The Effective Executive
Rate it:
Open Preview
Read between May 21 - June 27, 2016
11%
Flag icon
The problem is rather that the important and relevant outside events are often qualitative and not capable of quantification.
11%
Flag icon
a fact, after all, is an event which somebody has defined, has classified and, above all, has endowed with relevance.
11%
Flag icon
One first has to abstract from the infinite welter of phenomena a specific aspect which one then...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
11%
Flag icon
The danger is that executives will become contemptuous of information and stimulus that cannot be reduced to computer logic and computer language. Executives may become blind to everything that is perception (i.e., event) rather than fact (i.e., after the event). The tremendous amount of computer information may thus shut out access to reality.
12%
Flag icon
We will have to run our organizations with men as they are.
12%
Flag icon
The experience of the human race indicates strongly that the only person in abundant supply is
12%
Flag icon
the universal incompetent. We
15%
Flag icon
There is, in other words, no reason why anyone with normal endowment should not acquire competence in any practice. Mastery might well elude him; for this one might need special talents. But what is needed in effectiveness is competence. What is needed are “the scales.”
16%
Flag icon
Everything requires time. It is the one truly universal condition. All work takes place in time and uses up time. Yet most people take for granted this unique, irreplaceable, and necessary resource. Nothing else, perhaps, distinguishes effective executives as much as their tender loving care of time. Man is ill-equipped to manage his time.
17%
Flag icon
  To write a report may, for instance, require six or eight hours, at least for the first draft. It is pointless to give seven hours to the task by spending fifteen minutes twice a day for three weeks. All one has at the end is blank paper with some doodles on it. But if one can lock the door, disconnect the telephone, and sit down to wrestle with the report for five or six hours without interruption, one has a good chance to come up with what I call a “zero draft”—the one before the first draft. From then on, one can indeed work in fairly small installments, can rewrite, correct and edit ...more
Patrick Sheehan
amen. spending a little dedicated block of time early on sers you up for success and workbility later on.
18%
Flag icon
And this is time-consuming.
18%
Flag icon
He must also understand the work of the people who have to use his knowledge output. For this, he needs a good deal of information, discussion, instruction—all
Patrick Sheehan
Brad is often brilliant , but fails in this respect. How can I coach him to think of those that must us his work?
18%
Flag icon
“What should we at the head of this organization know about your work? What do you want to tell me regarding this organization? Where do you see opportunities we do not exploit? Where do you see dangers to which we are still blind? And, all together, what do you want to know from me about the organization?”
Patrick Sheehan
good advice from Drucker
21%
Flag icon
  There has been an enormous amount of discussion lately to explain why the British economy has lagged so badly since World War II. One of the reasons is surely that the British businessman of the older generation tried to have it as easy as his workers and to work the same short hours. But this is possible only if the business or the industry clings to the old established routine and shuns innovation and change. For all these reasons, the demands of the organization, the demands of people, the time demands of change and innovation, it will become increasingly important for executives to be ...more
22%
Flag icon
I have yet to see an executive, regardless of rank or station, who could not consign something like a quarter of the demands on his time to the wastepaper basket without anybody’s noticing their disappearance.
Patrick Sheehan
this only works when some one isnt gunning for you
22%
Flag icon
There has been for years a great deal of talk about “delegation” in management. Every manager whatever the organization—business, government, university, or armed service—has been exhorted to be a better “delegator.” In fact, most managers in large organizations have themselves given this sermon and more than once. I have yet to see any results from all this preaching. The reason why no one listens is simple: As usually presented, delegation makes little sense. If it means that somebody else ought to do part of “my work,” it is wrong. One is paid for doing one’s own work. And if it implies, as ...more
23%
Flag icon
“What do I do that wastes your time without contributing to your effectiveness?”
23%
Flag icon
He sends out a printed form which reads: “I have asked [Messrs Smith, Jones, and Robinson] to meet with me [Wednesday at 3] in [the fourth floor conference room] to discuss budget. Please come if you think that you need the information or want to take part in the discussion. But you will in any event receive right away a full summary of the discussion and of any decisions reached, together with a request for your comments.” Where formerly a dozen people came and stayed all afternoon, three men and a secretary to take the notes now get the matter over with within an hour or so. And no one feels ...more
24%
Flag icon
A recurrent crisis should always have been foreseen. It can therefore either be prevented or reduced to a routine which clerks can manage. The definition of a “routine” is that it makes unskilled people without judgment capable of doing what it took near-genius to do before; for a routine puts down in systematic, step-by-step form what a very able man learned in surmounting yesterday’s crisis. The recurrent crisis is not confined to the lower levels
25%
Flag icon
Similarly a well-managed organization is a “dull” organization. The “dramatic” things in such an organization are basic decisions that make the future, rather than heroics in mopping up yesterday.
28%
Flag icon
Time-wasting management defects such as overstaffing, malorganization, or malfunctioning information can sometimes be remedied fast. At other times, it takes long, patient work to correct them. The results of such work are, however, great—and especially in terms of time gained.
Patrick Sheehan
lack of system or foresight to prevent foreseeable problems
28%
Flag icon
  One of the most accomplished time managers I have ever met was the president of a big bank with whom I worked for two years on top-management structure. I saw him once a month for two years. My appointment was always for an hour and a half. The president was always prepared for the sessions—and I soon learned to do my homework too. There was never more than one item on the agenda. But when I had been in there for an hour and twenty minutes, the president would turn to me and say, “Mr. Drucker, I believe you’d better sum up now and outline what we should do next.” And an hour and thirty ...more
29%
Flag icon
The effective executive therefore knows that he has to consolidate his discretionary time. He knows that he needs large chunks of time and that small driblets are no time at all. Even one quarter of the working day, if consolidated in large time units, is usually enough to get the important things done. But even three quarters of the working day are useless if they are only available as fifteen minutes here or half an hour there.
