With regards to a for-profit corporation, who do you think SHOULD be that company's #1 priority?

not based on what the law says, but what you think it really should be...

and why?

d

Poll result (27 votes) The Employees (8 votes) Vote The Clients/Customers (13 votes) Vote The Shareholders (6 votes) Vote

Someone could make an argument for all 3 i suppose.

Who is actually the priority?

Its never employees. Clients vs shareholders is basically whether its for profit or not

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

so my question is, do you agree with that?

what do you think it should be?

d

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

crumbles

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

could be an argument that if you prioritize the customers and or your employees..that can lead to better results which ultimately benefits the shareholder.

Im oversimplifying here, but shareholders often want immediate return and results which isn't always best for the long term of the business.

---
"though time has passed, im still the future" (c) black thought

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

Your stakeholders are your initial start up cost and financing, they will leave you or force your business to do things out of scope of what they envision because they have a set ROI in their head. They will run boards, run a CEO out, bring one in, give a CEO too much money ... etc. The stakeholders add variation to a business outside of the scope of the work ... and being so they are virtually unmanageable. They can be appeased at times, but the business does not have control over them.

Your customers, for the most part, are temporary. Ideally you generate a loyal customer base and they return for your product, but we've seen that not be true. The rate of inflation leads people to pinch pennies and always seek out a lower price, the internet has made everyone a potential customer so chasing demographics is even more difficult, and add on, the scammers and being under cut (drop shippers, ebay, alibaba) your customers are not even always people that end up with the product, it's usually just the market place.

So the level of unpredictability means you can't fully service them. The places that are currently successful aren't chasing customers, they're corralling them via targeted digital marketing, purchased consumer data, and elevating own brands to the top of their platforms, all will cannibalizing competitors.

There are customers right now that are loyal to a bike brand but amazon has skewed the idea of "free" shipping so far out of whack that they'll expect a small bike brand to offer free shipping (80 dollars cost without insurance) on a $300 bike.


In the end. The only thing right now you have is your employees. Those are the people who's lives directly impact your day to day capacity to meet your mission, to adjust your strategy, their cost is directly quantifiable, their productivity value is directly quantifiable, and their skills and network will allow you to adapt to the ever evolving dynamic or get swept in the tide. They can be your customer, ad rep, marketing, and outreach all in one, just by virtue of paying them right and treating them right.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

The shareholders own the company. And as owners, their interests should be catered to.

But there are a bunch of other stakeholders whose interests need to be considered too. Employees, customers, community, etc. But in my opinion, the shareholders have to come first in our economic system. Otherwise the whole system falls apart.

Business schools starting in the 1970s teach the idea that shareholders are the ONLY thing that matters. But it seems like that idea is starting to fade away a bit.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Fact is, those shareholders ain't shit but Maw & Paw Kent's Local Whateverthefuck without a sizeable work force.

So if Johnny and Martha want their lil local passion project to grow, that doesn't happen without that workforce.

The workforce would be useless without the shareholder's capital. They would have nothing to do.

You know what that capital does?

Buy shit.

Including labor.

That capital can buy all the product they need to corner the market.

Great.

Those boxes need motion.

Even with automation, someone has to design it, build it, run it, troubleshoot it, fix it, etc.

Money doesn't do shit but what people tell it.

Of all the resources capital can purchase, generally speaking, human labor is by far the most critical.

We can play this "X needs Y" shit all day.

Obviously, people need to get paid, and capital is what allows for those jobs to exist.

But as I pointed out, Johnny and Martha want to sell their family secret sauce. They can only be so successful doing that in-house, with their kids or whatever.

The secret sauce is a hit, and they want it to go national.

Cool.

They don't get to just sit in their kitchen with the kids and do that. They have to expand. And if they want it to expand, I don't give a half of an eighth of a fuck how much capital they have, if they want that shit to go national, then they should make partners of the people who put in the sweat to make that happen.

Because capital doesn't load boxes.

I never said anything like that.

Person I responded to said "shareholders have the least value to the company". I responded by saying no shareholders provide a lot of value, they are essential. Just like employees are essential.

Until we end up with complete automation, both capital and labor are needed for production.

>I never said anything like that.

Please, cut & paste the quote where I said you said that. I'll gladly retract.

We can have a productive conversation if you actually respond to what I actually said, instead of responding to the feelings you feel when you read what I actually said.

Stakeholders don't add value.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Where does the entity get the money to do whatever it does?

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

The company would not exist without that funding. So the shareholders are essential. They add a ton of value.

You could try to argue that once the company is stable and established, they don't add additional value. But that's still wrong. Those revenues you mention belong to the shareholders.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

If they are privately owned and financed. Or like a family business.

The priority should be the customers because they are the ones that allow your company to exist and put their hard earned cold hard cash in your hand.
______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

Private, big, small, family owned,
whatever.

