Taking It to Extremes – Part 3 of 5 – Society versus the Economy

Figures to modify for web

Introduction: (Skip if you have read Part 1)

A number of years ago, I wrote an article about the famous “Golden Mean” of Greek philosophy.  The mean was basically a rule that said the best way of living is to balance extremes.  Another way of looking at what this rule implies is that evil or bad things happen when we over do something.  We need to take all things in moderation.  Thus, drugs, smoking, guns, watching TV etc., are not evil or bad in themselves but when we take them to extremes, they became dangerous and counterproductive.

Life is an ongoing struggle to find our proper balance.  However, it may never be a question of equal balance because the proper balance can never be static.  There are many dimensions or polarities in life where it is not really a matter of moderation or balance but more a matter of dynamically imposing a temporary order between two extremes.  The concept of Hegelian Dialectics comes to my mind as an aide in thinking about this process.

Dialectical thinking can be described as: “The ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information and postures.”  This is a much more complex process than simply balancing extremes.  The more I thought about it the more I decided to add a corollary to the Greek Rule.  Since I think time has easily proved the value of the Golden Mean, a corollary by definition is a proposition that follows from and is appended to one already proved.  My corollary is as follows:

John’s Corollary:

Anytime, one concept in a set of opposing concepts is allowed to dominate the other concept, extreme dysfunction will result.

I want to discuss this more by using five pairs of concepts that I think are critical to our world today.  I want to show you how the distortion created by proponents of each concept is dangerous to life as we know it.  I do not use the word dangerous loosely or frivolously or for effect.  The battle between these ideas is destroying life as we know it on this planet.   The proponents of each side of these polarities seek to destroy the proponents on the other side.

Rather than looking at things from a systems perspective and trying to dynamically adjust the system, opponents are driven to allow one idea to dominate to the exclusion of the other idea.  Witness the name calling between conservatives and liberals today.  Each side demonizes the other side and assumes God is on their side and Satan is on the other side. Liberals are evil to conservatives and conservatives are evil to liberals.

Here are the five pairs of concepts we will look at in the next few weeks.  This week we will look at number three on my list.  We have already discussed the “efficiency versus effectiveness” dimension in part one of this blog series and the “growth versus development” dimension in part two.

  1. Efficiency versus Effectiveness
  2. Growth versus Development
  3. Society versus the Economy
  4. Conservative versus Liberal
  5. Rights of the Individual versus Rights of the Group
  1. Society versus the Economy:

moses-and-rameses-were-raised-as-brothers-but-took-different-paths-to-become-great-leaders

Today we are faced with an epic pandemic.  This threat has led to a battle between those who want to protect the economy and those for whom society is more important.  This is not the first time such a battle has been waged.  Four thousand years ago Moses battled Ramses over the same issue.  Pharaoh Ramses had cheap labor with the Israelites.  The Egyptian economy was purring along.  Pharaoh did not want to change anything.  The Israelites were not so happy.  Their society was in chaos as it was being slowly but inevitably destroyed by Egyptian culture.  A few hundred more years and there would be no Israelites.  A leader named Moses decided his people must leave Egypt.  He first tried to convince Ramses to simply “let my people go.”  Ramses would have none of this idea.  He had a good thing going with cheap labor and he was not about to rock the boat.

bc612c3d-adee-4839-afd7-6c8bdd972466-18563-00000de10390ef11

Moses decided to play hard ball.  He brought a plague to hurt the Egyptians.  Ramses was aggrieved and decided to allow the Israelites to leave.  However, at the last-minute Ramses changed his mind.  It was a question of what would be good for the economy or what would be good for the Israelites.  The economy won out.  Moses brought another plague and then another.  Each time, Ramses would acquiesce and then at the last minute he would change his mind.  He finally let the Israelites leave but once they were “on the road” he had his last-minute regrets again and sent his army to bring them back.  The rest is (as they say) “history.”

Fast forward to the world in 2020.  A pandemic more widespread and as lethal as any in history has struck the world.  The battle is again engaged between leaders like Donald Trump who care more about the economy and leaders who care more about society.  A false dichotomy if ever there was one.  Under John’s corollary, taking either position and ignoring the other position can and will only result in a destruction of both.  You cannot have a society without an economy, and you can not have an economy without a society.  But what is the purpose of each?  What is a society and what is an economy?

relationship-between-culture-and-society-2-638

A society is a group of people, perhaps a tribe, a nation, or a family that choose to live together to share mutual resources.  People that live together beget relationships that involve feelings of community that grow out of common concerns.  These feelings range from love to sometimes hate.  There is a mutual interdependence in a society that implies the good of the society is based on the good of the individual and vice versa.  Societies develop a strong bond based on this mutual interdependence.

