4 ms·

Toyota is still pursuing profit. They are just operating within a larger scope of time. Profitable this quarter vs this year vs this decade are all very differe

Toyota is still pursuing profit. They are just operating within a larger scope of time. Profitable this quarter vs this year vs this decade are all very different goals. Edit: And that definition of customer is not uncommon in the industry. It helps to know who your customer is.

pdimitar 5y ago
Doesn't seem to me like you contradicted your parent poster. They said that profit is not number one and that's it an outcome, not the one and only metric. Also you didn't address their claim that USA companies value good PR and executive bonuses above everything else, even if the project fails miserably -- which matches my observations from 20 years of career as well.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Beware confirmation bias. There are certainly companies like that, but I bet there are many more that aren't that don't rise to your attention level. Profit is the holy grail for all companies. It's not an accidental outcome that Toyota is profitable. The quest for profit is the basis for everything they do, even if it doesn't seem like it. They just picked their heads up a little compared to their US peers so they can see farther down the road.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    You are absolutely incorrect about Toyota. And most Lean companies. Their management philosophy is fundamentally different. If you'd like to learn more, maybe start with Rother's "Toyota Kata". Maybe along with the This American Life epsiode "NUMMI".
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      Profit not being the metric and profit not being the goal are two completely different things.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest. But in the case of Toyota and most Lean companies, profit is a metric, but is not the goal.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      Can you provide a thesis so I know what I'm looking for of I chose to do the research you've laid out for me? What is Toyota's goal, if not profit?
      - wpietri 5y ago
        This whole reductionist notion that an 80-year-old company with 300,000 employees has a single goal is part of your problem. Embrace complexity. But if you're looking for their take on the basics, start with their website: https://search.newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/all/search.x?tag=Vision+%26+Philosophy&pagemax=20 https://search.newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/all/search.x?tag=Vis...
        darkerside 5y ago
        I've read War and Peace, I get that you can model the goals of an organization as the integral of the goals of its constituents. I do embrace that complexity. But reductionism is helpful sometimes. The integral of a complex equation can add up to an integer. Modeling planetary movements in a way that's similar to a spherical cow in a vacuum may not be perfect, but it is possible, and tells you quite a bit. Reductively, companies pursue profit, in the same way that people pursue money. It's not all-consuming, but if you want to model behavior, that's probably the place to start.
        wpietri 5y ago
        A fine argument for you clinging to your too-simple model and your ignorance. And a good sign that I wasted my time giving you citations you were never going to read.

pdimitar 5y ago

Doesn't seem to me like you contradicted your parent poster. They said that profit is not number one and that's it an outcome, not the one and only metric. Also you didn't address their claim that USA companies value good PR and executive bonuses above everything else, even if the project fails miserably -- which matches my observations from 20 years of career as well.

darkerside 5y ago
Beware confirmation bias. There are certainly companies like that, but I bet there are many more that aren't that don't rise to your attention level. Profit is the holy grail for all companies. It's not an accidental outcome that Toyota is profitable. The quest for profit is the basis for everything they do, even if it doesn't seem like it. They just picked their heads up a little compared to their US peers so they can see farther down the road.
- wpietri 5y ago
  You are absolutely incorrect about Toyota. And most Lean companies. Their management philosophy is fundamentally different. If you'd like to learn more, maybe start with Rother's "Toyota Kata". Maybe along with the This American Life epsiode "NUMMI".
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    Profit not being the metric and profit not being the goal are two completely different things.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest. But in the case of Toyota and most Lean companies, profit is a metric, but is not the goal.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Can you provide a thesis so I know what I'm looking for of I chose to do the research you've laid out for me? What is Toyota's goal, if not profit?
    - wpietri 5y ago
      This whole reductionist notion that an 80-year-old company with 300,000 employees has a single goal is part of your problem. Embrace complexity. But if you're looking for their take on the basics, start with their website: https://search.newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/all/search.x?tag=Vision+%26+Philosophy&pagemax=20 https://search.newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/all/search.x?tag=Vis...
      - darkerside 5y ago
        I've read War and Peace, I get that you can model the goals of an organization as the integral of the goals of its constituents. I do embrace that complexity. But reductionism is helpful sometimes. The integral of a complex equation can add up to an integer. Modeling planetary movements in a way that's similar to a spherical cow in a vacuum may not be perfect, but it is possible, and tells you quite a bit. Reductively, companies pursue profit, in the same way that people pursue money. It's not all-consuming, but if you want to model behavior, that's probably the place to start.
        wpietri 5y ago
        A fine argument for you clinging to your too-simple model and your ignorance. And a good sign that I wasted my time giving you citations you were never going to read.