[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Robert Scott Horning]

Erik Zachte wrote:

>Responding a.o. to Jimmy's
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-June/007389.html
>
>* The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
>paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
>management. Why should an appointed individual, let alone a possible
>outsider, lead this debate, or manage it in any way? Incidentally, I would
>be less concerned if the final CEO would only supervise administrative
>tasks, like paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions, but then I
>find the term CEO odd, I call that an office manager.
>
>All of this gives me the feeling the board knows best what is good for the
>community, and is more and more leaning towards [p|m]aternalism, to put it
>mildly, more than it used to in its first year of existence. The number of
>people involved in the decision making structure is growing, with all those
>committees and chapters, yet the central role of the board and its do's and
>don'ts is what really matters.
>
>
>Erik Zachte
>  
>
I hope that this isn't a serious proposal.  In almost every situation 
that I've seen an outside CEO, particularly for successful organizations 
(a bankrupt company might be an exception), the results have been simply 
disasterous.  This includes both for-profit companies and non-profit 
organizations.

The point is that by bringing in an outside CEO, they don't understand 
the interal structure and culture of the organization, nor often even 
the "industry" that the organization is working within.  Quite often 
decisions are made by these CEOs that alienate huge sections of the 
company or group because they are reacting as they would in the realm 
they are much more familiar with.... and the rules simply don't apply in 
this new situation they are facing.  I could give countless examples of 
how this has been a failure for both Fortune 500 companies as well as 
NGOs and even government agencies.  In addition, quite often CEOs that 
are appointed in this manner from outside the group have a 
hyper-inflated sense of self-importance, which is also one of the issues 
that results in CEOs having hyper-inflated salaries as well--- a chronic 
problem with many larger companies and even many non-profits.

It simply takes time to try and learn what the group or company is all 
about, and in particular with an organization like Wikimedia projects 
this is something that much more important, simply because of the huge 
number of volunteers involved.  This issue doesn't necessarily apply to 
professional staff that is promoted from within to become CEO, but that 
is largly because they have taken the time to try to get to know what is 
going on first and are already familiar with the organization culture. 
 And people in that organization are already familiar with such an 
appointment and know what to expect (for good or ill).  I would give the 
same advise for the WMF as I would for the Boy Scouts or the Red Cross 
in this case.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning