planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:52 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Management styles in F1
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:12 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3530
Given we had to halt discussion of Marchionne's management style in the other thread, we felt it would be more appropriate to have a broader discussion in which his style could be compared to other TPs and other Ferrari managers over the years.

As long as nothing strays into defamation or bashing, we can be more hands off here.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6209
Location: Michigan, USA
:thumbup:

I'll start it off then, I suppose.

Obviously Marchionne's management style was controversial as we saw in the other thread, hence the need for this one to exist at all. What I'm more curious about is why: where does the line exist between those who felt he was just what Ferrari needed and those who disapproved of him?

I personally was not a fan of his tenure as head of Ferrari, but in examining my reasons for this thread I've had a hard time coming up with a hard answer. Maybe it was just that he replaced Luca di Montezemolo in such a fashion, essentially ousting the long-time face of Ferrari. Maybe it was the feeling that Marchionne was an outsider, a business man meddling in the racing side of things where he would have been better off staying away. Certainly I didn't like his handling of the press, in particular the way he publicly talked down Kimi's performances while at the same time retaining him.

Now, at this moment, it's hard to separate my feelings about his management of Ferrari from the looming fact of his recent death, and perhaps that makes me look more favorably on him, but I was surprised to hear that he had been championing Leclerc for the seat at Ferrari next year and meeting with resistance from his board. Perhaps some of what I blamed Marchionne for wasn't really his fault.

At the end of the day I don't know how things will change at Ferrari, but it is hard to argue against the fact that - however he accomplished it - things have turned around very quickly at Ferrari since Marchionne took control in late 2014. Ferrari is well and truly back at the top. Would it have been possible without all the tough - sometimes cruel, even - personnel decisions Marchionne made to get there? Formula One is a cutthroat environment, and above all else it is a business. Perhaps a cutthroat businessman is just what Ferrari needed, and what people such as myself truly disliked about Marchionne was how he symbolized the final stage of the move away from passionate racers to giant business entities dominating the sport we love.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7776
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Italian media report that he is in an induced coma. I do wish him well, he did some brilliant management in his role in FIAT/Ferrari.

Somewhere else it was reported that he had a prostate issue as well, who knows really?

I disagree. His biggest decision was to peddle those tiny FUGLY little sardine can atrocities on this side of the pond using Jennifer Lopez's Chicken Legs in their marketing campaigns, and it's gone drastically wrong.
So much so that they are slated to cease all sales in the U.S. in the very near future.

Marchionne and di Montezemolo were at odds because di Montezemolo realized the importance of keeping Ferrari completely independent from the rest of the umbrella and maintain the prancing horse's exclusivity rather than follow what other manufacturers were doing to grow their footprint, when di Montezemolo had already helped transform Ferrari into the world's most power brand. While I wasn't a fan of how di Montezemolo ran the Scuderia in his final decade at the helm, he was light years better for the role than Marchionne.

Marchionne fired Marco Mattiacci almost 9 months after he was appointed TP by di Montezemolo and almost ruined the guy professionally. Then he appointed Maurizio Arrivabene who was is a Marlboro marketing guy and knows nothing about racing outside hanging out with the guys in red for a little over a decade. There's no way anyone can ever convince me the Scuderia is winning because of him and rather, they are doing well despite him and the improvements in their PU was in fact thanks to Mattiacci who began addressing the short comings of the PU immediately after realizing his guys got it wrong. That process was already well in the works, as were future chassis BEFORE Arrivabene was appointed as TP.

The man is so sharp he got himself arrested for littering via chucking his cigarette butt in public in a country where it's clearly prohibited.
Formerly being a high ranking individual at Phillip Morris, he had to know. Then again smokers are among the most selfish people I've ever encountered, and that includes my parents. So please realize, this is not meant to offend anyone, just stating my life experience on the matter.

As you can tell, I wouldn't rush out to call anything Marchionne has done "brilliant", outside work his way to the top, however he managed it,
but I also don't wish him ill and hope he pulls through.

