America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,290 comments
  • 1,534,501 views
TMU, that was the deal made. He brings forth & helps pass the Ukraine aid deal, they'll stick behind him knowing Marjorie wanted to oust him.
Crumbs, reading more about this I was way misinformed. His compromises with Democrats were the very reason MTG wanted to get rid of him. She'd've preferred a hardline wrecker like herself in the Speaker's role. When everyone united against her she derided them as "the Uniparty".
 
Back in the day, my job involved a lot of air travel. I remember the warm and comfortable feeling I got as I boarded a plane made by Boeing.

These days they can't seem to get much right, having focused on the short term stock price rather than the quality of their products.

How things have changed for this American company which used to blow the doors off the rest of them.

 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Back in the day, my job involved a lot of air travel. I remember the warm and comfortable feeling I got as I boarded a plane made by Boeing.

These days they can't seem to get much right, having focused on the short term stock price rather than the quality of their products.

I just try not to think of these things by scrolling about the electronic myriads, frittering away personal data vested by the vapors of long-forgotten moments, and continuous to do so into our collective forgetfulness, while on my way to instructing people on the best methods of writing up automobile safety recalls. To slip the surly bonds of earth and trade them for the public stocks is the unfortunate trade-off.



Mmmm....clouds.
 
Last edited:
Back in the day, my job involved a lot of air travel. I remember the warm and comfortable feeling I got as I boarded a plane made by Boeing.

These days they can't seem to get much right, having focused on the short term stock price rather than the quality of their products.

How things have changed for this American company which used to blow the doors off the rest of them.

I think realistically Boeing died when it merged with McDonnell Douglas. They kept the name that had the superior brand goodwill, but in retrospect the combined company seems to be much more the descendant of MDD than of Boeing.

The power of branding and advertising, I guess.
 
I think realistically Boeing died when it merged with McDonnell Douglas. They kept the name that had the superior brand goodwill, but in retrospect the combined company seems to be much more the descendant of MDD than of Boeing.

The power of branding and advertising, I guess.

Boeing has 170,000 employees... or something along those lines. Humanity is not good at managing that many people. It's why people moan about how inefficient government is (or at least part of the reason), because government has a lot of people to manage. When companies get this big, they don't do well.

Startups are hard because nothing is efficient. Then your company gets big enough that you get efficiencies and you hit a sweet spot, and then you get too big thinking that same recipe will just keep working.

What some companies try to do when they get oversized is to "divest", which is an ugly process something like a divorce, and it doesn't work well. Maybe it's something like a star. You can't really shine until you get enough mass, but if you get too much mass you turn into a black hole and stop shining again.
 
What some companies try to do when they get oversized is to "divest", which is an ugly process something like a divorce, and it doesn't work well. Maybe it's something like a star. You can't really shine until you get enough mass, but if you get too much mass you turn into a black hole and stop shining again.

Eh, I worked for a company that was spun off the larger mothership, but kept a good deal of its own identity and the break worked mostly seamlessly. Probably because both parties were keen on making their own decisions, retained their own orbit of management which had very little overlap with each other, besides having the same CEO.

Honestly, some consultants really ought to interview the lot of them directly involved in the process because it went amazingly well (though it's been a hot decade since the gears all went in motion). If the biggest problems were brand awareness, temporary financial belt-tightening, and having to call up insurance companies on Day One that there's a new employer on the card numbers, that's easy-peasy. The first one took care of itself since it already had a large market share, and the second one culled away a few thieves.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I worked for a company that was spun off the larger mothership, but kept a good deal of its own identity and the break worked mostly seamlessly. Probably because both parties were keen on making their own decisions, retained their own orbit of management which had very little overlap with each other, besides having the same CEO.

Honestly, some consultants really ought to interview the lot of them directly involved in the process because it went amazingly well (though it's been a hot decade since the gears all went in motion). If the biggest problems were brand awareness, temporary financial belt-tightening, and having to call up insurance companies on Day One that there's a new employer on the card numbers, that's easy-peasy. The first one took care of itself since it already had a large market share, and the second one culled away a few thieves.

From my experience it is almost unworkable. But that experience is mostly involved with a company that does a lot of integrated R&D. The cross-use of technical components, IP, branding, manufacturing, etc. makes divestiture extremely difficult. Basically if you're getting the benefits of being a big company i.e. efficiency via shared resources, you have to pull apart those resources and break those efficiencies when you separate.

