What makes a company truly great

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

YankeeFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
55,078
Tony Schwartz, in the Times:

So how about this for a new value proposition?

A company’s greatness is grounded in doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and the least harm. It is neither first nor foremost about maximizing short-term return for shareholders. Rather, it is about investing in and valuing all stakeholders – employees, customers, suppliers, the community and the planet – in order to generate the greatest value over the longest term for all parties, including the shareholders.

By that definition, a tobacco company like Altria can never be considered great, no matter how much return it generates for shareholders. The damage the company causes to the world vastly outweighs the value it generates for a few. To be great, a company must add some sort of positive benefit in the world with its products. Similarly, a company that fails to pay its employees a living wage, or to treat them with care and respect, can never be considered great.

Greatness also requires a company to treat its customers with the same care and respect, in part through an unwavering commitment to excellence in the products it produces, and fairness in the prices it charges for them. A great company must also take seriously its continuing responsibility to the communities in which it operates, and to the planet, on whose resources it depends. Above all else, great companies must add more value to the world than they extract.

nyti.ms/11mcaAm
 
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.
 
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.

And thus, my entire reason for posting this thread is realized.
 
I don't necessarily equate "great" with "money-making."
 
YankeeFan said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.

And thus, my entire reason for posting this thread is realized.

In all fairness, the quant signal has also now been beamed.
 
YankeeFan said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.

And thus, my entire reason for posting this thread is realized.

You need to get out more. You live in Chicago. There's nothing to do in Chicago on a Saturday afternoon?
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Baron Scicluna said:
YankeeFan said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.

And thus, my entire reason for posting this thread is realized.

You need to get out more. You live in Chicago. There's nothing to do in Chicago on a Saturday afternoon?

He could shoot someone.
 
Baron Scicluna said:
YankeeFan said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.

And thus, my entire reason for posting this thread is realized.

You need to get out more. You live in Chicago. There's nothing to do in Chicago on a Saturday afternoon?

Cubs suck. Blackhawks don't start till 7 p.m.
 
KJIM said:
I don't necessarily equate "great" with "money-making."

Why? We can all agree that Ty Cobb was a "great" baseball player, right? It doesn't matter if he was a reprehensible person, because that's not part of the criteria for evaluating his baseball playing abilities.

A company's ambition is to make money. If a company makes a lot of money, why shouldn't they be judged on that?
 
Baron Scicluna said:
YankeeFan said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.

And thus, my entire reason for posting this thread is realized.

You need to get out more. You live in Chicago. There's nothing to do in Chicago on a Saturday afternoon?

I spent the last week moving. (You'll notice I didn't post much, as I didn't even have internet between Saturday and Thursday.)

Between packing, moving, unpacking, and getting my actual work done, I'm exhausted. I just woke up from a nap, and I never take naps. I should be organizing my new workshop, but I need a mental energy break. And, your arguments don't require any. (Zing!)
 
YankeeFan said:
KJIM said:
I don't necessarily equate "great" with "money-making."
Why? We can all agree that Ty Cobb was a "great" baseball player, right? It doesn't matter if he was a reprehensible person, because that's not part of the criteria for evaluating his baseball playing abilities.

A company's ambition is to make money. If a company makes a lot of money, why shouldn't they be judged on that?
I have absolutely no idea how your post relates to mine so I am unable to respond.
 
YankeeFan said:
Baron Scicluna said:
YankeeFan said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders. And if they can treat their employees like **** while doing it, all the better.

And thus, my entire reason for posting this thread is realized.

You need to get out more. You live in Chicago. There's nothing to do in Chicago on a Saturday afternoon?

I spent the last week moving. (You'll notice I didn't post much, as I didn't even have internet between Saturday and Thursday.)

Between packing, moving, unpacking, and getting my actual work done, I'm exhausted. I just woke up from a nap, and I never take naps. I should be organizing my new workshop, but I need a mental energy break. And, your arguments don't require any. (Zing!)

