Discussion: View Thread

On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Phil Rutherford wrote Re: MCI
>
>Jack,
>Sorry I haven't replied to your query before this but time and tide etc.
>Re the MCI competency (skills) standards, the following is my understanding
>(having been part of the team who piloted them) of how the standards were
>developed and implemented:
>
>>How were these validated?
>
>The competencies were first identified from a functional analysis approach
>- ie, the skills and knowledge of those people agreed as being 'good'
>managers were analysed for the competencies they displayed and, more
>importantly, how these competencies were actually applied on the job.
[....]
>Once MCI were happy with the product they took the competencies to what was
>then called the National Council for Vocational Qualification (loosely the
>equivalent of the National Skills Standards Board) where they were endorsed
>for their content, industry input and support, format and workplace
>usability. This endorsement was for a number of years during which time it
>was expected that MCI would continue to pilot the standards in the
>workplace and report back on industry takeup and use.
[...]
>
>>Did the majority of good managers exhibit these competencies and the
>>majority of bad managers lack these competencies?
>Not at all. There is no comparison between 'good' managers and 'bad' ones.
[...]

>>How were the good and bad managers discerned in the first place?

>Exactly. There are schools of thought that still consider it profitable to
>measure high level performance by looking at what is considered to be low
>level performance. It seems that in doing so they figure that if you
>identify what is bad, and do the opposite, then you must be doing good. But
>this is nonsense. In management people can do everything very well and
>still end up with failures. It isn't always their fault - just like it
>isn't the surgeon's fault if the patient dies even when the surgeon does
>everything right.
>
>Hope that helps.

Dear Phil,

Well, my friend, it pains me to tell you that this is a very disappointing
scenario.

MCI and friends can't discern good managers from bad ones but can list the
behavoirs of good ??? managers and have a board of "experts" bless these
characteristics. Egad.

Not that you are personally responsible but MCI and the National Council
for Vocational Qualification should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet,
they should practice the proven Japanese management improvement technique,
Hari Kari.

Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton just turned over in their respective graves,
face down, in great embarrassment, over this disregard for scientific due
process.

A one-sided exercise like this has not been seen since the Peters and
Waterman "Excellence" tome which turned out to prove nothing except that P.
T. Barnum was right.


Jack Ring
Innovation Management
sendmail: jring@amug.org

Jack,
I loved your response. Thanks for that. I've been on the road for the past few
days and your message was just the fillip needed while wading through a shedful
of e-mails.

Seriously though, I, and a great many learned people throughout the world, have
no difficulty in identifying competencies for excellence from those who display
excellence. My time teaching leadership in the Services was also spent
discussing why the traitist approach to identifying competencies (ala some of
the recent emails we've seen on this site) had far more holes in it than did
identifying the exact performance that made one person's on-the-job behaviour
better than another's. For example being managerially tough is a good trait for
managers but a competency is knowing when to apply such managerial toughness and
when not to. Semler may have good ideas for his company but no-one in their
right mind would try and emulate the way he runs his business. Similarly, there
is only one Iaccoca and the world is blessed because of it - but this also means
that no-one can takes his ideas and make them work in another environment, time
and culture.

As you seem to have deemed that the MCI approach is so flawed, I would be
interested to hear what you feel would be a better way.