It's just a term to represent the owners. If we're talking about a corporation (private or public) those owners are called shareholders. But in every for profit business, there has to be someone(s) who own the company.

So just replace shareholders with owners and my main point still stands

I'd say ownership should be the top priority. You own it, it's yours, you have all the responsibility.

You have the liability, etc. So your whims are the top priority, and this is the default IMO. That's the starting point.

But here's the catch:

As the owner, *your* top priority should be the overall financial health of your company. And I think that the financial health and well being of your employees should be at the top of that list, because it is the thing that will, in all likelihood, be the backbone of ensuring that financial health.

Philosophically, you could say that either the shareholders or the employees should be "top" priority, and I think you'd be correct, because the best possible scenario IMO is that the two are in lockstep.

Moreover, I think corporations should strive to make their employees and shareholders one in the same. Winco does this, to my understanding, at least on some level, and I've read/heard stories of various other companies. I believe there's a bread company in central CA that does this.

And those shareholders should have real equity, and real power with that equity. Not just bullshit stock options, though those can be nice. But a big enough slice that the employee has a vested stake in things, and enough that they have an actual voice.

Even a massive corporation like Walmart should make all of their employees shareholders, with significant stakes in the company.

How that power is structured is another discussion, but I think that's probably the best, most ethical way to go overall.

But someone who simply had the means to just buy enough shares to shoot their fat fucking mouth off at board meetings or whatever?

That shit needs to go.

Why should the people stocking shelves and dealing with customer complaints all day have no say, while the person who simply bought their way in gets to make these decisions?

But there are, I think, other ways to improve conditions for employees.

Strip down the corporate tax code, and make that shit simple:

Your tax deductions are directly tied to how well compensated your employees are. So you want that $0 tax bill? You get it by offering full time jobs, at living wages, with benefits, paid leave, etc, and your tax breaks are based on hitting certain metrics.

Add an employee-run association with legitimate bargaining power, cut out union dues, etc.

_____________
if racism is a cancer, black thought is the answer.

Rjcc is code for "bitch-ass troll"

DROkayplayer™

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

I too was going for employees as top priority because of this

" And I think that the financial health and well being of your employees should be at the top of that list, because it is the thing that will, in all likelihood, be the backbone of ensuring that financial health."

but you brought up some good points about employees vs shareholders and how they can intermingle..

so I agree..

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Y'all buy those labels, I was born supreme

Customers, then employees, then shareholders. If you follow that order then all will be served.

The purpose of a business is to create and retain customers. Without customers, the company loses revenue which then impacts employees and shareholders. The employees are the people who actually create/deliver the products/services that customers purchase. If you go out of order - something will be lost - for example if you try to serve shareholders first then decisions will be made that negatively affect customers/employees, while if you put customers first, then employees, then shareholders the company will continue to be profitable.

>The purpose of a business is to create and retain customers.

The purpose of a for profit business is profit. There are many non profitable/failing and/or failed businesses that have created and retained customers but don't turn profits.

A business needs a model that creates profits/returns for shareholders. Part of the model includes customer satisfaction.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

Sometimes that good is actually produced at cost to get to the next opportunity to provide a good or service.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

>Sometimes that good is actually produced at cost to get to
>the next opportunity to provide a good or service.
>
>

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

They're little different than "failed" science experiments. It becomes a potential learning point for the industry, resources are then freed up to the market at a cheaper cost, and a knowledge base gets returned back into the market.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

If a company puts shareholders first, those shareholders (through the board that represents them) will end up making decisions that are better for short term profit that can end up killing the business for the long term. Cutting corners to save money for a specific quarter, deciding to launch a product that might be hot at the moment but won't have long term shelf life, etc.

In addition to that, if a company puts customers first, and builds their culture and company-wide objectives and key results with that in mind, employees will rally behind it. If a company tries building their culture and objectives around shareholders, the employees will be OUT.


>The purpose of a for profit business is profit. There are many
>non profitable/failing and/or failed businesses that have
>created and retained customers but don't turn profits.
>
>A business needs a model that creates profits/returns for
>shareholders. Part of the model includes customer
>satisfaction.

So technically, doing that would include making optimal decisions about customers as well as employees.

Keep in mind that optimal doesn't necessarily mean good for all parties.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Something is only worth what people perceive it to be worth.

Create and enact great customer service policies.

I briefly worked for Bed, Bath & Beyond back in 2010.

Their training was such that I quickly grew knowledgeable about seemingly menial details about towels, cookware, all that shit.

Their policies were such that three people in line were too many, and we were required to stop whatever we were doing to open a new register.

Don't have a coupon? No problem, use this one.
We don't have it in stock? We'll order it for you.

Returns, a year old? No receipts? Stains?
Fuck it, here's your money back.

So they did a lot to ensure great customer service, and most of us did very well on that front because we were very well equipped.

What they didn't do was treat their employees well.

Scratch that; their store manager didn't treat employees well. The floor managers were fucking rock stars.