An economy is a means of providing resources for a society.  It is the means towards an end.  The end being the perpetuity of the society.  No society can exist without an economy.  Social economies have existed since the cave people and at one point simply involved people hunting and gathering together.  In modern times, we see economies based on a much more complex web of “hunting and gathering.”  The hunting and gathering in a modern society may involve Internet hunting or gathering crops at the local supermarket.

whatstheeconomy

A supply chain exists in modern societies based on what economists’ call “comparative advantage.”  This involves multiple components of a supply chain each doing what they do best.  Farmers raise dairy cattle.  Dairies make milk.  Trucking companies transfer the milk.  Retail stores sell the milk and other dairy products.  Consumers work at some part of a supply chain (there are thousands of supply chains that exist in the world today) to earn money to purchase goods and services sold at one or more other supply chains.  This is a simple version of an economy.  The bottom line is that in the 21st Century, no jobs mean no money.  No money means no ability to purchase goods and services.  Ergo, you starve to death or rely on the charity of your neighbors in your society.

Since the Covid-19 Pandemic began, leaders seem to have chosen sides in a fruitless and ignorant battle between “society” and the “economy.”  Over and over again we have seen leaders propose one extreme position or the other.  “We must shut everything down or we must open everything up!”  In the USA, there has been endless wrangling over a second stimulus bill.  Instead of intelligently looking at the balance between society and the economy, both Democrats and Republicans have used the crisis to further their own goals and agendas.

coronavirus

This lack of leadership of both parties directly dovetails with the lack of leadership set by the former President of the United States.  A man whose own agenda was based on keeping an economy going to further his chances for reelection.  For a man who scorned Marxism and socialism, he realized that the economy always plays a major role in the life of the common person.  He thought that if the economy was going strong, people would overlook the thousands of deaths of their friends and neighbors.  He created a narrative that the entire pandemic was “false.”  The deaths were false.  He claimed falsely that the hospitals were reporting everything as Covid-19 deaths when they were actually due to something else.  I personally talked to many Trump supporters who told me that doctors and hospitals did this because the reimbursement rates were higher for deaths due to Covid-19 than for other causes.

trump on virus magic

I served four years in the United States Air Force.  I learned while in the military that a commander, whether of a battalion, a squadron or a platoon has a major responsibility to keep his soldiers as safe as possible.  Any military leader who recklessly and needlessly puts his or her soldiers in harm’s way will be tried and court martialed for “dereliction” of duty. Following are two examples from a Marine publication titled: “Leadership, Ethics and Law of War Discussion Guide for Marines” by Marine Corps University, Lejeune Leadership (2008)

“The platoon commander was charged with violations of Article 92 (Dereliction of Duty), Article 109 (Willful and wrongful damage to an automobile), Article 118 (Premeditated murder) and Article 133 (Willful and wrongful failure to safeguard the detainees) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 1 Feb 2005.”

“1st Lt Lawson was charged with dereliction of duty for failing to account for LCpl Rother’s welfare by posting him alone as a road guide. He was also charged with disobeying an order for two violations: failing to post guides in pairs as Judgment Case Study 5 Dependability Proficiency as directed and failing to provide a roster of the guides to the logistics officer before they were posted.”

Word-of-the-Day_09SEP20

We have a former President who claims to be the Commander in Chief, yet he violated every canon of military law by recklessly and needlessly putting the entire US population in harm’s way by his disregard for the lives of these people.  His actions resulted in the deaths of thousands and yet I hear no outcry for justice.  I hear no strong voices noting his responsibility for these thousands of deaths.  As the primary person responsible for politicizing this Pandemic, he must be held accountable for these deaths.  The liars and sycophants who supported him must also be held accountable.

I blame the Democrats for their continuing stupidity to face reality.  I blame the Republicans for their lack of integrity and for their greed.  Both parties have made the pandemic in the USA much worse than it needed to be.  The lack of courage on one side and the greed on the other side created a perfect storm for the Covid-19 Virus to spread.  As I speak, we are witnessing a spike and increase in cases that seems beyond belief.

online-school-socialization

Part of the reason for the increase in Corvid-10 cases has been the rush by both parties to open the schools.  So-called well-meaning educators and health experts even supported this rush.  On one side it was the belief that “day care” was needed to get the economy going again and on the other side, it was the need for teachers and schools to regain income.  Both sides used such flimsy excuses as “students need socializing” and would not get it at home or “students would fall behind” if they did not have direct contact with teachers.  No one ever defined what “socializing” children means or how schools accomplish this.  As for students falling behind, were they talking about their ability to take these ridiculous standardized state tests which add little or nothing to a student’s ability to think and reason for themselves?   No one ever defined what these children would be “falling behind.”

