6 mar

Walked another 27 kilometres, from Bach to Cahors, making a total of 269 kilometres.
The first half of today’s walking was the easiest I’ve seen. Almost flat, a lovely sun, no breeze. And good conversations.
There should be a renewed praise of inefficiency, Han and I agreed. We were discussing this subject right when we saw a few more donkeys in some fields. Julie and I had discussed the current day value of donkeys before. We couldn’t come up with something. All right, their sound is lovely, but one rather keeps a bird for its pretty sound. They, donkeys, are not likely to carry around freight anymore, like they used to. The french have Berlingos for that.
But still, it’s good to see them. They could be part of a new theorem that values inefficiency. Or rather, something that proves that the focus on efficiency has some serious, maybe even disastrous, side effects.
Efficiency is a short time solution to a problem. Any solution that is short term should be distrusted. The most extreme efficiency focus in a company might be within Goldman Sachs. Each year they hire a vast amount of graduate ‘talent’. In a relentless race to the top – or in GS-es case, to partnership status – each year a third of the graduates is dismissed. General Electric has a similar system, with letting go of the 10% least efficient employees in each division each year.
For the short term these companies might work pretty well, and to be honest. GS and GE have proven to be successful for a pretty long time. But they have dumped the side effects of their aggressive drive towards efficiency on society.
It is all a consequence, it seems to me, of the focus on shareholder value. On short term shareholder value, I should add. There is nothing wrong with shareholder value, but it should be about shareholder value in the long run. In that case it is not a story about shareholders only anymore. To treat them best in the long run, companies will have to take the way they serve clients, suppliers and employees very seriously. And looking at the efficiency of employees only is not taking them serious enough.
Mind you, I am not talking about myself. There is a good reason for companies to get rid of employees at some times. There needs to be a spark in both directions. When that spark has disappeared there is a good reason to terminate the relationship.
But in many cases it is also possible to rekindle the fire that was once burning. It would create such a more decent environment if that was tried on a higher scale. Or when people with all kinds of different disabilities were stimulated to be part of employee communities.
The focus on efficiency is a relying a bit on one trick human beings. It might be better, for the company and for society in general, to look for a greater variety of qualities.
Anyway, the miles fly by when you start talking about stuff like this. 1183 kilometres to go.