"In a survey, they asked businesses whether they employed management essentials such as targets, incentives, and monitoring. Firms that did do these things, they found, were more productive and more likely to endure.Locus de controlo no interior!!!
...
Overall, we learned three things. First, according to our criteria, many organizations throughout the world are very badly managed. Well-run companies set stretch targets on productivity and other parameters, base the compensation and promotions they offer on meeting those targets, and constantly measure results — but many firms do none of those things. Second, our indicators of better management and superior performance are strongly correlated with measures such as productivity, return on capital employed, and firm survival. Indeed, a one-point increment in a five-point management score that we created — the equivalent of going from the bottom third to the top third of the group — was associated with 23% greater productivity. Third, management makes a difference in shaping national performance. Our analysis shows, for example, that variation in management accounts for nearly a quarter of the roughly 30% productivity gap between the U.S. and Europe.
...
Taken together, better workers and better managers explain between a quarter and half of the link between good management and productivity that the researchers established in earlier work.
...
The paper can’t prove that good managers cause good management, but it seems likely that they do. “I think it probably runs in both directions,” Van Reenen said of the causal relationship, noting that wellmanaged firms are better positioned to attract good managers and that “better managers are more likely to get their firms to adopt best practices.”"
Trechos retirados de "Proof That Good Managers Really Do Make a Difference"
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário