There is something about this free enterprise system of ours that seems to naturally attract the light to shine on the extremes, leaving as unremarkable and unreported the everyday activities of the vast majority of the businesses around us as well as the people who run them. The contrasts of those on opposite ends of the spectrum, however, can be shockingly stark, as illustrated by the examples of two "captains of industry" who recently came to my attention from totally different sources.
First, a highly regarded technical writer shared a November Bloomberg news story with me that reported comments made at a Baird Industrial Outlook conference by the CEO of a $20-plus billion dollar international corporation who attacked Washington for "doing everything in their manpower, capability, to destroy U.S. manufacturing" and who went on to list "cap and trade, medical reform" and "labor rules."
He vowed to keep expanding in emerging markets and blamed the U.S. government for hurting manufacturing with regulation and taxes. His comments came on the heels of October figures indicating 10.2 percent unemployment in the U.S., the highest since 1983. He said that in an effort to reduce expenses his company, which employs about 125,000 people worldwide, has eliminated more than 20,000 jobs since the end of 2008.
He predicted that jobs will be created in China and India, "places where people want the products and governments welcome you to actually do something." He then declared "I'm not going to hire anybody in the United States. I'm moving. They are doing everything possible to destroy jobs."
The technical writer who shared the news report offered the following personal observations:
"As someone who has invested an unspeakable amount of time trying to source domestically made products for my 'green'...home (not because I was chasing points but because I sincerely wanted to support the U.S. economy and minimize transport emissions) I really resent his comments. Then I checked out his annual earnings with bonuses and I was REALLY appalled! It's one thing to move manufacturing to stay competitive...but to lay off so many people, STILL take your bonus and COMPLAIN about how the government is trying to destroy jobs..."
Some would agree that my correspondent had a point. According to the latest research report from EQUILAR® the 2008 combined salary, bonus, options and "other" compensation for the CEO in question was almost $7 million.
The CEO was further quoted as saying, "We as a company today are putting our best people, our best technology and our best investment in these marketplaces to grow. My job is to grow that top line, grow my earnings, grow my cash flow and grow my returns to the shareholders." He also reportedly added that we would not "see his company going out there with fancy commercials or sitting at the right hand of some president, talking about this."
Considering the new universe of opportunities that is being created by emerging technologies and innovation, this struck me as a pretty jaded view of the American business experience.
I was still chewing and stewing on the report when I caught what some might call a "feel good" television news story about the head of a different company who saw things from quite another angle. He is living the American dream by running a production cabinet company, manufacturing and selling direct to contractors and homeowners. His worldwide headquarters is in a little town in northern Colorado. The company was started in 1968 and employs around sixty people according to their web site. Like just about everyone whose business is related to the building industry his company has suffered greatly during the housing bust.
The reason their story became newsworthy was because the head of the company, who had been struggling with a possible round of upcoming layoffs, demonstrated his belief that there is more to commerce than the bottom line. Without enough cabinet orders to keep everybody busy through the holidays, he decided to pay his craftsmen to design and build high quality dollhouses that would be donated as gifts for low income children in their home town.
He explained that he felt an obligation to honor the loyalty and commitment of the firm's long time employees, many of whom have 10 to 20 years with the company, and to give back to the community. He pointed to little girls in the background of the camera shot who were totally absorbed in playing with one of the company creations as evidence that he was satisfied with his decision. Apparently he doesn't spend much time contemplating the prospect of "sitting to the right hand of some president" either, at least he didn't mention it, so it seems that he and the CEO at least share that much in common, even though their versions of doing business in this country are clearly in contrast.
Yes, I know. It's not a black and white world and I'm not exactly comparing apples to apples when examining and considering decisions affecting a multi-billion dollar international manufacturing corporation versus a family-owned cabinet shop. The laser-tipped perspective of a high grade CEO who has demonstrated he has what it takes to run circles around the operators of practically any small to medium sized company, and who ultimately is required to pass muster with a board of directors plus a set of demanding shareholders, is going to be beyond the real life experience, and perhaps even the comprehension, of most of us.
But the American free enterprise system is not just about varieties of apples and whose basket is fullest. It's about a cornucopia of the fruits of many labors. And what makes it so abundant and nourishing, what makes it the envy of the world, what makes it possible for any of us to reach for the brass ring of success...is our ability to embrace a multitude of priorities which are constantly in flux according to the ever evolving circumstances that we face collectively.
I am reminded of a line from "Blue Highways," his masterpiece of American travel writing, in which author William Least Heat-Moon relates a nugget of shared wisdom after being told that the corporate body has no soul. Perhaps not, but that does not mean that the head attached to that body cannot, or should not, possess one either.
Our differences are at once our curse and our blessing. The real genius of this system that gives us the ability to exercise freedom of choice in our pursuit of prosperity is that we are all required to work at keeping the playing field even for everybody. If we choose instead to "take our ball and go play in another sandbox" because we don't like the current interpretation of the rules, we erode the foundation that is at the very core of our opportunity and we undermine any hope of preserving that freedom for those who come after us or for exporting a better standard of living to other parts of the world.
In the final analysis, is all that really matters the size of your compensation package and how much you maximize your market growth potential? Apparently, at least publicly, some would say yes. But I can't help wondering if the answer is the same when the question is posed privately to the one person who looks back at each of us in the mirror.