Uhh so much hate... He saved 2 automakers from almost certain collapse. He knew he wasn't nice, but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6645
Good post Exediron, making some good points. The guy got results with FIAT and Chrysler, like him or not. Figures of $13 billion are mentioned as the deficit that he managed to wipe out. All down to his skills as a manager and deal maker. He also changed Ferrari's fortune as mentioned above. He was quite a force in Ferrari and didn't do bad since LdM left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2953
Location: UK
Siao7 wrote:
Good post Exediron, making some good points. The guy got results with FIAT and Chrysler, like him or not. Figures of $13 billion are mentioned as the deficit that he managed to wipe out. All down to his skills as a manager and deal maker. He also changed Ferrari's fortune as mentioned above. He was quite a force in Ferrari and didn't do bad since LdM left.

I'd agree as well, you can't argue with his results. These are not the personality traits that would endear someone to me on a personal level, but they are precisely what is needed for an effective CEO of a major company. And Marchionne was not unique in this regard, as I alluded to on the other thread I'd be willing to bet that the likes of Toto Wolff have a similar ruthless streak about them once the cameras are off and they are behind closed doors.

Plus we are only talking about Marchionne's "professional" personality. Outside of the pressures of a business environment he could have been an entirely different character.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1917
Location: Miami, Florida
dizlexik wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Italian media report that he is in an induced coma. I do wish him well, he did some brilliant management in his role in FIAT/Ferrari.

Somewhere else it was reported that he had a prostate issue as well, who knows really?

I disagree. His biggest decision was to peddle those tiny FUGLY little sardine can atrocities on this side of the pond using Jennifer Lopez's Chicken Legs in their marketing campaigns, and it's gone drastically wrong.
So much so that they are slated to cease all sales in the U.S. in the very near future.

Marchionne and di Montezemolo were at odds because di Montezemolo realized the importance of keeping Ferrari completely independent from the rest of the umbrella and maintain the prancing horse's exclusivity rather than follow what other manufacturers were doing to grow their footprint, when di Montezemolo had already helped transform Ferrari into the world's most power brand. While I wasn't a fan of how di Montezemolo ran the Scuderia in his final decade at the helm, he was light years better for the role than Marchionne.

Marchionne fired Marco Mattiacci almost 9 months after he was appointed TP by di Montezemolo and almost ruined the guy professionally. Then he appointed Maurizio Arrivabene who was is a Marlboro marketing guy and knows nothing about racing outside hanging out with the guys in red for a little over a decade. There's no way anyone can ever convince me the Scuderia is winning because of him and rather, they are doing well despite him and the improvements in their PU was in fact thanks to Mattiacci who began addressing the short comings of the PU immediately after realizing his guys got it wrong. That process was already well in the works, as were future chassis BEFORE Arrivabene was appointed as TP.

The man is so sharp he got himself arrested for littering via chucking his cigarette butt in public in a country where it's clearly prohibited.
Formerly being a high ranking individual at Phillip Morris, he had to know. Then again smokers are among the most selfish people I've ever encountered, and that includes my parents. So please realize, this is not meant to offend anyone, just stating my life experience on the matter.

As you can tell, I wouldn't rush out to call anything Marchionne has done "brilliant", outside work his way to the top, however he managed it,
but I also don't wish him ill and hope he pulls through.

Uhh so much hate... He saved 2 automakers from almost certain collapse. He knew he wasn't nice, but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

Can't call facts "Hate".

That's just how you interpret things.
The guy brought the Fiat line of vehicles to the States assuming he would be able to sell the American populous that downsizing to crappy sardine cans was the way to go, at a pretty hefty price mmind you, and outside a few thousand yuppie hipsters, sales were nothing like projected. So while he may have done well in certain areas, he didn't fair all that well in others, or all facets of his job.
And last I heard Chrysler is not doing so well so whatever he's done has served as a temporary patch for now, and the main reason the Chrysler umbrella is doing as well as it is, is mainly because of the Jeep and a couple of Dodge models. Chrysler only offers all of 2 models. Just saying.

