Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="kcsu, post: 380901, member: 528"] In looking at our program i will attempt to compare it to running a company and being a company as they are similiar. Our company or program got a big boost when it became part of the ACC. Think of this as Boeing landing a major contract that ensures profitability for years to come as long as they can produce. This contract provided the company with stability and capital. Two foundation blocks needed to sustain and grow any corporation. In short the company is on a very solid foundation as long as it can produce. Next you need leadership. Our board of directors is made up of Nancy, Doc, Floyd who has way more power than most people know, the board of Trustees and major contributors. They have selected a CEO who is Doc and Doc has hired a President/COO to run the company. HCDM The President or DM is empowered to hire and manage his staff. Our company has a few major areas that need to be managed and Doug has selected the following Managing Directors to run these divisions. Managing Director Shafer runs the D division. Shafer was a solid if unspectacular choice having managed at this level for some well thought of companies in the past. Managing director Hacket runs the O division. The announcement of his hiring was greeted with mixed emotions by the shareholders as he has no management experiance yet was the son of a well known and respected manager who our President liked and had a personal relationship with. Because our President came up from the O ranks it was assumed that he would guide and mold young Mr. Hacket as he took over the responsibilities of running one of the two major divisions of the company. The last major division within the company is Specials. Specials had been an issue since President DM began running the company and after a failed hire in Managing director BC the President made the decision to split the responsibilities of running this major division between the other Managing Directors and some of their VP'S. It was rumored that this decision didnt sit well with the CEO and in fact it proved to be a major failure which resulted in the President deciding that he would in fact take over the day to day management of this Division while continuing to run the entire company. Again it is rumored that this decision was met with a degree of concern from the CEO along with some of the major shareholders and the year to date results have been significantly off plan. If this were a company the CEO who is Doc Gross would go to the President who is HCDM and ask him what his plans were to shore up the weak divisions. He would hope that the President would be making reccomendations to replace himself as Special teams managing director and to replace the managing director in charge of the O Division. If the CEO didnt get satisfaction on the plan to improve the weak divisions he would most likely be making a recomendation to the board that we terminate and replace the President. Silly example sure but in the real world you look at a company not as much as a whole but as the sum of its parts or divisions. We have a pretty good company. Good brand, solid capital base, solid D division, improving talent, solid VP's within each division yet two glaring issues. The O division is very weak shows little or no leadership and does not have an identity or plan. In addition it seems to lack direction on the use of its assets. It is in need of major restructuring. The same can be said for the Special division. Repeated mistakes lack of focus and total lack of production. In short it is also in need of a complete restructure and most importantly its own dedicated Managing director as the board and shareholders have witnessed the value of this division over the past four years and the need of a dedicated Managing Director. In order to fix the company the President will need to convince the CEO and the board that he has a plan to shore up the weak divisions. It is hoped that the President who by all accounts is well liked and respected within the organization has the ability and willingness to make the required difficult changes that will hopefully result in better performance from the two under performing divisions. In the event that the President is unable or unwilling to make those changes that it falls on the CEO to replace the President with a leader who will. Given the current performance of the company it is yet to be determined if the CEO will actually provide the President with the opportunity to improve the weak divisions or if the decision will be made to go top down vs bottom up and replace the President as well. Based on market rumors it is assumed that the companies performance in the last quarter will weigh heavily on the CEO's final decision. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?