I realize that I have digressed from my original thesis.  To sum it up, a failure to balance the needs of both the society and the economy has led to disastrous results.  Add to this, the overall lack of leadership by the US President and both parties and we have a crisis that has never before been witnessed in the USA.  Some of these same problems beset the rest of the world.  The stupidity we have seen is not simply a manifestation of American ignorance, greed, and short-sightedness.  The world abounds in bad leadership.  Will we learn anything from our mistakes?  Will we admit that we were so polarized that neither side would listen to the other side?  Will we make progress under a new President?  Only time will tell.

It’s the Economy Stupid! The Five Myths of Capitalism – Part 4 of 5

it_efficiency_buzzwords-500x250

I stated in my three previous blogs that unless we change our attitudes and policies regarding Corporate Capitalism, it will destroy our country, our way of life, our freedoms, and our environment.  Furthermore, we will undoubtedly take some of the rest of the world along with us.  This is a serious accusation and one I do not take lightly.  I have been a business educator in higher education and a management consultant to some of the top corporations in the world.  My opinion is not based just on theory or observations.  It is based on the in-depth work that I did with over 32 companies during the time I was actively consulting.  There are many good people working in corporate America but as Dr. Deming once said “You put a good person in a bad system and the system will win every time.  There are Five Myths of Capitalism that are largely responsible for the mistaken policies and laws that have allowed Corporate Capitalism to become a dangerous disease infecting our way of life and causing untold damage to our country.

In my previous blogs, I described the first three myths.  In this blog, I will describe Myth #4 and how it contributes to the destruction of our country.  Myth #4 is:

4.  Corporations are Efficient and Always More Efficient than the Government

In 1986, I was hired by Process Management Institute (PMI) to help merge organization development with statistics.  I had just finished my Ph.D. degree in Training and Organization Development from the University of Minnesota.  Lou Schultz, the CEO of PMI had started the company about three years before I joined.  The company was founded on and sold the methodology and philosophy of Dr. W. Edwards Deming.  Lou had met Dr. W. E. Deming when Lou worked at Control Data (CD).

CUV0Uu9UwAAR6e6

Lou was a manager at CD when sometime in the early 80’s Control Data hired Dr. Deming to help them implement his famous quality improvement process.  Lou realized that Dr. Deming had something that America needed, and he decided to leave Control Data and start a consulting firm.  The focus of this firm would be to help bring the Deming Philosophy to businesses in the USA.  Dr. Deming helped Lou in many ways by encouragement and referral of potential clients.  Lou assisted at more than 60 of the 4-day seminars that Dr. Deming had started after he was featured prominently in a TV documentary on quality.  Dr. Deming’s popularity soared after the NBC White Paper TV documentary called “If Japan Can, Why Can’t We” was broadcast.

“If Japan can … Why can’t we? was an American television episode broadcast by NBC News as part of the television show “NBC White Paper” on June 24, 1980, credited with beginning the Quality Revolution and introducing the methods of W. Edwards Deming to American managers that was produced by Clare Crawford-Mason[ and reported on by Lloyd Dobyns.

The report details how the Japanese captured the world automotive and electronics markets by following Deming’s advice to practice continual improvement and think of manufacturing as a system, not as bits or pieces. Crawford-Mason went on to produce; in collaboration with Deming, a 14-hour documentary series detailing his methods through lecture excerpts, interviews, practical demonstrations, and case studies of companies that adopted his methods.”  — Wikipedia

Dr. Deming started a series of four-day seminars to teach his philosophy and methods.  These seminars were a mixture of experiential activities, teaching, discussion, lectures and always Dr. Deming talking about what management did not do right and what they should be doing.  At the time, he had created his famous “14 Points for Management” which together with his statistical philosophy formed the basis for the four days of activities.

IMG_8176-540x405Dr. Deming would do two or three of these a month all over the USA.  He continued these four-day seminars until about six months before he died at the age of 93 in 1993.   Dr. Deming always required help at these seminars since as many as 500 people would usually attend.  I was fortunate enough to help out at four of these seminars.  After getting to know Dr. Deming fairly well, I brought several consulting clients to his home in D.C. to discuss with him personally his ideas on what we were doing right and wrong.  Dr. Deming was always very candid and blunt.  This endeared him to some people, while it turned other people off.

