Shortcomings in current theory – Page 2

Linear programming and the theory of the firm – flashback to the 1950s

Exposure to linear programming while doing my MBA at Stanford informed the model of the firm that I described first in May 1980 in a paper for Steve Brandt’s seminar on strategic management and developed into a core component of the Escondido Framework. So when I was told recently about Robert Dorfman’s “Application of linear programming to the theory of the firm” (Berkeley, 1951) and a collection of essays from a 1958 symposium at the University of Michigan edited by Kenneth E Boulding and W Allen Spivey titled “Linear programming and the theory of the firm” (New York, 1960), I thought I should take a look.

Both titles engage somewhat futilely in trying to extend the application of linear programming beyond its useful limits, and swamp the conceptual opportunity of applying a way of thinking about organisational problems with multiple constraints with the desire to created mathematical analytical models under conditions that are necessarily massively complex, non-linear, and dynamic.

Dorfman’s final chapter, on “Assumptions, Limitations, and Possibilities” highlights the limitations of the techniques that he explored in the previous chapters, particularly in relation to the static conditions under which the analysis might be undertaken, the challenges of coping with a dynamic and multi period condition, and with uncertainty. He effectively gives up: “There is little reason to hope that linear programming, or any other simple formulized technique will be able to comprehend this entire problem”. This probably still applies even in an age of massive computing power and ability to capture and interrogate “big data” that Dorfman could never have imagined. He did acknowledge that at the time of writing his book that “linear programming emphasises the physical inter-relationships of productive processes almost to the exclusion of the demand side”. My memory of studying linear programming at the Stanford Graduate School of Business in 1979 is that in this respect at least the commercial applications of linear programming had moved on the in following few decades. Ultimately, however, Dorfman retreats back into an assumption that linear programming could be best applied to managing and optimising internal processes, accepts that the practical applications will be limited in the short term, but remained hopeful, that “economists can rely on the mathematicians, the electronicists, and the statisticians to provide a practical tool.”

The final two essays in Boulding and Spivey’s collection move beyond the descriptions in the earlier essays of the mathematics of linear programming and how they might be applied to the activities of the firm. Interestingly in the context of a book about the application of linear programming, both end up focussing on the difficulty defining the objective function for the firm, arguing that firms seek to more than just maximise profits.

C.Michael White’s essay “Multiple Goals in the Theory of the Firm” reviews the thinking prevailing at the time about the various goals for the firm, both within the scope of profit maximisation (eg in relation to time horizons, to strategic considerations such as discouraging competitive market entry, and in relation to public relations). He cites AG Papandreou, suggesting that he had pointed out that “profit is simply one possible ranking criterion in a broader system of preference-function maximisation. Under perfect competition, profit is the only ranking criterion consistent with survival. In the absence of perfect competition the long-run survival of the a firm may be achieved best (or at least as well) through the maximisation of goals other than profit.”

White addresses the issue of the survival of the firm “The firm as a social and economic organization, like many other organisms, has a compelling urge to survive. More fundamental than the profit motive, the motive to survive is implicit in most decisions within the firm, though the possibility of organizational suicide should not be ruled out”. He later observes “Survival, including the consequent homeostasis concept (Boulding, Reconstruction of Economics, New York, 1950) is seldom an explicit primary goal of a firm but instead provide a pervasive set of limitations on other goals including profit.” However, White fails, surprisingly in an essay in a book about linear programming to close the loop that is embedded in the Escondido Framework model of the organisation as the occupying the virtual space bounded by its market interfaces with customers, capital, labour, other suppliers etc. But he goes some way in this direction, for example identifying later in the paper that “In most instances financial objective are evidenced as additional constraints on other objectives.

White’s summary is as good a description of the objective of the firm as any I have come across since embarking on this project in 1980: “The goals of firms represent a wide array of alternative objectives of which profit maximization is only one, although without doubt a most significant one. In those instances where firms strive to maximize profit all other aspects of the firm’s behaviour impose restrictions on this goal.” (He continues his summary by observing “The difficulty of estimating with accuracy the long-run prospects of a firm makes survival or homeostasis (when interpreted as a relative position within an environment) the most likely long-run objective.”)

