I agree with James on most of this, but I think that the best companies have
special places for all three components - employees, shareholders, and
clients. The employees need to be paid enough to motivate them to produce
good products to keep the clients coming in the door, and the shareholders
need to see enough dividend/growth to keep them holding and reinvesting.
This seems to be the 'Old' Hp way, which in later years has given way to the
increasing western trend to shorter and shorter outlooks on profits and
dividends. This sort of trend is not apparent in Japan, where they plan long
term.
The problem is, how do shareholders express their desire for a long term
outlook to their comapny officers?
Have HP not really spelled out why MPE is no longer viable? If its not
cost/profit, is it that they have lost the expertise - its too hard? I am
sure if they asked for for people to come in and work on it, they would be
swamped.
Is it diversion of effort from UX - this translates into cost again?
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of James B. Byrne
Sent: Sun, November 18, 2001 5:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] NewsWire report on the transition.
On 16 Nov 2001, at 9:58, John Lee wrote:
> >CSY officials said profits didn't enter into the decision to stop
> >selling the systems two years from now.
>
> This is an interesting business philosophy??!!
>
This is what ruining a business for the sake of stock-option
valuation leads to. Unless rewards are tied to long term results
then the natural inclination for any employee is to get as much
value for their stock options in as short a period of time as possible
and bail-out if the near future looks gloomy.
If the stockholders want their company to make more money in the
long run then they have to pay the people that they hire to run their
company in that fashion. Instead of stock-options, senior officers
of firms like HP should be offered a performance bonus based on
profit improvement backward averaged over a period of several
years (>3) years.
If instead the stockholders just want to run up the stock value so
that they can unload it on someone else before short-sited
management policies bring their company to its knees then I guess
that the system that HP and others are using will suffice.
Eventually one has to confront the fact that a company does not
exist for either its employees or its shareholders. It exists for its
clients. Without clients there can be no company no matter how
many investors or how many employees there are. Ask the former
owners of all those defunct dot.coms about that unpleasant truth.
HP is taking for granted that it will continue to have clients
regardless how it treats them. Well, business history is littered
with wrecks of firms that took the same point of view.
UnHaPpy in Hamilton,
Jim
--- e-mail is NOT a secure channel
James B. Byrne mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