But anyone stuck with the store manager that day was fucking miserable, because he was a royal prick. And he picked at everything, every mistake, every imperfection, he'd hammer that shit home.

18 hours a week wasn't shit.
No benefits.
Minimum wage to boot.

I dipped when a real job- my current one- came calling.
And this fucking guy had the audacity to ask why I would leave.

There was a lot of turnover. So yeah, they'd get new employees, train them and repeat the cycle.

So sure, you can focus heavy on the customer service aspect while treating your employees like expendable garbage.

POint is? You don't have to. It's not an either or. Equip your employees for great customer service, and they'll do it. But you can do that while still making the employees the number one priority.

I (the owners/shareholders) buy your labor from you for less than it is worth, in order to sell products and services to an end-user for more than they are worth...

When you look at it that way, it's obvious who is the one being chiefly served here.

I'm an Employee somewhere, but I'm a Customer a lot more places.

As a consumer I have an expectation of a certain level of service and the way I'm being treated.


Without Customers you're not going to have Employees very long

Although if you're taking care of your Employees correctly that SHOULD translate to a better experience for your customers (Assuming you're scouting the right people)

R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy
Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017

would your answer be different if the company were a nonprofit entity / 501c3?

d

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

In a non-profit, priorities shouldnt exist as a ladder, but as a tree.

But a non-profit has different funding sources and concerns, and optics are of greater import.

The customer in a non-profit is the greatest priority there- but that means that things should be prioritized based on how well they serve the target community.


I'm still staunchly pro-labor in this scenario, and I still believe that better conditions for workers equals the best end-user experience overall.

A socially responsible business (there should be no need to defend socially irresponsible businesses) is only viable if it is serving a customer need. Before you have shareholders you need customers and those shareholders will only get on board if you have them. Yes there were probably employees before customers, but they were brought in to serve the customers.

Profitability / funding is required to maintain as a business and shareholders / board members are there to ensure that. Any efforts by them to do so however should be in service of existing or future customers. Being responsive to user needs is what keeps things going. When any party works at the expense of the customers, if they cannot replace them the business will not succeed.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

no profits if you don’t look out for the customers

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

We used to think about the people that end up with the product being your customers. Now the people that may be able to purchase your product are not necessarily the customer.

The new broncos are going on sale and people are flipping their pre-orders for 30k over asking. Who is Ford's customer? The person that got the pre-order, the person that gets the flip, or the person that would get it at price but can't?

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

--

"You can't beat white people. You can only knock them out."

Keeping your employees happy keeps customers happy. THAT keeps shareholders happy.

An old boss once said, if my people are happy, the money (in this case, in the form of clients/accounts) will come.

I live by that.

>

by order of investment

Employees invest the most and have the least to gain
Shareholders are somewhere in the middle of both
Customers invest the least but gain the most

The customer is often wrong, or abusive, or clueless. So feel free to fire them on occasion.

But without customers, there is no business... it's just a hobby.

Next comes employees because they're the face to the customer and help ensure the customer is satisfied with their service or product.

Last should be the shareholders/silent business partners. If you're doing well with the first 2, there should be sufficient profits to keep the shareholders happy.

This all assumes it's a privately held company. Once you go public, the dynamic changes because you never know who your shareholders might be. Sometimes it's the shareholder's that MAKE themselves the highest priority bc they come with substantial financial and political power to influence the people that actually run the company.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

>

Because when I read it it says, what should be the top priority of an organization that's sole purpose is to provide a return to its investors. That's the definition of a corporation. Of course a lot of successful corporation treats employees as their primary focus or even there employees but there are many corporations that treat neither employees or customers as primary but a corporation cannot exist without a return on investment.

That's why I hate the power that corporations have in this world today. If Georgia changes its voting laws it will be because corporations revolted. and it sucks we have to rely on corporations to cause the change that people should be able to cause. Primarily because the only reason corporations are doing it because they think its good business. They also think giving the Chinese government the tools to crack down on protest is good business so they do it.

Corporations doing the right thing ends with their bottom line so we should be careful what role we ask them to play in our society. Companies everywhere issued statements today based on the George Floyd verdict and that just seems weird to me. I don't want to know where Sprite stands on police brutality, because they might be saying the right thing today but what happens when saying the right thing is no longer good for business?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

I doubt you'd have to look too far back into lots of these company's histories to see things that aren't todays "right thing"

>
>Corporations doing the right thing ends with their bottom line
>so we should be careful what role we ask them to play in our
>society. Companies everywhere issued statements today based
>on the George Floyd verdict and that just seems weird to me.
>I don't want to know where Sprite stands on police brutality,
>because they might be saying the right thing today but what
>happens when saying the right thing is no longer good for
>business?
>

I hate when people look at movies from 50 years ago and say they “cringe” at certain things.

20 years from now we will look back at 2020 and laugh at some of the things we applaud companies for doing.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

which would also include employees.