Sherrill Cleland’s “A Short Essay of a Managerial Theory of the Firm” is an insightful attempt to move beyond what he describes as “the Traditional Firm”, a limited model developed from the work of Marshall, Chamberlin and Robinson in the 1930s and 1940s essentially seeing the firm as a passive respondent to conditions imposed by external markets for consumption, capital, labour, and materials, and the competitive industry structure. He describes how while economists were studying the operation of the market to understand the allocation process, businessmen were “developing a strong propensity to innovate in order to gain temporary monopoly control over market forces. As the businessman learned by doing, his propensity to innovate shifted to a propensity to monopolize and temporary monopoly became more permanent. The pattern of internal decision-making which he followed was designed to minimize the external constraints which had theoretically limited his decision alternatives. The initial managerial revolution, then, was an attempt by the businessman to control or influence the external forces (the product market and the factor market) that had been controlling and limiting him. That he was successful, and patently so, is evidenced by our antitrust laws. He wished to expand his field of choice, his set of alternatives, while simultaneously reducing the degree of uncertainty he faced.” He captures the different types of relationship with these external forces in the following figure, that distinguishes between those that the business accepts as given, those that provide a degree of restraint but are subject to influence, and the activities that the firm can reshape in response to its own decisions.

Cleland later proceeds develop his “Managerial Theory”, reflecting how the firm, operating in imperfect markets and consequently with options in terms of pricing and other parameters, is in a position to take choices about its internal operations, processes and outputs, and consequently is able to consider goals other than straightforward profit maximisation. He considers the possibility of satisficing behaviour, for example ensuring only that profit levels exceed the cost of capital and perhaps share the benefits of market power through spending on social responsibility programmes, and also minimax behaviour, for example by engaging in defensive pricing to secure long term contracts and thereby reduce uncertainty or discourage competitive entry.

Cleland further explores how decisions are made within the firm, and highlights to failure of traditional economic models of the firm to consider the role of the people within the firm, in particular the “manager-executive” in taking decisions, and in turn the way that the institutionalised processes, policies and procedures shape the way that decisions are taken, and the decision themselves. He also examines the firm as an information system, with flows both up and down the organisation, to provide the basis for decision-taking by managers and their execution of these decisions by subordinates.

In common with Dorfman, Cleland hopes that his essay is merely laying the foundations for further work, but I have been unable to establish whether he undertook further work in this field or whether this essay provided the foundation for the work of others. Nonetheless, a sentence in his closing paragraph about his “Managerial Theory” that deserves wider airing for its emphasis on “satisfactory profit” and the decision-making power of management: “The managerial theory of the firm considers the firm as an organized information system, intent upon a satisfactory profit level operating in an external and internal environment which allows the manager significant decision-making power.”

“Irresponsible behaviour in big business” – “Unacceptable face of capitalism” remastered?

A new wind is blowing down Downing Street. The leadership of the Conservative Party has skipped back a track, with a generation born in the 1960s whose ideas were shaped by the Thatcher era replaced by one born in the 1950s that emerged into political consciousness in the years of Heath, Wilson and Callaghan. The young Theresa Brazier – later to become Mrs May – was studying for her A levels when the first of these branded Tiny Rowland as “the unacceptable face of capitalism”.

Tiny Rowland was engaged in a battle with his own non-executives at Lonrho at the time, dismissing them as “Christmas Tree Decorations”. Theresa May is now sharing the popular outrage at the conduct of Sir Philip Green and Mike Ashley and calling for changes to address “irresponsible behaviour in big business”, in particular to protect the interests of employees and to challenge excessive executive pay. It is interesting to compare the targets of the two prime forty three years apart: Heath was criticising the chief executive of a company whose non-executive directors were standing up to him, whereas Theresa May’s challenge is to behaviour exemplified by a former chief executive who owned, or rather whose wife principally, owned the company, and a second chief executive who is a majority shareholder but who appears to have the chairman and board in his pocket.

Mrs May’s pronouncements, aided by such high profile cases as BhS and Sports Direct, help to change the climate. But is this sustainable, and are the solutions being canvassed the right ones? Philip Augar, writing in the FT on 22^nd August, noted

In her last major speech before entering Number 10 as prime minister, Theresa May eerily echoed remarks made by the former Labour premier Tony Blair 20 years earlier: “Transient shareholders are not the only people with an interest when firms are sold or closed,” she said. “Workers have a stake, local communities have a stake, and often the whole country has a stake.”

