The sickness of American economy followed by that of the Euro-zone should be an adequate reason to re-examine the role and necessity of the big corporations. Big corporations become bigger by working ruthlessly on the doctrine of ‘shareholder value appreciation’. It was this doctrine which compelled most of the American corporations to engage ‘non-American value drivers’ from across the globe through various designs; be it at the cost of American jobs, American vendors or even American bankers. An American conglomerate would always advocate its ‘global business model’ sighting the reality of world as a global business market. Apparently (and perhaps philosophically) this may sound correct but in the long-run this advocacy proved to be more damaging than being advantageous to the American economy.

A fundamental question should be raised about the ‘net contribution’ a big corporation makes to the economy of its home country. Otherwise, the rich shareholders and the fat commission-earning top executives would keep on using the company’s business model only to their ‘special advantage’. A big corporation would use different countries for different advantages based on their competitiveness and not really bother about any national boundaries or love for home country. This may be ‘ruthlessly correct’ but may not be in the basic interest of the home country. This looks so ironic that a global super-power like the US is suffering from its own doctrine – ‘go, rule the globe!’

What is most dangerous of the new arrangement is a big corporation would apply the rule of ‘use & throw’. It may use a country’s resources as long as those are available in plenty and at a cheaper cost. For example, a giant organization exploring and emptying the oil reservoirs of a poor country would abandon it once the ‘perishable natural stocks’ are completely exploited. The country, as a result, would suffer on most of the fundamental parameters. Look at the gulf countries. Their oil stocks are fast depleting and they do not have any visible alternate economic activities. These countries were never advised by the big global corporations about ‘people’s competency development’ to meet new challenges of tomorrow after the oil stocks vanish.

There are other types of big corporations which are mostly domestic and have grown with governmental patronage. These too are to be evaluated separately by thorough enquiring into their role and the resulting net contribution they make to their nation’s economy. In other words, we need to raise a question that ‘how much these gigantic corporations take from the nation and how much they give back’. The ordinary or traditional accounting method wouldn’t be efficient to capture this significant data and measure the ‘net contribution’ made by a big domestic corporation. Such a measurement would require ‘Holistic Contribution Accounting’ (HCA, as I name it!). HCA will have to be developed as a special method to measure the ‘real net contribution’ made by a giant business group to the nation’s economy. It is simply not correct to admire a corporation just because it contributes a lot to the nation’s tax kitty. It is also not appropriate to call such a corporation ‘great’ simply because its share in the ‘gross domestic production’ is considerable. The very vital point here is, accurate accounting of the advantages of big corporations to the nation, which are systematically propagated through media and the benefits enjoyed by these corporations, which are systematically hidden from the common man.

It is very interesting and ironical that almost 90% of the employees of the ‘mighty’ companies are ‘corporate robots’. This is a worldwide phenomenon. These robots pretend to behave like ‘roaring tigers’ outside their organizations taking due and undue advantage of the mighty image of their corporations. In reality, they behave and perform like ‘rats’ inside their departments without any complete exposure to the wholesomeness of their ‘great’ (?) organizations. Now, one would argue clinically that a mighty company’s structure being complex and huge, employees have to function systematically and they look robots. Of course, this is half truth and hence this argument is a convenient rescue from the ‘doctrine of real entrepreneurship’.

Basically, there are four types of mighty companies. The first is with the might of ‘big brands’. 90% of the profits are made by the global brands, which are nurtured and supervised by 10% intelligent employees. The rest 90% employees behave like ‘care-taking nurses’ who robotically perform through the well defined processes. The systemic rigidity is so excessive here that these employees do not (and need not) think parallel. They stick to their jobs lifelong because they would not get branded salaries elsewhere.

The second mighty category is based on the sheer volume. A corporation having grown in size for various reasons (like first entry to market) enjoys ‘size-based monopoly’. Normally 50% of its products generate profit, 30% are at break-even point and the remaining 20% incur losses. Overall, this ‘elephant’ moves on. Naturally, majority of the employees behave like ‘delivery boys’. Size brings in arrogance and lethargy. Obviously, the organization dies slowly under its own pressure. The ‘slow death’ takes years offering enough time to the ‘delivery boys’ to complete their so called career nicely!

