Sure there is. You go talk to the CEO and say "I think you're sucking at leading and sales. And I think that because of reasons X, Y & Z."
They might not listen to you but you can certainly tell them.
They might not listen to you but you can certainly tell them.
Beware that very often the response is "Well, I never considered that, but it sounds like a good idea. Why don't you lead a project to do X, Y, and Z and we'll see how it turns out? Oh, and be sure to get your regular work done too."
Remember that idea you suggested last week in the pub of doing X Y and Z. Well, we started doing it on the side and it is increasing sales. Should we start doing it officially?
In a fixed day, is it possible to do regular work and also extra projects?
I think, if offered solution appears reasonable to management,then some of daily responsibilities need to be shifted to remaining workforce temporarily till that pilot work gets completed.
If you're saying 'Bring a suggested solution but don't try to implement it without buy-in', that's a slightly different process.
The issue of who notices/fixes/prioritises/analyses tactical and strategic problems, and who assigns resources for the fixes, can make or break companies.
It's not a simple problem. I suspect a lot of popular solutions are probably sub-optimal.
I mean, "hire someone who knows how to fix this" is obvious enough that it needn't be stated, nor defended behind this "bring an idea for a solution, don't just bring a problem" talk.
Which frankly sounds like something a motivational poster writer should be saying, not someone concerned with running a business. Platitudes are rarely the solution to a meaningful problem, in my experience.
If you are QA engineer, you will point out issues with the tool but making reasonable and appropriate solution is developer's job. Is n't it?
You can point out the problems with your car but you cannot fix them and may be mechanic/engineer can offer solutions.
So I disagree that people should not point out issues if they do not know solutions.
CEO's need not have to solve all on their own and they can route them to appropriate experts for solutions. If that is not possible to solve immediately, offer a time line. If CEO still think, that is not problem/issue at all, let him offer convincing reason. So we have multiple options here rather than suppressing discussion.
Many managers use this type of logic to suppress debate,dissent,discussion ...etc and gradually people shut their mouths even if problem is right in front of their eyes. I think this is avoidable.
A month later, the chance to apply for any role (or create a new role) is offered to everyone in the organisation, again done so presenting to VPs and the GM.
I'd not encountered this in a large company; this company is around 150 people.