So it's not hate so much as it's having a complete picture that tells me some of what people reiterate isn't exactly accurate or correct. Nothing more, nothing less.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6209
Location: Michigan, USA
dizlexik wrote:
but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I don't think one can say that saving/creating jobs is objectively positive. I don't know enough about his measures to save the company in detail, but it's entirely possible that he made drastic reductions in the quality of those jobs in the process of saving them.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 115
Well, saving thousand of jobs, erasing an almost insurmountable debt in the billions and make two dying big companies a newer, bigger and profitable enterprise again is in itself quite an achievement. Talking about the quality of the jobs is easy, but I think any of the jobs Marchione saved allowed some people to be in a better position than to be unemployed.
Please do not forget that every job Sergio saved was backed by wages and benefits that half of the people in other industries can only dream about. You need to remember this before taking about any "drastic reduction in the quality of the jobs". The lowest quality job is to be unemployed.
Talking about the Management Style of Sergio, very few people in this forum know his real Management style. We are mainly judging by our feelings and what we watch on the TV or read on the press and how he reacted publicly to some thing effecting his companies.
The real management style can be only judged by the people that used to work with Sergio, that knew him thru thousands of hours of interactions while he was doing his job and taking decisions.
The details of what was done to turn the dire situation those companies where in, to the actual situation, is not known to 99.999 percent of the people that is judging. To do what he did, you need skills, knowledge, energy and guts and on top of that, be very clever and smart and have the leadership to make the team of people around you to perform at the top level and materialize your ideas.
Some people here are talking about Luca Cordero Di Montezemolo and his management of Ferrari. Well, Di Montezemolo did very good when he assembled the Dream Team, but Luca Di Montezemolo and his ego, were also the ones that destroyed the Dream Team and the results are there for everybody to see until now.
Under Marchione umbrella Ferrari started to perform better and that is a fact. I am referring not only to the F1 team but Ferrari as a whole.
As a manager Sergio Marchione was one of the best I've seen in many years and I only wish the people replacing him to be able to keep the good job he was doing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1824
There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7776
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Italian media report that he is in an induced coma. I do wish him well, he did some brilliant management in his role in FIAT/Ferrari.

Somewhere else it was reported that he had a prostate issue as well, who knows really?

I disagree. His biggest decision was to peddle those tiny FUGLY little sardine can atrocities on this side of the pond using Jennifer Lopez's Chicken Legs in their marketing campaigns, and it's gone drastically wrong.
So much so that they are slated to cease all sales in the U.S. in the very near future.

Marchionne and di Montezemolo were at odds because di Montezemolo realized the importance of keeping Ferrari completely independent from the rest of the umbrella and maintain the prancing horse's exclusivity rather than follow what other manufacturers were doing to grow their footprint, when di Montezemolo had already helped transform Ferrari into the world's most power brand. While I wasn't a fan of how di Montezemolo ran the Scuderia in his final decade at the helm, he was light years better for the role than Marchionne.

Marchionne fired Marco Mattiacci almost 9 months after he was appointed TP by di Montezemolo and almost ruined the guy professionally. Then he appointed Maurizio Arrivabene who was is a Marlboro marketing guy and knows nothing about racing outside hanging out with the guys in red for a little over a decade. There's no way anyone can ever convince me the Scuderia is winning because of him and rather, they are doing well despite him and the improvements in their PU was in fact thanks to Mattiacci who began addressing the short comings of the PU immediately after realizing his guys got it wrong. That process was already well in the works, as were future chassis BEFORE Arrivabene was appointed as TP.

The man is so sharp he got himself arrested for littering via chucking his cigarette butt in public in a country where it's clearly prohibited.
Formerly being a high ranking individual at Phillip Morris, he had to know. Then again smokers are among the most selfish people I've ever encountered, and that includes my parents. So please realize, this is not meant to offend anyone, just stating my life experience on the matter.

As you can tell, I wouldn't rush out to call anything Marchionne has done "brilliant", outside work his way to the top, however he managed it,
but I also don't wish him ill and hope he pulls through.

Uhh so much hate... He saved 2 automakers from almost certain collapse. He knew he wasn't nice, but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

Can't call facts "Hate".

That's just how you interpret things.
The guy brought the Fiat line of vehicles to the States assuming he would be able to sell the American populous that downsizing to crappy sardine cans was the way to go, at a pretty hefty price mmind you, and outside a few thousand yuppie hipsters, sales were nothing like projected. So while he may have done well in certain areas, he didn't fair all that well in others, or all facets of his job.
And last I heard Chrysler is not doing so well so whatever he's done has served as a temporary patch for now, and the main reason the Chrysler umbrella is doing as well as it is, is mainly because of the Jeep and a couple of Dodge models. Chrysler only offers all of 2 models. Just saying.

