RE: "It is not necessary to change. Survival is optional."

["Vic Forte" <vic@vicf.com>]

> Like Jonathan Siegel, the version I remember is "Survival is not
> compulsory."

In which case, it does not seem so cruel or arrogant. Just a bad joke
<grin>.

I appreciated David's comparison between small and big business (I would not
want to go into the definition of small or big). In many smaller businesses
the CEO will be the first to take the pay cut, and the last to get the rise.
In the bigger businesses, at least in some countries, it seems that when
things go wrong, the CEO gets a whopping bonus! I wonder what effect those
differences in leadership behaviour have on the work force? Does anyone have
any information on this?

> I connect what WED said to his warning against short-term
> thinking. Under point 1 (constancy of purpose) we read:
>
> "The next quarterly dividend is not as important as the
> existence of the company 10, 20, or 30 years from now."

If you own your own business you have the advantage of being able to
sacrifice profits today for longer term growth and survival without having
to worry so much about the stock market. Having said that, however, small
businesses are not totally free from such pressures, especially financial
institutions who tend to look at short term financial performance.

> Besides, in a large company it is easy to be complacent.
> The ups and downs of the market will come, but one
> may assume that the company is too large to fail. In the
> new world of rapid change, this is no longer true.

The analogy that comes to mind here is the large tanker versus the small
boat. The small boat is more vulnerable to the effect of the waves. On the
other hand it can be more opportunistic and change course much more quickly.
The smaller the boat, the more you have to think about each wave - you may
have to concentrate more on the waves than on the radar telling you that two
hours away there's a big storm heading your way. The big tanker does not
have to worry so much about the pesky waves, but even though it has radar,
it may not have enough time to change course to avoid the giant storm.

The waves can be likened to variation.

We all know that only a stable system is predictable. Does any one have any
idea whether this changing environment of which we speak is in statistical
control? If so then it is possible to make predictions, and therefore
possible to adapt. But what if it is not? If it is not in control is
adaptation any more than luck? or at best short term opportunism?

The world of rapid change that David describes appears to be one where the
storms are coming faster and faster for the big tankers. But also one where
the waves are getting bigger and bigger for the small boats. So big tankers
have to either get smaller or get better at changing course quickly. But in
getting smaller they are going to be more bothered by the waves, and find it
harder to plan.

The answer for the big ships is - control your environment - at least try
and make it a bit more stable. What can the small boat do ? The waves just
seem to go on getting bigger.

I'm sorry to sound pessimistic, but if the changing environment is an
increasingly unstable system, eventually both small boats and large tankers
will come to the same end. Some may fight harder and survive a bit longer,
that's all.