82,891
edits
Co-head: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|hr|{{image|Love story|png|}}}}{{d|Co-head|kəʊ-hɛd|n|}} | ||
}}{{d|Co-head|kəʊ-hɛd|n|}} | |||
To ''appoint'' a co-head is to convey the impression one has overdone managerial responsibility whilst creating a vacuum of it. To ''be'' a co-head is to claim credit for the cake that is kept, and blame someone else for all the cake that is eaten. | To ''appoint'' a co-head is to convey the impression one has overdone managerial responsibility whilst creating a vacuum of it. To ''be'' a co-head is to claim credit for the cake that is kept, and blame someone else for all the cake that is eaten. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 18: | ||
===Rationale=== | ===Rationale=== | ||
Purported rationales are to encourage a lean market inside the organisation for ideas, and to sort wheat from chaff. Pitting two young thrusters against each other is some sort of Spartan matriculation: | Purported rationales are to encourage a lean market inside the organisation for ideas, and to sort wheat from chaff. | ||
Those captive of the [[libtard]]s in [[personnel]] may claim this as some modern commitment to consensus and [[diversity and inclusion|diversity]]. Time Magazine bought it hook, line and sinker: | |||
{{Quote|“Having more than one person at the helm means more opportunity for a company to infuse its top ranks with [[diversity]] in all aspects, including age, race, gender, and skillset, as well as more experience with management, communications, and digital prowess.”<ref>[https://time.com/charter/6200510/shared-leadership/ The Case For Having More Than One Person in Charge], ''Time'', 22 July 2022.</ref>}} | |||
But no-one, outside [[HR]], with the first clue about human nature<ref>It goes without saying people in human resources have not the first clue about human nature.</ref> buys that. Pitting two young thrusters against each other is some sort of Spartan matriculation: soon enough, one will emerge and the other will expire in the cage, a mess of blooded feathers. This is how [[Goldman]] looks at it, anyway. If that is how you do your succession planning, fair enough — but you reap what you sow. | |||
This is not how it works in kinder, lazier places where the co-head gambit is a sop from those without the heart for hard decisions that might damage fragile egos. | This is not how it works in kinder, lazier places where the co-head gambit is a sop from those without the heart for hard decisions that might damage fragile egos. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 32: | ||
*[[Joint and several liability]] | *[[Joint and several liability]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{c2|People|Office life}} | |||