Read till just after the WW1. Pharmaceuticals industry was historically closely related with the chemicals industry. Camphor, rubber, oil, coal, wood and turpentine oil were some key raw materials. The growth of pharmaceuticals as an important part of the economy has been phenomenal. The demarcation between a purely "chemicals" based business and pharmaceuticals was a blurry one. IG Farben, Bayer and Merck come up as the big German players in the industry. In context of the book, Du Pont also comes up as a major player; a name that before reading this book I had associated more closely with chemicals and its close relation with GM. Schering, though a smaller player, comes across an important player with many innovations, including economically viable synthetic camphor, attributed to it. Its contribution to photography chemicals and contrasting agents also stands out.
Nevertheless, I find the company a bundle of contradictions. Its innovations contrast sharply with its conservative, inward looking, relationships based approach. The way it resisted international investments and engaged in cartels are not exactly the hallmarks of a confident company. I understand that nationalistic passions were running pretty high at that point of time in the history. Germany's bitter experience with WW1 did not help things either. Nevertheless, the fearful attitude and shortage of good managers did affect the growth negatively. Relating it with the history of Deutsche Bank, I also feel that relying on private contacts and relationships was very much a part of business in those days. So much for merit, intelligence and hard-work. Connections and being in the right family could be the making or breaking point. It is good to note that in today's world the number of opportunities has increased, though not equally in all countries. I am not sure if nepotism and elitism will ever go away, but information technology advances have definitely enabled and empowered people to start a business more easily. Three cheers for IT!
Finally, after reading a lot of sugar-coated management books, it is good (though a bit bitter) to read a book grounded in facts. Hard-nosed realism. The complexity and shades of grey that it brings out are, well, enlightening. The sooth-sayers are not wrong, but it is good to know and realize that not everybody is in business with the same motive. Business history ultimately judges a company by its ability to build perception and the end results. It also brings out the role of politics and luck in the life of an enterprise. It demonstrates that there can be umpteen ways to reach the same place, and it is alright as long as you are willing to make the journey.
Nevertheless, I find the company a bundle of contradictions. Its innovations contrast sharply with its conservative, inward looking, relationships based approach. The way it resisted international investments and engaged in cartels are not exactly the hallmarks of a confident company. I understand that nationalistic passions were running pretty high at that point of time in the history. Germany's bitter experience with WW1 did not help things either. Nevertheless, the fearful attitude and shortage of good managers did affect the growth negatively. Relating it with the history of Deutsche Bank, I also feel that relying on private contacts and relationships was very much a part of business in those days. So much for merit, intelligence and hard-work. Connections and being in the right family could be the making or breaking point. It is good to note that in today's world the number of opportunities has increased, though not equally in all countries. I am not sure if nepotism and elitism will ever go away, but information technology advances have definitely enabled and empowered people to start a business more easily. Three cheers for IT!
Finally, after reading a lot of sugar-coated management books, it is good (though a bit bitter) to read a book grounded in facts. Hard-nosed realism. The complexity and shades of grey that it brings out are, well, enlightening. The sooth-sayers are not wrong, but it is good to know and realize that not everybody is in business with the same motive. Business history ultimately judges a company by its ability to build perception and the end results. It also brings out the role of politics and luck in the life of an enterprise. It demonstrates that there can be umpteen ways to reach the same place, and it is alright as long as you are willing to make the journey.
No comments:
Post a Comment