Elon Musk is the character that any journalist is happy to see in circulation. His behaviors, his revelations, the successes and failures of his projects are an inexhaustible source of news. Much of the latter may be knowingly and artificially created and very little escapes his masterly direction.
There is no doubt, however, from his posts on X and the misadventures of Tesla, there is a world that captures the interest and attention of a widespread public. But, so long as it is a question of financing the lawsuit of an actress who claims to have been damaged by Disney because she expressed right-wing opinions, or taking up an anti-Ukraine stance for the umpteenth time, his declarations may be considered comparable to those of a normal person. It is a different question, though, when his “excesses” move into spheres concerning the sphere of his companies. It is no chance that a case is awaiting judgment in Delaware brought against him by a Tesla shareholder who maintains that the company’s board of directors failed to exercise due independence when voting for Musk’s mega plan for remuneration. And that a recent Wall Street Journal article aired the worries of some executives and members of various boards of the group about Musk’s drug abuse. News of consumption of LSD, cocaine, ketamine, magic mushrooms and other substances, is by now in the public domain, in spite of the fact that the multi-millionaire makes guests at his psychedelic parties sign a non-disclosure agreement. Musk is often accompanied at the events by people in positions of responsibility in his firms. Firms which operate in delicate and strategic sectors: Space X, for example, is the sole company authorized to transport NASA astronauts to and from orbiting stations. Musk’s behavior understandably is cause for concern but, at the same time, is the perfect example of the degeneration that is increasingly involving the corporate world. That of top managers who chose to favor the big boss, to the detriment of everything else, including the proper management of the company.
Because, while it is true that CEOs and Managing Directors may tend to surround themselves with yes men who will neither contest nor outshine them, it is equally true that it is in the interest of these yes men to accommodate them. Their closeness to the boss, sharing of his/her weaknesses and vulnerabilities, basically allows them to get maximum result with minimum effort. No need to make controversial decisions or take on responsibilities, no difficult choices and, above all, no risk of having to pay the consequences. Nothing but generous bonuses guaranteed when everything is going well, all by simply choosing to stay in the comfort zone within the boss’s shadow. Certainly, the risk that the bubble will burst is always there (Tesla’s shares have fallen by 27% in value from the beginning of the year, also following a fall in profits) but there is a strong probability that, meanwhile, the yes men of the day will have stashed away a good part of the earnings. But there are those who cannot do this: the individual shareholders or company workers who risk bankruptcy because of the irresponsible and unethical behavior of these managers. In a drift which, all too often, involves the corporate world and which should be confronted at a cultural level, too. These behaviors are unacceptable and should be sanctioned, at the very least in terms of reputability. It starts off with a climate in which open conflict is avoided and direct conflict diluted, then smiles become compliant and unwavering and you end up with an ethical mess and a hopelessly reduced business performance.
"low" - Google News
April 05, 2024 at 12:29AM
https://ift.tt/tnNiCd3
Conflict Avoidance And Low Performance - Forbes
"low" - Google News
https://ift.tt/bJDHLxV
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Conflict Avoidance And Low Performance - Forbes"
Post a Comment