So Much For Creativity and Innovation

No surprise here.

speaks volumes about the Chinese work ethic as well. What’s most important to the US? The bottom line.
No wonder China is on its way to becoming the dominating force in the design world.


Lately I have seen so many articals similar to this. Mostly in Manufacturing magazines which do tend to have a heartbeat on the trends in niche areas. When broad media like Businessweek start to echo this it gives a somber feeling.

When I think of creativity I think of 3M nurturing ideas. Does 3M still do that? Are any other companies promoting creativity with a budget allowance??

…ask a u.s. manager how innovation and creativity are nurtured in thier organization and what you get back are slogans and double talk…if you want it, you facilitate it and reward it…unfortunately, it often seems that when they get it, it either scares the hell out of them or they are clueless about what to do with it…in a previous life i spent 2 yrs of r&d on a project which was spawning a new division projected to double the annual sales of my f1000 employer in 5-10 yrs…12 staff were hand selected to kick-start the program and reqs were being filled for 38 more…then after about 90 days in they yanked the funding and canned all the new hires…a year later they cut staff 20% across the board…fast forward 5 years and my former employer is owned by a competitor…sad.

Very humbling csven. Also inspiring. As Johnny Rotten said, “You first go where you’re not wanted. There’s more to achieve.”

i agree with mrd. it seems that cutting back on expense is the premiere choice for companies’ top execs mainly for two reasons.

1-it’s a mainstream policy that comes as a quick remedy in appearance but basically it only benefits a few people above who don’t care what happens to the company because:

a- they make a lot of money when their performance has supposedly improved (stocks, bonuses, etc) but they get out, sell or trade the stocks, invest their bonuses in other companies and basically rip off their share for being there at the right time before the company goes back to where it was.

i think there should be a law limiting selling and trading stocks for high execs with considerable amount of “clout” who use it to fill their own pockets.

b- it is considered old fashioned to think long term about the integrity of a typical company specially if it’s not listed in the stock market. the idea is that the company will find its way through natural selection or it’ll just vanish.

2- high execs don’t like to stay in one company and improve it. they rather fill their resumes with all these seemingly successfull carrier moves they’ve had and brag about it to others on the golf corse!

for a big company like ford whose ceo is still a ford it is different because they’re too big and cuts are inevitable, same for GM when they can’t pull it off in competition but when these type of cut backs happen in midsize to small companies the situation is skeptical.

This should be a case-study in every business rag:

Ford’s problems come from job cuts. Jacques Nasser, the previous CEO at Ford, made large cuts in design and engineering. Then came the Explorer fiasco. That made people doubt all Ford products, made the stock tank and certainly helped raise SUV roll-over’s danger in the public mind. Since then, Ford has had to spend money to regain enough engineers to be competent, and even more money on lawyers and marketers to convince people that Firestone was to blame for all the Explorer’s problems.

I read this week on BBC’s site about a journalist who reported on Kruschev’s “cult of personality” speech, where he called Stalin a murderer and traitor to the state. I think corporate America has had its own cult of personality for about the last 20-30 years, but no one in the party has had the balls to condemn it. Nasser was certainly part of it, and Fiori from HP would be another case-in-point.

Ford, GM, and Chrysler also have some serious labor issues to deal with. As it is now, a UAW worker makes a ton in pay, pension, and benefits that the automakers can no longer keep up with. Hell, their contracts state that even if the plants are idled they still get something like 70-80% of their pay and are given the option of doing volunteer work or general tasks while they wait for the plant to reopen - most just sleep in and watch tv while collectiing their checks. Propose that to the execs at Toyota and you would be laughed out of the building. Even my father finds this ridiculous, and he’s a union worker.

Even the executive salaries heer are insane. The preznit of GM just announced a week or so ago that he was making his own “personal sacrifice” by cutting his wages in half from 2.2 to 1.1 million a year - I mean my god, how will he survive!

wait - they’re making an exclusive version of the survivor with the auto execs, summer debut!

I think they should stick Fortune 500 executives or heads of government (both parties) in a Survivor Guantanamo setting, just to see how they’d do. It would be easier: I mean conditions are on-par with your average Motel 8, right? Apart from the “stress positions,” wearing women’s underwear, and having to listen to Eminem-on-11 24-7, I think they’d enjoy it. How bad can it be?

it would get really awfull when they have to ride under the belly of camels, filling designated parking meters!