Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. A lack of understanding about the true role of a CEO within an organisationhas led to the backlash over the pay packages being awardedIt is open season on chief executives right now. Each day brings a freshdenouncement of some previously anonymous individual’s remuneration package. While the popular press has no problem in citing market forces as the reasonwhy, say, a journeyman Premier Division footballer can earn £10,000 per week,it appears to be in a state of permanent outrage at similar rewards enjoyed byour captains of industry. Of course, this assault on UK boardrooms is partly fuelled by envy. The US celebrates wealth as a tangible example of success, yet the Britishhave always had an ambivalent attitude towards personal gain, particularly inbusiness. In this instance, however, envy is the by-product of widespread lack ofunderstanding of the precise role and contribution of a CEO. If people have little appreciation of someone’s fundamental value to anorganisation, they are more sceptical about how they are rewarded. This lack ofunderstanding often exists within the boardroom itself. While most businesses assess the contribution of their staff regularly,similarly rigorous programmes often aren’t applied to assessing CEOs. The main problem is arriving at a series of measures that have any realmeaning. What do CEOs actually do? When, for example, you are hiring a call centre manager, you know exactlywhat their responsibilities are and the criteria on which they are going to beassessed. It is much more difficult to determine what constitutes effectiveness atchief executive level because there is no clear ‘line of sight’ between whatthe CEO does day-to-day and how this truly affects an organisation in the longterm. We know that normally, a CEO is expected to provide leadership and strategicdirection. But how do you measure nebulous concepts? You also have to factor in a range of issues outside of a CEO’s control thatmay affect business performance, such as macro-economic developments,government regulation, etc. Also, the CEO’s function is to deliver performance through other people. Howcan you measure the performance of individuals who, by the very nature of theirjobs, are charged with delegating specific actions rather than carrying themout themselves? These barriers to formal assessment means judgement of a CEO’s performanceis left to the vagaries of public perception. People fall into the trap of ‘confirmation bias’; they seek out confirmingevidence to support their view of the CEO and discount disconfirming evidence. So, if people like a CEO, they will hear things that reflect favourably onthem, while turning a deaf ear to bad news or attributing it elsewhere. The power of ‘context dependence’ helps to distort people’s evaluation of aCEO’s true value. This law has it that if a company is doing well, the CEOtakes the plaudits; if it is doing badly, the CEO ends up carrying the can,despite the fact they may have been powerless to change the outcome. There is a way forward and it comes largely from re-examining the psychologyof performance management. Typically, when asked about how it assesses performance, a business claimsto have hard measures. But those measures tend to be described in terms ofspecific activities, rather than measurable ‘outputs’. The principle that should govern performance measurement at all levels isthe necessity to be explicit about what needs to be achieved. As long as peopleare clear about their destination or target, they are good at working out howto get there. They cannot work efficiently when they don’t know what they areexpected to achieve. CEOs are no different. There is a tendency when assessing people performance to measure what is‘acceptable’. But people need to be assessed on whether they have exceeded anacceptable level of performance, or fallen short of it. This is essentially a ‘cybernetic’ concept of performance. Having stretchinggoals to strive towards is motivational, while having a clear understanding ofwhat is unacceptable guides performance. Providing clear parameters gives people the freedom to decide their ownroute and take risks in achieving their objectives. Merely telling people whatis acceptable doesn’t ‘raise the bar’; people are more likely to cruise. The criteria by which a company leader’s contribution is assessed should beeasily understandable, with only a few well-defined areas, and the resultsshould be completely public. Key stakeholders should be able to make aninformed judgement about company performance. That starts by understanding howthe CEO is meeting, and exceeding, their brief. A good CEO should welcome the opportunity for formal assessment because theywill know precisely how they will be judged. By Robert Myatt, senior consultant, Kaisen Consulting Previous Article Next Article Worth versus wealth: fat cat pay could be justifiedOn 17 Jun 2003 in Personnel Today
The Batesville Lady Bulldogs lost to The SD Lady Knights 9-3 in Varsity Softball action.Batesville vs. SD Varsity Softball (4-10)The JV teams battle to 3-3 tie.Batesville vs. South Dearborn JV Softball (4-11)On Monday (4-13), The Lady Dogs will travel to EIAC rival East Central for a 5:30 varsity start time. JV to follow.Courtesy of Bulldogs Coach Jody Thomas.
