4 ms·
Invest in employees is very broad statement. Before investing to employees I think it should revisit management practices and strategies, which starts in MBA a
by throwaw12 6mo ago
Invest in employees is very broad statement.
Before investing to employees I think it should revisit management practices and strategies, which starts in MBA and university.
Instead of teaching how to increase shareholder value in the short term, it should also teach how to increase value to the society in the long term as well (and focus on it highly) - not just say: if you win society wins kind of generic fluff.
Without changing management strategies everything becomes short term after a while
- ranger_danger 6mo ago> teaching how to increase shareholder value in the short term Problem is this is quite often a requirement for a public company, to maximize company value/profits above all else. Also execs who are more right-wing are typically not interested in helping the larger society in general.
- Kamq 6mo agoThis is BS. A shareholder lawsuit against the CEO/board/executives for investing in the employees in the hope of long term profits would never succeed. The idea of a fiduciary duty doesn't mean that. It means the CEO can't take actions that intentionally hurt the company. And there are very few large public companies with active enough investors to oust a CEO over this, and even fewer that have both active and activist investors that would be interested in such a thing.
- ranger_danger 6mo agoThere can be other valid perspectives than your own, especially when one makes sweeping black-and-white generalizations without any evidence. > the CEO can't take actions that intentionally hurt the company And who gets to define what "hurt" means?
- Kamq 6mo agoThe government. You'd have to prove that the CEO knew that it would hurt the company and still did it or that it's so ridiculously negligent that any sane person should have known.