Regards

Phil



Jack Ring wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Phil Rutherford wrote Re: MCI
> >
> >Jack,
> >Sorry I haven't replied to your query before this but time and tide etc.
> >Re the MCI competency (skills) standards, the following is my understanding
> >(having been part of the team who piloted them) of how the standards were
> >developed and implemented:
> >
> >>How were these validated?
> >
> >The competencies were first identified from a functional analysis approach
> >- ie, the skills and knowledge of those people agreed as being 'good'
> >managers were analysed for the competencies they displayed and, more
> >importantly, how these competencies were actually applied on the job.
> [....]
> >Once MCI were happy with the product they took the competencies to what was
> >then called the National Council for Vocational Qualification (loosely the
> >equivalent of the National Skills Standards Board) where they were endorsed
> >for their content, industry input and support, format and workplace
> >usability. This endorsement was for a number of years during which time it
> >was expected that MCI would continue to pilot the standards in the
> >workplace and report back on industry takeup and use.
> [...]
> >
> >>Did the majority of good managers exhibit these competencies and the
> >>majority of bad managers lack these competencies?
> >Not at all. There is no comparison between 'good' managers and 'bad' ones.
> [...]
>
> >>How were the good and bad managers discerned in the first place?
>
> >Exactly. There are schools of thought that still consider it profitable to
> >measure high level performance by looking at what is considered to be low
> >level performance. It seems that in doing so they figure that if you
> >identify what is bad, and do the opposite, then you must be doing good. But
> >this is nonsense. In management people can do everything very well and
> >still end up with failures. It isn't always their fault - just like it
> >isn't the surgeon's fault if the patient dies even when the surgeon does
> >everything right.
> >
> >Hope that helps.
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> Well, my friend, it pains me to tell you that this is a very disappointing
> scenario.
>
> MCI and friends can't discern good managers from bad ones but can list the
> behavoirs of good ??? managers and have a board of "experts" bless these
> characteristics. Egad.
>
> Not that you are personally responsible but MCI and the National Council
> for Vocational Qualification should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet,
> they should practice the proven Japanese management improvement technique,
> Hari Kari.
>
> Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton just turned over in their respective graves,
> face down, in great embarrassment, over this disregard for scientific due
> process.
>
> A one-sided exercise like this has not been seen since the Peters and
> Waterman "Excellence" tome which turned out to prove nothing except that P.
> T. Barnum was right.
>
> Jack Ring
> Innovation Management
> sendmail: jring@amug.org

On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Phil Rutherford wrote Re: Managerial Standards
>
>Jack,
>I loved your response. Thanks for that. I've been on the road for the past few
>days and your message was just the fillip needed while wading through a
>>shedful of e-mails.
[...]
>As you seem to have deemed that the MCI approach is so flawed, I would be
>interested to hear what you feel would be a better way.

Phil,

If you feel that I have attacked you please be assured that was certainly
not my intent. Frankly, I was paraphrasing an observation made by Sid
Schoeffler, father of PIMS, shortly after In Search Of Excellence was
published. Sid observed that the book associated several practices with
success but did not examine the negative -- that is, were any companies
successful without those characteristics. According to Sid, scientific
method involves asking both questions. And sure enough many of the
companies featured in the book were in bad shape in only a few years while
other companies not exhibiting the lauded characteristics were doing quite
well.

When a list of managerial behaviors is claimed to be indicators of success,
I think it is necessary to show that those managers exhibiting these
behaviors are successful and those not exhibiting these behaviors are not
successful. Further, following Andy Grove's delightful book of the early
'80's on The Role of the Manager, I think you cannot use the accomplishment
of the group as an indicator of success. Rather, the accomplishments of
the manager are the only valid criteria.

In my experience, there are few absolutes regarding good managers.
Managerial behavior that fosters excellent results in one situation do not
work in other situations. E. Kirby Warren, Columbia, U., told us this in
the 70's while the lemmings were running off the Theory Y cliff.

In searh of better management ---


Jack Ring
Innovation Management
sendmail: jring@amug.org

The recent discussion on managerial competencies is in some ways reflective
of discussions of contingency approaches to leadership, ie., certain
behaviors that are effective in one situation are not effective in another.
At a more macro level, Janice Black and I have argued that some strategic
resources and capabilities (competencies) are embedded in a larger network
of resources and capabilities, and that the relationships between the
resources and capabilities in these larger networks acts (in the language
of the substitutes for leadership literature) to enhance or neutralize the
effects of any given competency. Thus, focusing on singular competencies
may be misleading. Rather the focus should be on the constellation
(profile) of competencies possessed. In addition, harking back to
contingency theories, the effectiveness of a particular profile would
depend upon the situation. When I talk to my students in corporate
strategy, I always ask them first, what are the key success factors (KSFs)
in your companies industry/market segment. (KSFs are the things one must be
well, not necessarily better, if the organization is to be successful).
Then I ask them, what are your organization's core competencies (CCs) (ie.,
what things does your organization do better than its competitors. This is
to be distinguished from common competencies.). Finally, I ask them, where
is the overlap between the industry's/market segment's KSFs and your firm's
CCs. The area of overlap is the starting point for building a successful
competitive strategiy.

