big is so often bad... why?
Dec. 17th, 2007 08:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eDuring a conversation the other day it was mentioned that a particular beverage was really good... until the makers were taken over by a giant corporation and the quality went down. It started me wondering, why does that happen so often? Many times in the past I've had the experience of finding something wonderful and enjoying it until the giant corporations find it too, buy it, and then the quality drops through the floor.
Why is that? You'd think it would work the other way, right? Bigger corporations have more resources and could make really good stuff into really great stuff. So why does it almost always go the wrong direction? I say "almost always" because I'm sure there must be cases where giant corporations have improved something by swallowing it up... however, honestly, I can't think of a single example. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It certainly puzzles me.
Is there some natural dynamic at work which makes this inevitable? Is it because businesses operate under dictatorial principles? Like a dictatorship, businesses run in a strict hierarchy. You don't elect your boss and he isn't accountable to you. There is nothing remotely like equality. You do what you are told, try to please your "superiors", and hope not to get fired. I've had bosses who became friends and jobs I've enjoyed, but there was still never any confusion about who held the power. Such unequal relationships in wider society nearly always end up corrupting those with the power. Is it surprising that it would tend to work that way in business too?
Is it possible for business to come out of the feudal age and use democracy?
You're probably thinking that this is ridiculous, that businesses would be unworkable without a clear chain of command, and that running one where even the cleaner got a vote in how things worked would invite disaster. But this is exactly what people thought during feudal times. They believed that society would fall apart if people had a say in the running of the country, that it would lead to utter chaos and make society unworkable. But in reality it lifted society to a whole new level of operation, even with the minimal democracy we have. Yes, it brought chaos instead of the strict order where everybody knew their place, but it was a good chaos, where people grew and developed new technologies, cultures, and and realms of knowledge at a pace never seen before.
Could it be that democracy and openness in business could fix its worst aspects and make capitalism a new force for good?
---
Okay, having got that off my chest I'll try to finish chapter 17 today. Got more work done on it yesterday.
Why is that? You'd think it would work the other way, right? Bigger corporations have more resources and could make really good stuff into really great stuff. So why does it almost always go the wrong direction? I say "almost always" because I'm sure there must be cases where giant corporations have improved something by swallowing it up... however, honestly, I can't think of a single example. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It certainly puzzles me.
Is there some natural dynamic at work which makes this inevitable? Is it because businesses operate under dictatorial principles? Like a dictatorship, businesses run in a strict hierarchy. You don't elect your boss and he isn't accountable to you. There is nothing remotely like equality. You do what you are told, try to please your "superiors", and hope not to get fired. I've had bosses who became friends and jobs I've enjoyed, but there was still never any confusion about who held the power. Such unequal relationships in wider society nearly always end up corrupting those with the power. Is it surprising that it would tend to work that way in business too?
Is it possible for business to come out of the feudal age and use democracy?
You're probably thinking that this is ridiculous, that businesses would be unworkable without a clear chain of command, and that running one where even the cleaner got a vote in how things worked would invite disaster. But this is exactly what people thought during feudal times. They believed that society would fall apart if people had a say in the running of the country, that it would lead to utter chaos and make society unworkable. But in reality it lifted society to a whole new level of operation, even with the minimal democracy we have. Yes, it brought chaos instead of the strict order where everybody knew their place, but it was a good chaos, where people grew and developed new technologies, cultures, and and realms of knowledge at a pace never seen before.
Could it be that democracy and openness in business could fix its worst aspects and make capitalism a new force for good?
---
Okay, having got that off my chest I'll try to finish chapter 17 today. Got more work done on it yesterday.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-17 03:36 am (UTC)I think you are absolutely right that cost-cutting is a potent cause of the decline in quality when a smaller company is swallowed up by a larger one. But why would companies so regularly choose what is fairly clearly a mistaken direction?
A company buys up a successful product that works in the marketplace and is well liked by consumers... and then they break it. It all seems very odd and wasteful. Surely they would make more money from happy consumers satisfied with great products.
Of course not long ago we used to have cars and washing machines and refrigerators that were engineered to last decades, but we've somehow been sold the idea that it's normal to have to buy those things again every six or seven years. The corporations blind us to what's good for us and they have happy consumers as well as selling twice as many crappy products.