4 ms·

This article reminds me of ones I have read about the British class system and how it has been blamed for failures in being technically innovative despite being

This article reminds me of ones I have read about the British class system and how it has been blamed for failures in being technically innovative despite being the nation which produced Alan Turing. I think it might be profound yet sort of obvious - hierarchical organizations reflect the failings of their heads as their control causes the organizations to reflect their /actual/ values, the ones not on banal mission statements but how they act. The same already happened with Detroit car companies and how they have often been a joke even domestically. The real question is how to reform or replace Wall Street Investment "management" as they lead down hill by being too short-termist and bean counter. They seem somewhat aware of it themselves in some ways with market caps often being higher in tech companies with "executive" shares given disproportionate control value to founders.

prewett 8y ago
I've come to the conclusion that the problem with large, MBA-managed companies is that they are centrally-planned dictatorships. I think the founders typically make an effort to have the leaves make decisions, but after the founders are gone then decision-making centralizes. Beyond a certain size, central-planning is inefficient, as we've seen with Communist countries. And from my outside perspective, MBA programs teach people that central-planning is what produces "shareholder returns". Add in some hubris on the part of the CEO and the fact that control is the easiest way to get people to do what you the central-planning agency wants, and you get the large corporation. Leadership is vision and empowering the leaves, but that takes knowing yourself (to get the vision) and courage (to let the leaves have control). It's easier to act like a boss and give yourself the title of "leader". The only difference between a boss and a dictator is that that a boss controls by economic power and a dictator controls by physical power. (Of course, most companies and management are somewhere in-between the poles)

prewett 8y ago

I've come to the conclusion that the problem with large, MBA-managed companies is that they are centrally-planned dictatorships. I think the founders typically make an effort to have the leaves make decisions, but after the founders are gone then decision-making centralizes. Beyond a certain size, central-planning is inefficient, as we've seen with Communist countries. And from my outside perspective, MBA programs teach people that central-planning is what produces "shareholder returns". Add in some hubris on the part of the CEO and the fact that control is the easiest way to get people to do what you the central-planning agency wants, and you get the large corporation. Leadership is vision and empowering the leaves, but that takes knowing yourself (to get the vision) and courage (to let the leaves have control). It's easier to act like a boss and give yourself the title of "leader". The only difference between a boss and a dictator is that that a boss controls by economic power and a dictator controls by physical power. (Of course, most companies and management are somewhere in-between the poles)