5 ms·

> Don't give me aspirational pie in the sky. Give me operational policy. See, there are three layers of decision making: vision, strategy, and tactics. You set

> Don't give me aspirational pie in the sky. Give me operational policy. See, there are three layers of decision making: vision, strategy, and tactics. You set large aspirational goals first (eg Microsoft "empower every person and organization on the planet to achieve more"), then smaller component strategies ("build the a cloud provider that integrates business intelligence into everything you do"), then the concrete actions to make those srrategies happen ("integrate Active Directory authentication into kubernetes RBAC"). One "vision" level statement spawns many, many "tactics". When you're dealing on the level of "181 CEOs" from huge companies as diverse as JP Morgan Chase, Johnson & Johnson, and Ford, it is impossible to talk about tactics and strategy. What Ford can do to better serve long term interests of all stakeholders is too different from what Vanguard should do. You are only able to agree on the big vision, and let the units (or whatever smaller more homogeneous group makes sense) work out the strategy level and below. This is leadership 101 stuff. There are several models of decision-making, but they are all hierarchical in this way. You won't find many media outlets pushing a collective of 181 companies to issue a single press release about the exact on the ground tactics they will all implement, because in this field that's a nonsensical request on par with "but how many packets can apache serve?"

whatshisface 7y ago
Why would all of these CEOs from random companies even be in the same room? In a free market leadership doesn't exist that high, companies aren't supposed to coordinate at that level.
- greiskul 7y ago
  “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” ― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dsr_ 7y ago
  In the USA most companies and corporations are effectively feudal. This is a meeting of dukes and earls attempting to avoid a socialist revolution through coordinated PR, which has been quite effective for the last 75 years or so. Note that most public companies have institutional investors as the largest component of their ownership; such investors tend to own all the major competitors. GM: top 5 are Capital World Investors, Vanguard, BlackRock, Berkshire Hathaway, and Harris Associates. Ford: top five are Vanguard, BlackRock, Newport, State Street, Franklin. Fiat-Chrysler: top five are Tiger, Harris, Baillie Gifford, Vanguard, Deutsche Bank, FMR. Looks like Vanguard is certainly in a position to encourage the big-three car manufacturers to work together. Intel: Tiger, Harris, Baillie Gifford, Vanguard, Deutsche Bank. AMD: Vanguard, BlackRock, Wellington, FMR, Invesco. Your CPU choices will make money for Vanguard. HPE: Dodge&Cox, Vanguard, BlackRock, Primecap, State Street. Dell: Temasek Holdings, Dodge&Cox, Elliott, BlackRock, Vanguard. Apple: Vanguard, BlackRock, Berkshire Hathaway, State Street, FMR. When you buy computers, you make money for Vanguard. In summary, Tim Buckley at Vanguard can set up a meeting with any group of CEOs at minimal notice. He doesn't actually own much of anything, but the right of ownership for a large percentage of the USA's economy is a thing that he directs. Or maybe it's Robert Kapito at BlackRock; same deal.
  - anthonypasq 7y ago
    > but the right of ownership for a large percentage of the USA's economy is a thing that he directs. Umm, no. Unless you have a very different idea of what "large percentage" means.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vanguard+divests&t=ffab&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vanguard+divests&t=ffab&ia=web He does direct investment.
- vikramkr 7y ago
  In a truly free market, companies aren't supposed to do anything and are more than free enough to coordinate at any level they want if it is beneficial to them with the only checks on coordination and all being game theory situations about the value of the profits that come from breaking away from and undercutting the cartel versus the ensuing loss of profits from the price war or from "punishment" by other cartel members. In a regulated market though, sure, companies aren't supposed to coordinate at that level in ways that violate the law, but this doesn't violate the law.
  - kyshoc 7y ago
    > In a truly free market, companies aren't supposed to do anything [...] In a regulated market though... Free market !== unregulated market. In order for an unregulated market to be a free market, perfect competition is required[0], otherwise you get market failure. In the real world, we use laws to discourage behavior that leads to market failure. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Perfect_competition_and_market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Perfect_competitio...
    - vikramkr 7y ago
      Right, and in addition free markets != anything seen in reality. There's no such thing as perfect competition or a real life free market since the textbook definition of a free market requires both no monopoly power and no government intervention. Basically none of your nice econ 101 graphs of perfect competition and everything apply in any sort of meaningful way because of all the absurd assumptions necessary to make them work. If there are two bakers that are producing identical bread in every way, they still wont be in perfect competition since one of them will be physically closer to you which makes for decreased travel time.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Here's the problem though: there are mechanisms ensuring tactics stay in alignment with strategies. But there don't seem to be - at least noticeably - mechanisms ensuring strategies stay in alignment with visions.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
I don't think "Propose and support legislation to make of all this happen" is really all that challenging as a practical strategy goal. It's not as if corporations don't do a lot of that already when it's in their interests. See also: "Actions speak louder than words."
jaxn 7y ago
One specific and highly relevant tactic a group of 181 CEOs could include would be limits to Executive Compensation. Or are they going to continue to receive historically outsized comp packages while redirecting profits from shareholders to things like employee pay and training?

