I thought his comments on management were quite interesting regarding how management would have to change. """ Our greatest managerial failure rate comes in th

I thought his comments on management were quite interesting regarding how management would have to change. """ Our greatest managerial failure rate comes in the step from middle to top management. Most middle managers are doing essentially the same things they did on their entrance jobs: controlling operations and fighting fires. In contrast, the top manager’s primary function is to think. The criteria for success at the top level bear little resemblance to the criteria for promotion from middle management. The new top manager, typically, has been promoted on the basis of his ability to adapt successfully. But suddenly he’s so far away from the firing line that he doesn’t know what to adapt to—so he fails. He may be an able man, but nothing in his work experience has prepared him to think. He hasn't the foggiest notion how one goes about making entrepreneurial or policy decisions. That’s why the failure rate at the senior-management level is so high. In my experience, two out of three men promoted to top management don’t make it; they stay middle management. They aren’t necessarily fired. Instead, they get put on the Executive Committee with a bigger office, a bigger title, a bigger salary—and a higher nuisance value because they have had no exposure to thinking. This is a situation we are going to eliminate. From experience, I think this is still somewhat apt today in that we push people to go through the grunt -> middle manager -> upper management chain with a detour through an MBA program possibly tossed in for good measure rather than grooming people to think and develop a different kind of leadership. It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure how applicable it is to entrepreneurship as to small to mid-size companies, but I think it's worth nothing. Interesting stuff!