Re: Pursuit of Excellence

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/12/02 12:58:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:



> No business could be successful if its managers' goal is being "good enough."
>
> If  I were evaluating a company for investment, and the annual report stated
>
> that the company's profits are "good enough," and that there is no need to
>
> improve or do anything to grow the company, I'd look elsewhere for investment
>
> opportunities.


I look at the numbers on the balance sheet and I really don't care how a company characterizes them: good, excellent, lousy, etc.  In fact, I just look at the balance sheet -- that's what is important and it's alwyays numbers.


> It's the difference between being a manager and being a bureaucrat.  The
>
> bureaucratic attitude is to do the minimum work and then relax.  A good manager
>
> is always seeking ways to improve, often without spending more.
>
>
> A bureaucrat is someone who works for a bureacracy.  I am not a bureacrat -- I have never been an employee of a government department (a bureacracy).  Having provided that disclaimer, let me say that this egregious insult to bureacrats is unwarranted and unsubstantiated.  If I just look at the bureacrats and managers I have worked with and for, many of the bureacrats have been conscientious and hardworking, and have been good managers, while many of the managers have been lazy, selfish, prone to exercise favoritism, and ignorant.  Note I say "many," not "all."  There are conscientious managers and there are lazy bureacrats.  So what?



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com