Actually, I hadn't noticed you were gone, or cared.

(Double-Zing!)
 
KJIM said:
YankeeFan said:
KJIM said:
I don't necessarily equate "great" with "money-making."
Why? We can all agree that Ty Cobb was a "great" baseball player, right? It doesn't matter if he was a reprehensible person, because that's not part of the criteria for evaluating his baseball playing abilities.

A company's ambition is to make money. If a company makes a lot of money, why shouldn't they be judged on that?
I have absolutely no idea how your post relates to mine so I am unable to respond.

When discussing companies, why don't you equate "great" with "money-making"?

That's the goal they set out to achieve. What criteria would be better?
 
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders.

Damn ... just when I thought there was absolutely no hope for you, you actually made an accurate post.
 
doctorquant said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders.

Damn ... just when I thought there was absolutely no hope for you, you actually made an accurate post.

Did I really need to use the blue font?
 
Baron Scicluna said:
doctorquant said:
Baron Scicluna said:
Bull****. The company's sole purpose is to make money for its owners and shareholders.

Damn ... just when I thought there was absolutely no hope for you, you actually made an accurate post.

Did I really need to use the blue font?

No. That's the point.
 
YankeeFan said:
KJIM said:
YankeeFan said:
KJIM said:
I don't necessarily equate "great" with "money-making."
Why? We can all agree that Ty Cobb was a "great" baseball player, right? It doesn't matter if he was a reprehensible person, because that's not part of the criteria for evaluating his baseball playing abilities.

A company's ambition is to make money. If a company makes a lot of money, why shouldn't they be judged on that?
I have absolutely no idea how your post relates to mine so I am unable to respond.
When discussing companies, why don't you equate "great" with "money-making"?

That's the goal they set out to achieve. What criteria would be better?
"The goal"? Like there's only one?

If you're insistent that you're discussing companies, why do you throw in Cobb as an example?

My own personal criteria for greatness has very, very little to do with money. (I actually wrote a book for someone this, and money didn't enter into it at all, come to think of it.)

One of the companies that I consider to be awesome is American Express. I can't tell you a thing about their finances, but I know that every time I've called them, they have been exceptionally helpful. I value that.

A company that I detest is McDonald's. Especially since my local one has done away with the $1 drinks. I'm sure they make money hand over fist, but I don't care for them. Has not a thing to do with the profit margin, though - just the food.
 
I can think of numerous reasons a company that makes money can still be a ****ty company, mostly defined by the social costs they may generate: if they don't strive for stuff like cleaner emissions or the same dumping or recycling of their waste; if they cause society-wide misery by taking jobs out of America; if they create unsafe products and do not try to correct the situation and fight government every step of the way; if they do not pay a living wage; if they use marketing to sell products that are bad (e.g., cigarettes, subprime loans); if they demand tax breaks that take the money from our schools; and I'm sure we could come up with many others.

Why we've regressed about 150 years in our thinking about balancing the productivity of free enterprise with the responsibility it has to the common is saddening.
 
dooley_womack1 said:
I can think of numerous reasons a company that makes money can still be a ****ty company, mostly defined by the social costs they may generate: if they don't strive for stuff like cleaner emissions or the same dumping or recycling of their waste; if they cause society-wide misery by taking jobs out of America; if they create unsafe products and do not try to correct the situation and fight government every step of the way; if they do not pay a living wage; if they use marketing to sell products that are bad (e.g., cigarettes, subprime loans); if they demand tax breaks that take the money from our schools; and I'm sure we could come up with many others.

I assumed you knew my post was stipulating that, net of externalities, the goal of the firm is to make money for its owners. And even that's a bit imprecise for my taste ... the firm should maximize its owners' wealth, which most of the time is going to be monetary. But some owners measure the wealth their firm generates (for them) not exclusively in dollars. They're still practicing wealth-maximization, but it's not strictly a dollars (or euros or whatever) proposition.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top