Likewise, one may ask, what are the key success factors in a particular
managerial role. (This is akin to identifying the competencies required to
perform the role well). Then ask, what compentencies (common or core) does
the manager possess. The area of overlap is the area that the person can
easily and successfully navigate.

What about the areas of non-overlap? There are two basic approaches to
take, training and selection. The first ask if we can train the manager to
develop these competencies, and do we have the time and resources to do it.
If not, then the second approach is adviseable. Here, the idea is to
select individuals with complementary managerial competencies to work with
the manager as part of a team. It then is the team that possess the
requisite combination of managerial compentencies to accomplish the task.

If one accepts the above, this questions Jack Ring's assertion that
managers can not (should not) be evaluated based upon the group's success.
Many might argue that the proof in the pudding that Phil Jackson is a great
coach can be seen in the Bull's success. I think back to Viet Nam where
some officers went tragically by the book. The point is, that if the team,
the department, the division, the SBU, the organization, whatever is the
proper unit of analysis, is not successful, does it matter? Not on the
back end, though possibly on the fron end for selecting the appropriate
manager in the first place.

Well, its July the 4th, and I am going home.

Peace, Kim Boal

At 11:07 PM 7/3/98 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Phil Rutherford wrote Re: Managerial Standards
>>
>>Jack,
>>I loved your response. Thanks for that. I've been on the road for the
past few
>>days and your message was just the fillip needed while wading through a
>>>shedful of e-mails.
>[...]
>>As you seem to have deemed that the MCI approach is so flawed, I would be
>>interested to hear what you feel would be a better way.
>
>Phil,
>
>If you feel that I have attacked you please be assured that was certainly
>not my intent. Frankly, I was paraphrasing an observation made by Sid
>Schoeffler, father of PIMS, shortly after In Search Of Excellence was
>published. Sid observed that the book associated several practices with
>success but did not examine the negative -- that is, were any companies
>successful without those characteristics. According to Sid, scientific
>method involves asking both questions. And sure enough many of the
>companies featured in the book were in bad shape in only a few years while
>other companies not exhibiting the lauded characteristics were doing quite
>well.
>
>When a list of managerial behaviors is claimed to be indicators of success,
>I think it is necessary to show that those managers exhibiting these
>behaviors are successful and those not exhibiting these behaviors are not
>successful. Further, following Andy Grove's delightful book of the early
>'80's on The Role of the Manager, I think you cannot use the accomplishment
>of the group as an indicator of success. Rather, the accomplishments of
>the manager are the only valid criteria.
>
>In my experience, there are few absolutes regarding good managers.
>Managerial behavior that fosters excellent results in one situation do not
>work in other situations. E. Kirby Warren, Columbia, U., told us this in
>the 70's while the lemmings were running off the Theory Y cliff.
>
>In searh of better management ---
>
>
>Jack Ring
>Innovation Management
>sendmail: jring@amug.org
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Jack,
No..I didn't think you were have a go at me personally. I just loved your reply.

In response to what you said, here are a couple of my thoughts:


you wrote:

> Frankly, I was paraphrasing an observation made by Sid
> Schoeffler, father of PIMS, shortly after In Search Of Excellence was
> published. Sid observed that the book associated several practices with
> success but did not examine the negative -- that is, were any companies
> successful without those characteristics. According to Sid, scientific
> method involves asking both questions. And sure enough many of the
> companies featured in the book were in bad shape in only a few years while
> other companies not exhibiting the lauded characteristics were doing quite
> well.
>

I agree with this sentiment. It is interesting to note how many of these so called
'excellent' companies fell into some very deep holes within years of the book being
written. But, if one understands how the book came about then it is easy to see
that the research method used wasn't all that flash in the first place - something
that Peters and Waterman now admit.

Having said that, other researchers would disagree with the thought that
researching the bad is going to uncover the good. This only leads us into
interpreting behaviour (or lack of behaviour which, in itself, could be interpreted
as behaviour) and this, in my opinion, is something that could result in some very
skewed outcomes unless we have a good understanding of what is behind the
behaviour.

Leadership is an example we are both familiar with. Do people follow a particular
because of what he/she does or in spite of what he/she does? Is somebody a good
President because he/she is the President or because more people on one side of
politics voted him/her into office than did the other side? Does a good team make
up for a lack of leadership skills or is it a sign that despite all other
competencies the leader is good at picking the right team? And is this sufficient
to be a good leader? It can't be assumed that a lack of application of skills and
knowledge is equal to the lack of such skills and knowledge. Who are we to judge
what a person doesn't know based simply on observing what he/she does or doesn't
do?

