Darwinian

[Adri]

Re: Darwinian

True, he definitely set the path for destruction of small biz. But I wonder would Walmart be any different if he could still be calling the shots? Would employee comp be any better? Would Walmart sell over 60% of it's merchandise made outside the US?

Although at the same time, by selling lower priced goods, the purchasing power of the average American has greatly increased. So it's a conundrum sometimes.

I don't know for sure, of course, but I don't think he set out to destroy small businesses. He clearly did set out to have the most competitive and successful (in terms of profit and growth) business that he could manage. Part of the point to the book (which he didn't write or really cooperate with in the writing of) was that he considered himself on the side of small businesses. He apparently was one of the first to cooperate with other small businesses to buy in bulk so they could get the same prices or better as the big businesses (back when Walton's business was smaller). I didn't know over 60% of Walmart's merchandise was made outside the US. If that is true, I think that that would be one aspect that would be different if Sam Walton were still alive and running the business because he made a big effort to "buy American" and use and sell American made products. He even assisted some American companies in staying afloat and in producing goods that Walmart sold, according to the author.

[Miulang]

Re: Darwinian

I don't know for sure, of course, but I don't think he set out to destroy small businesses. He clearly did set out to have the most competitive and successful (in terms of profit and growth) business that he could manage. Part of the point to the book (which he didn't write or really cooperate with in the writing of) was that he considered himself on the side of small businesses. He apparently was one of the first to cooperate with other small businesses to buy in bulk so they could get the same prices or better as the big businesses (back when Walton's business was smaller). I didn't know over 60% of Walmart's merchandise was made outside the US. If that is true, I think that that would be one aspect that would be different if Sam Walton were still alive and running the business because he made a big effort to "buy American" and use and sell American made products. He even assisted some American companies in staying afloat and in producing goods that Walmart sold, according to the author.

It's true that since Sam Walton's demise, the majority of goods sold by WalMart is produced abroad. It's also true that while he was alive, he did use the slogan "Made in America" to great advantage. If he was still alive, he would probably buy more American made goods to sell in his stores, but the problem is, not very much of the stuff WalMart sells is manufactured in this country anymore, and neither is much of the food that is sold in their markets. I believe it was CNN that did a multi-part series on WalMart and its evolution from being a five and dime store in Arkansas to a multibillion dollar multinational company; much of it is not very pretty to witness. Sam Walton and Henry Ford had a lot in common. They very much were on the side of their employees. Their successors, however, have wandered far from that paradigm, unfortunately.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Re: Darwinian

It's true that since Sam Walton's demise, the majority of goods sold by WalMart is produced abroad. It's also true that while he was alive, he did use the slogan "Made in America" to great advantage. If he was still alive, he would probably buy more American made goods to sell in his stores, but the problem is, not very much of the stuff WalMart sells is manufactured in this country anymore, and neither is much of the food that is sold in their markets. I believe it was CNN that did a multi-part series on WalMart and its evolution from being a five and dime store in Arkansas to a multibillion dollar multinational company; much of it is not very pretty to witness. Sam Walton and Henry Ford had a lot in common. They very much were on the side of their employees. Their successors, however, have wandered far from that paradigm, unfortunately.

Miulang

I wonder if Costco might go down the evil path if their founder and CEO is no longer calling the shots.

[Miulang]

Re: Darwinian

I wonder if Costco might go down the evil path if their founder and CEO is no longer calling the shots.

The current culture of Costco is so deeply engrained in the organization, and its employees are so empowered because they're well taken care of, that I think if Jeff Sinegal croaked tomorrow, it would still remain basically the same culture, as long as it kept making money by taking care of its employees. It's like Starbucks...Starbucks has a very similar culture (must be the water around here ). Sometimes their corporate ethics may get the better of them (like the whole "fair trade" hooha), but on the whole, they do treat their employees very well and they give good bennies (even part time workers qualify for healthcare and childcare). And when they are called on the carpet by their shareholders (I are one) for their questionable ethics, they make an effort to correct things. Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, and Getty Images are some of the most desirable companies around here to work for, simply because they treat their employees more like colleagues and are generous with the bennies. And a happy employee usually makes for happy customers and better customer service.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Re: Darwinian

Hopefully with Costco, they won't change. But even the current CEO was pressured by his shareholders to cut op costs by trimming employee benefits. He refused and they punished him by dumping Costco stock. The price did slide but he didn't care considering he wasn't cashing out soon. But who knows how the next CEO will respond?

With the prices Nordstrom charges, they better be nice to their employees.

[Miulang]

Re: Darwinian

Hopefully with Costco, they won't change. But even the current CEO was pressured by his shareholders to cut op costs by trimming employee benefits. He refused and they punished him by dumping Costco stock. The price did slide but he didn't care considering he wasn't cashing out soon. But who knows how the next CEO will respond?

With the prices Nordstrom charges, they better be nice to their employees.

The reason I know why Costco is treating its employees so well is because the turnover rate for jobs (even for the stocking positions) is very very low. It's very seldom that you will see a job posting for any Costco jobs. Not only do unhappy employees cost you money in terms of low productivity, but they cost you more because when they leave, you have significant costs incurred in recruiting and hiring and training their replacements.