Corporate management likes to think the other way though. They figure it's more efficient to merge, and somehow simultaneously think that it's more efficient to split.
 
Boeing has 170,000 employees... or something along those lines. Humanity is not good at managing that many people. It's why people moan about how inefficient government is (or at least part of the reason), because government has a lot of people to manage. When companies get this big, they don't do well.

Startups are hard because nothing is efficient. Then your company gets big enough that you get efficiencies and you hit a sweet spot, and then you get too big thinking that same recipe will just keep working.

What some companies try to do when they get oversized is to "divest", which is an ugly process something like a divorce, and it doesn't work well. Maybe it's something like a star. You can't really shine until you get enough mass, but if you get too much mass you turn into a black hole and stop shining again.
My sympathy for such companies is limited. If you can't do your job properly, then maybe it's time to slow down and figure that out instead of continuing to push for expansion and growth. But no, stockholders are the priority and line must go up, no matter what.

It's hard to run a very large company, but it's not impossible if your intention is to make a good product and serve your customers well. It requires an appropriate structure, clear goals, and a culture that allows people to point out problems and fix them.

If your intention is simply to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible before the whole house of cards collapses then you get stuff like modern Boeing, which is arguably working exactly as intended. When you incentivise cutting every corner to make a buck, you can't be surprised when corners keep getting cut at the expense of everything that isn't profit. That's the system you've created.

It's why relying on pure profit as a corporate motivator is dangerous. In many industries there's a lag between making a profit and seeing any consequences for the actions you took to make that profit that is very, very exploitable.
 
https://web.archive.org/web/2024050...ews/politics-government/article288424893.html
Kansas City Star
Missouri bill to ban all child marriages runs into resistance from House Republicans

JEFFERSON CITY: A bipartisan bill that would outlaw all child marriages in Missouri has run into resistance from Republicans in the Missouri House that could prevent it from becoming law.

The legislation, filed by Sen. Holly Thompson Rehder, a Scott City Republican, and Sen. Lauren Arthur, a Kansas City Democrat, would prohibit anyone under 18 from obtaining a marriage license. Current law allows 16 and 17-year-olds to get married with parental consent. The GOP-controlled state Senate approved the bill on a nearly unanimous vote of 31 to 1 last month. But the legislation has since stalled in a House committee with just more than a week left in this year’s legislative session which ends on May 17.
 
Last edited:
The legislation is personal for Rehder, who was married at age 15 to her 21-year-old boyfriend in 1984. A year earlier, her sister, at age 16, married her 39-year-old drug dealer, she has said.

I'm sorry, what? So their parents saw the 16 year old sister wanting to marry a 39 year old drug dealer and thought "yep, this seems legit, good to go" and gave their consent?

I feel like the local child protection agency should have been able to have a field day with that one. Certainly someone should probably have twigged that something was up with the family in the year before the little sister did the Diet Cola version of the same thing. I've got nothing against a later age for being married, teenagers can sexually disappoint each other just fine without rings on. But I feel like that wasn't exactly the thing that failed here...
 
My sympathy for such companies is limited. If you can't do your job properly, then maybe it's time to slow down and figure that out instead of continuing to push for expansion and growth. But no, stockholders are the priority and line must go up, no matter what.

I'm not sympathizing or advocating, I'm just explaining what's happening. You had blamed the McDonnel Douglas merger for Boeing's downfall, and to an extent I was agreeing with you. John Oliver complained about the culture at MDD winning out vs the culture of Boeing, but the corporate culture at MDD is what happens when you get big, so it was somewhat inevitable that after a huge merger like that Boeing's culture deteriorated.

It's not a matter of "if you can't do your job properly", so much as it is that corporations twist on themselves when they've reached a certain size. They're not going to stop and ask themselves whether they can do their job properly because their job shifts to being about, as you said, pumping up stock numbers. And the stock price is not based on good business practices in any way. It's not based on anything rational that actually helps corporations at all, it's based on the collective whims of millions of people, the headlines they read, and their bad sense about whether a particular corporate move is a good one.

As far as I'm aware, there are no good solutions for this problem. It is a problem though. Further, as the companies become black holes, they start sucking up good companies that are a good size and are doing good work in hopes of getting some kind of development and progress, and this is ultimately a bad move from a consumer standpoint.
 
My sympathy for such companies is limited. If you can't do your job properly, then maybe it's time to slow down and figure that out instead of continuing to push for expansion and growth. But no, stockholders are the priority and line must go up, no matter what.

