Megalomania. Time was, this was a rarely used word, used to
describe third world despots, religious cranks, and the Hitlers of the
world. But it is a word that
perhaps is in need of a revival.
It’s application seems to have grown considerably.
I’m just a country boy (I can’t believe I said
that!) who happened to be a small businessman all my life. The only major corporation I ever
worked for (Texas to New York to London ownership) went broke in 1982 after a
series of ill-considered decisions regarding the economy). I wasn’t an wildly successful
businessman, although I did have some successes and did manage to run my own
business for 25 years. But creating an environment in which a
group of disparate people can coordinate their efforts well enough to have a
sense of accomplishment and turn a profit is a very special thing. Very special.
But sometimes, the arena gets over-crowded and
out of whack. This, to me, is one
of those times. Business has
become way too big and too pushy.
I believe there are two basic types of
businessmen. The first is
the genuine entrepreneur, the individual who has an idea and has the brains,
the luck, and the work ethic to run with it. These are very special people and, naturally, are fairly
rare. Actually, there are
many, many would-be entrepreneurs who, for various reasons, miss out on the ‘luck’
aspect of success and flounder even though they, too, have the work ethic and
the brains. It’s no fun
watching this person fail when his neighbor, for no apparent reason,
succeeds. Such is the nature of
luck. In any case, the true
entrepreneur is fun to watch and his story is always interesting. No less than a great composer or writer,
they have a ‘vision’.
The second type of businessman is what I like to
call the ‘functionary’. Their job
is to be custodian of the business, making sure it doesn’t fall of the rails
and working to see that it attains certain goals. Most businessmen fall into this category and while many of
them are very competent and possess definite leadership qualities, they’re
not entrepreneurs and they sure as hell don’t need their egos inflated with
such odious descriptors as ‘community leaders’ and ‘captains of industry’. They’re caretakers. Most of them go to work everyday hoping
the rails don’t come off the train they’re conducting. They’re quite happy with a holding
pattern.
But sometimes the market forces allow the ‘custodian’
businesses to grow in spite of their leadership. Stock market expectations explain the goal – if you are not growing
you’re dying – and see-no-evil governments refrain from imposing any curbs on
business affairs.
So what we have now is a proliferation of
multi-national corporations.
Their sheer size and political clout practically ensures that they can
conduct their affairs with very little restraint. What this does to any one particular community is an ongoing
subject for research (If you live in an urban area and shop at a shopping
centre or big box centre, you’re almost guaranteed not to be able to find one
small independent store, not even a coffee shop. What this says about the level of competition in the
commercial world is discouraging to say the least) but what is MOST interesting
is what it has done to those who actually run these huge operations.
Corporate execs may be functionaries at heart but
today they come as close as any one group to being a modern form of
royalty. Look how they live. They’re paid obscene salaries
with almost limitless perks. They
live in enclaves and spend most of their time either travelling, at their place
of business, or at their place of leisure. They move about in limos and private jets. Most of them have little or no
knowledge of the actual community in which they live. Their social contacts are their peers and the politicians
they either own or plan to own.
Troubling questions arise.
Are we creating a new privileged class no different from Europe in the middle
ages? How do these people
see themselves?
Well, it’s all plenty of stuff for op-ed
dissection and graduate theses.
But let’s look at one small detail to see what it tells us. This is one advertisement placed
in the Economist for a Ph.D in economics
(If you weren’t aware, the Economist’s target market isn’t middle America).
“. . . .
. Institute has been offering a
unique PhD in Finance programme to elite practitioners who aspire to higher
intellectual levels and aim to redefine the investment banking and asset
management industries.
Drawing
its faculty from the world’s best universities and enjoying the support of a
leader in industry-relevant academic research, the . . . Institute
PhD in Finance creates an extraordinary platform for professional development
and industry innovation
Following
a stimulating scientific curriculum and working individually with leading
specialists on research issues of particular relevance to their organizations,
practitioners on the programme’s executive track learn tom leverage their
experience and insights to make original contributions to the frontiers of
financial knowledge and practices.
Challenging
professionals to step back, reflect, and generate radical innovations, the . . .
Institute
PhD in Finance is the ultimate degree for financial executives.”
I don’t know about you but I don’t think that ad
was aimed at me or anyone I know.
I’d like to examine it from a thousand different perspectives but,
assuming the writer of the ad has stopped patting himself on the back for his
glorious adherence to academic gobbledegook, let’s see what the ad says about
the world of business.
A world of privilege, elitism, and pretension
might be a start. I know any
number of academic disciplines are guilty of self-importance masquerading as
intellectual ‘frontiers’, but this PhD is aimed directly at those who see
themselves at the cutting edge of
. . what? . . . Innovation? Market penetration?
Market rigging? Mergers and
acquisitions?
Outsourcing? Obviously
it’s aimed at a world of self-satisfied corporate types who hunger for
something more, presumably as long as it is in that corporate world.
The arrogance of the ad is staggering and we
wonder how closely it represents the natures of the people it was meant to
attract. If it is close, the
world may be in trouble. If it isn’t
close and is, instead, the result of an excess of self-love, it would be
interesting to hear the comments of those short-listed for the position. Either
way, it’s a vivid example of how misguided the corporate world can be.
Perhaps, if Citizen’s United is with us for the
long-term, then the least we can do if corporations are people, is take steps to
make sure they, like us, don’t live forever. Let the next generation have its day too.
Robert Alan Davidson
June, 2014
Robert Alan Davidson
June, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment