Boss and decentralization.docVIP

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 6 Boss and decentralization China’s private enterprises, the United States be a decentralization of the highly successful case. He Xiangjian America’s largest family-owned shares in the United States Group justifiably owners. He Xiangjian currently being considered a major investment in the direction of the United States and industrial extension, as the department’s daily operations, Ho family is not too much foreign interference, but entirely to professional managers to take care of. Midea Group separation of ownership and management be more successful examples. But as the United States are not many of such examples, the boss completely decentralized uncommon. Private enterprises at this stage, but the boss but have varying degrees of decentralization. I think this idea was not to blame the boss is not opened, in which there must be other reasons for the decision of the business owner can not be completely achieved separation of ownership and management. So, in the end what the reasons are, so that decentralization does not bear the boss? The boss could not bear to decentralization, it is estimated the following three reasons: 1. The boss who started with nothing in itself Trader, on his own more familiar with the area where, consciously totally do not need professional managers. Some employers also try to gradually decentralization, but the facts and the boss is expected to always have gaps, bosses make their own business, the business of success, but the boss is not born a master of employment, the request or the ability of professional managers who did not, or character too poor, or a lack of understanding between the boss or the boss’s own problems, in short, for various reasons not used smoothly and left. So, the boss’s commitment to the gradual decentralization will become an empty phrase; 2. Lust for power to bring people a sense of accomplishment. In my opinion, very important for this reason is very important! Person’s life, a