The only asset which can reverse a company’s downhill slide is another CEO, another board member or another executive. The Board may define a new strategy but it wants a new executive to champion it. The same thinking needs to be applied to the rank and file. If profits are tanking, how about looking at investing in the people as a long term approach?
Very much agree with your thoughts on the mistake of overly focusing on management by metrics, particularly shareholder value, at the expense of the non-tangible assets that all companies ultimately rely on for success.
You may find the following substack article of interest which sees Boeing's 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas as the inflection point when Boeing’s historical “engineering culture” based on getting things right and doing what was needed, moved to something more in tune with the Jack Welch / Shareholder Value spirit of the times, focused on cost control and return on investment.
A very deep and well-thought-out article. Look at Google. Some companies may fare well for a while, basically exploiting their people (looking at you, Amazon), but the end result could potentially be the Boeing of today. This was a delight to read. The deeply insightful thinking was a treat. Congrats on a great article!
This will happen for as long as management considers its people "human resources." The implied employment contract says," pay me this in exchange for a slice of my knowledge, expertise, sweat and attention." The employer can only assume how big a slice they get, and the slice diminishes in line with employee dissatisfaction.
Your story deeply resonated with me as this topic is part of my leadership research. You covered nuances clearly, vividly, and succinctly. We can’t measure these immeasurable multidimensional aspects with flat rulers. While studying the cognitive/emotional patterns of leaders and followers I was amazed by the complexity of patterns which do not fit in the boxes we create in our primitive information management processes. Your story inspired me to enhance and extend it. Thank you for this exceptional piece illuminating business leaders.
Many thanks for the support! Boeing's story is a case that will be taught in business schools for decades. But to me is a reason to rethink some strategic basics.
In varying degrees, yes. But their expectations of the organisation (WIIFM?) rarely align unless they're brought down to some common (eg monetary) value.
Their expectations (WIIFM) are very different, moreover, they almost always conflicting. That's way CEO's get paid so much:)) In my book, I offer a concept of balancing their interests.
The only asset which can reverse a company’s downhill slide is another CEO, another board member or another executive. The Board may define a new strategy but it wants a new executive to champion it. The same thinking needs to be applied to the rank and file. If profits are tanking, how about looking at investing in the people as a long term approach?
A new Boeing's CEO has just started. We'll see what he'll be able to do.
Very much agree with your thoughts on the mistake of overly focusing on management by metrics, particularly shareholder value, at the expense of the non-tangible assets that all companies ultimately rely on for success.
You may find the following substack article of interest which sees Boeing's 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas as the inflection point when Boeing’s historical “engineering culture” based on getting things right and doing what was needed, moved to something more in tune with the Jack Welch / Shareholder Value spirit of the times, focused on cost control and return on investment.
https://backofmind.substack.com/p/how-the-wrong-side-won-at-boeing?utm_source=publication-search
Many thanks for sharing the article and for the comment, Bob. I've heard about that Boeing story, but I haven't known the details. I'll read it soon!
A very deep and well-thought-out article. Look at Google. Some companies may fare well for a while, basically exploiting their people (looking at you, Amazon), but the end result could potentially be the Boeing of today. This was a delight to read. The deeply insightful thinking was a treat. Congrats on a great article!
Many thanks for your support, Thomas! I do my best to deliver a lot of value to my readers in my articles.
You do indeed!
The promotion of DEI by the prior CEO was unmentioned. This did not help make a profitable corporate culture.
DEI itself is not a solution. And even if it is a solution, it is a solution to another problem.
This will happen for as long as management considers its people "human resources." The implied employment contract says," pay me this in exchange for a slice of my knowledge, expertise, sweat and attention." The employer can only assume how big a slice they get, and the slice diminishes in line with employee dissatisfaction.
As long as companies only treat their employees as resources, all they can get in return is hours of attendance.
Your story deeply resonated with me as this topic is part of my leadership research. You covered nuances clearly, vividly, and succinctly. We can’t measure these immeasurable multidimensional aspects with flat rulers. While studying the cognitive/emotional patterns of leaders and followers I was amazed by the complexity of patterns which do not fit in the boxes we create in our primitive information management processes. Your story inspired me to enhance and extend it. Thank you for this exceptional piece illuminating business leaders.
Many thanks for the support! Boeing's story is a case that will be taught in business schools for decades. But to me is a reason to rethink some strategic basics.
So many companies started with a passion for their product or customer and became bean counters and lost their way.
Profit is important. So are shareholders. But if you’re not providing value to customers things will go downhill.
There are six stakeholder groups, and they are all important.
In varying degrees, yes. But their expectations of the organisation (WIIFM?) rarely align unless they're brought down to some common (eg monetary) value.
Their expectations (WIIFM) are very different, moreover, they almost always conflicting. That's way CEO's get paid so much:)) In my book, I offer a concept of balancing their interests.