Once upon a time there was a CEO. He was a man of integrity, and he worked long, hard hours for years to achieve his position of leadership and respect. He was a well-intentioned man who cared deeply about his employees and the company that he built. He pushed diligently to bring his product to market, but he never demanded more from his employees than he did from himself. They observed his dedication and his strong will, and they pressed with him to achieve greatness.
When times were tough or challenges surfaced, the group united to meet the obstacles. As a result of their teamwork and commitment, they frequently exceeded their goals and created ideas and products that surpassed original plans.
Then one day, someone noticed a sharply dressed stranger briskly walking and seemingly inspecting the company. A few weeks later, the headlines exclaimed that the CEO was out. The company was no more.
The explanation from the reports outlined a "corporate takeover." It was a strange and unfamiliar term to most readers. It was a stranger unfamiliar term to most CEO's. It was definitely a strange and unfamiliar term to the vast majority of the working class. The end.
If you know anything about business in America, you know that was not the end. The birth of the corporate takeover as a business option was lambasted, criticized, booed, and heralded as the end of the American Dream. It was also promoted lauded, and proclaimed as the perfect entity to propel our country into the next century. The arguments for and against the birth and growth of the mega-conglomerate raged fiercely and loudly. There were headlines in every magazine and news publication, and reports on every television channel and radio station.
Proponents argued that the pursuit of bigger and better technology, drugs, medical devices, national safety, etc. were paramount to keep the US on a level playing field with other world powers. They predicated their ideas with the assumption that massive accumulations of assets and capital were necessary for these companies to accomplish their goals. They argued that restrictions would hamper their ability to negotiate and compete in the necessary national and global markets. It was proposed that the achievements and breakthroughs from these companies would far outweigh the potentially detrimental factors of unrestricted size and growth.
Those arguing against the birth of the giant companies cited their unfair trade advantages over smaller companies, the potential for market monopoly and price gauging, and the loss of jobs and wages. They insisted that huge companies would provide no loyalty to their employees, would manipulate markets and wages, and would eventually destroy America.
For decades, the ebb and flow of business growth and demise was reasonably predictable. The cycles cycled. The same arguments that took place before the birth of giant companies continue today with variances in industry types and shifting alliances. The difference?
Previously, debates centered around companies that would impact hundreds of lives, an entire sector of the economy, and a whole region of the US. The deliberations now often revolve around companies that impact hundreds of thousands globally, and they cross several economic sectors. When the domino effect on other companies and vendors is considered, the impact swells exponentially. A multitude of opinions about definitions and valuations that did not exist in years past has surfaced to add more complexity to the deliberations.
This is the introduction of a six part series on impending shifts in corporate management and structure. It will cover factors driving the change, predictable outcomes, and strategic processes for consideration by founders, owners, and executives charged with managing the transition.
Comments
Post a Comment