Mr Blair, in a speech delivered in Singapore shortly before he took power, asserted that it was “time to assess how we shift the emphasis in our corporate ethos . . . towards a vision of the company as a community or partnership in which each employee has a stake”.

Augar went on to point out that “what had promised to be a defining philosophy for New Labour was scarcely heard of once he was in office”. Admittedly, section 172 of the 2006 Companies Act did shift the ground by requiring directors to:

have regard (amongst other matters) to—

the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

the interests of the company’s employees,

the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,

the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

Nonetheless, Augar’s point about lack of delivery is well made, given precisely the types of issue that the new prime minister has declared that she wants to address.

Her ambition to reform corporate governance is admirable. But are they right solutions? The FT reports today (25^th July):

The prime minister’s allies say that a package of measures to improve corporate governance are being drawn up and will be published in the coming weeks.

Mrs May this month promised to broaden the pool of non-executive directors, so that they were no longer drawn from “the same narrow, social and professional circles as the executive team”.

“If I’m prime minister, we’re going to change that system and we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards but employees as well,” she said.

The idea is opposed by some corporate leaders, who fear that “worker directors” would end up being selected by trade unions. Mrs May’s team say they would act as a deterrent to the “appalling” working practices adopted by Sports Direct, which were heavily criticised by MPs this month.

Mrs May’s reforms are also expected to include a requirement for more transparency on pay, including making shareholder votes on corporate pay not just advisory but binding. “Pay multiple” data would also be published to show the gap between a chief executive’s pay and those of workers.

The new prime minister has also talked about toughening competition law to protect consumers and a further crackdown on corporate tax avoidance and evasion. “It is not anti-business to suggest that big business needs to change,” Mrs May said at the launch of her leadership bid.

There is some very good stuff here, including ideas about widening the pool of non-executive directors, but a lot more thought is required about how this should be done, and what would be the most effective way of ensuring that what is done addresses the problems identified. For example, appointing a token employee director may be a less effective way of addressing the need to represent employee’s interests than having an effective workforce or HR director on the board whose job it to take into account the need to meet the needs and desires of all the workforce, and couple this with greater protection of employee rights, not least around working conditions and pensions.

“Shareholder value ……. the biggest idea in business” – Really?

The Economist has published a useful analysis of the place of “Shareholder Value” in contemporary thinking about business and the firm (Shareholder Value: the enduring power of the biggest idea in business*, The Economist, 2 April 2016).

The article describes the evolution of the idea that the purpose of the firm is to maximise shareholder value, its primacy first in the Anglo Saxon world, but its pervasiveness today globally wherever commerce is practised. It also cites the objections to capitalism of a society that sees corrupt and failing businesses and widening social inequality.

It describes the challenges faced by Shareholder Value. The first that is it

“is a licence for bad conduct, including skimping on investment, exorbitant pay, high leverage, silly takeovers, accounting shenanigans and a craze for share buy-backs, which are running at $600 billion a year in America”

but the Economist then argues that these are essentially perversions of Shareholder Value:

“These things happen, but none has much to do with shareholder value. A premise of “Valuation” is that there is no free lunch. A firm’s worth is based on its long-term operating performance, not financial engineering. It cannot boost its value much by manipulating its capital structure. Optical changes to accounting profits don’t matter; cashflow does (a lesson WorldCom and Enron ignored). Leverage boosts headline rates of return but, reciprocally, raises risks (as Lehman found). Buy-backs do not create value, just transfer it between shareholders. Takeovers make sense only if the value of synergies exceeds the premium paid (as Valeant discovered). Pay packages that reward boosts to earnings-per-share and short-term share-price pops are silly.

“Outbreaks of madness in markets tend to happen because people are breaking the rules of shareholder value, not enacting them. This is true of the internet bubble of 1999-2000, the leveraged buy-out boom of 2004-08 and the banking crash. That such fiascos occur is a failure of governance and human nature, not of an idea.”

The second is the challenge of the stakeholder model:

“that firms should be run for all stakeholders, not just shareholders. In a trite sense the goals of equity-holders and others are aligned. A firm that sufficiently annoys customers, counterparties and staff cannot stay in business.”

