One of the major US networks has revamped its Sunday news program. As a guest on his predecessor’s last show, the new host explained the format. He used an analogy that we likely will be hearing more of in coming months and, perhaps, years. He said that Washington, D.C. usually teaches the country. . .
At bottom, the debate over the nature and operation of an economy is really about freedom – even more than that: possession of freedom, or sovereignty. The question is: does government give us a revocable license to exercise privileges we negotiate with it, or do we issue government a revocable license to administer for us matters regarding the collective interaction of our inalienable rights? That doesn’t make a statement about whether we need extraordinary governmental measures in a crisis. It only points to the question . . .
Forestry experts used to attack fires as soon as they began, struggling to put them out before they could do what they imagined to be damage to a vital natural resource. As it turned out, though, they had things backward. The experts learned that their remedy was the real danger, the fires the cure. Might not the something like this be the case in a capitalist economy?
When management takes the initiative to identify who might be influenced by its actions, the term “stakeholder” takes on a perfectly benign, helpful meaning. This is the case, as well, when management responds constructively to constructive suggestions from interested parties that such a relationship might exist. This is the general sense of the term as used by Wally Bock, in a comment to a previous post. But the term “stakeholder” often suggests a combative relationship, as well . . .
We observed, yesterday, that the workplace is just one of many social settings in the lives of its workers. This, if nothing else, compels managers to pay close attention to both employees and the community. That is, it is prudent for managers to do so well beyond the requirements of the law, and even beyond the provisions of contracts they may otherwise be able to negotiate, in order to more effectively discharge their primary responsibilities to enhance shareholder value. As uninspiringly calculating as this may sound, it does nothing to diminish . . .
It is common to think of corporations as entities separate from ourselves – as “things” with no human characteristics or motives. They are just profit making machines, the deadening instruments of distant and terrible masters. We are dragooned into service from the local villages, and all of us – we and our communities, in our ignorance, destitution, and dependence – are held hostage to the mysterious rulers of the silent keep in our midst. Or so it sometimes seems. But the truth is . . .
Or:
Jim Stroup's Business card:
Come visit the Managing Leadership
Managing Leadership® is a registered trademark of the author
Bad Behavior has blocked 1295 access attempts in the last 7 days.
