What's the difference between HBS ideas and these Asian companies? I have no background in economics so idk. Like what advantages do both have?
From this comment it reads like HBS has no merit at all but I'd imagine that's not the entire picture
From this comment it reads like HBS has no merit at all but I'd imagine that's not the entire picture
All of these add up to have terrible effects on companies that rely on research and having a workforce of highly trained professionals who are entrenched in your institutional knowledge. For example, you can't just fire a materials science engineer who is a specialist in silicon crystal seeding to save money one quarter and then hire another one when needed.
This strategy appeases short-term shareholders, at the cost of significantly penalizing long-term holders. It's not a simple case of "appeasing shareholders".
People have proposed to not give people voting power as shareholders until they've held the stock for a period, because there is this huge population of investors that care nothing for the long term viability of thr company.
It's easier to pick senior engineers from the industry and give them business education than vice versa. There is also special field called industrial engineering that trains people to manage and lead industrial processes.
So the cost is always prominent, and the return is difficult to fully attribute.
Forces at work that can lead to undue cuts.
Engineering companies need to be run by engineering/businesspeople selected internally from a deep bench of capable candidates. As succession occurs technical leadership can better maintain continuity of what made the company competitive to begin with.
For the bean counters it can be impossible to realize potential in many ways, not just research. Concrete costs will always be ripe for quantitative elimination without consideration of the crippling effect on upside outcome that can not be recovered in less than a few years (or generations) after overcompensating funding has been restored.
Which could happen . . . right?
No conincidence how many different kinds of hard technology are referred to in "generations" of advancement.
Bean counters are supposed to be good at math but they're usually no engineers.
When these start to come into leadership positions of an engineering company it can be a very bad sign.
It could be worse.
Some of the top financial operators are not even bean counters, or leadership material of any kind. More like social climbers who've moved up a corporate ladder without much distraction from any effort other than the social climbing itself. Even worse when the only reason they're financial is greed.
Look what happened to Boeing when the engineering culture no longer extended all the way to the top.
Still an engineering company, with some of the world's most outstanding engineers doing very advanced things very successfully. Just not as much as it once was. And not as much as it could be.
Well acccounting companies should be run by accounting/businesspeople which does seem to work, and bean counters shine until generations later at a place like Arthur Andersen where it looks like they were replaced by social climbers at the top and oh, well.