4 ms·

What gets me is how Jack Welch was held up as an amazing businessman and model for corporate flexibility for years while his changes utterly destroyed GE's futu

What gets me is how Jack Welch was held up as an amazing businessman and model for corporate flexibility for years while his changes utterly destroyed GE's future for short-term gains. I'd argue the same thing about the Clinton administration and Greenspan specifically. There's got to be a better mechanism to force companies and countries to focus on long-term rather than short-term improvements.

geodel 4y ago
I'd say he was the original LinkedIn style Thought Leader CEO. His statements and performance was never critically analyzed by mainstream media when he was at top job for decades. In case anyone thinks it is past now. There is army of nincompoops who idolize him even today.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  Stack ranking was his baby, too.
  - aliqot 4y ago
    Is that the same thing as 'rank and yank'?
    - holografix 4y ago
      Yes
      - lowestprimate 4y ago
        Also known as playing double tennis against the people across the net along playing against the person besides you. Insane philosophy.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
> There's got to be a better mechanism to force companies and countries to focus on long-term rather than short-term improvements. Unions with a board seat. Employee ownership. Shares in the hands of pragmatic investors who value long term over extraction and dumping the carcass on the next fool. People like Welch and characters like Gordon Gecko aren’t heroes, they’re cautionary tales, the Frank Underwoods (House of Cards) of finance and corporate management.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> I'd argue the same thing about the Clinton administration and Greenspan specifically. I'm curious, what are the things that happened during the Clinton administration that you think were short-term gains at the expense of long-term improvements? I've always felt that many of the fiscal policies of Clinton were in favor of long-term stability (e.g. specifically his tax policies and balancing the budget). Now, with monetary policy and Greenspan specifically, I 100% agree that the "Greenspan put" was absolutely a disaster for long-term stability, but Greenspan was in office from 1987 - 2006 (originally nominated by Reagan), so I see his choices as pretty orthogonal to whoever was president at the time.
- myvoiceismypass 4y ago
  Some people pin the repeal of Glass–Steagall (99) as a source of what happened in 08.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > I'm curious, what are the things that happened during the Clinton administration that you think were short-term gains at the expense of long-term improvements? The dot com bubble forming and then popping is a notable one, Enron's fraudulent ascent is another.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    > The dot com bubble forming and then popping is a notable one, Enron's fraudulent ascent is another. While I agree with this, I interpreted the parent comment as saying there was something specific about the Clinton administration's policies that led to short term thinking. New technology boom and busts have been going on since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (just look at early railroads and auto companies); the dot com bubble had nothing specifically to do with Clinton. Similarly, WTF did Enron have to do with the Clinton administration?
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > the dot com bubble had nothing specifically to do with Clinton. Similarly, WTF did Enron have to do with the Clinton administration Who is responsible for allowing these things to happen if not the President at the time? Sure, there are limitations to executive power but far more leeway in raising the alarm via the bully pulpit and plenty of scope for using the investigation and regulatory powers that did exist and it would have been a great opportunity for spending political capital to act or at least try. I’m not aware of any evidence of any of that being done and the notion that Clinton couldn’t have known or couldn’t have done anything at all about it is ridiculous. Therefore it’s the implicit Clinton policy of neglect or inaction which is where the culpability lies. I’m happy to be proven wrong and I’m not blaming Clinton alone or even primarily but he deserves plenty of blame nonetheless.
jacobr1 4y ago
> There's got to be a better mechanism to force companies I'd say the current version isn't terrible. Competition has lead to creative destruction. What would be real failure is GE sticking around with a bunch of moribund initiatives tying up skilled individuals and resources. Spinning out divisions is bad for GE shareholders (when the whole thing collapses) ... but I'm not sure it was actually bad for country, or for employees of new companies, or innovation in general. Things sorta worked they way they are supposed to. Bad management decisions over time results in bankrupt companies and their resources being auctioned off to more efficient corporations.
wrycoder 4y ago
@geodel posted Gates' review of "Lights Out: Pride, Delusion, and the Fall of General Electric" below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114049
ySocMedia 4y ago
At least they were less inclined to double speak; in Greenspan’s day they wrote about their goal to fuck the worker bees: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o...
pyuser583 4y ago
Had a conversation with a financial professional just after Jack Welched announced his retirement. The thinking was that GE was screwed. Welch had been in power too long and made too many changes. There was no obvious leader. And GE had very much become Jack Welch Inc.