So it's not hate so much as it's having a complete picture that tells me some of what people reiterate isn't exactly accurate or correct. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have weird facts. When he took over as a CEO of Fiat and then Chrysler both companies were on the brick of bankruptcy. He made them very profitable and finally managed to get rid of all debt this year. Chrysler is just one of brands now so they might get rid of it if necessary. Similarly Fiat might be reduced to 500 lineup. I don't see anything wrong with that. Companies evolve all the time. They had difficult quarter but that's normal that companies face new challenges all the time.

Exediron wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
but he should be judged by what he achieved and he certainly saved a lot of jobs by saving Fiat and Chrysler.

Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I don't think one can say that saving/creating jobs is objectively positive. I don't know enough about his measures to save the company in detail, but it's entirely possible that he made drastic reductions in the quality of those jobs in the process of saving them.

I don't know. We have huge FCA factory in my city (if you see any 500 in Europe it was made in my city) and another one in nearby city and was it always a bit tough there. There were reductions before Marchionie came, after he came then when we "lost" Panda production. My brother worked as an accountant for one of subcontractors there in 2004 and it was very bad job so he resigned. Either way in media there is quite positive image of FCA here because people who work there are more worried that they will lose job so work there isn't that bad perhaps.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 331
Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 974
Ennis wrote:
There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.


I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2062
paul_gmb wrote:
Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.


Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14264
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.


Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?


As a manager from what I've heard that's about right. Ecclestone was always very good to his team around him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1824
AravJ wrote:
Ennis wrote:
There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.


I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.


Simply not true. Being positive motivates people. You need to be real about it, but oddly enough being negative creates a negative atmosphere. Look at any huge multinational organization and you'll see companies who either have a positive culture or a bad culture.

On the 'mistake' I should rephrase -people make the mistake of assuming the "how" was correct or necessary. Sometimes it really is necessary, but there's this belief that every tough call required a certain type of decision making. Often there is more than one way out of a hole, there is more than one way to the top of a mountain, and you don't always need to be a dick on your way. People look at success and think that a certain style was needed - and sometimes it was, - but often you could have achieved the same result with a more positive "how".

And again - of course people would rather keep their jobs. Nobody is denying that a certain way of doing things is required in some decisions. Sometimes you need to cut 20% of your staff to save the other 80% of your staff, and continue is an employer for the decades to come. But give me a leader who looks at every other option for feasibility first over someone who completely removes the human element.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2062
mikeyg123 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.


Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?


As a manager from what I've heard that's about right. Ecclestone was always very good to his team around him.


As a team manager towards his staff, maybe (although I doubt the "honest"). Otherwise, not so - Brabham under BE was caught cheating quite a lot (and probably they were not always caught). And as the manager of F1, he really was neither "honest" nor "fair", IMO. A notorious liar is probably a better general description.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 974
Ennis wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Ennis wrote:
There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.


I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.


Simply not true. Being positive motivates people. You need to be real about it, but oddly enough being negative creates a negative atmosphere. Look at any huge multinational organization and you'll see companies who either have a positive culture or a bad culture.

On the 'mistake' I should rephrase -people make the mistake of assuming the "how" was correct or necessary. Sometimes it really is necessary, but there's this belief that every tough call required a certain type of decision making. Often there is more than one way out of a hole, there is more than one way to the top of a mountain, and you don't always need to be a dick on your way. People look at success and think that a certain style was needed - and sometimes it was, - but often you could have achieved the same result with a more positive "how".

And again - of course people would rather keep their jobs. Nobody is denying that a certain way of doing things is required in some decisions. Sometimes you need to cut 20% of your staff to save the other 80% of your staff, and continue is an employer for the decades to come. But give me a leader who looks at every other option for feasibility first over someone who completely removes the human element.


