Most business in the United States is done despite of management, not because of it.
The executives lie and BS through all of it, and the soldiers on the ground kill themselves to get things done.
The executives lie and BS through all of it, and the soldiers on the ground kill themselves to get things done.
Compliance controls are a sham. Auditing is garbage. Corporate America is made up of executives who unirononically fail to execute on anything.
The few places that do execute are: startups (nobody trusts you or your product, you have to go the extra mile) and a few corporations with strong culture.
It’s impossible for eg regulations to guarantee that corporations will follow the intent and not just check boxes. So most don’t and indeed just check boxes.
The solution is pretty easy: bring back anti trust laws. Break up the old boys’ clubs; monopolies are driving the country to the ground.
1) on the individual level, maybe measuring other's (or one's own) worth by how much money you have or how much political power you have is the flaw.
2) on a collective level, if we do think that reward in the financial sense should go to the good people, we should think about what we consume; we have ultimate agency over all of that.
As for politicians, I'm less optimistic; the popularity contest in high school never selected for good people and I see no evidence it's any better among adults.
You can assume that stock price will take the front seat now, if it already had not. The bean counters have yet to internalise the fact that it is am engineering culture failure, stemming from the toxic MacDac merger. This is a further signal that things are going downhill for Boeing.
To be fair, Dennis Muilenburg was at least an engineer, lead the X-32 program (the funny looking bug plane that was runner-up for the JSF). An engineer, possibly at am advanced Peter principle level, but an engineer.
He was not ousted for being unable to undo the MBA damage. He was let go for being unable to jedi mind fuck the plane back into the air. This, as far as his employers are concerned, is the measure of his failing.
"Boeing’s 737 Max Was an Epic Error. So Why’s the Company’s Stock Still Going Up?" http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/after-boeings-737-max...
It's a really interesting concept to me, because it's been the dominant business culture my whole life in the US, so it's sort of like a fish discovering water. But once I started looking at business philosophy and history, I realized that there are a lot of other ways to do things. Toyota's example, of course: the managerialism of the big 3 let Toyota go from Japan's post-war decimation to the biggest carmaker on the planet.
I still don't feel like I have a great grip on the alternatives, and especially how to practice those alternatives when managerialism is the norm. But I definitely aim to find out. At least once, I want work at a place that really has its shit together. That gets things done well on purpose.
Basically, the whole of capitalism depends on the idea that individual incentives (for employees) can be aligned with organizational goals. Often, however, employees realize they can make more money by putting their efforts into getting a bigger slice of the pie instead of working to make the pie bigger. This is always true to some degree, and especially true for big, rich companies with low growth rates.
Outside of the economic theory, I suspect that people who make to the executive level are most likely to have engaged in this kind of behavior, since getting promoted is one of the best ways to get a bigger slice.
And here I was thinking it relied on the capital-owners having the state use its centralized coercive power (like the police and the military) to enforce the capital-owners' property rights. Silly me.
I'm old enough now that I just skip directly to wishing for powerball numbers.
I would not consider that so Geographically constrained. to me the most obvious textbook example [1] would be Nokia. I mean, there was no way the top management could have failed in the golden era of the dumb phones given the engineering talent (both for the electronics and the operations) within th ecompany. The single time when top management should/could have shown their value was the time when smartphones came. And they practically managed to destroy the company. I wonder if they themselves understand how literally clueless they were/are?
[1] Admittably with zero actual inside information
Why isn't this taught in public school?