geodel 4y ago

I'd say he was the original LinkedIn style Thought Leader CEO. His statements and performance was never critically analyzed by mainstream media when he was at top job for decades. In case anyone thinks it is past now. There is army of nincompoops who idolize him even today.

dsr_ 4y ago
Stack ranking was his baby, too.
- aliqot 4y ago
  Is that the same thing as 'rank and yank'?
  - holografix 4y ago
    Yes
    - lowestprimate 4y ago
      Also known as playing double tennis against the people across the net along playing against the person besides you. Insane philosophy.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

> There's got to be a better mechanism to force companies and countries to focus on long-term rather than short-term improvements. Unions with a board seat. Employee ownership. Shares in the hands of pragmatic investors who value long term over extraction and dumping the carcass on the next fool. People like Welch and characters like Gordon Gecko aren’t heroes, they’re cautionary tales, the Frank Underwoods (House of Cards) of finance and corporate management.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> I'd argue the same thing about the Clinton administration and Greenspan specifically. I'm curious, what are the things that happened during the Clinton administration that you think were short-term gains at the expense of long-term improvements? I've always felt that many of the fiscal policies of Clinton were in favor of long-term stability (e.g. specifically his tax policies and balancing the budget). Now, with monetary policy and Greenspan specifically, I 100% agree that the "Greenspan put" was absolutely a disaster for long-term stability, but Greenspan was in office from 1987 - 2006 (originally nominated by Reagan), so I see his choices as pretty orthogonal to whoever was president at the time.

myvoiceismypass 4y ago
Some people pin the repeal of Glass–Steagall (99) as a source of what happened in 08.
nyokodo 4y ago
> I'm curious, what are the things that happened during the Clinton administration that you think were short-term gains at the expense of long-term improvements? The dot com bubble forming and then popping is a notable one, Enron's fraudulent ascent is another.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > The dot com bubble forming and then popping is a notable one, Enron's fraudulent ascent is another. While I agree with this, I interpreted the parent comment as saying there was something specific about the Clinton administration's policies that led to short term thinking. New technology boom and busts have been going on since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (just look at early railroads and auto companies); the dot com bubble had nothing specifically to do with Clinton. Similarly, WTF did Enron have to do with the Clinton administration?
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > the dot com bubble had nothing specifically to do with Clinton. Similarly, WTF did Enron have to do with the Clinton administration Who is responsible for allowing these things to happen if not the President at the time? Sure, there are limitations to executive power but far more leeway in raising the alarm via the bully pulpit and plenty of scope for using the investigation and regulatory powers that did exist and it would have been a great opportunity for spending political capital to act or at least try. I’m not aware of any evidence of any of that being done and the notion that Clinton couldn’t have known or couldn’t have done anything at all about it is ridiculous. Therefore it’s the implicit Clinton policy of neglect or inaction which is where the culpability lies. I’m happy to be proven wrong and I’m not blaming Clinton alone or even primarily but he deserves plenty of blame nonetheless.

jacobr1 4y ago

> There's got to be a better mechanism to force companies I'd say the current version isn't terrible. Competition has lead to creative destruction. What would be real failure is GE sticking around with a bunch of moribund initiatives tying up skilled individuals and resources. Spinning out divisions is bad for GE shareholders (when the whole thing collapses) ... but I'm not sure it was actually bad for country, or for employees of new companies, or innovation in general. Things sorta worked they way they are supposed to. Bad management decisions over time results in bankrupt companies and their resources being auctioned off to more efficient corporations.

wrycoder 4y ago

@geodel posted Gates' review of "Lights Out: Pride, Delusion, and the Fall of General Electric" below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33114049

ySocMedia 4y ago

At least they were less inclined to double speak; in Greenspan’s day they wrote about their goal to fuck the worker bees: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o...

pyuser583 4y ago

Had a conversation with a financial professional just after Jack Welched announced his retirement. The thinking was that GE was screwed. Welch had been in power too long and made too many changes. There was no obvious leader. And GE had very much become Jack Welch Inc.