Did the greatest professional companies get ruined
SUMMARY
This is no doubt in my mind (and biograpgies of the early Arthur Andersen) that when Arthur Andersen founded his firm - it was based around we try harder to be the most ethical (living up to the hippocratic oath of being measurably true and fair which was as I understood it the only reason why the publ;ic licensed large accountants the semi-monopolies to rule over all our working lives). Being in Chicago, instead on New York the world centre of markets, required an edge. Ehtical, highest trust used to be it when Anderson was starting up, and while it initially grew. But by the time Andersen claimed to be the most central professional service in the whole of the new economy and its knowledge management, the firm was spinning a most opposite vicius spiral from the one Arthurs had nurtured.
I have a personal experience with the ad agency Leo Burnett which suggests somewhat of a similar pattern , though of course I am not suggesting that Burnett deserves the total zeroising of valuation by society that Andersen did. Still Leo was one of the admen any market researcher or other innovator would have given anything to work with; whereas from the 1990s on, I have believed that brands 1 2 3 are incredibly powerful communal gravities but the way I charter and value them is almost exactly the opposite of addicting them to large executional budgets. Some top people at Leo Burnett implied they wre interested in thsi second type of brand consultance,,then did everything I could imagine and more to ruin what I call brand architecture or brand trasnaprency or brand sustainability depending whom valuetrue 1 2 is trying to connect goodwill branding and leadership systemically with.
A BIT MORE
My career has long viewed Chicago as a professional no-go area. In the early 1990s, I worked as a corporate brand (transparency of productivities * demands mediating architecture) valuation consultant at one of the big 5 firms but my insistence that trust and promise were valued to compound true purpose was not the global accounting sector's standard, thanks largely to AA (and the rush by the big 5 to corner a global market with a historic standard even as it became 90% irrelevant to any boardroom's governance of the future as demonstrated by Unseen Wealth research coordinated in 2000 out of Brookings and Georgetown Law School)
In Arthur Andersen, you had what was founded as the most ethical accountant turn on humanity in its last years to be the most disastrous abuse of professional (do * compound no human relations evil) hippocratic oaths globalization has seen - one who has I must say wasted much of my professional (mathematician's) life since the way I value transparency makes wholly opposite business and social cases from how Andersen flipped both the dotcom economy (it had more key accounts in that area than any other), utility (ie human rights economies) eg Enron, government -eg it advised the UK Labour party on how to come to power with a "stealth" tax which took 10 billion a dollars a year out of people's pensions (destroying the transparency of pension industries just when the UK was first to confront the baby boom bubble due to being the first EuroEconomy to recover from world war 2)
You also had a great ad agency whose founder used to realise reach for the star visions but by the time I applied for a job there after my 1996 book http://brandchartering.blogspot.com was very conflicted, profiting from image-making instead of reality making of Unique Organising of Purpose (Going global and local with Hi-trust UOP is NOT USP).
Still now I know some people who want to clean up Chicago, I will start http://clubofchicago.blogspot.com and see if the village open network models we at http://clubofvillage.blogspot.com have been using in London and Washington DC can apply in Chicago
PS I suppose every cloud has a silver lining. Around 1998, I was not as obsessed with cataloguing conflict resolution facilitation methods as I am now. Accidentally, what opened my eyes was the confidentiala privilege of reading what the top 50 people of Arthur Andersen identified as their future in one hour interviews collected at the time that Andersen was splitting off from what became Accenture. If ever 50 people have led any organisation with so many conflicts between their own future views, I hope never again to be anywhere near the gravitational fallout of a worldwide sector with such pivotal influence over what people can do with network economies a script of many iterative revolutions we have been open spacing since 1984 http://deathofdistance.blogspot.com and http://entrepreneurialrevolution.blogspot.com .
SUMMARY
This is no doubt in my mind (and biograpgies of the early Arthur Andersen) that when Arthur Andersen founded his firm - it was based around we try harder to be the most ethical (living up to the hippocratic oath of being measurably true and fair which was as I understood it the only reason why the publ;ic licensed large accountants the semi-monopolies to rule over all our working lives). Being in Chicago, instead on New York the world centre of markets, required an edge. Ehtical, highest trust used to be it when Anderson was starting up, and while it initially grew. But by the time Andersen claimed to be the most central professional service in the whole of the new economy and its knowledge management, the firm was spinning a most opposite vicius spiral from the one Arthurs had nurtured.
I have a personal experience with the ad agency Leo Burnett which suggests somewhat of a similar pattern , though of course I am not suggesting that Burnett deserves the total zeroising of valuation by society that Andersen did. Still Leo was one of the admen any market researcher or other innovator would have given anything to work with; whereas from the 1990s on, I have believed that brands 1 2 3 are incredibly powerful communal gravities but the way I charter and value them is almost exactly the opposite of addicting them to large executional budgets. Some top people at Leo Burnett implied they wre interested in thsi second type of brand consultance,,then did everything I could imagine and more to ruin what I call brand architecture or brand trasnaprency or brand sustainability depending whom valuetrue 1 2 is trying to connect goodwill branding and leadership systemically with.
A BIT MORE
My career has long viewed Chicago as a professional no-go area. In the early 1990s, I worked as a corporate brand (transparency of productivities * demands mediating architecture) valuation consultant at one of the big 5 firms but my insistence that trust and promise were valued to compound true purpose was not the global accounting sector's standard, thanks largely to AA (and the rush by the big 5 to corner a global market with a historic standard even as it became 90% irrelevant to any boardroom's governance of the future as demonstrated by Unseen Wealth research coordinated in 2000 out of Brookings and Georgetown Law School)
In Arthur Andersen, you had what was founded as the most ethical accountant turn on humanity in its last years to be the most disastrous abuse of professional (do * compound no human relations evil) hippocratic oaths globalization has seen - one who has I must say wasted much of my professional (mathematician's) life since the way I value transparency makes wholly opposite business and social cases from how Andersen flipped both the dotcom economy (it had more key accounts in that area than any other), utility (ie human rights economies) eg Enron, government -eg it advised the UK Labour party on how to come to power with a "stealth" tax which took 10 billion a dollars a year out of people's pensions (destroying the transparency of pension industries just when the UK was first to confront the baby boom bubble due to being the first EuroEconomy to recover from world war 2)
You also had a great ad agency whose founder used to realise reach for the star visions but by the time I applied for a job there after my 1996 book http://brandchartering.blogspot.com was very conflicted, profiting from image-making instead of reality making of Unique Organising of Purpose (Going global and local with Hi-trust UOP is NOT USP).
Still now I know some people who want to clean up Chicago, I will start http://clubofchicago.blogspot.com and see if the village open network models we at http://clubofvillage.blogspot.com have been using in London and Washington DC can apply in Chicago
PS I suppose every cloud has a silver lining. Around 1998, I was not as obsessed with cataloguing conflict resolution facilitation methods as I am now. Accidentally, what opened my eyes was the confidentiala privilege of reading what the top 50 people of Arthur Andersen identified as their future in one hour interviews collected at the time that Andersen was splitting off from what became Accenture. If ever 50 people have led any organisation with so many conflicts between their own future views, I hope never again to be anywhere near the gravitational fallout of a worldwide sector with such pivotal influence over what people can do with network economies a script of many iterative revolutions we have been open spacing since 1984 http://deathofdistance.blogspot.com and http://entrepreneurialrevolution.blogspot.com .
posted by macrae.nets at 6:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home