A little bit of full disclosure here: one of my previous professional lives was in IT and business operations. In short, it was part of my job to ensure there was enough technical robustness built into companies’ operations to ensure that if there was an IT failure business could continue uninterrupted.
In other words, if one server crashed another would be able to take its place; if an ISP or telephony supplier went out of business another would be able to take over .. etc etc.
In other words, it’s about making the system robust enough to take external shocks.
Which is why I find the current “discovery” of systems thinking a bit of a laugh. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. What the world’s now waking up to is, in fact, the biggest flaw in our commercial and financial systems.
So, let’s start at the top of system theory. It’s not rocket science, in fact it’s pretty obvious and straightforward stuff. Everyone relies on everyone else and we’re all happy together. Join hands, dance around, and sing “Ring a ring of roses”.
That’s not to say that these individual nodes are all homogeneous clones. Office IT systems have all sorts of weird and wonderful beasties within it, from mail servers to gateways, printers to iPhones. They all unite to create a whole. You wouldn’t have all of these systems hosted one one server, that would be madness! And for every server you had running live, you’d make sure you had at least a bare bones backup in case it went down.
The same goes for systems of business in general and subsectors specifically. Different companies provide different services and products within a unified whole. When one company or sector becomes dominant it works against the system as a whole because you are introducing a single point of failure … a company (or server) which is so large and important that it’s failure could bring the entire economy down.
Only the very smallest companies have al their IT systems hosted one server and one server alone. Why is it that we think it’s the mark of a mature and developed economy to allow such points of failure to flourish? Seems more than a little odd to me.
“OK OK,” I can hear you cry. “I’ve got it and you’re right. But you promised us Kittens …”
This morning, after dropping the kids off for school, I stopped off at my local shop to pick up a few supplies for the day. We’ve lived in the area for over 10 years so they know me pretty well and before long the shopkeeper and I were chatting about old cats and how she had to put two of hers’ down within a matter of weeks.
“I’m amazed,” she said (paraphrase!), “How many people don’t think and don’t care for their pets. The trouble is when you take them to leading animal welfare charities (the RSPCA and Blue Cross) they have to put them down. They’ve simply got too many to cope with now.”
This, I realised, is a travesty. There is a whole kitten and puppy producing industry out there, yet so many are produced and found to be surplus to requirements. Is this any model for a business .. to produce something you know is not needed?
But then I thought, well this is a wonderful sustainability metaphor. Over supply leading to waste. You couldn’t put it in a more fluffy, anthropomorphic way.
Then I had another thought and it struck right at the roots of what we believe business to be.
There’s a myth in business that companies welcome competition. On the whole, they don’t. What most companies try to do is dominate and then eliminate the opposition.
This is commonly called “the buy out”. So if you’re selling widgets and a company comes along which has an innovation which threatens you you have one of to options: compete with them, or buy them out.
The thing is that there are entrepreneurs all over the country with bright ideas about how to make a newer and better widget. Many of these ideas should be allowed to flourish full maturity. On the whole they don’t because those businesses are then bought by bigger companies.
Such buyouts are, in effect, killing kittens and destabilising business systems by introducing single points of failure.
The second point is more easy to understand. If no small businesses are allowed to grow and thrive then how is resilience supposed to be built into the marketplace? All that’s happening is that the older, stronger companies are killing off potential competitors in order to eliminate their competition.
This actually increases the likelihood of a single point of failure being created. So our economic model encourages us to create unsustainable businesses.
The first point is just as salient. In order for pet owners to have cats in their homes, hundreds if not thousands of cats are put down every year. In the same way, hundreds or thousands of businesses are bought up in order to eliminate competition or acquire new technologies, services or customers.
Is this a sensible or sustainable way of doing business .. to kill the kittens in order to ensure the old, flea bitten tom cat survives? I don’t think so.
So I’d like to propose a new twist to corporate law, one which I hope will bring a new resilience into corporate activities. The proposal is very simple … to allow new companies to register as independent companies which may not be bought out for a given period (say, 5 or 10 years).
The principle is sound. Some US states already allow “B corps”, businesses whose corporate governance can take more into account than just shareholder value. This is just an extension of the principle and says a company, on establishment, may be protected from predatory action for a number of years.
To be clear, I have no problem with entrepreneurs nor do I have an issue with those who wish to set up a business to be sold to a larger concern in the future.
But I do question whether this should be the norm for a small or micro business. why can’t these enterprises survive and flourish in their local communities .. why should the norm be that they become an arm of some huge Murdochian (TM) empire?
That helps no-one .. it doesn’t help the social community and it doesn’t help the business community. If we want a sustainable business environment we have to face one simple fact … we have to let the kittens live.
Picture Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ki4gmb/4625279455/
Join the environment forum now !