I think here is where Peters and Waterman fell down - what they wrote was based on
their personal opinion taken from the hypothesis that if people do certain things
and it causes them to fail, then doing the opposite must see them being successful.
Things just don't work that way.

> When a list of managerial behaviors is claimed to be indicators of success,
> I think it is necessary to show that those managers exhibiting these
> behaviors are successful and those not exhibiting these behaviors are not
> successful. Further, following Andy Grove's delightful book of the early
> '80's on The Role of the Manager, I think you cannot use the accomplishment
> of the group as an indicator of success. Rather, the accomplishments of
> the manager are the only valid criteria.
>

I should explain a little more about the MCI process. The assessment of whether or
not someone possessing those competencies is successful or not is based soley on a
demonstration of evidence to support such a claim. It is not based on the person
him or herself, nor is it based on whether - or how well - he/she passes an exam.
It is based on evidence that he/she provides to show that he/she has the
competencies and can apply them in whatever workplace he/she is operating in.

This takes us away from the subjective judgement that what I put in my training
program is bound to increase your success if you apply it. It also takes us away
from the arrogance that I am the sole judge of 'good' or 'bad' practices in the
workplace. If it works and the organisation moves ahead, who is to say that the
practice was 'bad' (assuming that it wasn't immoral, illegal or just downright
wrong)? The only judge is, obviously, the workplace where the measure of success is
the achievement of objectives, not the application of skills or knowledge learned
as a result of attending a training program. If that was the way of the world why
aren't there more multi-millionaire consultants and trainers? (Just joking - I'm
not privy to your bank account.)

> In my experience, there are few absolutes regarding good managers.
> Managerial behavior that fosters excellent results in one situation do not
> work in other situations. E. Kirby Warren, Columbia, U., told us this in
> the 70's while the lemmings were running off the Theory Y cliff.
>

Agreed. However the closest we have come is in the definition of a set of
principles (worded as competencies) that state, inter alia, all of these 'must be
applied in the context of the environment in which you work'. It allows us to move
away from the belief that the only ones who know what is important in someone's
workplace is the training consultant. I'm afraid they're a wake up to us...

Jack, I know what you're saying and for many years worked within the same
assumptions. I read the same theorists and 'gurus' and tried to apply their words
in training and development programs I ran for managers across all manner of
industries and organisations. It was nice but they still wanted more - notably
skills and knowledge that they could use, not what someone else has said worked for
them somewhere else.

Nice chatting with you again.

Phil

Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Kim Boal wrote, Re: Managerial Standards
[...]

>What about the areas of non-overlap? There are two basic approaches to
>take, training and selection. The first ask if we can train the manager to
>develop these competencies, and do we have the time and resources to do it.
>If not, then the second approach is adviseable. Here, the idea is to
>select individuals with complementary managerial competencies to work with
>the manager as part of a team. It then is the team that possess the
>requisite combination of managerial compentencies to accomplish the task.
>
>If one accepts the above, this questions Jack Ring's assertion that
>managers can not (should not) be evaluated based upon the group's success.

I'll accept the above --- and ask how you arrive at any question. You just
asserted that the manager was found to not overlap adequately. Your
solution, to augment the manager with complementary team members, may work
(but I note that you did not assert that the team would be able to
accomplish the task) but does it make the manager more competent? I think
not. If you complement the manager and if the team succeeds that is great
for the team but it is vitally important to still remember the original
non-overlaps and still strive to help that individual improve. You do him
or her a great disservice to let the person suffer from delusions of
adequacy just because complementary skills were available the last time.
May they won't be the next time.

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
sendmail: jring@amug.org

Jack Ring, asks an important question, Do we do managers a disfavor when we
provide them with the necessary complementary resources/individuals that
allow their organization to be successful without addressing the
fundamental issue of developing their competencies in the area were they
are deficient. This is not a trivial question since we know that a
fundamental attrbutional error is to take credit for success and blame the
environment for failure. Thus, managers are likely to take personal credit
for the success of their team, and attribute competencies to themselves,
when in fact, the success of the team was due to the fact that other
members of the team possessed competencies, complementary to the manager's
but missing in the manager, neccessary for the team's success.

