The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done (Harperbusiness Essentials)

by Peter F. Drucker

Management is largely by example.

effectiveness as an executive means effectiveness in and through an organization.

The first two practices gave them the knowledge they needed. The next four helped them convert this knowledge into effective action. The last two ensured that the whole organization felt responsible and accountable.

have never encountered an executive who remains effective while tackling more than two tasks at a time.

He asked himself which of the two or three tasks at the top of the list he himself was best suited to undertake. Then he concentrated on that task; the others he delegated.

Good executives focus on opportunities rather than problems. Problems have to be taken care of, of course; they must not be swept under the rug. But problem solving, however necessary, does not produce results. It prevents damage. Exploiting opportunities produces results.

It’s far wiser to list opportunities on the first page and leave problems for the second page.

brilliant insight is not by itself achievement.

If the executive lets the flow of events determine what he does, what he works on, and what he takes seriously, he will fritter himself away “operating.”

What the executive needs are criteria which enable him to work on the truly important, that is, on contributions and results, even though the criteria are not found in the flow of events. 3.

“What do I do that wastes your time without contributing to your effectiveness?”

“My secretary has strict instructions not to put anyone through except the President of the United States and my wife. The President rarely calls—and my wife knows better. Everything else the secretary holds till I have finished. Then I have half an hour in which I return every call and make sure I get every message. I have yet to come across a crisis which could not wait ninety minutes.”

Monday and Friday he had his operating meetings,

Operating meetings vs planning / strategic meetings?

The man who focuses on efforts and who stresses his downward authority is a subordinate no matter how exalted his title and rank. But the man who focuses on contribution and who takes responsibility for results, no matter how junior, is in the most literal sense of the phrase, “top management.” He holds himself accountable for the performance of the whole.

The only meaningful definition of a “generalist” is a specialist who can relate his own small area to the universe of knowledge.

But communications are practically impossible if they are based on the downward relationship.

The harder the superior tries to say something to his subordinate, the more likely is it that the subordinate will mishear. He will hear what he expects to hear rather than what is being said.

“What are the contributions for which this organization and I, your superior, should hold you accountable? What should we expect of you? What is the best utilization of your knowledge and your ability?”

the superior has, of course, both the right and the responsibility to judge the validity of the proposed contribution.

“Who has to use my output for it to become effective?”

we do know one thing: People in general, and knowledge workers in particular, grow according to the demands they make on themselves. They grow according to what they consider to be achievement and attainment. If they demand little of themselves, they will remain stunted. If they demand a good deal of themselves, they will grow to giant stature—without any more effort than is expended by the nonachievers.

the obvious but usually disregarded rule that one can either direct a meeting and listen for the important things being said, or one can take part and talk; one cannot do both).

The effective executive fills positions and promotes on the basis of what a man can do. He does not make staffing decisions to minimize weaknesses but to maximize strength.

We aren’t trying to promote someone that has no weaknesses. But that who has traits of strength despite their weaknesses. Yeah, maybe this person isn’t the best communicator, but do they get things done?

As a result, the “well-rounded” men Lincoln had appointed were beaten time and again by Lee’s “single-purpose tools,” the men of narrow but very great strength.

This is interesting, when we think about “T” shaped developers. This could be an interesting conversation point with Tim.

Effective executives never ask “How does he get along with me?” Their question is “What does he contribute?” Their question is never “What can a man not do?” Their question is always “What can he do uncommonly well?”

“One cannot hire a hand—the whole man always comes with it,”

One of the reasons I think paying for therapy is a powerful tool for getting the “whole person”

In an organization one can make his strength effective and his weakness irrelevant.

every change in the definition, structure, and position of a job within an organization sets off a chain reaction of changes throughout the entire institution.

Somebody has to teach the introductory course in biochemistry in the university. It had better be a good man. Such a man will be a specialist. Yet the course has to be general and has to include the foundation materials of the discipline, regardless of the interests and inclinations of the teacher. What is to be taught is determined by what the students need—that is, by an objective requirement—which the individual instructor has to accept.

there is a subtler reason for insistence on impersonal, objective jobs. It is the only way to provide the organization with the human diversity it needs.

makes sure that the job is well designed. And if experience tells him otherwise, he does not hunt for genius to do the impossible. He redesigns the job. He