16.
Owners vs. Managers
In the relentless
attack on economic freedom waged by statists, the modern corporation has been
targeted for scorn. The perfectly
valid theory that a profit-maximizing firm will generate efficient production
for consumers has been turned into a "judo" argument against the free
market. This theory states that
the old nineteenth century firm was an efficient producer since the owner (who
wanted to maximize his profits) was one in the same with the manager (who made
actual day-to-day decisions).
However, today the modern corporation is run by "hired gun"
managers who are not the owners of the firm and its assets, and thus are less
interested in profit maximization than in a comfortable existence, while the
owners are often passive investors uninvolved in the decisions of running the
business.
Thus, according to
these critics the firm will not be efficiently managed for consumer benefit but
will result in management taking advantage of the owners for their (the
managers') personal benefit. From
this viewpoint the statists argue for regulation and denunciation of the free
market process--a process which often results in these large, corporate
business enterprises. (First, let
me acknowledge the dichotomy of interests which does exist between the owners
and the managers; a dichotomy which also exists even with a single owner and a
single-employee sized firm. The
owner will be diligent in his behavior, whereas the employee does gain personal
benefits from slacking. Obviously,
the benefits of having employees outweigh the negatives of having employees
since we find a world of firms with employees instead of one-man enterprises.)
The free market has
inherent remedies for such ill-behavior on the part of the
"hired-gun" managers. At
least four offsetting influences will tend to mitigate the dichotomy of
interests: First, any abused
passive investor can always sell his share of stock in such a corporation. While this will not save the investor
from past personal losses he can at least extricate himself from the
abuse. But if this response is widespread,
the effect of many small investors selling their stock will put downward pressure
on the price of the stock. A
reduction in the price of the stock will surely get the attention of the major
investors who do involve themselves in the decision making of the
corporation--the board of directors, if no one else--who can take meaningful action!
Second, it is very,
very common for managers to be paid in stock or stock options in a
corporation. Thus the managers are owners who will benefit from an increase in the
stock value--as the passive investors prefer--and lose the opportunity for gain
from a decrease in the stock value; a conjoining of interests!
Third, who would the
board of directors--as owners interested in profit-maximization--choose to
manage their corporate assets? A
"natural selection" process will occur in the market as those
managers who have shown their determination and ability to create profits will
be promoted to the pinnacles of corporate management, while those more
interested in personal comfort at the expense of the stockholders will be
passed over.
Admittedly, none of
these three listed influences will totally overcome the dichotomy of interests problem, but as usual, the free
market inherently has appropriate motives for efficiency. The final solution to any remaining
negatives can and is overcome by the effects of corporate raiders. Corporate raiders--the mis-analyzed and
under-appreciated cleansing acid of the corporate community--can be relied on
to serve the interests of consumers and efficiency.
Any poorly managed
firm will, to that degree, be ripe for a buyout by those specializing in
profiting by the spread between the actual and the potential value of a firm's
assets. Corporate raiders will
approach current owners of undervalued assets with the offer of a better price
in order for the corporate raider to reap the profits available from a change
in management of those assets. A
well-managed firm--one whose potential stock value and actual stock value are
already in line--will be passed over as a target of a buyout.
The problem of owners
versus managers is therefore most acute when there is no marketable stock share
as in citizens' "ownership" of government enterprises. Rather than agonizing over for-profit
corporation management, the theorists of management abuse of owners should
instead direct their attention to government enterprises.
-
Fischel, Daniel
Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and his Financial Revolution,
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995) pp. 9 -39.
-
Friedman, Milton
From Galbraith to Economic Freedom,
(West Sussex, Great Britain: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1977) pp. 16 - 29.
-
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann
"Why Socialism Must Fail," in The Free Market Reader edited by Llewellyn Rockwell,
(Burlingame, California: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988) pp. 244 - 249.
-
Mises, Ludwig von
Bureaucracy,
(New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1969) pp. 40 - 53.
-
Rothbard, Murray N.
Man, Economy, and State,
(Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1970) pp. 508 - 509.
-
Taylor, John
Storming the Magic Kingdom,
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc: 1987) pp. 243 - 248.
|