The Economist then goes on to describe the difficulty finding an objective to replace shareholder value, including risk of potentially unintended consequences of placing too much emphasis on specific stakeholder, for example by protecting employment to the point that a company goes under. It then concludes that “For these reasons shareholder value—properly defined—will remain the governing principle of firms” but with the qualification that “shareholder value is not the governing principle of societies. Firms operate within rules set by others.”

The Escondido Framework turns a lot of this thinking on its head. Maximising shareholder valuation is not an absolute objective: rather the management of a company need to deliver sufficient shareholder returns, including the prospect of returns, to secure the capital the company requires and to satisfy shareholder that they would not be better off using such influence as they have in the financial instruments they hold to replace them with other managers. This is fundamentally no different to the task they face setting terms of employment to secure the necessary workforce, and designing products and services and setting prices to attract and retain customers. The Escondido Framework also argues that other, non-financially mediated markets have also to be considered, to keep regulators on-side and to maintain a favourable climate among the public at large who may ultimately influence the behaviour of governments or even do such perverse things as consequence of their alienation as to cast votes to leave a continental economic union that underpins the welfare of the economy.

One of the underlying conclusions of the Escondido Framework is that shareholder value is not the governing principle of firms. This is a descriptive not a normative statement. Firms are managed to keep shareholders of management’s backs. Inefficiencies in capital markets and corporate governance result in perverse and/or satisficing behaviours by managers in relation to shareholders, as evidenced by the lack of control of executive salaries and value destroying M&A activity. Firms that are successful in the long term in terms of market presence, satisfying customers and being places that employees report as attractive places to work, whose standing and reputation with the public helps reduce pressure for adverse regulation from government, happen also to be those who are successful in providing returns to shareholders over the long haul that attract long term investors who, like Warren Buffet, manage to generate superior returns. The deal works this way round, not the other way!

*The authors regrettably seem unaware that Jack Welch once described Shareholder Value as “the dumbest idea in the world” – see blog post 10th April 2010

Failing the marshmallow test

The BBC World Service is the insomniac’s salvation. If you are lucky, a background of talk radio helps you back to sleep. If you are luckier still, you stumble on a piece of quality programming that Auntie has chosen to share with the rest of the globe but not with its domestic listeners.

“In the Balance”, a business programme presented by Andy Walker at 03:30 GMT on Sunday 2nd November, included a first class discussion of short termism between Bridget Rosewell, Geoffrey Franklin and Richard Dodds, following an interview with John Kay that marked the second anniversary of the publication of his report for HM Government on short termism in equity markets.¹

The essential conclusion of the Kay report [reference needed] was that there is too much short termism in UK corporate life at the expense of addressing long term competitive advantage. The top management of quoted companies focus unduly on hitting 3 monthly targets, which are a poor measure of management competence, and have been rewarded accordingly. The 1990s featured attempts to align management incentives with the interests of shareholders, but the net result was that “many people who were quite incompetent made quite a lot of money”. Kay concludes that regulation is not the solution, but that a change in culture is required, but that it is hard to know how to do this, and harder still to measure progress.

Kay expanded on the culture change required and the inherent difficulties. He referred to the “marshmallow test”, an experiment with 4 year old children. Most, when presented with a marshmallow and told that if they wait 5 minutes before eating it they will be given a second one, will eat it right away. (A celebrated study of children subjected to the marshmallow found that those who exhibited a lower personal discount rate and exercised sufficient self control to win the second marshmallow – or maybe just had the insight to understand the challenge facing them – prospered more in later life). Andy Walker asked John Kay whether he was saying that executives simply need to grow up, to which Kay responded “a lot of company directors would fail the marshmallow test.”

In the ensuing discussion among the panellists, Bridget Rosewell blamed her profession (economists) for promulgating the view that all the information about the future prospects of the company is captured in the share price, and consequently many board level remuneration packages have been structured around movements in the share price, and the panel as a whole seemed to conclude that we have spent years telling people to focus on the wrong thing. Further, Rosewell also observed that “All markets exist in institutional contexts and cultural contexts.”

Is John Kay right? Undoubtedly yes. But the supplementary questions are more interesting: why do so many fail the marshmallow test; and what can we do about it?

There are probably could be three underlying reasons for the behaviour Kay describes.