If I was running a business, I would offer my employees a share of the business, too, so they know that their fortunes (and mine) depend on all of us working as hard as we can to achieve our goals. When employees have a vested interest in their company, they tend to want to work harder. That was one of the main reasons why Microsoft, in its early days, did so well. The earliest employees were given shares of the company because when it was starting out, the pay wasn't that hot and the hours were very long (before it went public). Now Microsoft isn't that great a place to work because all the generous stock options are gone. You don't hear of any more Microsoft millionaires being minted from among the workers (except for Sr. Mgmt) nowadays.

When employees only consider their jobs as a paycheck, then they probably won't care very much how hard they work as long as it appears as though they are putting in their 40 hours a week.

Miulang

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Darwinian

When employees only consider their jobs as a paycheck, then they probably won't care very much how hard they work as long as it appears as though they are putting in their 40 hours a week.

Miulang

The problem is that a lot of employees simply don't take their jobs seriously no matter how much you pay them or give them benefits. I've been both union and salaried. And I've seen slackers on both sides.

I honestly believe no matter how much you pay a person, unless that person has any intrinsinct desire to be self motivated, you won't get a diamond from that block of coal.

I believe good employees need to be retained by virtue of firing those who bring the organization down, and that includes managers who couldn't manage their own farts!

At the Gas Company our HR director handed out two "House Rules" folders for all workers there. One was for unionized workers and the other for salaried or non-union workers. Guess which group had the more lenient house rules to follow?

Talk about double standards. Can you imagine the rift that created for the "Haves" and the "Have Nots"?

Managers were allowed to use company vehicles for personal use. Unionized workers weren't allowed at all.

Managers were allowed to pick up their kids in company vehicles from school, Unionized workers weren't.

Get the picture? Everybody wants to do their jobs as they are compensated for but when the playing field isn't fair for those who do their jobs and benefit those who don't, well even the most positive-minded employee will begin to feel less appreciated.

[Miulang]

Re: Darwinian

The problem is that a lot of employees simply don't take their jobs seriously no matter how much you pay them or give them benefits. I've been both union and salaried. And I've seen slackers on both sides.

I honestly believe no matter how much you pay a person, unless that person has any intrinsinct desire to be self motivated, you won't get a diamond from that block of coal.

I believe good employees need to be retained by virtue of firing those who bring the organization down, and that includes managers who couldn't manage their own farts!

At the Gas Company our HR director handed out two "House Rules" folders for all workers there. One was for unionized workers and the other for salaried or non-union workers. Guess which group had the more lenient house rules to follow?

Talk about double standards. Can you imagine the rift that created for the "Haves" and the "Have Nots"?

Managers were allowed to use company vehicles for personal use. Unionized workers weren't allowed at all.

Managers were allowed to pick up their kids in company vehicles from school, Unionized workers weren't.

Get the picture? Everybody wants to do their jobs as they are compensated for but when the playing field isn't fair for those who do their jobs and benefit those who don't, well even the most positive-minded employee will begin to feel less appreciated.

That's true some of the time, Craig. But then there are some of us who aren't working at a job just for the money, either. If/when I own my own company, all my "employees" will be co-owners. If they screw up, it means that they screw up everyone else. If they don't pull their weight, then the group will be the ones to decide if/when to get rid of the person who's slacking off. No unions involved. I would not want my company to grow into a large organization with too many rules and layers of people to work through. Therefore, the screening process for additional owners would be very very strict to begin with.

Miulang

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Darwinian

That's true some of the time, Craig. But then there are some of us who aren't working at a job just for the money, either. If/when I own my own company, all my "employees" will be co-owners. If they screw up, it means that they screw up everyone else. If they don't pull their weight, then the group will be the ones to decide if/when to get rid of the person who's slacking off. No unions involved. I would not want my company to grow into a large organization with too many rules and layers of people to work through. Therefore, the screening process for additional owners would be very very strict to begin with.

Miulang

Be careful of giving away too much ownership of your company to others. I did that once and that power of ownership went to his head.

And remember if you as the owner is only part of the ones that decide who stays and who goes...you could be one of those departing employees if your vision fails to garner respect from the rest of the "tribe".

[Miulang]

Re: Darwinian

Be careful of giving away too much ownership of your company to others. I did that once and that power of ownership went to his head.

And remember if you as the owner is only part of the ones that decide who stays and who goes...you could be one of those departing employees if your vision fails to garner respect from the rest of the "tribe".

My "hammer" is going to be that the other "owners" are not the ones who have to come up with the initial working capital, so I'm going to be "more equal" than everyone else until I get my investment back!

Miulang

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Darwinian

How's this...

I read threads about Mesa Airlines, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, whatever... coming and taking out other businesses...

Isn't this what capitalism is all about?

... Is being successful a terrible thing? If so, why?

Take Mesa out of the list and I'll agree with you. It's all about "may the best (as determined by the customer) business win".