Book Reviews
|
|||
|
Go to Executive Times
Archives |
|||
|
The
Economics of Innocent Fraud by John Kenneth Galbraith Rating: •• (Mildly Recommended) |
|
||
|
Click on
title or picture to buy from amazon.com |
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Appearances Who would expect that an exploration of the
differences between appearance and reality could be entertaining from an
economist? John Kenneth Galbraith presents his view of the real world in a
new book, The
Economics of Innocent Fraud. Many executives who read this book will
disagree that they hold as much power as Galbraith claims. Nonetheless, all
readers will find this book to lead to extended thinking about how our
current transfer of power from citizens, shareholders and customers to
corporate managers creates serious problems for the economy and for society.
Here’s an excerpt, all of
Chapter V, “The Corporation As Bureaucracy,” pp. 23-28: The head of the large
corporation—the chief executive, as he, or more rarely she, is called—is the
product of a successful passage through the corporate world, one that
requires the appropriate education, experience, mental acuity, bureaucratic
agility, all in career competition. The major task, the successful command of
the large corporate enterprise, is, however, far beyond the energy,
expertise, experience and assured commitment of any single individual. Group
effort, intelligence, specialization—a bureaucracy—is needed. Success comes
from collective energy, general and specific knowledge, self-assertion,
pursuit of financial reward and a well-developed ability to survive, lead, prevail. This the schools of business administration
recognize; of this they seek to teach. The vital role of bureaucracy, even
though almost never so designated, and success therein is unmentioned. In
common discourse, bureaucracy and bureaucratic achievement exist in
government, not in the corporate world. On another feature
there is also reticence. As with all bureaucracies, that of the corporation
has a powerful tendency to self—enlargement. Pay is determined in
substantial measure by the number of one’s subordinates; life is more
pleasant and more effective when thought and action are delegated to lesser
ranks. Here an escape from specialized knowledge and tedious effort.
Distinction is accorded above by the number of those below. How many does he
(or she) have under him? So strong is the resulting force for expansion and
so indifferent can it be to need that surgical action, called downsizing, is
often required — a routine step
toward greater efficiency and better earnings. The established bureaucratic
tendency common to all great organizations inevitably produces some
redundant staff that reflects changed need and uncorrected error. The modern corporation, the reality
notwithstanding, condemns the word “bureaucracy.” That is for government. Corporate
management, the established reference, has an activist tone. Participants in
the management structure can be unnecessary, inept, self-concerned, but they
are not bureaucrats. In government organization, group decision, delayed
and less than competent action, is normal; here there is bureaucracy. Not in
private industry. A small rnanifestation of mostly
innocent fraud. The management-controlled
corporation is the centerpiece of the modern economic system, but it is not
all. There is small business, most often in the service of consumers. There
are corporations, notably in technology and finance, where an initiator, not
an owner, retains authority. And there are small-scale agriculture and
small-scale retail and personal services. But the modern economic world
centers on the controlling corporate organization; let no one escape the
word, on bureaucracy. It is accepted in small business, and
particularly in what remains of family agriculture, that toil may be tedious.
The owner labors in the enterprise; he or she is responsible for its
direction and its success. The small businessman, the small retail and
service enterprise, like the family farmer, are still featured in economic
instruction and in political oratory. They are the economic system as classically
described in the textbooks of centuries past. They are not the modern world;
they sanction only a cherished tradition. For the small retailer, Wal-Mart
awaits. For the family farm, there are the massive grain and fruit enterprise
and the modern large-scale meat producer. For all, there is the recurrent
squeeze from price and cost to loss. The economic and social dominance of
big business is, however, accepted. The continued political and social
celebration of small business and of family agriculture is a mildly innocent
form of fraud. Tradition, romance; not the reality. The role of the individual
innovator and owner in technological effort can have financial and other
rewards. These are considerable—on occasion to the point of seeming near
disaster, as in the great Talent for creation without
organizational and diverse business skills is not enough. With age,
retirement and imposed reality, power passes to a larger entity—to a
management, to organization, to Microsoft. Or there is failure and oblivion.
The names of founders may be remembered, even revered, but their onetime
authority has passed to corporate organization — to a bureaucracy. The corporate management illusion is
our most sophisticated and in recent times one of our most evident forms of
fraud. The derogatory word “capitalism” having been escaped, there is a
valid designation that could be applicable — corporate bureaucracy. “Bureaucracy,”
however, is a term that, as indicated, is scrupulously avoided; “management”
is the accepted reference. Ownership, the stockholder, is routinely
recognized, even celebrated, but all too evidently is without any managerial
role. As sufficiently noted,
guiding the modern large corporation is a demanding task, far exceeding the
authority or ability of the most determined individual.
From this comes a further transparent and not entirely harmless fraud. It is
the effort to accord the owners, stockholders, shareholders, investors as
variously denoted, a seeming role in the enterprise. Capitalism having given
way to management cum bureaucracy, an appearance of relevance for
owners is contrived. Here the fraud. This fraud has accepted ceremonial
aspects: One is a board of directors selected by management, fully subordinate
to management hut heard as the voice of the shareholders. It includes men
and the necessary presence of one or two women who need only a passing
knowledge of the enterprise; with rare exceptions, they are reliably acquiescent.
Given a fee and some food, the directors are routinely informed by management
on what has been decided or is already known. Approval is assumed, including
for management compensation — compensation
set by management for itself This, not surprisingly, can be munificent. In
the spring of 2orn, during a period of stock market weakness, the New York
Times, not a radical publication, ran a full page on the contrast between
falling stock market prices and rising managerial rewards. The latter,
including stock options (the right to buy stock at favored prices), could, on
occasion, amount to some millions of dollars a year. All was routinely
approved by the compliant directors. Executives of the spectacularly bankrupt
Enron were a prominent example, as were those of the reputable General
Electric. Generous reward to management extends throughout modern corporate
enterprise. Legal self-enrichment in the millions of dollars is a common
feature of modern corporate governrnent. This is
not surprising; managers set their own compensation. There
are times when the need
for economic and political understanding requires direct, openly adverse
comment: Reference to corporate management compensation as something set by
stockholders or their directors is a bogus article of faith. To affirm this
fiction, stockholders are invited each year to the annual meeting, which,
indeed, resembles a religious rite. There is ceremonial expression and, with
rare exceptions, no negative response. Infidels who urge action are set
aside; the management position is routinely approved. The shareholders who
previously suggested some social policy or environmental concern have their
proposals printed with supporting argument. These are uniformly rejected by
management. The only significant recent exception has been at the meetings
of the highly intelligent, socially eccentric and financially successful Berkshire
Hathaway, Inc., of No one should be in doubt:
Shareholders—owners— and their alleged directors in any sizable enterprise
are fully subordinate to the management. Though the impression of owner
authority is offered, it does not, in fact, exist. An accepted fraud. Whether
you agree or disagree with Galbraith’s arguments in The
Economics of Innocent Fraud, reading the book will make you think about
these issues in more depth. Steve
Hopkins, October 25, 2004 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
ã 2004 Hopkins and Company, LLC The recommendation rating for
this book appeared in the November 2004
issue of Executive Times URL for this review: http://www.hopkinsandcompany.com/Books/The
Economics of Innocent Fraud.htm For Reprint Permission,
Contact: Hopkins & Company, LLC • E-mail: books@hopkinsandcompany.com |
|||