It seems to me one of the purposes of self assessment is to develop an
awareness into ones strengths and limitations. Such an awareness can
imform the manager as to both the need to invest in themselves in
developing their own human capital, but also an awareness that few, if any
of us, possess all the needed competencies necessary to individually
successfully deal with the mirade of complex and uncertain situations that
we face.

One of the dictums that I tell my students is that, "if you want to change
people--change people." Now less I be accussed of apostasy, let me state
that I believe it is possible to develop ones human capital and to change
behavior (I wouldn't be in education if I were not a true believer).
However, I know that the road to growth, development, and change is
arduous, requires motivation and commitment on the part of the subject, and
resources on the part of the organization, and in the end is problematic.
Thus, just like I never try to convert those who are not looking for
answers and open to possiblities, I never try to "develop" managers who
don't think they need to change. And I never over promise what is
possible. There are time, if not personal history and biological
limitations. Some things just take time and continuous striving. I am 53,
and having earned my B.S., MBA, and Ph.D., I guess I have always been
pretty (book) smart. But only now do I think I am begining to aquire
wisdom. There are probably good reasons why the typical Fortune 1000 CEO
has been with their company for about 23 years before they become CEO.
Developing the requisite managerial competencies takes time. Time that can
not easily be short circuited.

Train for the long view, but select complementary assets for the immediate
task.

Kim Boal

At 08:17 AM 7/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Kim Boal wrote, Re: Managerial Standards
>[...]
>
>>What about the areas of non-overlap? There are two basic approaches to
>>take, training and selection. The first ask if we can train the manager to
>>develop these competencies, and do we have the time and resources to do it.
>>If not, then the second approach is adviseable. Here, the idea is to
>>select individuals with complementary managerial competencies to work with
>>the manager as part of a team. It then is the team that possess the
>>requisite combination of managerial compentencies to accomplish the task.
>>
>>If one accepts the above, this questions Jack Ring's assertion that
>>managers can not (should not) be evaluated based upon the group's success.
>
>I'll accept the above --- and ask how you arrive at any question. You just
>asserted that the manager was found to not overlap adequately. Your
>solution, to augment the manager with complementary team members, may work
>(but I note that you did not assert that the team would be able to
>accomplish the task) but does it make the manager more competent? I think
>not. If you complement the manager and if the team succeeds that is great
>for the team but it is vitally important to still remember the original
>non-overlaps and still strive to help that individual improve. You do him
>or her a great disservice to let the person suffer from delusions of
>adequacy just because complementary skills were available the last time.
>May they won't be the next time.
>
>Jack Ring
>Innovation Management
>sendmail: jring@amug.org
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 Phil Rutherford <robnphil@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>, wrote, Re:
Managerial Standards
>
>Jack,
>No..I didn't think you were have a go at me personally. I just loved your
>reply.
>
>In response to what you said, here are a couple of my thoughts:
>
[...]But, if one understands how the book came about then it is easy to see
>that the research method used wasn't all that flash in the first place -
>something
>that Peters and Waterman now admit.

I don't fault Peters and Waterman, they were just remarking on consistent
patterns they had seen in their consulting work and did not represent it as
research. I think the error was made by the media, academia and other
hype-gnosis centers for representing the Excellence list as gospel.

The same phenomenon surrounds Robert Covey. He should write a follow-up
with Bill Clinton on the seven habits of highly successful Presidents.
yuk.
>
>Having said that, other researchers would disagree with the thought that
>researching the bad is going to uncover the good.

So do I, and I did not say that. What I said was that if you want to
assert that Y is caused by X then it is good form to show that Y is highly
correlated with X, and that Not Y has low correlation with X. What it
really means is to lessen the likelihood of Type 1 and Type 2 errors in the
assertion.

[...] if people do certain things
>and it causes them to fail, then doing the opposite must see them being
>successful.
>Things just don't work that way.

That has been my experience and that is one reason I like Herzberg's
Motivation list.

[...]>
>I should explain a little more about the MCI process. The assessment of
>whether or
>not someone possessing those competencies is successful or not is based
>soley on a
>demonstration of evidence to support such a claim. It is not based on the
>person
>him or herself, nor is it based on whether - or how well - he/she passes
>an exam.
>It is based on evidence that he/she provides to show that he/she has the
>competencies and can apply them in whatever workplace he/she is operating in.

