…
- Lee Tom Perry
(from PERRY, L.T. The Capital Connection. In: Academy of Management Executive, 1988. Vol II. No. 3. pp. 205-212)
by Miriam Garvi
The other day my landlord company sent me and every other tenant the annual 10-page survey on customer satisfaction. I sighed as I opened the thick envelope, thinking about how readily companies will make use of the customer’s time and how seldom this seems to lead to any improvements.
Well, besides your typical customer satisfaction survey, this company wanted to know our housing wish list…
«How do you want to live?» This question should really be rephrased into «What are you willing to pay for?» to reflect its true meaning. A display of quasi-concern that is used like a thermometer in order to determine which future course of action is chargeable on the customer’s account.
When business is reduced to sterile transactions, then ‘customer care’ has little to do with taking pride in providing a product or service that is good, useful, purposeful for the client. Instead it takes on the meaning of effectuating what will directly impact bottom line.
So many qualities are lost in a visionless, penny-counting world. Is this a price we are willing to pay?
by Miriam Garvi
There is a tune that is played quite frequently these days. It is the anthem of social responsibility.
Basically, the lyrics go like this:
This pleasant song celebrating high-standing codes of ethics and morals confirms the virtues of the global corporation and dispels any doubts or uneasiness that we might feel about the globalization of production flows and the concentration of power in a few nodes - reminiscent of a «space of flows» à la Manuel Castells.
Outsourcing has become a global application of the «law of supply and demand in self-regulating markets». Multi-national corporations assure us of their high-standing social responsibilities. But beyond codes of ethics is a reality that seldom corresponds with what we profess. In the new ‘hinterlands’ overseas, away from the public eye, production is outsourced to production facilities which take us back to working conditions of the pre-industrial era - times where one man’s life and well-being carried little value because there would always be another individual ready to take his place.
The recent example of Bangladesh and GrameenPhone raises important questions. Is our consumption pattern sustainable in the long run? Or does it rely on other people’s desperation to work in countries which have little industrial history - such as Bangladesh - and where production costs can be kept at bay with minimal concern for security and environmental issues?
Sometimes when codes meet reality even the most pleasant of tunes rings false if you listen more intently, blurring the lines between corporate social responsibility and corporate social hypocrisy.
…
- Georges F. Doriot
(find book here)
by Miriam Garvi
I once read an article by professor Peter Pruzan where he makes this reflection:
Let me give you a little illustration of this point. As I was interviewing various people for my dissertation, I sat down with an investment manager at the Skandia Group, an international savings company. When asked what his team were all about, the answer was plain and simple; «We’re small and square - money for our pension beneficiaries, money for our pension beneficiaries, money for our pension beneficiaries…». Small and square? Now there’s an answer that’ll fit right into a business growth matrix or a market plan!
It is amazing how the ‘language of money’ narrows down possible options to one single end, namely maximizing profit - or to be more up-to-date these days, increasing shareholder value. This language makes no room for any reflections on whether +5% is the kind of fulfilment we’re looking for or if it is in fact merely a means for developing and sustaining what we are doing. If it is the latter, then the language of money is doing us the disservice of diverting focus away from the fundamental things in business and life alike, by reducing what we talk about and what we think counts to the measurable and simplistic.
A man with a vision once said: “Business is not about dollars and cents so much as about building for the future.” That future calls us to go beyond the measurable and simplistic and start thinking about the bigger picture.
…
- Mark Lipton
(find article here)
by Miriam Garvi
In our society, it seems as if the real winners are never those who take the first step. Most money is made by those deft enough to know exactly the right moment to move in and beat others at their own game. Business is for the survival of the fittest - those who have the stamina for playing the ‘gorilla game’.
But who defines winning? And who defines the prize? Chalking up a new sales record is an achievement, but then what? As shown by many a public company these days, it is no longer enough to be profitable - you need to keep exceeding expectations that are fueled by past successes. Expected growth is the curse of success.
It takes courage and conviction not to be drawn into this spiral. But if we are to see other qualities than short-term achievement we need visions that go beyond heeding to the loud demands and expectations of markets and institutions.
by Miriam Garvi
The other day I read about another initiative in alleviating world poverty. It seems that every new initiative these days involves the diffusion of some kind of golden recipe - as in ‘alleviating poverty through technology’ or technology saves the world. This time, the recipe was microfranchising: “The idea is to replicate sound business models and, consequently, to provide microentrepreneurs in developing countries with training and the necessary assistance for success.”
I could write about how such initiatives reek of a neo-colonialistic attitude where the Westerner knows how money is made and so our models of thinking are imposed on other populations without regard nor appreciation for their cultural settings. But today I will draw the parallel to what is happening in other areas of business life. In my study of venture capital, it became clear that a streamlining way-of-thinking is dominating business thinking today. By streamlining I mean these kinds of ready-made formulas, of ‘best practice’, of ‘business recipes for success’, of ’success factors’ - whatever we choose to call them - which are imposed on new ideas, snuffing the flame. As I wrote in the final pages of my dissertation, “it would be a loss indeed if venture capital [or micro finance for that matter or any other service aimed at promoting new initiatives] would mean the death of visions and ideas that can change our conception of the system. Without them, there would be little new to refine and we might never come to enjoy what we have yet to discover.”
It is time we start thinking about the implications of snuffing out the visionary flame with pre-made, easy-to-replicate business models that are designed with one thing in mind: namely how to streamline a business concept so as to maximize its perceived value on a financial market.
