On the contrary, “so far from being controlled by the market, the firm to the best of its ability has made the market subordinate to the goals of its planning.” Galbraith is equally categorical when he says that profit maximization is no longer necessary. The second difference in management theory is exemplified in the writings …
Ernest Dale says that presidents, faced with the need to balance alternatives who act in a way to optimize the return for the different forces making up the field, find that they are unable to act at all. He is right in saying this since he is talking about the president-as-person, not the president-as-role. Dale …
A manager is an employee. However, strictly speaking, the president is not an employee: it is he who employs. The role of the president is to put to use the commitment of employees, shareholders, and customers. To understand fully the implications of what is being said, a distinction must be drawn between the role of …
A shareholder can control certain aspects of the financial dealings within a company, but the extent of the control is limited, as is the responsibility or liability he has for failure on the part of the company. Although the meaning of ownership has changed in that it has become a much more complex notion than …
The decline of power, moreover, is not confined simply to the shareholder but, according to Business Week, has extended to the board of directors. Even the board, which once sat at the right hand of the source of all economic power, must change its role. Its control is now becoming control in theory rather than …
Page 16 ~ The standard view of a company could be called a “univalent” one: a linear descent from the board of directors through the managers and employees to the customer. This univalent view has as its corollary the belief that a company is “simply in business to make a profit.” This belief is one …