Yesterday I had gone for a general quiz. (Though no quizzer here.. going for such activities to have something new). In that quiz there was this question where we had to connect 3 pictures. One of them is as seen on the right hand side. This picture depicts the Gaia Theory where entire earth is referred to as an organism. This is a wonderful concept.
There were many questions but this one specifically lingered in my mind. Why is that so? This is because it resonates with my idea of organization as an organism. From past week I was thinking of organization as an organism. ( A huge one).
Lets compare an organization with none other than a human being. It goes through all the things that an individual experiences. Birth, growth, maturity and death are life stages of all the living organisms, so how then organizations be compared to an individual? This is where the differentiation comes in picture, in terms of the business of the organization. Well organizations marry (joint ventures) also but then it can be many times. Kindly note, I have mentioned joint ventures and not mergers and acquisition when referring to marriage. To me after marriage two individuals maintain their separate identity and continue to live life in each other's company. Mergers may be compared to a new child as the new entity has characteristics of both the parents. Acquistion I am not able to compare with an individual.. any one out there any creativity?
4 comments:
hey..this is the same concept in cartoon,captain planet na..
may be dear... I have not seen this cartoon any time..
An acquisition in this context would be a transaction where one individual takes a servile position in an unequal relationship with another. It happens far more frequently than one would imagine. The subordinate in such a relationship often has an unmet emotional need such as desire for company/acceptance in a group/a father figure..etc.
Organisations are not so harmless as organisms. In any organisation, there will be key people who drive the business. Despite organisational policies, best practices,division of management and ownership, dispersion of managerial authority..etc, rarely do managers actually stepup and go against the tide. A few well connected and in many cases, highly competent people in senior managements are the guys who truly understand the fundamentals of the business and can figure out whats best and whats next.
Their colleagues and those below the hirarchy execute and implement plans given and those who do so well, find protectors/mentors at the top.
The down side is that after years of doing work well, you may find that your backers/mentors at the top need not have the best or ethical plans for the company. By that time your work may have already caused a lot of harm to the company's best interests.
Another scenario is a management change, when you find that your group or network of mentors is being replaced by new management. Things might get very difficult for you, when the new management has had a good look at the books and finds that plans laid by the outgoing group carried out by you are not inline with the future they envision or in some cases, detrimental to the company.
When there has been a management misdemeanour or even serious fraud/incompetence at the top of which you have naively been a part of, serious damage would result to your career.
Most senior managers do not possess the competence and/or conviction to meet business chanllenges and reply on their brave ambitious colleagues (the key people). Managements are hired by boards to improve financial performance. Hence when revenues are not realised out of new investments, apprehensions of hard questions from institutional shareholders and the desire to retain their plush perk filled jobs will make them falsify accounts or use legally valid but imappropriate accounting methods to show good financial position. Obtaining new business via connections is also common. Often the favour is returned in the next quarter/year.
This cozy arrangement goes on for years until the problems can no longer be masked and a management change is unavoidable. The new management will amplify the problems to get more time to fix things and even slow things to consolidate their position in the company. However if the board itself is nothing more than a gathering of folks close to the promoter, things will be easy for those who are in the good books of the promoter. In such a case, the company, regarless of size is nothing more than the extension of the promoter's personal interests. Such a company can never truly be public or best of class or multinational. Growth in such a company will depend on you political capital with the promoter and his "inner circle". Real lines of influence will mar lines of corporate authority drawn on paper.
Corporates can wield enormous power in the geo-political spectrum. Enron used its clout to get the US congress to pass several controvercial financial market and disclosure bills into law in the late 1990s. These laws loosened scrutiny of such companies and allowed companies to bet big on certain events using borrowed money. Liabilities could also be hidden using clever off balance sheet accounting.
Ofocurse it can also be said Enron, Satyam..etc has a positive impact by tightening regulation and creating an awareness of what goes on behind closed corporate doors. Its your viewpoint that decides :)
Post a Comment