4 ms·
You can let the purely virtual "company" frame go bust (and the top management - would that really be a problem in such a case, and not the main purpose of such
by nosianu 7y ago
You can let the purely virtual "company" frame go bust (and the top management - would that really be a problem in such a case, and not the main purpose of such an action?) - and immediately use the assets and people to build new ones with minimal disruption. The factories don't have to be stopped for a single minute.
Not to mention that maybe letting them get so big was a mistake in the first place? Based on petty power games of "leaders" (in politics, finance and business) and not on technical necessities.
- dylan604 7y agoThe problem is all of the employees of said companies. It's not their fault the company makes the decisions it did/does, yet it is their work that generates the money for the executives to do what they do. So my suggestion is for the bail out to go through, the entire executive level (however deep that needs to go) must be replaced. Keep the actual working employees.
- gpderetta 7y agothe new company could just rehire all non exec-employees.
- yourapostasy 7y ago> ... the entire executive level (however deep that needs to go) must be replaced. Determining how deep that goes is tough. Replacing the executive level is admitting the company must replace with a radically different culture. Those take time to cultivate, and the US incentives are aligned such that without great effort, standard American business culture is to evolve to what we see from Boeing. The tragedy isn't that Boeing is exceptional in its systemic broken culture, the tragedy is that this is par for the entire American business edifice without assiduous work by company leadership (many examples of that working away without recognition, but business journalism shares blame in lionizing on KPIs that don't measure for the brokenness); Boeing is simply different by scale of acute fatalities flowing straight from the business culture.