Hopefully, food for thinking - - -
I attended the other night, an "e2e" (entrepreneur to entrepreneur) event hosted by Lakeshore Advantage (www.lakeshoreadvantage.com) in Zeeland. I am an advisor in their "Business Garden."
The speaker on this occasion was Dick DeVos. Dick presented some thoughts regarding five issues for Michigan, that he considers a priority in these days. One issue had to do with energy and prompted a fellow audience member to ask regarding automotive electric propulsion and why the “Big Three” are not further along toward effective mass implementation.
Curiously, this precipitated for me a consideration of the character of a company or entity through its life cycle, and more specifically of its agility.
Growth of an entity, specifically physical, may be anticipated as inherent to most successful entities. With physical growth, comes a variety of “overheads” to monitor and otherwise keep a handle on the status of the entity at various levels. Impersonality has demonstrated itself to typically accompany growth and may establish itself as an entity transitions to incorporate organizational bureaucracy. Some level of organizational bureaucracy may be conceded inherent in an entity of significant size, though a culture of bureaucracy may not be inevitable.
Given this presumptive framework, one may postulate an agility spectrum metering a correlation between entity “ownership” and entity agility. Privately held entities tend toward agility while publicly held entities tend toward lethargy. The arch-type publicly held entity may be supposed a government agency. There is varying scope of Ownership, both literal and cultural. Culture may be understood as manifestation of community attitude. Also, stagnant close ownership is conceded not agile.
Structurally, closely held entities tend to have owners engaged with the activities and results of the entity at a relatively heightened level. Engaged decision-making may also include a market awareness such that opportunities may be identified and captured. Close, engaged ownership may dominate an entity even when the entity acquires great size and inherent organizational bureaucracy. Further, beyond mere structural ownership and beyond mere financial investment ownership motivation, close ownership includes an attitude of ownership. Thus, a propensity toward agility.
Conversely, widely held entities tend to have generally disengaged ownership; the broader the ownership, the greater the disengagement. Disengaged owners rely upon the integrity and performance of those in position to oversee and effect operation or, as appears more common, upon an established process or system, the entity bureaucracy. This structural segregation of ownership and of financial investment from operation fosters individual attitudes of bureaucracy and thus an entity culture of bureaucracy; institutionalization! Thus, a propensity toward continuing invariably, the opposite of agility.
A culture of engagement, of ownership, may be establish even in a widely held entity, however. The level of effort and likelihood for success may be indefinable. On the one hand, in a context of present prominent U.S. social culture, one may look at a government entity, a major manufacturer, or a financial institution, for example, and project the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement as immense and miniscule, respectively, unobtainable. On the other hand, in a context of an entity with personnel who are willing to shun the “me first” attitude that demonstrates itself in the likes of Enron and in reported compensation packages for executives of failing and failed business, the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement may be seen as miniscule and immense, respectively, easy as pie.
An aside: The prominent “me first” attitude is, interestingly, predominantly demonstrated in the seed of “the Sixties.” The alleged love and share culture of the Sixties has grown and manifest immature selfishness, greed. Younger generations are, to their credit, not showing the same culture of greed.
Of course, these are broad statements, generalizations, and specific situations are unique to their own circumstance.