whatshisface 7y ago

Why would all of these CEOs from random companies even be in the same room? In a free market leadership doesn't exist that high, companies aren't supposed to coordinate at that level.

greiskul 7y ago
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” ― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dsr_ 7y ago
In the USA most companies and corporations are effectively feudal. This is a meeting of dukes and earls attempting to avoid a socialist revolution through coordinated PR, which has been quite effective for the last 75 years or so. Note that most public companies have institutional investors as the largest component of their ownership; such investors tend to own all the major competitors. GM: top 5 are Capital World Investors, Vanguard, BlackRock, Berkshire Hathaway, and Harris Associates. Ford: top five are Vanguard, BlackRock, Newport, State Street, Franklin. Fiat-Chrysler: top five are Tiger, Harris, Baillie Gifford, Vanguard, Deutsche Bank, FMR. Looks like Vanguard is certainly in a position to encourage the big-three car manufacturers to work together. Intel: Tiger, Harris, Baillie Gifford, Vanguard, Deutsche Bank. AMD: Vanguard, BlackRock, Wellington, FMR, Invesco. Your CPU choices will make money for Vanguard. HPE: Dodge&Cox, Vanguard, BlackRock, Primecap, State Street. Dell: Temasek Holdings, Dodge&Cox, Elliott, BlackRock, Vanguard. Apple: Vanguard, BlackRock, Berkshire Hathaway, State Street, FMR. When you buy computers, you make money for Vanguard. In summary, Tim Buckley at Vanguard can set up a meeting with any group of CEOs at minimal notice. He doesn't actually own much of anything, but the right of ownership for a large percentage of the USA's economy is a thing that he directs. Or maybe it's Robert Kapito at BlackRock; same deal.
- anthonypasq 7y ago
  > but the right of ownership for a large percentage of the USA's economy is a thing that he directs. Umm, no. Unless you have a very different idea of what "large percentage" means.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vanguard+divests&t=ffab&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vanguard+divests&t=ffab&ia=web He does direct investment.
vikramkr 7y ago
In a truly free market, companies aren't supposed to do anything and are more than free enough to coordinate at any level they want if it is beneficial to them with the only checks on coordination and all being game theory situations about the value of the profits that come from breaking away from and undercutting the cartel versus the ensuing loss of profits from the price war or from "punishment" by other cartel members. In a regulated market though, sure, companies aren't supposed to coordinate at that level in ways that violate the law, but this doesn't violate the law.
- kyshoc 7y ago
  > In a truly free market, companies aren't supposed to do anything [...] In a regulated market though... Free market !== unregulated market. In order for an unregulated market to be a free market, perfect competition is required[0], otherwise you get market failure. In the real world, we use laws to discourage behavior that leads to market failure. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Perfect_competition_and_market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Perfect_competitio...
  - vikramkr 7y ago
    Right, and in addition free markets != anything seen in reality. There's no such thing as perfect competition or a real life free market since the textbook definition of a free market requires both no monopoly power and no government intervention. Basically none of your nice econ 101 graphs of perfect competition and everything apply in any sort of meaningful way because of all the absurd assumptions necessary to make them work. If there are two bakers that are producing identical bread in every way, they still wont be in perfect competition since one of them will be physically closer to you which makes for decreased travel time.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Here's the problem though: there are mechanisms ensuring tactics stay in alignment with strategies. But there don't seem to be - at least noticeably - mechanisms ensuring strategies stay in alignment with visions.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

I don't think "Propose and support legislation to make of all this happen" is really all that challenging as a practical strategy goal. It's not as if corporations don't do a lot of that already when it's in their interests. See also: "Actions speak louder than words."

jaxn 7y ago

One specific and highly relevant tactic a group of 181 CEOs could include would be limits to Executive Compensation. Or are they going to continue to receive historically outsized comp packages while redirecting profits from shareholders to things like employee pay and training?