But it is time to get back to the point on corporate efficiency.  I worked with over 32 different clients in my years at PMI and my later independent consulting work.  I worked with clients in government, in military, in non-profit and in for-profit sectors of the economy.  I worked with industries in mining, trucking, healthcare, manufacturing and education.  I published two books on quality and over fifty papers for seminars, journals and presentations.  I did a monthly column for a noted quality journal and did some pro-bono work for various organizations.

51akdYiowtL._SX337_BO1,204,203,200_

The crux of my client work was to facilitate what we called a quality transformation.  From a system that emphasized production quantity and inspection to a system that emphasized process improvement and quality.  Quality was never a final end state but always a quest for continuous improvement.  Improvement not to meet client expectations but to exceed them.  Deming often pointed out that clients and customers often did not know what they wanted.  “No customer” he would say “was clamoring for a handheld calculator in the seventies.  You must always innovate and delight the customer with new products and new features as well as meeting existing expectations for quality products.”  Dr. Noriaki Kano summarized some of these quality ideas in his famous “Kano Model.”  I had the good fortune to attend one of his seminars in Tokyo while I was on a two-week study mission to Japan in 1993 to visit Japanese companies and study their methods firsthand.  My trip was a joint venture between PM and Komatsu Corporation.  I brought along several clients and we had about 15 participants in all.

“Customer expectations?  Nonsense.  No customer ever asked for the electric light, the pneumatic tire, the VCR, or the CD.  All customer expectations are only what you and your competitor have led him to expect.  He knows nothing else.” — W. Edwards Deming at his Seminars

Later on when I left full-time consulting and went into college teaching, I started using a variety of models to educate my MBA students.  One I was fond of using was a metaphor of a coin to emphasize what a business must do to be successful.  “On one side of the coin is efficiency and on the other side is effectiveness.  An organization must deliver both of these elements to prosper and be successful,” I would preach.   I would then go on to say that traditionally, we think of businesses as being efficient but not necessarily effective.  Efficiency is doing things right while effectiveness is doing the right things.  In other words, business strives to use inputs as efficiently as possible to create a product or service where the value added is greater than the combination of inputs used.  If it does this and has a product or service that is wanted or needed by customers, it will make a profit and stay in business.

download

When it comes to “effectiveness” or doing the “right” things, we have a concept here with highly subjective connotations.  “Right” for a business might be doing what they think is best for their customers or their bottom line.  However, doing what is best for a customer, might not meet the needs of other stakeholders.  For instance, customers may desire cigarettes but the negative impact to society as reflected in externalities can be very “un-right” to the rest of the population.  An externality is any difference between the private cost of an action or decision to a business or agency and the social cost.  In simple terms, a negative externality is anything that causes an indirect cost to society.  In the case of cigarettes, this cost is reflected in a number of ways including lost wages, medical costs and insurance costs.

maxresdefaultBy the way, when we think of government organizations it is usually as being much less capable in the efficiency area and much more focused on effectiveness or doing the right things for society.  I suppose that is one of the reasons why it is so easy to ridicule government.  Senator Proxmire was famous for his “Golden Fleece Awards “in which he belittled government agencies for their waste and lack of efficiency.  I have worked or consulted in many government agencies and I have to admit that “efficiency” was often sorely lacking.

Some critics point out that there are negative repercussions from too much emphasis on efficiency.  (HBR, January-February 2019 Issue: Rethinking Efficiency) They argue that organizations need to balance efficiency with resiliency.  One critic noted the problems with Deming’s emphasis on efficiency could lead to sub-optimization of the organization.  It is clear that this critic never read much of Dr. Deming who always emphasized that an organization needed to be looked at as a whole and not piecemeal.  Over emphasis on any one part of an organization could result in a decline in another part.

“Management of a system requires knowledge of the interrelationships between all of the components within the system and of everybody that works in it.” — Dr. W. E. Deming, “The New Economics”

Now you might be agreeing with me that business is not always effective.  However, you may still want to know why (or prove my claim) I say that business efficiency is a myth?  What do I base this assertion on?  I am going to provide three reasons for my claim and explain each of them.