Facebook Twitter Google+ Published on January 30, 2017 at 10:41 pm Contact Nick: [email protected] | @nick_a_alvarez Before Syracuse won five of its last six conference games, its season neared collapse. The Orange had conceded 15 goals in three games.On Dec. 10, then-No. 4 Clarkson rattled off three goals in the second period en route to a 4-1 victory. At Boston College on Jan. 4, SU blew a two-goal lead when a four-goal BC burst in the second frame and the Eagles won, 4-3. Then on a trip to Ithaca, New York, Syracuse gave up at least two goals in every period in an eventual 7-2 Cornell rout.“You can tell when it’s going to happen to us,” SU forward Jessica Sibley said. “On the bench you can feel it.”To earn a first-round bye, Syracuse (10-11-5, 9-3-2 College Hockey America) will need to prevent teams from scoring in bunches. Four times this season, the Orange defense has allowed at least three goals in a single period. After losing to Cornell, SU head coach Paul Flanagan made a pact with his team to end their losing ways.The Orange has since outscored its opponents 21-6, winning four straight conference games before splitting a weekend series against No. 7 Robert Morris last weekend.AdvertisementThis is placeholder text“It was instant,” SU defender Dakota Derrer said of the pact’s influence. “… Everyone was well aware.”The last two seasons, the Orange has made a late-season push that launched it into the CHA championship game. This season, Syracuse wants to do the same.Over the last six games, the Orange has imposed a new defensive game plan. Flanagan has prevented his team from giving up many goals by preaching a “defense-first” mindset and “mixing it up a bit.”SU has emphasized clearing pucks in front of the net. By doing this, SU goalie Abbey Miller has seen a lower percentage of high-quality shots. Along with clearing the puck, Syracuse has tried to establish a strong fore-check and transition game to score more goals, as SU did in its 5-1 victory over conference leader RMU on Saturday afternoon.Another point of emphasis is clearing the puck from Syracuse’s defensive zone. This has proven crucial to SU’s success. The Orange didn’t clear the puck in last Friday’s 3-1 loss to RMU.“Any chance you can get, get it out,” Derrer said. “… Once we start turning it over, it ends up in the back of our net.”The Orange has six conference games left to catch first place RMU. If Syracuse can follow through with its pact, it will have for the third straight year a shot at its first-ever CHA title.“I think since then, I don’t know if it’s a coincidence,” Flanagan said of the wins that came after the pact. “I think they start to realize how important every game is.”“It’s crunch time,” Miller said. Comments
“Valtteri drove an incredible race today so he truly deserved it and we’ve just got some work to do. It’s a great race start to the year, more than we could have hoped for the team.”I do have some ideas [about the lack of pace], but I’ll wait to sit with my engineers to go over it.”It’s frustrating when you have a good weekend up until that point but that’s how it goes and I’ll work hard to improve next time.” Valtteri Bottas felt he produced his “best race ever” as he began the 2019 Formula One season with a win at the Australian Grand Prix.Mercedes driver Bottas got away brilliantly and overtook pole-sitting teammate Lewis Hamilton into turn one, with victory always looking likely from that point. It represented the Finn’s first win in 22 races, having last triumphed at the 2017 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.”The start was really good. It was definitely my best race ever,” said Bottas, who took a maximum 26 points by posting the fastest lap.”I just felt so good, everything was under control and the car was so good today. It was truly enjoyable.”As I had a really strong pace I wanted to go for [the fastest-lap bonus point]. It’s always a bit risky on worn tyres, but it was worth it.”I’m so happy and can’t wait for the next race.”Bottas added on the podium: “In the beginning it was all about managing the race and trying to build a gap, which I did after about seven laps.”I know I can do it, I’ve done it before. It was all about being at my best level. The second stint, when you’re really on it, it feels kind of easy!”A dominant fourth career victory, and the fastest lap of the race @ValtteriBottas claimed a maximum points down under!#AusGP #F1 pic.twitter.com/GOLN8UfwHo— Formula 1 (@F1) March 17, 2019Hamilton appeared to struggle on the medium compound and had to fend off Max Verstappen to take second, though he said the Red Bull driver had presented him with “no problem.”The reigning champion was pleased Mercedes sealed a one-two but had admitted he had an inkling about why he had failed to keep up with Bottas.”It’s a good weekend for the team, so I have to be happy for everyone — a fantastic job from everyone,” Hamilton said.