It's not about positive or negative. It's about being honest. Ferrari was toxic the car industry was going down. Just look at mclaren, they could have done with cold hard honesty for a few years that would have put them in a better position today. Zak himself said they played down Honda engine last year to motivate staff and look where it got them, need I say more than Freddos.Management is selected by a boards based on what changes are needed and how effective a person can be based on their style and given a mandate. In the ideal environment yes do brain storming, take years to make desicsion by committee, but time is not always on your side. It's situational managment, and yes a tough line is not always necessary, but their definitely there is a time and place where is is absolutely necessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1824
AravJ wrote:
Ennis wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Ennis wrote:
There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.


I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.


Simply not true. Being positive motivates people. You need to be real about it, but oddly enough being negative creates a negative atmosphere. Look at any huge multinational organization and you'll see companies who either have a positive culture or a bad culture.

On the 'mistake' I should rephrase -people make the mistake of assuming the "how" was correct or necessary. Sometimes it really is necessary, but there's this belief that every tough call required a certain type of decision making. Often there is more than one way out of a hole, there is more than one way to the top of a mountain, and you don't always need to be a dick on your way. People look at success and think that a certain style was needed - and sometimes it was, - but often you could have achieved the same result with a more positive "how".

And again - of course people would rather keep their jobs. Nobody is denying that a certain way of doing things is required in some decisions. Sometimes you need to cut 20% of your staff to save the other 80% of your staff, and continue is an employer for the decades to come. But give me a leader who looks at every other option for feasibility first over someone who completely removes the human element.


It's not about positive or negative. It's about being honest. Ferrari was toxic the car industry was going down. Just look at mclaren, they could have done with cold hard honesty for a few years that would have put them in a better position today. Zak himself said they played down Honda engine last year to motivate staff and look where it got them, need I say more than Freddos.Management is selected by a boards based on what changes are needed and how effective a person can be based on their style and given a mandate. In the ideal environment yes do brain storming, take years to make desicsion by committee, but time is not always on your side. It's situational managment, and yes a tough line is not always necessary, but their definitely there is a time and place where is is absolutely necessary.


Playing down something as if nothing is going wrong is the wrong thing to do. You can be both honest and positive. You also need to consider who you're speaking to. There's an expectation that execs will have thick enough skin to maintain their own positive, forward momentum regardless of how much they're getting shouted at. If you're an exec with managers, or engineers, or whatever - then being both honest and positive is often the best path forward. Be honest about failure, find solutions, find improvements, but at least try to convey a positive future and work on the path towards it.

Consistent seagull management doesn't help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:42 am
Posts: 974
Ennis wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Ennis wrote:
AravJ wrote:
Ennis wrote:
There is always the "what" and the "how".

When someone achieves something great, people often make the mistake of thinking the "how" was either correct or necessary. Often this isn't the case.

Of course you need some semblance of ruthlessness in there, but there are plenty of examples of doing the "what" whilst primarily also being positive on the "how" side of things too.


I don't think it's a mistake. Ends justify means as long as it is ethical. There is rarely win win in the real world. Managers need to make tough calls and real ones will actually make the calls rather than shying away. Unless you have filled their shoes nobody has any idea on what they had to contend with.
Being positive while results are not there just makes things fake and does more harm than good as people lose trust. People will be positive when they get to keep the jobs and see growth, it's pointless to push the positive agenda if you got nothing to back it up with.


Simply not true. Being positive motivates people. You need to be real about it, but oddly enough being negative creates a negative atmosphere. Look at any huge multinational organization and you'll see companies who either have a positive culture or a bad culture.

On the 'mistake' I should rephrase -people make the mistake of assuming the "how" was correct or necessary. Sometimes it really is necessary, but there's this belief that every tough call required a certain type of decision making. Often there is more than one way out of a hole, there is more than one way to the top of a mountain, and you don't always need to be a dick on your way. People look at success and think that a certain style was needed - and sometimes it was, - but often you could have achieved the same result with a more positive "how".

And again - of course people would rather keep their jobs. Nobody is denying that a certain way of doing things is required in some decisions. Sometimes you need to cut 20% of your staff to save the other 80% of your staff, and continue is an employer for the decades to come. But give me a leader who looks at every other option for feasibility first over someone who completely removes the human element.


