.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
.
As Twitter shows, a top heavy company with brainless investors as 'brain' doesn't work so well either.
Doing the work, but making no profit per item so the motive to produce is low. Ownership would create pride in the product. The reason "employees" have gained a rep for sloppy uncaring work or laziness is because they don't share in the profit and no, a wage doesn't qualify as profit sharing unless all profits go to wages.
You have a 4j01k? You bought in. You make any decisions? Does it keep you from losing your job? No
This country looks like Dolly Parton in a pushup bra it's so top heavy with 'useless eaters' jetting off to conferences with anyone other than their employees about carbon emission.
At my work once, a consulting firm was paid to give employees a questionaire about how to improve the business.
I wrote: I've been here for years and not seen your faces once. Complaints are laid at your feet every day that you ignore. The fact that you feel the need to use an intermediary to talk to your employees about your business you ignore IS THE PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL.
The brain is dead yet is still drooling like Pavlov's dog.
Let me summarize what you've written:
Brain but no heart means the body will rot.
Heart and no brain, means the body wanders.
No heart and no brain mean's you'll eventually get eaten.
Heart and brain? Well, that sounds like a winning formula.
What we see now are employees worked to raw and to the bone, then thrown out when they can't keep up with new blood instead of treated and maintained like the valuable assets they are.
Pervasive in American industry is the Chinese(Communist) logic of "why repair when it is cheaper to replace?"
Communist: "What use are the old when they can no longer work? If you kill them they will rebel. Instead, work them to the bone, maim and cripple them, make them wish for death, and then stand as the 'benevolent' and 'merciful' one by offering euthanasia. In this way, one might prevent rebellion while disposing of the useless."
Organizations must be like the body, which uses its blood (employees) to dispense oxygen (products) and then clean and nurture the blood so it may work optimally. Sure, it's probably cheaper to infuse oxygen like Lance Armstrong during a race, but ultimately you end up with testicle cancer (in ability to invent/innovate) because you've monkey'd with your biology so much that your body can't repair itself properly anymore, at any level.
Also, what happens when only the brain (people in charge) gets oxygen (products)? The rest of the body atrophies and begins to clot (clog). At that point, the brain starts looking for another body, and the employees go down with the ship. Take a look at Sears' history if you want a primer on my theory.
...
A fully-employee run organization sustains itself, sure, but it wanders if it has no real goal. It's neither a good or bad thing, just an observation.
If you want real ingenuity you need a brain, if you want perpetuity you need a heart. No matter what happens, you most definitely need to breathe evenly (cycle of rest and work) otherwise no amount of the heart pumping or the brain churning is gonna save the organization.
Something that never stops breathing is fated to drown. Something that never breathes suffocates.
When the eagle has two heads, its wings flap against each other.
How does co-owning a company translate into 'has no real goal'? What have you observed to make that observation?
Before you get cranking, I've had these conversations, some with 'experts' in co-opts and communes like those that my state were somewhat known for historically.
Among other things, the camps are divided as to 'cause' as well as effects, one example being that the success of a camp was said to be minimal to some if they didn't show an extraneous profit as 'growth'. We see this as the typical business model today, the 'Growth Model' with all it's own picadillos.
As 'outside' influence grew in communes to 'grow' the business, business itself changed and became more dependent on the outside. The product no longer helped to sustain the commune and so they failed.
A different set of conditions exist in a socialistic (taxes) capitalism like the one we live in today.
I promote neither 'side' of the argument. Just analyzing arguments of others.
thanks for your comments
Say there is no single ownership with no single vision.
That means you have maybe a dozen owners with a dozen visions.
Sure, they might agree upon an overarching goal, but each will have their own ideas that you absolutely cannot stamp out, especially without a leader in charge.
With so many dedicating little bits of their time away from the singular goal, the company will wander and sway.
Not even considering personal disputes, the organization is destined to respond reactively to its environment instead of plan proactively with a clear and singular vision.
Because of this, as soon as the individual employees who started the company have all been cycled out as time progresses, the company's goals shifts with time. This is why there are very few employee-owned organizations that can claim to have been around for more than a couple generations.
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
You'll find there are very few who have been around for a long time (pre 1970s).
Notably, the older they are, the less of a reach they have.
Again, I'm not of the opinion that employee-owned companies don't work, because they do. But their structure is like a tent, which can only get so tall before it is taken with the wind. They historically cannot survive if they get too big.
Yes, communes are for a certain size and type of society.
Different rules apply to different scales, just as in physical science.
Single vision is another word for failure in some people's business recipe books, just sayin. It all depends on what this vision is, and it would remain to be seen why it only belongs to one person.
The reason one shouldn't hire 'yes men' to advise. And he ends up hiring outside advisors yet again. We've seen this. Because he and the board are 'us' and the workers 'them'.
The Great Reset is to both heads of the eagle. When will they join forces?
btw: Just before and after 9/11, professors, legal eagles and business heads were all shuttling back and forth to and from Munich in discussions of future 'intellectual property' and how it can be manipulated.....I mean viewed to benefit :)
It's like pitching snorkels to the Shark Tank as they circle around our 'lack of vision'. :)
Thanks for your comments