its different in professional business at that level on the basis of weighting, in sciences or academia you need to have that level of reporting or more so, for validation of your results as well as funding, whereas in business it would make you a cocksucker to do that much reporting because what I'm talking about is not what is required reporting, but additional reporting for political reasons. Business is mostly about operations and if you have that much reporting to do, meaning 5 hours of your 10 hour day is spent on reporting, what that means is that you are spending your time spinning your reports or investigating what others are doing and pushing them towards things that are reportable rather than efficient and profitable. Ciryandor: In the context of SMEs (Small Medium Sized Enterprises), formal reporting is one of the biggest forms of non profitable time usages because, you're right, the firm at that size usually has a good system of informal reporting. This issue of reporting is usually most pronounced when this SMEs have to do reporting for gov't grants or regulatory issues, which really screw em up, so interpersonal reports, not as necessary, but I would say: if you are in a senior management position and you can report directly to your owners and equity is up for grabs, an additional update once a month is not a bad call, at least to summarize the month. I'm sure they'll appreciate your level of professionalism, but watch out your other staff might call you a kiss ass. lol. In terms of strategic consideration for firms, regardless of size, your strategic consideration on a goal level would still be set for the full year, and I would say you would feel pressure, a lot of pressure, strategically if you were a small firm and competing nearly head to head with a large firm in the same industry (which would be stupid to do so, unless your firm had some deep pockets or some really commercial new application/advantage). I would also say if you were a small firm in a new industry with very high growth, execution/operations would probably be your main concern rather than strategy as everyone would be growing rapidly. But, if you're in a niche market, you shouldn't be under any less strategic pressure than any other large firm. But in my professional opinion, it all depends on who your competitors are and what stage your industry is at. It is a mistake to try to keep updating your strategy based on a reactionary perspective to what your competitors are doing. What you see them doing is are visible 'tactics' of what their strategy is intending. You need to stay your course to determine whether or not your firm's strategy was correct and then revise, otherwise you'll get in a trap where you end up just short term solutions and no over all long term strategy. This is assuming that you first made your strategy at that level of their strategic intent and not just what they are doing now. Now as a small firms you will be nimble to execute a new strategy faster than the incumbent to gain market share/position. I need to be clear though, when you firm is in survival mode, whatever you are doing is not for strategic considerations its for getting to a position where you are stable enough to think and then make strategy. You can't do both at one time and survival really has nothing to do with strategy, its just survival at any costs, you can make a plan, but that isn't strategy because it has no consideration of the competitors, just for your own firms stability. Beloth: thanks for the bump keke. chongu: thanks for the comment- about the Sargent and lieutenant example, just something I use when I had to explain this during training of my previous staff and interns when I was consultant and director over the years, I haven't trained many, but just an elite few keke but, I just took the example from TV as a kind of common misconception to explain things, if I did just learn it from TV, I'd think the lieutenants were all just cocksuckers keke. Cheers | ||
| ||