It's hard to run a very large company, but it's not impossible if your intention is to make a good product and serve your customers well. It requires an appropriate structure, clear goals, and a culture that allows people to point out problems and fix them.

If your intention is simply to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible before the whole house of cards collapses then you get stuff like modern Boeing, which is arguably working exactly as intended. When you incentivise cutting every corner to make a buck, you can't be surprised when corners keep getting cut at the expense of everything that isn't profit. That's the system you've created.

It's why relying on pure profit as a corporate motivator is dangerous. In many industries there's a lag between making a profit and seeing any consequences for the actions you took to make that profit that is very, very exploitable.
I'm old enough to remember when corporations took a balanced view of the needs of all the stakeholders, customers, employees, stockholders and the wider community. They also knew that "strategic planning" wasn't limited to the next 90 day horizon.
 
I'm old enough to remember when corporations took a balanced view of the needs of all the stakeholders, customers, employees, stockholders and the wider community. They also knew that "strategic planning" wasn't limited to the next 90 day horizon.

I'd like to hear your example of a large corporation that nails this, from any time period.
 
I'd like to hear your example of a large corporation that nails this, from any time period.
My example is IBM in Australia, mid 1960s. They were pretty decent to the stakeholders, and during a significant economic downturn, made sure that they rode through it with no layoffs and a lot of reassurances that they lived up to.
 
My example is IBM in Australia, mid 1960s. They were pretty decent to the stakeholders, and during a significant economic downturn, made sure that they rode through it with no layoffs and a lot of reassurances that they lived up to.

Interesting example. During the 15 year stretch between 1955 and 1970, IBM multiplies its number of employees by a factor of 5, going from 56k employees to 269k employees (according to Wikipedia). In just the 5 year stretch between '55 and '60 the employee figures double from 56k to 104k. So this was a company that was rapidly expanding during this time. A period of rapid expansion is not a particularly difficult one for a company. They were a computing company on the absolute brink of an explosion of computing. I'm not too surprised to hear that they weathered an economic downturn well or that they were a good place to work during that time period.

They kept the same leadership through that entire period, which probably had something to do with avoiding the bloated mindset. It didn't last forever though.
 
I'm not sympathizing or advocating, I'm just explaining what's happening. You had blamed the McDonnel Douglas merger for Boeing's downfall, and to an extent I was agreeing with you. John Oliver complained about the culture at MDD winning out vs the culture of Boeing, but the corporate culture at MDD is what happens when you get big, so it was somewhat inevitable that after a huge merger like that Boeing's culture deteriorated.

It's not a matter of "if you can't do your job properly", so much as it is that corporations twist on themselves when they've reached a certain size. They're not going to stop and ask themselves whether they can do their job properly because their job shifts to being about, as you said, pumping up stock numbers. And the stock price is not based on good business practices in any way. It's not based on anything rational that actually helps corporations at all, it's based on the collective whims of millions of people, the headlines they read, and their bad sense about whether a particular corporate move is a good one.

As far as I'm aware, there are no good solutions for this problem. It is a problem though. Further, as the companies become black holes, they start sucking up good companies that are a good size and are doing good work in hopes of getting some kind of development and progress, and this is ultimately a bad move from a consumer standpoint.
You make it sound like it's inevitable for any company over a certain size though, and I don't agree with that. That may well be functionally the case with the way that financial systems are structured in the US and in similar countries, although I sort of hope not because that would be a massive problem.

But I don't think it's inevitable for any large company in a general sense. I think it's possible to have a large company that works, it's just not possible when you run it the way that modern large companies are run. Or at least, I think that there's a bunch of ways of running large companies that haven't gotten a fair shake because they're not profit optimal, and until those get a decent go I'm not willing to rule out the possibility that one of them could make it work.
I'd like to hear your example of a large corporation that nails this, from any time period.
Valve/Steam?

Valve as a company is a massive aberration in terms of modern corporate culture, but as far as I can tell in most areas they're viewed pretty favourably. The one consistent negative I'm aware of is that they charge developers a relatively large cut of sales to use their service, but their service is also head and shoulders above any of the cheaper options both in functionality and reach so it doesn't seem like it's priced unfairly.

