Gorilla Policy by Both Sides
The best chief executive will say the greatest asset of the organization is the people. While consider cliché, it is true. If the product is mediocre, features passe, quality only passable, a good leader will change those things and be quick to accept blame if solutions fail. The people are only as good as the tools and environment in which they are placed, if these are weak, the best leadership will only keep them in the game, it won’t allow them to gain. Good leadership is important, but it is not the only variable. The best leaders change the product, process, players or anything else.
Switch to government and while many will tell you it should not be run like a business, the short answer is it contains many of the same elements (revenues, expenses, employees, AND customers). I certainly do not believe it should make a profit, but it should do its best to provide a quality service at an affordable price. If policy decisions equate to the product or service and corresponding delivery of product or service, in my lifetime it has achieved neither. Unlike a business, the government does not have competition, this is why it requires oversight; to ensure the product it delivers is meeting customers’ needs at an acceptable quality and speed.
When government decides what I should hear, watch, read and converse about through any medium, people should be terrified, and angry. If a private company wants to implement similar controls, in a capitalistic society, I will simply move to a different vendor who doesn’t insist on these controls. If all vendors adopt these controls, we need more competition and a new organization should step up and fill the void. This is how capitalism generally works. A need is identified, filled and customers are happy.
When the government stepped in and through its existing, or newly created, policies made it prohibitive for competition to engage with existing organizations, it is a problem. This policy setting has been going on for years. People have written books, articles, discussed it on talk shows, and made presentations in an attempt to explain the dangers of these policies. Few cared and fewer were willing to help lead the fight to change, anything. This includes both political parties. The old saying, you reap what you sow, appears pertinent (see my article on the Other AI).
Occasionally talk emerges about breaking up large corporations and while this may appear like a great solution, how about policy changes to ensure an environment where competitors can flourish. If the rules are the same for three new companies created from the original behemoth, the same restrictions exist for the customer. No new product has emerged. The restrictions are embedded in policy and an illusion of change is created with the reorganization, but only an illusion. When competitors are created by the government, this should outrage people.
What prevents the creation of a new “x”? What regulations or restrictions are faced when creating a competing product? The proverbial 800 pound gorilla wants to ensure policies are always in its favor. It is just good business. Herein lies one of the problems. The Silverback will not pursue change that damage its position, to the contrary, it will pursue policies that secure its dominance and impede rivals: To achieve this it supports and protects the policy leaders, or as commonly referred – politicians. Policy leaders are kept in position by the power wielded by the Silverback. It is incestuous. A brief look at the past many decades of policy will confirm this relationship, party affiliation is extraneous and action continual. A debate over which party did more damage is useless, both are culpable. The citizenry the victims.
If the goal is change, why seek the help of the leaders who created these policies? Not to be melodramatic, but history – and existing policy – shows neither party has the citizen’s best interest in mind. What motivation is there to start assuming either party will change now? If people want change, they need to step up and stop assuming a political party will help. Before completing a ballot, the platform and path should be clear.