Larry Ross 1

Running head: LARRY ROSS: A MANAGER IN HIS OWN WORDS

Larry Ross: A Manager in His Own Words

Jeff Burkhardt

Bernd Ruehlicke

University of Houston-Victoria

MGT6351

Spring 2005

February 2, 2005

Larry Ross 2

Larry Ross: A Manager in His Own Words

Larry Ross, now a self proclaimed advisor to top management, tells originally in an

interview over 30 years ago about his experiences in executive management for nationally

known U.S. corporations. Starting with no formal education in 1957, Ross (not his real name)

grew up in various corporations working his way up to executive vice-president of one company,

and then another, until ultimately becoming president and CEO of yet another.

Issues Raised by Larry Ross

As we analyze the contents of Ross’ interview, we are able to identify several repetitious themes,

which underscore more issues as they relate to the structure of U.S. corporations and the

philosophies of executive management. We will examine each, and discuss their implications on

the corporations and managers of the 21st century.

Overview of (U.S.) Corporations

Ross describes the corporation as a jungle, stating, “Working in a corporation…isn’t a

game.” “It’s a question of living or dying. It’s a question of eating or not eating.” Ross

eventually unveils the two faces of corporations. The first is their face to the public, the face that

demonstrates the corporation as always right. And then there’s the face with all of its rules,

demanding that you fit the mold. Ross acknowledges that not all corporations behave that way.

“The older the corporation, … , the more rigid, the more conservative they are” “Your swinging

corporations are generally the new ones, the upstarts, the nouveau riche. But as they get older …

they become more rigid”.

Life of the (Executive) Manager

In keeping with his theme of the corporation as a jungle, Ross declares, “The executive is

a lonely animal in the jungle who doesn’t have a friend.” Furthermore, he never feels free or sure

Larry Ross 3

about his current situation and is constrained by constant job security concerns. Executive

managers also make great personal sacrifices in order to fulfill their role. These sacrifices range

from long hours, including weekends and holidays, to physical afflictions from the stress and

strain of the job. And when it’s all said and done, and a top executive is let go, suddenly he’s

“persona non grata”, i.e. any friends the manager might have had, withdraw for fear of gilt by

association.

Abuse of Human Resources

The corporations and managers that Ross describes, take a very cavalier position with

regard to people as human resources. Ross bluntly classifies the many people working for the

corporation as being either black (or white) or gray. He defines black and white as definite

colors, thus signifying, “The ambitious people, the leaders, the ones who want to get ahead.”

Conversely, “The gray people come there from nine to five, do their job, aren’t particularly

ambitious.” Also, once again, the corporation presents it two faces. The board of directors would

have the public believe that money isn’t important. Rather it’s the decisions you make about

people that are most important. However, according to Ross, “To the board of directors, the

dollars are as important as human lives”, so “When things go bad, they have to protect

themselves and fire somebody.” A human sacrifice if you will. Finally, corporations are out to

protect their best interest. They will promote a person as it fits their needs, perhaps for as long as

twenty-five years, but once he’s outlived his usefulness, he becomes expendable.

Presence of Fear

Perhaps the most prevalent theme outlined by Ross is that of fear. Seemingly, fear is

present in almost every aspect of daily corporate life, whether it’s fear of who you associate with

or fear of how you behave in public. Specifically, Ross mentions fear of the “big mistake”. The

Larry Ross 4

“big mistake” could be anything, which might ultimately lead to being fired. It is this fear that

creates apprehension, and make for a tentative manager. He also discusses the fear of being

“caught in a squeeze” as a mid-level manager, stating, “You have the guys working for you that

are shooting for your job. The guy you’re working for is scared stiff you’re gonna shove him out

of his job.”

Lack of Communication

Fear of “the squeeze” spawns fear of exposure, which ultimately reduces the channels of

communication. Speaking about the executive manager, Ross declares, “He can’t confide and

talk with the guy working under him. He can’t confide and talk to the man he’s working for. To

give vent to his feeling, his fears, and his insecurities, he’d expose himself.” However, this void

in communication still leaves the executive with the need for a sounding-board, which often

times leads to outside consultants with no vested interest in the operations of the corporation

necessarily becoming involved. Describing his role as a business advisor, Ross claimed, “The

executive who calls me usually knows the answer to his problem. He just has to have somebody

to talk to and hear his decision out loud.” Furthermore, in the absence of good communication

within a corporation, gossip and rumor take root, which many will use to build-up their own

personal importance.