They don't have stockholders to kowtow to.
Their corporate culture is famously flat and flexible. It has had and still has issues with it, but Valve is aware and it appears to be something they continue to work on.
They spin off into adjacent fields every so often (Steam Controller, Valve Index, Steam Deck, etc.), but even when they flop they don't seem to have overextended to the point that it disrupts their core business.
As a platform, it seems pretty well liked by it's users as far as those things go. People whinge on the internet, but the Epic Store and the proliferation of publisher specific launchers has shown how much worse it could be. The refund model in particular seems to have become something that elevates them above most e-stores.

Not all companies could or should run exactly like Valve, but I think there's a lot to be learned from the mindset behind it. There's a danger when pointing to companies like this that you get what happened with Toyota and Just In Time/5S - those were specific policies introduced to improve specific things about Toyota's business. A lot of companies then just tried to copy JIT/5S cargo cult style, instead of adopting the methods of observation and reflection that led to adopting appropriate solutions.
 
Valve is an interesting one because people generally loathe or begrudingly tolerate DRM, especially with the drift towards GaaS gathering momentum, but Valve is nowhwere near the worst despite being a globally renowned industry leader.
 
Last edited:
Valve/Steam?

I did a quick google check to see how many employees they had and it looks like it's coming up with 1100. I'd call that a small company. It's somewhat arbitrary, but I have in mind somewhere around 100k employees as being "large".
 
I did a quick google check to see how many employees they had and it looks like it's coming up with 1100. I'd call that a small company. It's somewhat arbitrary, but I have in mind somewhere around 100k employees as being "large".
They have over $10 billion in annual revenue. Depends what measures of size you think are impactful on the management of a company.

It wouldn't surprise me if there aren't that many companies in the world that have more than 100k employees. About 250 if you believe this website.
 
They have over $10 billion in annual revenue. Depends what measures of size you think are impactful on the management of a company.

My big thesis here is that a large number of people are difficult to manage, and that any human organization that reaches a certain size struggles.
 
but the corporate culture at MDD is what happens when you get big
No, McDonald Douglas's culture is what happens when you're a **** company desperate for a takeover.

McDonald Douglas built most of its business on government contracts which are rife with corruption to this day. Those contracts were the comany's lifeline. It was consistently terrible at producing competitive civilian airplanes - the MD-10 and -11 are only used as cargo planes today for a reason, because they aren't good for anything else, and despite that they were still quirky planes that required special training to land. In fact there are design regulations inspired by those planes due to landing accidents caused by their cockpit position relative to the plane's CG. 386 of them were built and so far 32 have had total-loss accidents with 1,300 deaths. That ain't good.

Modern Boeing has been making the exact same profit-driven decisions that MD did back in the day and we're seeing the results. Aviation absolutely must have safety and excellence as the number 1 factor in all decision making. Profit cannot be considered, like, at all. It's not even on the list in my opinion. You do what's right, and then you figure out how to make money after the right decisions have been made. Free market shortcuts cannot be taken. There's a reason the free market doesn't exist in aviation, it's thoroughly governed by the FAA, every little detail. Somehow, Boeing managed to get their grubby hands in the FAA to screw up that system as well.

I find it pretty funny how much business Boeing has pushed directly into Airbus's hands. The biggest screw up so far was the Airbus A220. Bombardier developed that plane, another company that made good machines but struggled financially and had various problems with support after sales due to poor growth and supply lines. Yet they developed the C-Series, a great plane, and Boeing hated it so much they teamed up with the US government to shut the program down. They accused Bombardier of dumping the C-Series in the US market (their biggest buyer was Delta), the US government agreed, and the two basically forced Bombardier to sell off the program. Who did they sell it to? Airbus. Now they're selling like hotcakes, and Delta is operating more Airbuses than Boeings, with plenty of orders on the way, and zero Boeings ordered (the MAX 10 isn't gonna happen).

Speaking of the 737, what a terrible decision to keep kicking that can down the road. The only reason they did it is because Southwest Airlines operated 737s exclusively. The idea was to streamline overheard, from pilot training to maintenance. Modern prices for pilot type ratings are hovering around $80,000 per pilot, and every single one of them needs the type. All of Southwest's pilots have the same type. The FAA allows variants to keep the same type rating with added differences training but only if the airframe and system are highly similar (oddly, the 767 and 757 share a type rating because their cockpits and systems are extremely similar but there was probably some FAA favoritism going on as well). Anyway, Southwest and Boeing were tightknit and Southwest didn't want to have to break their cost-saving systems, so Boeing kept pushing the 737 airframe forward rather than developing a new one that was more competitive with Airbus. Southwest is the only reason the 737 still exists today. And look what has happened, as Boeing has struggled to improve the airframe which was a short-sighted design to begin with, they've forced Southwest to consider buying from Airbus and diversify their fleet since Boeing simply can't be trusted to deliver the necessary orders.