One is that, notwithstanding the experimental data that suggests that people who come out on top in later life are those who as small children passed the marshmallow test, perhaps some of those who make it to the upper reaches of commercial organisations respond disproportionately to short term signals. (Or maybe, by the time that they have reached the upper reaches they are no longer capable or responding to anything other than short term signals?). This is not something that I have observed myself, but there may be some revealing academic research lurking in the nether regions of a business school somewhere that addresses the personality types of chief executives and points to this failing.

A second explanation could be that human timeframes and organisational timeframes may be intrinsically misaligned. “In the long run, we are all dead.” The career time horizon for a typical chief is only exceptionally longer than twenty years on first appointment. Even then, the time horizon within the specific appointment is only exceptionally more than ten – and probably for very healthy reasons including personal boredom thresholds and the benefit from time to time for a fresh set of eyes on a problem. Whether it is desirable is irrelevant, it is entirely reasonable for individuals to consider the rewards – both material and emotional – that will flow from what is deliverable and measurable within their own term of office. And although they may also be concerned for their own legacy in the role, they also have to reflect that they have little power to stop those who come after them frittering it away.

The final explanation relates to the institutional and cultural frameworks about which Kay and the “In the Balance” panellists agonised. The evidence here is compelling (although I would not go as far as Rosewell in condemning the argument that share prices capture all the information about a company – the point, for discussion in more depth elsewhere, is that the prices of traded financial instruments are corrupted because they also capture information about expectations about trader behaviour (in an economist’s version of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). Many management teams have been presented by academics, consultants, brokers, investment bankers, and journalists, arguably in error, that they must respond to and seek to affect short term share price performance, and the regulator environment has encouraged rather than discouraged this. Given that the possibility that the first of these three explanations holds true for some executives, and the probability that the second of these three explanations holds true for most, it is all the more pernicious that the we have aligned cultural and institutional frameworks in this way. Instead, we need to bend over backwards to create a culture and institutional framework as a counterweight to the possibility that personal discount rates – driven by hardwired human appetites and instincts – are higher than those of companies and organisations in general, and society overall.

So, who’s eaten my marshmallow?

¹ The Kay Review of Equity Markets and Long Term Decision Making, July 2012

HBR Case Study: Do Business and Politics Mix?

The case study feature in the November 2014 issue of Harvard Business Review is titled “Do Business and Politics Mix?” At the most basic level, this is a daft question. The fact that it has been worded like this illustrates some of the shortcomings in the way that business in general, and the nature of firm in particular, is discussed. It is not a matter of whether they mix, business operates within a political environment. Indeed , many businesses engage with least two “markets interfaces” that are essentially political in nature. The question should not be “do they mix”, but how does a firm position itself on each of the political market interfaces.

The case study describes a fictional US business called Natural Foods that has made donations to a “super PAC” (a peculiarly American artifice for getting round restrictions on the financing of candidates for political office) funding pro-business candidates, only to discover that one of the candidates backed by the super PAC takes an anti-gay stance. The characters in the case study debate whether or not they should be trying to engage with the political establishment, by funding candidates in order to secure influence with the legislative and executive branches of government, and how they should present themselves to their public and to their immediate stakeholders, who are socially liberal.

The value of this case study is not the specific conundrum faced by the management of the fictional business or the advice provided the pundits assembled by HBR to comment on it. Rather, it is elegant illustration of the significance of political aspects of market interfaces illustrated in the case: the interface with the branches of government as regulators and enablers, and the political dimensions of the market interfaces with employees and customers, for whom the political positions with which the company is identified are considerations in their dealings with the company.

Buying and selling: two sides of the same coin

There is a programme on Radio 4 early on a Sunday morning, repeated late in the evening, called “Something Understood”. Originally presented by Mark Tully, who as the BBC’s correspondent provided for many years a most wonderfully insightful window on India for the domestic British audience, it generally provides a reflective and gentle introduction to the day of rest for those cursed to wake early and be incapable of rolling over and returning to sleep. A catholic mix of music and literary extracts, it is generally a pleasurable experience, but one morning in early July 1999 it strayed into dangerous territory. Selling was its subject, or rather its target. And when Charles Handy, sometime corporate man, then business school professor, and finally purveyor of folksy philosophy joined the fray, I found myself with hands clenched in fists of rage. Worse still, I switched the radio late in the evening to find something to lull myself to sleep, only to find the late evening repeat.

