It is the purpose of this article to suggest what may be a more useful approach to the selection and development of administrators. Yet this quest for the executive stereotype has become so intense that many companies, in concentrating on certain specific traits or qualities, stand in danger of losing sight of their real concern: what a man can accomplish. But one has only to look at the successful managers in any company to see how enormously their particular qualities vary from any ideal list of executive virtues.” 1
Few, for instance, would dispute the fact that a top manager needs good judgment, the ability to make decisions, the ability to win respect of others, and all the other well-worn phrases any management man could mention. The literature of executive development is loaded with efforts to define the qualities needed by executives, and by themselves these sound quite rational. The qualities most needed by a shop superintendent are likely to be quite opposed to those needed by a coordinating vice president of manufacturing. Yet any executive presumably knows that a company needs all kinds of managers for different levels of jobs. “The assumption that there is an executive type is widely accepted, either openly or implicitly.
The executive development programs of some of the nation’s leading corporations and colleges reflect a tremendous variation in objectives.Īt the root of this difference is industry’s search for the traits or attributes which will objectively identify the “ideal executive” who is equipped to cope effectively with any problem in any organization. Although the selection and training of good administrators is widely recognized as one of American industry’s most pressing problems, there is surprisingly little agreement among executives or educators on what makes a good administrator.
0 kommentar(er)
