mouseman said:
Obviously, Stvnsgall, you've never been in a management position in a corporate environment, or you would know that this is indeed the responsibility of local management; pass along what's important for the staff to know from corporate and absorb the crap.
The more you as management let the corporate sh-- roll downhill, instead of shielding your staff, the more you see exactly what's going on at North Shadeland now; staff demoralized, productivity affected, and ultimately high turnover which cripples the operation even more.
It's not a question of being a martyr; it's the job. And, it's also why it's the highest paid position in a market. The buck [or corporate crap] stops here, at the GM desk. The fact that the corporate cultures have changed [from Susquehanna to Cumulus] puts this GM in a position I would never want to experience; I'm sure it sucks. But the fact is the job, and the responsibility, is still his. Maybe, in this set of circumstances, it's almost impossible to keep corporate off everyone's backs. Maybe he's tried, but hasn't been successful [at least successful enough to stave off corp. corruption of the staff]. I'm sure he's doing the best he can given the hand he's been dealt. Like I said, I don't want to be in his shoes.
What ridiculous is to express an opinion on something you have no experience with.
Explain your theory. You've repeated yourself twice. What is Charlie suppose to do when corporate starts cutting staff? Please offer more than "shield the staff." How does he shield that? Put his chest out to corporate and say "No you don't!?" If corporate "yes you do!" You as a manager have a choice to quit, or continue to try to get the right people. It's never fair, but it is radio, as you would know if you've been on the upper level. Maybe these employees should have been cut, maybe not. You admit you weren't on the inside, so how do you know if he did/did not shield his staff?
A GM's job is to make sure his staff works and does it's job for the best interest of the company - the people signing his checks. If the staff does not meet corporate standards, regardless of how good/bad those standards and expectations are, the GM must find someone else who either does the job, or at least can do the job despite facing unrealistic corporate expectations, or quit.
Bottom line, while the GM may hire, fire and manage, if corporate sends someone in from Atlanta to send workers packing, you either make a stand and quit as the GM, or you work with what they give you, if you wish to keep your job.
The staff works for the company, not the manager. The manager represents the company. Both manager and staff are employees of the company. While the manager may do the hiring, he is not a mother hen. He was not hired by the company to protect his staff, he was hired to make his staff produce. Employees are expected to be adult enough to perform their jobs. If they don't agree with corporate, or if corporate is run by idiots, quit.
Evidently, Charlie disagrees with your assessment of his responsibilities, otherwise, he'd be gone. And we both can argue which of us has been in management (which I think will be obvious to others reading this thread) but one thing we can agree on is that Charlie IS a manager, a good manager, and I'd tend to think he has a handle on what a manager's role is, regardless of how heartless, cold and ignorant corporate may or may not be.
