tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073991368963140015.post4035920304565900975..comments2023-11-05T12:18:27.222+00:00Comments on Labour And Capital: Back to the beginning part 2Tom Powdrillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05511483398745094803noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073991368963140015.post-16441851344160184842009-10-07T12:42:11.686+00:002009-10-07T12:42:11.686+00:00by the way - I think it's time we met up for t...by the way - I think it's time we met up for that beer!Tom Powdrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511483398745094803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073991368963140015.post-56869248195502661272009-10-07T09:21:53.735+00:002009-10-07T09:21:53.735+00:00even in a privately-held company with a small and ...even in a privately-held company with a small and engaged shareholder-base, there is generally a range of quite different detailed interests in play that need negotiating around<br /><br />in order to achieve a decent degree of alignment, ideally, you want a clearly-articulated business model & strategy that (with whatever compromises) everyone signs up to<br /><br />then, aligning your management (many of whom are also shareholders, perhaps quite big) is just a mechanistic challenge<br /><br />although it's often done very badly, I've seen it done very successfully too (in both private and publicly-quoted companies)<br /><br />the residual fact that some junior members of staff (quite reasonably) care about little more than the next pay-cheque, so to speak, is not really an issue<br /><br />companies wouldn't have achieved what they have (some of them) if a good, workable alignment was somehow an inherent impossibility<br /><br />(it's the same with the military: are we allowed to say 'leadership' ?)Nick Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670594203660051701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073991368963140015.post-10866655989657179202009-10-06T20:24:19.483+00:002009-10-06T20:24:19.483+00:00yeah, that's what I found surprising about the...yeah, that's what I found surprising about the quote. I mean he was writing when joint stock companies had a very limited shareholder base. and even then he though they weren't a great model.<br /><br />I agree that we need this form of organisation, but then isn't part of the problem agency theory, which encourages us to look for problems that maybe aren't there (or at least not as bad as might be). there's a lot to be said for intrinsic motivation to do a good job IMO.Tom Powdrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511483398745094803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073991368963140015.post-53498892775361922042009-10-06T10:57:12.539+00:002009-10-06T10:57:12.539+00:00joint stock companies are inherently flawed, and h...<i>joint stock companies are inherently flawed, and haven't done a great job</i><br /><br />and there was me thinking that they were one of the engines of the modern world, without which there would have been no industrial revolution<br /><br />if you want great enterprises (public <b>or</b> private, mind), you need to employ & trust professional managers - there is a distinct limitation inherent in the firm that will only expand as far as the founding family or autocrat can control it personally<br /><br />same goes for government, of course<br /><br />we <b>do</b> want big enterprises, because of what they and only they can deliver; but we (shareholders and electorate) don't want the manager-bastards taking over and dictating terms, do we ?? (in extreme cases, e.g. in Russia, the management of so-called joint stock companies have no regard <i>whatever</i> for shareholder rights beyond those of the big cheese who owns a couple of percent: <i>KTO KOГO</i>, as they say)<br /><br />so it definitely needs sorting, in favour of the shareholders - including the 'passive' / non-executive onesNick Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13670594203660051701noreply@blogger.com