Ш The Chairperson of the Board (for written translation)

The chairperson of the board of a company is someone who wears many hats. He/she is, first of all, the man­aging director of the company. He/she also serves as the chief public relations officer and as an internal auditor of the company. In addition, he/she is respon­sible to the shareholders of the company as well as to the board.

The chairperson may see him/herself as "primus inter pares" — that is, the first among equals. This is a democ­ratic vision. Here, the chairperson may have the final say, the ultimate decision, the most pivotal role. Nevertheless, he/she, just like the British prime minister, — just like any other member of the board — has only one vote. Naturally, he/she will exercise his/her influence in solicit­ing the votes of others.

The chairperson of the board may be a full-time employee of the company, or he/she may simply preside at infrequent meetings. As an outsider, the chairperson may, on occa­sion, be very useful as he/she brings in a plethora of out­side experience.

The chairperson must know how to delegate work, even though this does not always mean the transfer of authority to others.

As publicity agent for the company, the chairperson should take an interest in the people who do not work directly with or for the company, but who, nevertheless, might be influenced by the policies of the company. As a rule, if the company is large enough, the chairperson also serves as a liaison between the government and the enterprise. He/she will also kеер contacts between his/her company and the media open.

A good chairperson need not necessarily be democratic. Many a company has been successfully run by a benevo­lent autocrat. However, even when the chairperson does not accept the suggestions of others, he/she should do his/her best to let all voices be heard and to listen with at least polite interest to the dissenting voices.

Can you explain the phrase:

"The chairperson of the board of a company is someone who wears many hats"

IV Ford 2000

One afternoon in 1993, 15 senior managers from Ford’s American and European divisions met in London. At the head of the table sat Alex Trotman, an Englishman who had just become the company’s chairman and chief executive officer.

Mr. Trotman is a perfect example of a company man. His entire career had been at Ford, starting 1n 1955 as a clerk at one of its factories near London. But he was about to change Ford dramatically.

At the meeting, Mr. Trotman introduced the ‘Ford 2000’ initiative which brought together the company’s European business (sales: $23 billion) with its North American one ($105 billion). Since each continent had separate management structures, products, factories and ways of doing things, it was, in effect, a huge corporate merger.

Full-scale globalization, like this, is a difficult thing to do. In theory, a company can get rid of lots of unnecessary duplication and benefit from huge economies of scale. But, in practice, things can easily go wrong.

One of the reasons that ‘Ford 2000’ went relatively smoothly was because Mr. Trotman worked hard to involve his workforce. In a video shown to all Ford’s 320000 employees, he explained that ‘Ford 2000’ was not just a re-drawing of an organization chart, but a whole new way of working. The aim was not just to cut costs and increase efficiency, but to produce cars to delight their customers.

Perhaps this seems like a Disneyesque approach to re-engineering a major multinational. But, by 1996, Ford had become a very different organization.

How far have Ford’s high hopes been realized? As an exercise in change management, Mr. Trotman can claim considerable success, but there is a suspicion that ‘Ford 2000’ may be a solution to yesterday’s problems rather then a great leap forward. As one leading analyst observed: “all ‘Ford 2000’ is aimed at doing is solving a problem that they had created.”