For what the programme failed to understand, and Charles Handy, who should know better, was that selling is merely participation in an exchange, in which both parties are selling. One may be selling goods or services, the other is also selling, at the very least selling cash that can be converted into other goods and services. The cash being exchanged is merely a more flexible and fungible form of goods or services, superior to a primitive barter exchange in that it leaves the party receiving the cash able to acquire and services that they need. Handy seemed to suggest that he felt guilty if he was able to sell something for more than its value to himself, in other words to make a profit. But, he seemed to forget that sometimes he might have bought something for less than he would have been prepared to pay for it, in other words for less than its value to himself.

Life is about exchange, about transactions. Most obvious in the commercial world, it is well recognised also in social, political and emotional domains. Without this exchange, these transactions that create value for the participants in the transaction, there would be no advantage in love, no evolution beyond the primitive amoeba, no advantage in community. For these transactions take place because they create value for the participants. What the editor of “Something Understood” clearly did not understand, but which I am sure that Handy if challenged would demonstrate that he does, is that it is not the transaction that is the potential problem, nor that fact that the transaction gives rise to a surplus in which at least one of the participants and possibly both feels that they have come out ahead but there are potential imbalances in that mean that one side or other may secure a great deal more of the value created than the other, and that this means that those who start weak and vulnerable generally find themselves selling their goods and services for only just enough to justify their participation in the transaction and those who start advantaged capture most of the surplus value. These are the consequences of what classical economics would describe as the imperfections in markets (ie without which you have “perfect markets” ) and of the unequal endowments of the conditions of our birth. But this is not the basis for saying that selling is worse than buying, or denying the value created by the transaction.

The dumbest idea in the world?

In an article in today’s FT Michael Skapinker describes how the debate around shareholder value is turning. He notes that Richard Lambert, his former boss now at the CBI, has suggested that the era “Jack Welch capitalism” – the elevation of shareholder value – was drawing to a close, but that the celebrated Jack had marked this himself last year when described shareholder value as “the dumbest idea in the world”, adding that “Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy … Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

Skapinker notes that Unilever’s chief executive, Paul Polman, has recently said the said same to the FT: “I do not work for the shareholder, to be honest; I work for the consumer, the customer. I discovered a long time ago that if I focus on … the long term to improve the lives of consumers and customers all over the world, the business results will come.”

Skapinker’s own observation on these comments, and what has been going wrong, are worth repeating in full:

“I am sure these leaders did not mean shareholders did not matter; rather that they were best served by businesses that performed well over the years. That meant selling goods and services to customers who were happy to come back, and employing staff committed enough to encourage them to do so. Doing that, and doing it profitably, would, over the years, be reflected in the share price.

“The problem has been the rise of shareholders who are not prepared to wait years, but who want a return now, so that they can sell their shares and repeat the trick elsewhere.”

He observes that the focus on shareholder value has resulted in the design of the executive remuneration packages that were designed to address the “agency problem” and to encourage them to do what was best for shareholders. However, any scheme designed to reward a manager will reflect the relatively short time horizon of the individual – unlikely to be in post for more than ten years and probably a great deal less, so in due course retired and on their way to satisfying Keynes’s “long-run” condition. In contrast, companies or, for that matter, their investors, particularly institutions like pension funds and life insurance companies have very long term, even unbounded, time horizons. It is also worth reflecting on the time that it can take to create a great corporation – building a Unilever, a GE, a McKinsey or BCG, one of the great universities, or even one of the sustainable technology companies (Microsoft is now 45 years old and Apple 44 years old), is a matter of generations.

The second issue that Skapinker refers to is interesting. It is hard to see a moral argument for the promiscuous shareholder who trades shares on short term price movements having pre-eminence over the other constituencies (to use Jack Welch’s terminology). With well-developed equity markets, the investor has a far more fungible stake in the company than most employees, suppliers or customers. However, there are parallel issues to executive pay in the rewards in the fund management industry. Many fund management remuneration packages encourage short term trading rather than long term active engagement with investee companies. This is despite mounting evidence (probably best illustrated by the success of an even more iconic figure than Jack Welch – one Warren Buffet, sage of Omaha) for the superiority of long term investment strategies over playing short term market movements.

Skapinker completes his challenge to the primacy of shareholders by observing that “it is the customers who provide the revenue, the employees who produce the goods and services and society that tolerates the company’s presence. It is hard to reward one when the others suffer.”