Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin-c
A lack of 'beancounters' has closed more businesses than giving too much power to beancounters ever has. I'm not sure that's true if you weigh them according to the size of the business but it's definitely true of small businesses. Business is profit-driven. Even businesses that run charities are profit-driven. (The charities might not be but the businesses behind them definitely are-that's why so little of 'charitable' contributions ever makes it to the recipients of the charity.)
|
This may just be semantics, but I think there is a difference between "bean-counters" and "knowledgeable staff who keep a business financially sound."
Bean-counters are the ones that say, for example, "We could be
more profitable if we outsource editing." Without regard to the quality of the product. Not that editing can't be done in-house and still make a profit*, but more profit is better right? Quality be damned!
*Full disclosure: I have no knowledge of the economics of in-house vs. outsourced editing, I'm just using it as a hypothetical example of quality being a largely dismissed factor in the bean-counter mentality.
To a certain extent, some bean-counterism is needed in large organizations due to scaling issues. A mom 'n' pop burger stand that cuts back from 2 to 1 pickle (costing .01*) on a burger, selling 10000 burgers a year, would shave $100 off their costs. McDonald's,selling 23,652,000,000 hamburgers per year, would save $236,520,000. Even with profits of ~$5B, that's still 4% on just one little thing.
*Another theoretical for example. I have no idea about actual food costs, and I am sure they are different for single-unit and multi-unit organizations.
Big businesses need to look for ways to save on little things, because the impact scales up to considerable costs.
Small businesses have more wiggle room, it seems, as long as their overall financials are good. They need someone good to keep an eye on costs to keep them profitable, but you see a lot less bean-counting and more passion about quality.
Every big business I've ever seen will accept lower quality (if it does not significantly impact sales) if it means increased profits. Not the difference between being profitable or not, just the pursuit of maximum profits.
But I'm one of those wackos who sees an important distinction between achieving a reasonable profit as part of overall business goals and pursuing maximum profits as the primary focus.