Laid-back and Passionate
vesess.com
Laid-back and Passionate
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#2[deleted]
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#3>Even then, though, we will stay a small team, with ‘satisfactory’ goals, and hopefully living ‘good enough’ lives.
IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. We're all out of whack these days; hopefully we can regain some balance to society's expectation of our careers and lives one of these days.
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#4>Even then, though, we will stay a small team, with ‘satisfactory’ goals, and hopefully living ‘good enough’ lives. IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. We're all out of whack these days; hopefully we can regain some balance to society's expectation of our careers and lives one of these…
> IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well.
For publicly traded companies, not maximizing shareholder returns can be a criminal offense. This is the real problem.
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#5>Even then, though, we will stay a small team, with ‘satisfactory’ goals, and hopefully living ‘good enough’ lives. IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. We're all out of whack these days; hopefully we can regain some balance to society's expectation of our careers and lives one of these…
I like the so-called Steve Jobs prioritisation (can't remember where I heard this attributed to SJ). The concept is that the purpose for existence of a company is three-fold, in this order of priority:
1) Delight/help/solve a problem for its customers
2) Be a great place to work
3) Provide shareholder returns
Part of the concept is of course that focusing on the first 2 will lead to a more sustainable third.
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#6>Even then, though, we will stay a small team, with ‘satisfactory’ goals, and hopefully living ‘good enough’ lives. IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. We're all out of whack these days; hopefully we can regain some balance to society's expectation of our careers and lives one of these…
I like the so-called Steve Jobs prioritisation (can't remember where I heard this attributed to SJ). The concept is that the purpose for existence of a company is three-fold, in this order of priority: 1) Delight/help/solve a problem for its customers 2) Be a great place to work 3) Provide shareholder returns Part of the concept is of course that focusing on the first 2 will lead to a more sustainable third.
I like to quote the Johnson & Johnson credo, written in 1943 by the founding chairman before the company went public. It mirrors your SJ priorities very closely (and I think it's important since JNJ shows that such priorities don't have to be a virtue limited to tech companies):
We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services. In meeting their needs everything we do must be of high quality. We must constantly strive to reduce our costs in order to maintain reasonable prices. Customers' orders must be serviced promptly and accurately. Our suppliers and distributors must have an opportunity to make a fair profit.
We are responsible to our employees, the men and women who work with us throughout the world. Everyone must be considered as an individual. We must respect their dignity and recognize their merit. They must have a sense of security in their jobs. Compensation must be fair and adequate, and working conditions clean, orderly and safe. We must be mindful of ways to help our employees fulfill their family obligations. Employees must feel free to make suggestions and complaints. There must be equal opportunity for employment, development and advancement for those qualified. We must provide competent management, and their actions must be just and ethical.
We are responsible to thecommunities in which we live and work and to the world community as well. We must be good citizens -- support good works and charities and pay our fair share of taxes. We must encourage civic improvements and better health and education. We must maintain in good order the property we are privileged to use, protecting the environment and natural resources.
Our final responsibility is to our stockholders. Business must make a sound profit. We must experiment with new ideas. Research must be carried on, innovative programs developed and mistakes paid for. New equipment must be purchased, new facilities provided and new products launched. Reserves must be created to provide for adverse times. When we operate according to these principles, the stockholders should realize a fair return.
http://www.jnj.com/wps/wcm/connect/c7933f004f5563df9e22be1bb...
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#7>Even then, though, we will stay a small team, with ‘satisfactory’ goals, and hopefully living ‘good enough’ lives. IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. We're all out of whack these days; hopefully we can regain some balance to society's expectation of our careers and lives one of these…
> IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. For publicly traded companies, not maximizing shareholder returns can be a criminal offense. This is the real problem.
Are you sure about this? The Johnson & Johnson credo which I posted above goes directly against your claim, and so does Costco's operations (where they have resisted multiple calls by Wall Street to increase prices and reduce employee pay and benefits)
I can see that not maximizing returns can cause a storm in the shareholder meetings, but can you give a source for it being a "criminal offense" to refrain from doing so?
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#8[deleted]
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#9>Even then, though, we will stay a small team, with ‘satisfactory’ goals, and hopefully living ‘good enough’ lives. IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. We're all out of whack these days; hopefully we can regain some balance to society's expectation of our careers and lives one of these…
I like the so-called Steve Jobs prioritisation (can't remember where I heard this attributed to SJ). The concept is that the purpose for existence of a company is three-fold, in this order of priority: 1) Delight/help/solve a problem for its customers 2) Be a great place to work 3) Provide shareholder returns Part of the concept is of course that focusing on the first 2 will lead to a more sustainable third.
[deleted]
Re: Laid-back and Passionate
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMO, a realignment of corporate objectives from "maximizing shareholder returns" to "giving reasonable returns (to investors)" should ideally develop in tandem as well. For publicly traded companies, not maximizing shareholder returns can be a criminal offense. This is the real problem.
Are you sure about this? The Johnson & Johnson credo which I posted above goes directly against your claim, and so does Costco's operations (where they have resisted multiple calls by Wall Street to increase prices and reduce employee pay and benefits) I can see that not maximizing returns can cause a storm in the shareholder meetings, but can you give a source for it being a "criminal offense" to refrain from doing…
Also, as swombat observed: the criteria for maximising shareholder returns long-term might be (and almost certainly is) very different to the short-term milking of the company for profit. Intuitively, a law requiring that company decisions favour maximum profit over N years would be ambiguous to the point of unenforceable.