The company is in shambles. They have nothing to compete with the A220 which they handed to Airbus on a silver platter. They 737 is highly limited structurally and should've been replaced by a new airframe 15+ years ago. The plane might be effective currently, but it can't get any more efficient since bigger engines won't fit, and the efforts they've already taken to fit bigger engines has resulted in the current fiasco. At minimum they need to be developing two completely new airframes concurrently and they needed to start over a decade ago. They're losing their ass, the company is on the brink and a total embarrassment to the industry and us pilots. In the next ten years, you should fully expect Airbus to dominate the civilian market. Speaking of which, I haven't even mentioned all of Boeing's air force screw ups. The AF is pissed at Boeing, completely unable to deliver vital national defence airframes. Most of our fleet of refuelers is due to be retired, like, now, and the KC-46 still isn't mission ready as of yet.

Boeing can burn to the ground for all I care. They've disrespected every pilot in America and many around the world in a way that is going to take decades to repair.
 
Last edited:
My big thesis here is that a large number of people are difficult to manage, and that any human organization that reaches a certain size struggles.
And anyone with any life experience knows that's generally true. As systems get more complex they become more difficult to manage. But the question is whether a large organisation is inherently impossible to manage well, or simply difficult. If it can't be done, then stuff like Boeing is just the cost of having these companies around at all.

But I don't think that's the case. I think it's possible to run a large organisation to a reasonable standard, it just costs more and requires more effort and planning. Which leads back to my lack of sympathy - if someone isn't going to bother doing their job well just because it's hard, then they shouldn't be doing that job. If a company wants to reach the size of the top 250 companies in the world, that comes with an expectation of figuring out how to manage that many people and not just handwaving it as "well it's really hard".

As individuals, if we make a choice that then has significant negative impacts on other people the honourable thing is to admit fault, take responsibility and alter your future behaviour appropriately. "But it's hard" is only mitigating if you can prove that you made every reasonable effort. Modern Boeing definitely has not done that.
 
No, McDonald Douglas's culture is what happens when you're a **** company desperate for a takeover.

McDonald Douglas built most of its business on government contracts which are rife with corruption to this day. Those contracts were the comany's lifeline. It was consistently terrible at producing competitive civilian airplanes - the MD-10 and -11 are only used as cargo planes today for a reason, because they aren't good for anything else, and despite that they were still quirky planes that required special training to land. In fact there are design regulations inspired by those planes due to landing accidents caused by their cockpit position relative to the plane's CG. 386 of them were built and so far 32 have had total-loss accidents with 1,300 deaths. That ain't good.

Modern Boeing has been making the exact same profit-driven decisions that MD did back in the day and we're seeing the results. Aviation absolutely must have safety and excellence as the number 1 factor in all decision making. Profit cannot be considered, like, at all. It's not even on the list in my opinion. You do what's right, and then you figure out how to make money after the right decisions have been made. Free market shortcuts cannot be taken. There's a reason the free market doesn't exist in aviation, it's thoroughly governed by the FAA, every little detail. Somehow, Boeing managed to get their grubby hands in the FAA to screw up that system as well.

I find it pretty funny how much business Boeing has pushed directly into Airbus's hands. The biggest screw up so far was the Airbus A220. Bombardier developed that plane, another company that made good machines but struggled financially and had various problems with support after sales due to poor growth and supply lines. Yet they developed the C-Series, a great plane, and Boeing hated it so much they teamed up with the US government to shut the program down. They accused Bombardier of dumping the C-Series in the US market (their biggest buyer was Delta), the US government agreed, and the two basically forced Bombardier to sell off the program. Who did they sell it to? Airbus. Now they're selling like hotcakes, and Delta is operating more Airbuses than Boeings, with plenty of orders on the way, and zero Boeings ordered (the MAX 10 isn't gonna happen).

