As regular readers will have noticed, the Eye isn’t always a fan of the borough council. (Of course, we’re not damning EVERYTHING that the council does – just the disappointing bits.)
We tend to agree with the old army adage – there are no bad soldiers, just bad officers. And we’ve recently been reading a back-number of the Harvard Business Review about the effectiveness of company chief executive officers (CEOs). The article that caught our attention is titled ‘Long CEO Tenure Can Hurt Performance’.
The text summarises research and concludes that – typically – the longer a CEO serves, the stronger the bond between employees and the company becomes. However, a point is reached when the relationship between the company and its customers weakens, “and the company’s performance diminishes, no matter how united and committed the workforce is”. Such CEOs “may be great motivators, but weak strategists, unifying workers around a failing course of action”.
The obvious question – when does a CEO’s effectiveness peak? The article provides an answer – “All this allowed us to arrive at an optimal tenure length: 4.8 years.”
Which brings us closer to home. It’s clear that the borough council – the ‘company’ – doesn’t always care about its ‘customers’; the saga of the out-of-service lift that we mentioned only a few days ago demonstrates that. The council’s aim of becoming a ‘top 100’ town in the fairly near future is obviously a failing course of action – it’s an unachievable distraction. The council’s sixteen year ‘commitment’ to improving the pedestrian environment in the High Street is indisputably a failing course of action; there’s been no significant improvement over the whole of this time. So, recall that the current borough council chief executive was appointed in October 2010, and that the optimal tenure length is 4.8 years. Do the math…
(You can read the Harvard Business Review article here: https://goo.gl/bFFrXh Apologies, the link probably won’t be visible in Facebook for a few hours. Blame the gremlins.)