.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
.
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
I'm using my own definition of "vision" which is simply something like "I wanna sell groceries."
When your co-owners decide they want to sell furniture, marijuana, open a restaurant, a movie theatre, refine uranium...
That's when your grocery store becomes a corporation and everyone begins to beg a King to come in and bring order to the chaos.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=GNV
10 ¶ So Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked a king of him.
11 And he said, This shall be the [f]manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them to his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariot.
12 Also he will make them his captains over thousands, and captains over fifties, and to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make instruments of war, and the things that serve for his chariots.
13 He will also take your daughters and make them Apothecaries, and Cooks, and Bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best Olive trees, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give it to his [g]Eunuchs, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and the chief of your young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out at that day, because of your king, whom ye have chosen you, and the Lord will not [h]hear you at that day.
19 But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, but did say, Nay, but there shall be a king over us.
The people's needs were not unfounded -- they wanted clear direction because they were too scared to venture boldly and pursue their own dreams for fear of the failure that often follows.
The nature of man, then, is to want to "belong" to something which they can collaborate and find success and thereby prepare for the time they must set out alone in pursuit of their dreams.
To avoid the backlash of these situations, each organization must maintain a singular vision, but avoid stooping to elect a King which will oppress them to keep them from swaying from the "vision."
Eventually, the King's vision is no longer the vision of the people, and ruin follows.
God should be the only King, but we must still have leaders like Samuel; judges who determine which way the wind blows that we may follow it instead of toil against the tempest, doing battle with the elements.
Can the body exist without the brain? Yes, but it is what we call a vegetable.
Can the brain exist without the body? No, it will wither and die from exposure and so it will seek to immortalize itself with perverse and artificial means.
So what is the solution?
I believe that we must let the brain lead as a judge, taking in senses and distributing their meaning to the body. Should we ever stumble and appoint the brain as superior to the body, then we will succumb to the lures of stimulation -- lust, gluttony, greed, wrath, envy, pride, and sloth.
This will be because the brain, a thing designed to interpret stimulation, will begin to overindulge in stimulation simply because it is wont to do so -- it is what it is supposed to do. Given total authority, the brain will explore stimulation at the cost of letting the body break down.
The brain must serve the body and the body must serve the brain. Any unbalancing of this nature leads either to Kings which leads to Tyrants or Confusion which leads to Stagnancy.