  1. Most corporations do not understand or pursue continuous improvement

For a business to be truly efficient it must focus on the continuous improvement of all operations including people, materials, methods, equipment and information.  The cost of all inputs continually rises and when costs go up and other factors of production stay the same then efficiency declines.  The core of the Deming Philosophy was “Continuous Improvement.”

“Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.”  — W. Edwards Deming, “Out of the Crisis”

Many of my clients understood this basic message of the need for continuous improvement, but as I was told by one Japanese management consultant, “You Americans are short-term thinkers.  You worry about the quarterly dividend, the daily stock price and your quarterly financial reports.  In Japan, we do not think quarterly, we think centuries.”  Thus, it was easy for US companies to embrace this message in the late eighties and early nineties when it seemed that everywhere you looked, they were losing market share to the Japanese.  The “Japanese Miracle” was eroding the economic competitive of US business and companies in the US flocked to Dr. Deming to tell them how to emulate the Japanese.

“The pay and privilege of the captains of industry are now so closely linked to the quarterly dividend that they may find it personally unrewarding to do what is right for the company.”  ― W. Edwards Deming, “Out of the Crisis”

The Japanese had assimilated the continuous improvement message of Dr. Deming since it was not really that foreign to their basic worldview.  So what if it took a few years or even decades, the Japanese could be patient.  Unfortunately, American management did not have the same patience.  Quality went gung-ho throughout the US in the nineties.  American corporations bragged about reaching or nearly reaching parity with the Japanese on many measures of the exalted Six Sigma standard of quality.  But Americans have always adored technology and the quick fix over labor inputs and long-term improvements.  The steam engine, the assembly line, the computer and robotically automated processes were all technological advances that have helped the United States become the major economic power in the world.  There is no doubting the positive advances that technology has made in terms of productivity and efficiency in the US.

download (1)

The trouble with only relying on technological advances for the next leap forward is similar to a ball team that only relies on home runs rather than base hits.  The base hits may not be as grand as hitting a home run, but they are the key to winning the game.  When computers, automated processes, robots and the Internet started to really proliferate in the US business world, you could start to see the fascination with continuous improvement wane in the eyes of many managers.

In its 2018 Human Capital Trends report, Deloitte found that 47% of business and HR leaders were concerned that modern collaboration tools weren’t actually helping businesses achieve their goals. Between chat windows, project management tools, meeting alerts, and emails, workers find themselves in a constant state of reactive busyness—rather than proactively focusing on meaningful work.” — The Productivity Myth by Ben Taylor, March 19, 2019

O, they still have their quality departments and their six-sigma training but too many companies have gone back to the old standard of “Its good enough” or “Well, we are meeting expectations.”  The drive for continuous improvement has slowly but inexorably dissipated since the early nineties.   US Corporations have once again gone back to the idea of looking for the home run.  Too many hope to find this home run in mergers and acquisitions with new companies that display the dynamism lacking in their older established corporations.

“Since 2000, more than 790,000 transactions have been announced worldwide with a known value of over 57 trillion USD.  In 2018, the number of deals decreased by 8% to about 49’000 transactions, while their value has increased by 4% to 3.8 trillion USD.”  — Institute of Mergers and Acquisitions.

You may well ask then, “How successful are these mergers and acquisitions in terms of adding value for the corporation or even more so for the customers?”  One study done by the Harvard Business School in 2015 found that between seventy to ninety percent of all M&A’s failed.  In my opinion, too many companies want to grow quickly hoping either for an increased economy of scale or to obtain the creativity that has been weaned out of their now bloated bureaucracy.  Too many US companies have abandoned the idea of continuous improvement as too time consuming or too slow.  Hoping to hit more home runs, they would rather focus on a spectacular breakthrough rather than on a slow incremental improvement strategy.  It is strange and sad, that US companies feel it is an either-or trade off.  Either we work on continuous improvement or we work on hitting home runs.  The best strategy is to focus on both.  Few games are ever won by simply using a single strategy.

fin-101-profit-maximization-vs-wealth-maximization-7-638

2. Goals of short-term profits often lead to long-term losses

For the sake of so-called efficiency, employees are laid-off, training budgets are cut, salaries are frozen, pensions are renegotiated, employee perks are downsized, key processes are outsourced, and supplies are purchased on the basis of low bidder.  My sister always says, “Buy cheap and weep.”  Too much of American industry assumes that cutting costs in the short-term will lead to long-term profits.  Nothing could be further from the truth or more short-sighted in thinking.

