If I wanted to focus on other things, I'd probably let my mom or dad run it -- they would enjoy that kind of work -- while I pursued other interests. I have no interest in the day-to-day operations of a large company, but I wouldn't trust someone outside my family. So, I guess that I would rather put the responsibility on someone I trust than someone who is experienced.
What if they worked closely with somebody who had been working in that organisation for the last 35 or so years, and he was somebody who brought in a lot of experience from outside?
The large Corporation I assume is already successful – so it must have a good tract record. Experienced people are expensive but indispensable if the organisation wants to achieve a change of direction vertically or horizontally or culture to battle competition issues; but a person with “little experience” whilst not normally expensive, would be more then ample if the organisation was trying to resolve a succession issue, because one could be easily molded into the culture of a large successful organisation.
You wouldnt let them run the whole thing, you would let them, I don't know, run an employment program, management on a smaller scale, and then only after they got a decent education, like a B.A. in law or something, depending on what the company actually did, and it would be good for them to have a bit of professional experience too. You have to know what is going on in the real world, outside the boardroom...
Well shoot.Not if it was going to be detramental to the success of the business. But if it were my child or my brother or something like that, I guess it would be OK. So that they could learn the ropes and we could keep it in the family. Everybody's got to start somewhere.
It would be about the quality of that experience as much as the quantity. I wouldnt hire somebody who has a history of running a corporation badly, (like all those banks that are defaulting or Enron) but I would not hesitate in hiring somebody who had a smaller number of years in growing successful organisations in a number of fields.
If I wanted to focus on other things, I'd probably let my mom or dad run it -- they would enjoy that kind of work -- while I pursued other interests. I have no interest in the day-to-day operations of a large company, but I wouldn't trust someone outside my family. So, I guess that I would rather put the responsibility on someone I trust than someone who is experienced.
sorry, but, that was not part of this poll question....i don't want what if's....the question remains as it is stated....so move along...
What if they worked closely with somebody who had been working in that organisation for the last 35 or so years, and he was somebody who brought in a lot of experience from outside?
running only part of this successful business was not an option of this poll....
The large Corporation I assume is already successful – so it must have a good tract record. Experienced people are expensive but indispensable if the organisation wants to achieve a change of direction vertically or horizontally or culture to battle competition issues; but a person with “little experience” whilst not normally expensive, would be more then ample if the organisation was trying to resolve a succession issue, because one could be easily molded into the culture of a large successful organisation.
You wouldnt let them run the whole thing, you would let them, I don't know, run an employment program, management on a smaller scale, and then only after they got a decent education, like a B.A. in law or something, depending on what the company actually did, and it would be good for them to have a bit of professional experience too. You have to know what is going on in the real world, outside the boardroom...
Well shoot.Not if it was going to be detramental to the success of the business. But if it were my child or my brother or something like that, I guess it would be OK. So that they could learn the ropes and we could keep it in the family. Everybody's got to start somewhere.
It would be about the quality of that experience as much as the quantity. I wouldnt hire somebody who has a history of running a corporation badly, (like all those banks that are defaulting or Enron) but I would not hesitate in hiring somebody who had a smaller number of years in growing successful organisations in a number of fields.