3 ms·
(1983) Reading this, I feel like there’s some historical context that’s implied but probably easily missed if you’re unaware: In the U.S. this was the end of t
by jt2190 7y ago
(1983)
Reading this, I feel like there’s some historical context that’s implied but probably easily missed if you’re unaware: In the U.S. this was the end of the era of managers working at one company for their entire career, of showing undying loyalty to the company which in turn would march them up the corporate ladder. Many companies had gotten large and complacent from this, and their competitiveness had eroded terribly, because (as the article points out) management was focused on appearances and the short term.
Thus this article seems to be right in step with the times of calling into question the benefits of strong, hierarchical management.
- cushychicken 7y agoThat description reflects a degree of similarity to salarymen that I've never noticed before.
- sgt101 7y agoDo you have evidence for the idea that US companies had become uncompetitive in the early 80's? I think that the oil crisis and globalisation had very significant effects on the US economy (also the vietnam war) at around that time.
- Spooky23 7y agoThe trend for companies had been to scale up and diversify to avoid antitrust and avoid risk. Big companies are always slower, and that hasn’t changed. We’re as dependent on big business today as ever, perhaps more so. An upwardly mobility seeking suburban family would want their kids working at GE or IBM, versus today where finance and tech are the way. The stagflation of the 70 and early 80s broke a lot of things in big companies, and magnified the impact of smaller competitors. Deregulation in finance, changes that defanged antitrust, and tax changes but the nail in the coffin for the old dinosaur companies.