Minimizing costs in one place can often lead to maximizing costs in another. Only management is responsible, and I mean top management, for looking at the company as a whole, to minimize total cost and not the cost here or there or there… must get departments to work together. That is difficult in the face of the annual rating… because they get rated on their own performance. — Dr. W. E. Deming

One of Dr. Deming’s 14 Points called for eliminating performance measures for employees and MBOs for management.  I have seen little evidence since Dr. Deming died that companies have made much effort in either area.  Admittedly, you can go on line and find dozens of companies that claim to have streamlined or improved their performance management/appraisal systems but they are still useless since they measure the wrong thing.  Dr. Deming taught that 90 percent or more of the problems in a system or variation in any process are caused by the system and not by the individuals.  Managers work on the system and are thus responsible for making changes and taking out barriers to efficiency that prohibit work from being more productive.  Unless these changes to the system are made, any attempt at measuring or encouraging worker performance or goal setting are ludicrous.  Goals should be set for the system based on realistic measures of its capability but not on individual employees.

 “People with targets and jobs dependent upon meeting them will probably meet the targets – even if they have to destroy the enterprise to do it.”  — W. Edwards Deming

3. Inefficient business practices are epidemic in most organizations

When I started consulting in 1986, it was not unusual to find corporations with 10 or more levels of management.  The chain of command was epidemic in most US companies.  The old idea of “span of control” was imbued in the management practices that guided most businesses.  This large bureaucracy of span of control and chain of command rivaled the inefficiency found in most government organizations.  I could go into dozens of other examples of inefficient business practices, but one will suffice.

1_rHSuitewY6k2QKbphLvEgQ

In 1998, I was hired by the Metropolitan Council in Minnesota as a Principal Strategic Planner.  The Metropolitan Council was a regional government agency and planning organization in Minnesota serving the Twin Cities seven-county metropolitan area.  This area accounted for over 55 percent of the state’s population.  My job was to help streamline processes at the Metropolitan Council Division of Environmental Services (MCES) and to help the division improve its delivery of key services.  The MCES was responsible for the management of eight wastewater treatment plants in the seven-county metropolitan area.

Over the years, various teams that I established undertook many processes and successfully improved them.  Always looking for new ideas and areas to improve, I struck upon the idea of doing more on-line meetings and also allowing more employees to work from home.  Both of these ideas were fully supported by existing technology in 2000, but I made little headway in establishing these ideas.  These two ideas ran counter to traditional management philosophies of command and control.  We had entered the 21st Century, but our work processes were still dictated by 20th Century ideas and beliefs.

maltaway_boardmember_corporate_bureacrcy

When I left the Met Council in 2001, I joined the American Express Technology Division (AET) of American Express Corporation.  I literally jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.  I had wrongly assumed that they would be more progressive than the Met Council and much to my dismay they were even less progressive.  It was difficult to get my manager to allow either myself or co-workers to work from home since “How would I know what you are doing” was a prevalent theme.  I gave notice only six months after joining American Express.

So now we are in the middle of a world-wide crisis caused by a virus.  The internet has allowed millions of workers to “work from home.”  Many of these Gig workers had been allowed some latitude in working from home but for many of the new Internet workers it was a new and pleasant experience.  However, it took a Pandemic catastrophe to free up the thinking of too many managers in terms of “How will I know what they are doing.”  Such a thought seems ludicrous in the extreme to anyone with a half grain of common sense.

Leadership-Vs.-Management-minus-HR-and-CEO-1024x649

Unfortunately, many work processes in organizations are still mired in 20th and even 19th century beliefs of how work should be done.  These inefficient and archaic ideas stop many corporations from being nearly as efficient and productive as they could be.  The bottom line is that the vaunted supremacy of private for-profit corporations over government entities is vastly exaggerated and overrated.

I want to end this long blog with a stern reminder.  Few companies have demonstrated any ability to take on the “effectiveness” dimension of government agencies with better results than the government has shown.  Private for-profit charter schools and colleges have been disasters.  Private run prisons are not fairing much better.  They have continued to show a propensity for a lack of cost-effectiveness, security and safety concerns, poor health conditions, and the potential for corruption (see “The Problem with Private Prisons”).  In terms of the privatization of wastewater and water treatment plants, one study of household water expenditures in cities under private and public management in the U.S., came to the following conclusion, “Whether water systems are owned by private firms or governments may, on average, simply not matter much.” — Wikipedia

It hardly seems likely that many people in the US would like to see fire departments, police departments, the military and many regulatory agencies turned into for-profit entities regardless of how efficient they may claim to be.

 

%d bloggers like this: