Comments on: Are you a “Top Down” or “Bottoms Up” kind of person? http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/07/01/are-you-a-top-down-or-bottoms-up-kind-of-person/ Handmade Software Experiences Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:08:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: lfmorgan http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/07/01/are-you-a-top-down-or-bottoms-up-kind-of-person/#comment-59816 lfmorgan Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:01:29 +0000 http://www.jacksonfish.com/?p=1404#comment-59816 was hoping to find what it means to find A Balance of Top Down and Bottom Up That Works Best---hey we CAN think straight if we try hard enough! Too much audacity fro the bottom up is our biggest problem and not enough ass kicking Top Down to quell it properly! I retired early (at 62) becasuse I could to escape the flood of audacity fom the bottom up - now we have the possibility of borrom up Obama--yuk! And yeah, its very sad that I am just speaking for myself still!!!! was hoping to find what it means to find A Balance of Top Down and Bottom Up That Works Best—hey we CAN think straight if we try hard enough! Too much audacity fro the bottom up is our biggest problem and not enough ass kicking Top Down to quell it properly! I retired early (at 62) becasuse I could to escape the flood of audacity fom the bottom up - now we have the possibility of borrom up Obama–yuk! And yeah, its very sad that I am just speaking for myself still!!!!

]]> By: David Anderson http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/07/01/are-you-a-top-down-or-bottoms-up-kind-of-person/#comment-59769 David Anderson Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:48:18 +0000 http://www.jacksonfish.com/?p=1404#comment-59769 I spent eight years working (in the US) for Mitsubishi Electric. After a few years of puzzling over seemingly inscrutible business decisions, I gradually came to accept this model of how they run the Japanese side of their business -- that their #1 objective is to provide meaningful employment for their employees. When you look at the ways in which this objective is consistent with turning a profit, but often inconsistent with maximizing profit, you start to understand something. I spent eight years working (in the US) for Mitsubishi Electric. After a few years of puzzling over seemingly inscrutible business decisions, I gradually came to accept this model of how they run the Japanese side of their business — that their #1 objective is to provide meaningful employment for their employees. When you look at the ways in which this objective is consistent with turning a profit, but often inconsistent with maximizing profit, you start to understand something.

]]> By: Brad Hefta-Gaub http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/07/01/are-you-a-top-down-or-bottoms-up-kind-of-person/#comment-59763 Brad Hefta-Gaub Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:20:32 +0000 http://www.jacksonfish.com/?p=1404#comment-59763 As "I grew up" in business, I was taught that management's job was to maximize "Stakeholder" value. That's often confused with maximizing "Shareholder" value, since "Shareholders" are one of the most obvious subgroups of the Stakeholders of a company. But employees, customers, and the community, are also important stakeholders in any business. Different business structures lend themselves to having different ratios of importance placed on the stake held by each of these groups. Private, VC backed companies are often (almost always) structured such that the shareholders interests are placed above all other stakeholders. Some people argue that this should also always be true for public companies as well. Although I would argue that there are some public companies which due to the nature of their business and scale, that they duties to other stakeholders begin to supersede the interests of the shareholders. An example of this would be a large oil (er.. "energy") company; or a tobacco company; etc. I'm sure some free market capitalists will jump in here and say that the market will properly govern the interests of these other stakeholders and that by keeping an eye out on the shareholders interests will always optimize the interest of all stakeholders. Although I'd like to believe that is true, history has proven time and time again, that the markets are slow to react, and the fallout can be devastating when management chooses to sacrifice some stakeholders (customers, employees, etc) for the sake of shareholders alone (Enron, WorldCom, the current sub-prime fiasco, are all good examples of this). So, where does this leave us... Well, first of all, I applaud the Jackson Fish Market team, I think they're on to something... a fresh view of how technology and online businesses can be structured. Their approach is not unique: 43things.com and Groundspeak.com are local (Seattle) examples of companies who have bootstrapped their way into very interesting businesses. Unfortunately, in technology, this approach to business is rare enough to be worth noting when you see it. But, I would also encourage all business people, including the JFM team, to take a more balanced view to STAKE-holder value as they make their business decisions. Great post Hillel! As “I grew up” in business, I was taught that management’s job was to maximize “Stakeholder” value. That’s often confused with maximizing “Shareholder” value, since “Shareholders” are one of the most obvious subgroups of the Stakeholders of a company. But employees, customers, and the community, are also important stakeholders in any business.

Different business structures lend themselves to having different ratios of importance placed on the stake held by each of these groups. Private, VC backed companies are often (almost always) structured such that the shareholders interests are placed above all other stakeholders.

Some people argue that this should also always be true for public companies as well. Although I would argue that there are some public companies which due to the nature of their business and scale, that they duties to other stakeholders begin to supersede the interests of the shareholders. An example of this would be a large oil (er.. “energy”) company; or a tobacco company; etc.

I’m sure some free market capitalists will jump in here and say that the market will properly govern the interests of these other stakeholders and that by keeping an eye out on the shareholders interests will always optimize the interest of all stakeholders. Although I’d like to believe that is true, history has proven time and time again, that the markets are slow to react, and the fallout can be devastating when management chooses to sacrifice some stakeholders (customers, employees, etc) for the sake of shareholders alone (Enron, WorldCom, the current sub-prime fiasco, are all good examples of this).

So, where does this leave us…

Well, first of all, I applaud the Jackson Fish Market team, I think they’re on to something… a fresh view of how technology and online businesses can be structured. Their approach is not unique: 43things.com and Groundspeak.com are local (Seattle) examples of companies who have bootstrapped their way into very interesting businesses. Unfortunately, in technology, this approach to business is rare enough to be worth noting when you see it.

But, I would also encourage all business people, including the JFM team, to take a more balanced view to STAKE-holder value as they make their business decisions.

Great post Hillel!

]]> By: Coalsmith http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/07/01/are-you-a-top-down-or-bottoms-up-kind-of-person/#comment-59762 Coalsmith Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:34:29 +0000 http://www.jacksonfish.com/?p=1404#comment-59762 Most organizations have a critical need for technology and knowledge workers. They provide the technology, innovation, product development, and other resources essential to twenty-first century business success. When the Geeks understands how their work relates to the business context, they have a better chance to become an integral and committed part of providing business solutions. To the Geek, it is an opportunity to engage in a favorite pursuit--that of solving a puzzle. To the Geeks, almost everything is a puzzle. They are willing to expend high energy and what ever time is necessary to solve the puzzle. When the puzzle solutions lead to new products or new customer service computer software, it is rewarding for the Geeks and profitable for the business. Most organizations have a critical need for technology and knowledge workers. They provide the technology, innovation, product development, and other resources essential to twenty-first century business success. When the Geeks understands how their work relates to the business context, they have a better chance to become an integral and committed part of providing business solutions. To the Geek, it is an opportunity to engage in a favorite pursuit–that of solving a puzzle. To the Geeks, almost everything is a puzzle. They are willing to expend high energy and what ever time is necessary to solve the puzzle. When the puzzle solutions lead to new products or new customer service computer software, it is rewarding for the Geeks and profitable for the business.

]]>