OK. What sort of evidence? What are the categories of evidence?

>
[...]The only judge is, obviously, the workplace where the measure of success is
>the achievement of objectives, not the application of skills or knowledge
>learned
>as a result of attending a training program. If that was the way of the
>world why
>aren't there more multi-millionaire consultants and trainers? (Just joking
>- I'm
>not privy to your bank account.)

You are not joking as much as you may think. Have you read The Witchdoctors?

Although I agree that the prime measure is "fit for purpose" I claim that
we must seperate the variables in this implicit relationship. We are
trying to measure how well the purpose of "manager" was fulfilled, not how
well the purpose of the team nor the business was fulfilled. So if we are
to measure manager by achievment of management objectives, then what are
the objectives and what are the better competencies?

If you don't focus this intently, you will find that the main competence of
most managers is "do nothing and stay out of the way" because most teams
get more done when they are not managed -- especially by an inept manager.
But I think that leads to false conclusions. It is the Do No Harm
admonishment, not the Do Your Best.

[...]
>Agreed. However the closest we have come is in the definition of a set of
>principles (worded as competencies) that state, inter alia, all of these
>'must be
>applied in the context of the environment in which you work'. It allows us
>to move
>away from the belief that the only ones who know what is important in someone's
>workplace is the training consultant. I'm afraid they're a wake up to us...

Notice that you just nominated a key competency of a manager -- to figure
out which X to apply given his/her environment. However, I disagree that
principles and competencies are interchangeable expressions of X.
Competencies include the ability to DO.

>
>Jack, I know what you're saying and for many years worked within the same
>assumptions. I read the same theorists and 'gurus' and tried to apply
>their words
>in training and development programs I ran for managers across all manner of
>industries and organisations. It was nice but they still wanted more - notably
>skills and knowledge that they could use, not what someone else has said
>worked for
>them somewhere else.
I have found that about 15% to 30% want more. The rest want the recipe
that they can apply in a way that avoids career risk when things go wrong.


I still have a great deal of skepticism about the MCI process. Sounds like
it lets a fellow ordain himself. How many ministers do you have in AU?
We have plenty in California and most own a radio station and enjoy
tax-free living as a religous leader. ;-)

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
sendmail: jring@amug.org
602-488-4615
F)602-488-4616

One area of research that may help this discussion of situational
competency is the assessment of the performance of entrepreneurs, as
leaders and managers. It is, in many ways, a critical test of our
analytical capabilities. Can we tell which candidates are going to be
successful entrepreneurs? Can we tell what any given candidate needs in
terms of support (advice, deputies, oversight by venture capitalists, etc.)
to ensure that the team is successful? There are billions of dollars (and
a lot of other currencies) riding on our ability to answer those questions.


The results are still early and thin, and the work goes on.

The simplistic answer used to be that entrepreneurs grew organizations
until the entrepreneur became the obstacle to further growth. At that
stage, either the entrepreneur was properly kicked out or the organization
atrophied. It turns out that doesn't seem to be true, at least not in any
simple-to-apply way. The best quick reference I can give for some
sophisticated myth-debunking research is:

Gary E. Willard, David A. Krueger, Henry R. Feeser (1992). "In order to
grow, must the founder go: a comparison of performance between founder and
non-founder managed high-growth manufacturing firms." Journal of Business
Venturing 7(May): 181-194.

Incidentally, per Jack Ring's standards, what these authors did was test
the performance of comparable companies where entrepreneurs had stayed in
the saddle versus companies where they had left. They found no simple
differences in performance.

That is as we should expect, given that the companies faced different
situations, and the CEO / entrepreneurs had different abilities to meet
those situations, and different resources on which to draw.

Tom Bryant.


*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Thomas A. Bryant, Ph.D.
President / CEO, The Brystra Companies (brystra@golden.net)
snail mail: P. O. Box 125, Waterloo, ON Canada N2J 3Z9
Tel: (519) 746-6225; Fax: (519) 725-9384

Chair 1997-98, Entrepreneurship Div., Admin. Sciences Assn. of Canada
Senior Fellow, The Institute for Enterprise Education

"Always do right. It'll gratify some people and astound the rest" - Mark
Twain