False Sense of Loyalty

It is about this final issue of loyalty that Ross is perhaps most emphatic. He describes

loyalty as, “the most stupid phrase…in business”. Ross emphasizes this statement by pointing

out that, “The corporation is out to make money.” Likewise, the ambitious employee will also go

where he can make the most money. Alternately, Ross says, “The schnook is the loyal guy,

because he can’t get a job any place else.”

Larry Ross 5

Discussion

Do you think most managers in the 21st century would describe their jobs in the same was as

Larry Ross?

We believe that managers today, especially those in middle- and upper-management of

U.S. corporations, would describe their jobs in this way. We believe a shift toward high-

involvement organizations has begun, but also believe that it is still an idealistic concept which

has not yet been fully implemented. We further believe that a new organizational life-cycle has

evolved. We observed that during the 1990s, many technology companies where started and run

by young, idealistic managers. However, once these companies went public on a stock exchange

and inevitably brought in a “professional” CEO, they reverted back into a traditional

organization. Therefore, we think smaller organizations will be more successful at maintaining a

high-involvement management structure in the future. “In some instances managers will need to

consciously limit and even reverse the growth of their businesses to assure both the short- and

long-term prosperity of the organizations entrusted to their care.” (McKenna, 1991).

Does Larry Ross provide an accurate and realistic picture of how organizations operate? If you

think so, is it true of all, most, some, or only a few organizations? Why did you answer as you

did?

We believe that Ross provides an accurate picture of how organizations operate in the

U.S.—certainly large, older corporations. “The more important challenge to managers of the 21st

century is to pry themselves and their organizations from valueless histories. This must be done

even when the past represents highly successful products, procedures, and personnel. Managers

will have to recognize that the very aspects of their businesses that produced so well for them in

the past may actually be negatives in the future; they may need to abandon formerly successful

Larry Ross 6

methods and areas of operation.” (McKenna, 1991). It is important to note that in our experience

this picture may be different in other countries, like Norway for instance. Strict employment laws

favoring labor, generous social security in the form of unemployment compensation, and other

governmental regulations aimed at corporate ethics reduces fear, and thus increases

communication.

Is the organization better (or worse) off if managers behave like Larry Ross? Why? Do you think

Larry Ross would be successful in most 21st-century organizations?

We recognize that organizations are worse off if managers behave like Ross. Along with

a rigid corporate structure and the constant presence of fear, this type of management creates an

abuse of human resources, reduced communication, and diminished loyalty. Based on the

assumption that many organizations still operate in this way as mentioned in response to the

previous question, we conclude Ross would in fact be successful—even in the 21st century.

Assuming that you would like to become an executive in a large organization, would you be

willing to do the things Ross does to achieve your goal? Why?

For us personally, we are not willing to employ the same tactics as Ross to achieve the

goal of becoming an executive of a large corporation. We would rather follow a model of high-

involvement management, acting as liaison, motivator, and mentor. We also subscribe to the idea

that, in order to be successful in business, one must achieve balance with life outside of work.

Do you see Larry Ross as a person who has largely contributed to his own problems, or as a

person who simply goes along with a world he did not create? Why?

In the final analysis, we believe that Ross is simply going along with a world that he did

not create. The fact that Ross makes his observations over many decades, at different levels of

management, and in many different corporations supports this notion. Unfortunately, we believe

Larry Ross 7

that this is still the case today. However, it is more of an indictment of human tendencies than it

is of corporate organizations. Money, greed, and power have the ability to corrupt still today, as

illustrated in the many examples of corporate impropriety, like that Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom,

to name a few. “We are just in the beginning of the beginning. The 21st century is going to be

hard on corporations, governments, and all the rest of us. But the changes the century will bring

will be nothing short of astonishing” (McGraw-Hill, 2000).

Larry Ross 8

References

McGraw-Hill. (2000, August 28). The 21st Century Corporation. Business Week, 278.

McKenna, John F. (1991, Fall). Management in the 21st Century. SAM Advanced Management

Journal, 56, 4-8.