30%
Flag icon
Time is the scarcest resource, and unless it is managed, nothing else can be managed. The analysis of one’s time, moreover, is the one easily accessible and yet systematic way to analyze one’s work and to think through what really matters in it.
31%
Flag icon
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.
32%
Flag icon
A highly respected university scientist, who had for many years worked closely with the agency, finally told the administrator: “The former director was writing for us; your new man writes at us.”
32%
Flag icon
“What can I contribute to the results of this agency?” His answer was, “I can interest the young scientists on the outside in our work, can make them want to come to work for us.”
32%
Flag icon
To ask, “What can I contribute?” is to look for the unused potential in the job. And what is considered excellent performance in a good many positions is often but a pale shadow of the job’s full potential of contribution.
32%
Flag icon
Executives who do not ask themselves, “What can I contribute?” are not only likely to aim too low, they are likely to aim at the wrong things. Above all, they may define their contribution too narrowly.
32%
Flag icon
For every organization needs performance in three major areas: It needs direct results; building of values and their reaffirmation; and building and developing people for tomorrow. If
33%
Flag icon
An organization which just perpetuates today’s level of vision, excellence, and accomplishment has lost the capacity to adapt.
33%
Flag icon
An executive’s focus on contribution by itself is a powerful force in developing people. People adjust to the level of the demands made on them. The executive who sets his sights on contribution, raises the sights and standards of everyone with whom he works.
34%
Flag icon
Commitment to contribution is commitment to responsible effectiveness. Without it, a man shortchanges himself, deprives his organization, and cheats the people he works with.
34%
Flag icon
Robert E. Sherwood, a most effective administrator in the large Office of War Information (and the author of one of the most perceptive books on effectiveness in power *) had been a playwright whose earlier “organization” had consisted of his own desk and typewriter.
Patrick Sheehan
look this up
35%
Flag icon
“What can I and no one else do which, if done really well, would make a real difference to this company?”
35%
Flag icon
McNamara, who at Ford had been the perfect “inside”
Patrick Sheehan
mcnamara as an ideal executive seems increfibly difficult to swalow.
35%
Flag icon
man, was for instance totally innocent of politics and tried to leave congressional liaison to subordinates. But after a few weeks, he realized that the Secretary of Defense depends on congressional understanding and support. As a result, he forced himself to do what for so publicity-shy and nonpolitical a man must have been both difficult and distasteful: to cultivate Congress, to get to know the influential men on the congressional committees, and to acquire a mastery of the strange art of congressional infighting. He has surely not been completely successful in his dealings with Congress, ...more
Patrick Sheehan
i dont get this line of reasoning McNamara is to blam frnso.much of the folly of Amerixan adventurenjnthe 1960s
36%
Flag icon
The man of knowledge has always been expected to take responsibility for being understood. It is barbarian arrogance to assume that the layman can or should make the effort to understand him, and that it is enough if the man of knowledge talks to a handful of fellow experts who are his peers. Even
Patrick Sheehan
amen!
36%
Flag icon
contribution—he has to concern himself with the usability of his “product”—that is, his knowledge.
37%
Flag icon
“What contribution from me do you require to make your contribution to the organization? When do you need this, how do you need it, and in what form?”
38%
Flag icon
The focus on contribution by itself supplies the four basic requirements of effective human relations: communications; teamwork; self-development; and development of others.
39%
Flag icon
traditional concepts and theories are totally inadequate. Knowledge workers must be professionals in their attitude toward their own field of knowledge. They must consider themselves responsible for their own competence and for the standards of their work.
40%
Flag icon
Effective executives know what they expect to get out of a meeting, a report, or a presentation and what the purpose of the occasion is or should be. They ask themselves: “Why are we having this meeting? Do we want a decision, do we want to inform, or do we want to make clear to ourselves what we should be doing?” They insist that the purpose be thought through and spelled out before a meeting is called, a report asked for, or a presentation organized. They insist that the meeting serve the contribution to which they have committed themselves.
40%
Flag icon
  The effective man always states at the outset of a meeting the specific purpose and contribution it is to achieve. He makes sure that the meeting addresses itself to this purpose. He does not allow a meeting called to inform to degenerate into a “bull session” in which everyone has bright ideas. But a meeting called by him to stimulate thinking and ideas also does not become simply a presentation on the part of one of the members, but is run to challenge and stimulate everybody in the room. He always, at the end of his meetings, goes back to the opening statement and relates the final ...more
41%
Flag icon
To focus on contribution is to focus on effectiveness.
41%
Flag icon
one cannot build on weakness.
42%
Flag icon
Whoever tries to place a man or staff an organization to avoid weakness will end up at best with mediocrity. The idea that there are “well-rounded” people, people who have only strengths and no weaknesses (whether the term used is the “whole man,” the “mature personality,” the “well-adjusted personality,” or the “generalist”) is a prescription for mediocrity if not for incompetence. Strong people always have strong weaknesses too. Where there are peaks, there are valleys. And no one is strong in many areas. Measured against the universe of human knowledge, experience, and abilities, even the ...more
Patrick Sheehan
i disagree with Drucker's assertion
42%
Flag icon
“Here lies a man who knew how to bring into his service men better than he was himself.”
43%
Flag icon
excellence. Human excellence can only be achieved in one area, or at the most in very few. People
Patrick Sheehan
no polymaths?
43%
Flag icon
To staff from what there is not and to focus on weakness is wasteful—a misuse, if not abuse, of the human resource. To focus on strength
Patrick Sheehan
doeant this run counter to every union contract ever wditten?
« Prev 1 3 4