The third type of mighty corporation is a ‘government-owned business’. Ministers and bureaucrats do not simply allow the ‘inside employees’ of these corporations to perform entrepreneurially. In the name of ‘memorandum of understanding’ and ‘public sector ethos’, the employees are very often denied any flexibility to apply innovation and offer better results. Of course, most of the government-owned corporations either enjoy monopoly or enjoy excessive governmental patronage. This obviously leads to a ‘robotic’ behaviour!

The fourth mighty category is an obvious version of aggression, coercion and manipulations. A corporation becomes mighty by manipulating (and corrupting) the entire system. These corporations terrorise the entire environment and attain growth. They enjoy ‘political patronage’ on all the fronts. The very business model here is based on ‘unethical networking’. A corporation indulging in such a model, conveniently differentiates between the ‘manipulators’ and the ‘executors’. Here the manipulators possess the ‘core competence’ of managing the government (and crushing the competition). Obviously, the executors work on routine tasks with tough targets. The robots are paid much more than the industry average so that they continue performing under terrible stress. Interestingly the manipulators perform like ‘hurdle managers’ and see that the ‘robots’ complete their tasks without any hindrances. A typical organizational structure of this most dangerous mighty category may be illustrated as follows –

America has offered many great consulting firms to the world, especially in the area of business management. Yet a million dollar question remains unanswered – why many American corporations have failed to perform during the last decade. Quite a few from the “Fortune 500” list lost their ‘iconic’ reputation. Mr. Barak Obama is confused about the exact course of action the American corporations should follow. These great consulting firms are not doing something noteworthy when the nation is suffering. The fundamental question that should be raised ruthlessly (and courageously) is about the reasons why consultants do not deliver.

In my opinion, there are five major reasons for the consultants not delivering. The foremost reason is a consultant’s ‘branded image’. A branded consultant becomes introvert, refuses to adapt & learn new capabilities, does not show respect for others’ viewpoints and becomes arrogant enough to neglect the ideas offered by young executives from the client’s organization. The branding becomes so excessive that the consultant develops a self-destructive feeling of ‘fear of failure’. Quite a few global consulting firms try to use same ‘medicine’ for different types of ‘patients’ i.e. helpless clients! The consultant expects that the client should adopt and adapt to the application of ‘generic medicine’ offered by these ‘global doctors’.

The second reason for a consultant’s non-performance is the incompetence of his client. Very often a client does not describe his requirement clearly. Some clients do not know how to use the services of a consultant. A few clients are so confused about their own agenda that a consultant is compelled to give-up the assignment in the middle of the journey. A few clients depute incompetent coordinators who mess-up the assignment. Sometimes, a client’s subordinate suffers from the feeling of getting exposed on account of consultant’s better capabilities. This feeling of insecurity causes sabotage! Consultants too get tempted to take undue advantage of client’s incompetence and deliver sub optimally.

The third very serious reason for a consultant’s failure is ‘corruption’. Worldwide, many consulting firms get their assignments through corrupt ways. A few branded firms too resort to these unethical practices. Many government-owned enterprises hire consultants to hide their ill-performances. CEOs are so handsomely bribed by a few consulting firms that the assignments are ultimately conducted as a farce. Sophisticated methods of bribing are use so that the unhealthy nexus between client and consultant could never be noticed. There is a growing practice of a consultant sharing his fees with a few insiders who influence the decision about his recruitment. A few consulting firms use the kiths and kins of the ruling politicians and bureaucrats to get governmental assignments. Obviously the reports submitted by such consultants are never made available for public feedback or open discussion.

The fourth reason is observed in an innovative use of a consultant. In complex organizations, two warring groups often use a consultant to resolve their disputes. A few CEOs shoot at their internal enemies by using the external consultants. Political use of a consultant is regularly observed in many public sector enterprises. Globally branded consulting names are widely used to convince the critics from media, opposition parties, investigating agencies and civil societies. A few big names are also used for bigger games of ‘privatising’ the public wealth accumulated in the governmental-owned enterprises.