Speaking of the 737, what a terrible decision to keep kicking that can down the road. The only reason they did it is because Southwest Airlines operated 737s exclusively. The idea was to streamline overheard, from pilot training to maintenance. Modern prices for pilot type ratings are hovering around $80,000 per pilot, and every single one of them needs the type. All of Southwest's pilots have the same type. The FAA allows variants to keep the same type rating with added differences training but only if the airframe and system are highly similar (oddly, the 767 and 757 share a type rating because their cockpits and systems are extremely similar but there was probably some FAA favoritism going on as well). Anyway, Southwest and Boeing were tightknit and Southwest didn't want to have to break their cost-saving systems, so Boeing kept pushing the 737 airframe forward rather than developing a new one that was more competitive with Airbus. Southwest is the only reason the 737 still exists today. And look what has happened, as Boeing has struggled to improve the airframe which was a short-sighted design to begin with, they've forced Southwest to consider buying from Airbus and diversify their fleet since Boeing simply can't be trusted to deliver the necessary orders.

The company is in shambles. They have nothing to compete with the A220 which they handed to Airbus on a silver platter. They 737 is highly limited structurally and should've been replaced by a new airframe 15+ years ago. The plane might be effective currently, but it can't get any more efficient since bigger engines won't fit, and the efforts they've already taken to fit bigger engines has resulted in the current fiasco. At minimum they need to be developing two completely new airframes concurrently and they needed to start over a decade ago. They're losing their ass, the company is on the brink and a total embarrassment to the industry and us pilots. In the next ten years, you should fully expect Airbus to dominate the civilian market. Speaking of which, I haven't even mentioned all of Boeing's air force screw ups. The AF is pissed at Boeing, completely unable to deliver vital national defence airframes. Most of our fleet of refuelers is due to be retired, like, now, and the KC-46 still isn't mission ready as of yet.

Boeing can burn to the ground for all I care. They've disrespected every pilot in America and many around the world in a way that is going to take decades to repair.

I'm not sure any of that argues against what I wrote. It sounds like the behavior of a big corporation to me.

And anyone with any life experience knows that's generally true. As systems get more complex they become more difficult to manage. But the question is whether a large organisation is inherently impossible to manage well, or simply difficult. If it can't be done, then stuff like Boeing is just the cost of having these companies around at all.

But I don't think that's the case. I think it's possible to run a large organisation to a reasonable standard, it just costs more and requires more effort and planning. Which leads back to my lack of sympathy - if someone isn't going to bother doing their job well just because it's hard, then they shouldn't be doing that job. If a company wants to reach the size of the top 250 companies in the world, that comes with an expectation of figuring out how to manage that many people and not just handwaving it as "well it's really hard".

As individuals, if we make a choice that then has significant negative impacts on other people the honourable thing is to admit fault, take responsibility and alter your future behaviour appropriately. "But it's hard" is only mitigating if you can prove that you made every reasonable effort. Modern Boeing definitely has not done that.


What I'm saying is not that it's "hard" but they should do their jobs, I'm saying we (humanity) don't know how to do it. It represents the edge of the science of project management.
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is not that it's "hard" but they should do their jobs. I'm saying we (humanity) don't know how to do it. It represents the edge of the science of project management.
Ah, the loads of operational problems when nobody asks permission but everyone figures they can get forgiveness on credit.

(I hate the common version of that statement. It's like a blank check for everyone being their own reality-show maverick and then wondering why nothing works as expected when you're expected to work positively beyond threshold limits of reliability.)
 
Last edited:
Ah, the loads of operational problems when nobody asks permission but everyone figures they can get forgiveness on credit.

(I hate the common version of that statement. It's like a blank check for everyone being their own reality-show maverick and then wondering why nothing works as expected when you're expected to work positively beyond threshold limits of reliability.)

I didn't understand what you meant by this.
 
I didn't understand what you meant by this.
It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

A slight on Big Business going for profit above all and having attituides akin to treating any consequences as affordable expenses.
 
It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

A slight on Big Business going for profit above all and having attituides akin to treating any consequences as affordable expenses.
This is a management issue. Either because management actively encourages this kind of behavior, or because management is unable to stop it from happening within less visible ranks of middle management. I've seen both varieties. Sometimes you get a CEO that has a healthy vision for the company, but there is so much bloat in the middle that they simply cannot penetrate the layers of managers that lazily report final figures rather than the things the CEO is actually looking for. Other times the CEO is just looking at those final figures.

Smaller companies can sometimes get away with focus on the mission, assuming the dollars will eventually come. Later, when they get big (or have been bought), that is no longer an excuse, and the only metric anyone bothers to consider is money. Middle management gets laughed out of the room for referencing the mission as being any kind of consideration over numbers.

"This is going to be good for the environment" or "this is going to improve the lives of our customers" is easily seen as pure nonsense by some manager or "leader" who thinks they're hard nosed about what really matters... money.
 
Last edited:
Back