It's not about positive or negative. It's about being honest. Ferrari was toxic the car industry was going down. Just look at mclaren, they could have done with cold hard honesty for a few years that would have put them in a better position today. Zak himself said they played down Honda engine last year to motivate staff and look where it got them, need I say more than Freddos.Management is selected by a boards based on what changes are needed and how effective a person can be based on their style and given a mandate. In the ideal environment yes do brain storming, take years to make desicsion by committee, but time is not always on your side. It's situational managment, and yes a tough line is not always necessary, but their definitely there is a time and place where is is absolutely necessary.


Playing down something as if nothing is going wrong is the wrong thing to do. You can be both honest and positive. You also need to consider who you're speaking to. There's an expectation that execs will have thick enough skin to maintain their own positive, forward momentum regardless of how much they're getting shouted at. If you're an exec with managers, or engineers, or whatever - then being both honest and positive is often the best path forward. Be honest about failure, find solutions, find improvements, but at least try to convey a positive future and work on the path towards it.

Consistent seagull management doesn't help.


As I said it's got little to do with positive or negative. That's just a perception. If a person is achieving results with a huge workforce you have got to question your own perception, and perhaps you are the negative one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1917
Location: Miami, Florida
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.


Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?


Buuuahahahahahaaahaaahaahaa!!… I thought the same thing!!!!!
Guess he's not aware of the "ANYTHING BUT FAIR" distribution model the fairest Mr. Ecclestone implemented that has seen to it that new teams who committed to the sport as well as some others struggle financially or collapse altogether. And that only AFTER he received his large cut up front!

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1467
Location: Far side of Koozebane
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
Bernie - Total dictatorship but fair and honest . He could be a pain to others, but at least he got the job done. I think he treated F1 like a familly and did his best to keep the familly together.

Toto and Arrivabene - they seem like team players. They have their own goals and ambitions, but they empower people in the team. Probably only a few directors in this world understand that they're role is to provide everything needed so the brightest people in the team shine.

Christian Horner - quite annoying from time to time, but I think he is one of the managers in the paddock that has to deal with the most poles of power. I can remember some years ago, he had to deal with Webber, Vettel, Marko and Mateschitz at the same time. I would not want to be in that position.

Marchione - From what I saw, including Fiat and Ferrari, he seemed too intrusive. I doubt the Fiat and Chrysler "comeback"was actually a comeback, rather than a normal market recovery. But I may be wrong. This is why in another thread I mentioned that I don't like his management style. Nothing against him personally.


Ecclestone "fair" and "honest"? That's meant to be a joke, right?


Buuuahahahahahaaahaaahaahaa!!… I thought the same thing!!!!!
Guess he's not aware of the "ANYTHING BUT FAIR" distribution model the fairest Mr. Ecclestone implemented that has seen to it that new teams who committed to the sport as well as some others struggle financially or collapse altogether. And that only AFTER he received his large cut up front!


I think even Bernie would baulk at describing himself as fair and honest.

Keeping in mind the way he sold out the privateer teams for the benefit of manufacturer teams in recent years, lets have a bit of a history lesson & cast our minds back to the early 1980's FISA- FOCA war.

Excerpts from Wikipedia.

"The principals in the matter were Jean-Marie Balestre, then FISA president, Bernie Ecclestone, then the leader of FOCA and owner of the Brabham Formula One team, and Max Mosley, later president of the FIA, but then legal advisor to both Ecclestone's Brabham team and FOCA in general.

The beginnings of the dispute are numerous, and many of the underlying reasons may be lost in history. The teams (excepting Ferrari and the other major manufacturers – Renault and Alfa Romeo in particular) were of the opinion that their rights and ability to compete against the larger and better funded teams were being negatively affected by a perceived bias on the part of FISA, the controlling organisation, toward the major manufacturers.

In addition, the battle revolved around the commercial aspects of the sport (the FOCA teams were unhappy with the disbursement of proceeds from the races) and the technical regulations which, in FOCA's opinion, tended to be malleable according to the nature of the transgressor more than the nature of the transgression".


The fact that Bernie led the FOCA aligned privateer teams in the war against the FISA aligned manufacturer teams I find it more than a little ironic when considering the way this sports now run and the influence he had getting into this state.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jenson's Understeer, pc27b, P-F1 Mod, Sudarshan, UnlikeUday and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group