Louis Kelso Case Summary

453 Words1 Page

Section 17: What is the implication of Louis Kelso's statement, "…the problem with capitalism is that there are not enough capitalists." Kelso mentioned that capital workers must be more productive in the company. Also, Kelso mentioned that the ownership of capital in the American economy was in the top 5% of the population and that during the last half century that all capital ownership is still in the top 5% of the wealth holders, there was no change. Section 26: Give three reasons why the employees at the New Belgium were angry when management announced layoffs. The first reason why many employees were mad with the layoffs was because of lack of transparency, they thought the situation could’ve been worked out much better and much differently. …show more content…

It happened so suddenly so it was like a blow to the face for them. Lastly, another reason might have been because the leaders weren't doing their job. As Jordan stated, "Leaders need to lead", in the context of high involvement culture, ownership, and open book management it is easy to miss that point. So Leaders should’ve been getting a lot of input from the people, asking questions, then ultimately making decisions, but the company wasn't doing that. Section 8: New Belgium is among the Fortune 100 Best Companies to work for. Who would be most interested in this distinction? a.) Investors can be the ones interested about New Belgium being in the Fortune 100 best companies. Investors like to invest and being in the Fortune 100 means the corporation is ranks by their gross revenue. New Belgium is a place where everyone would want to work at because they don’t look at your experience. They have a rising and improved ownership culture, a good open book management system, and good leadership skills. Also, investors might want to invest in the company’s stock, because investors want high return on investment and even good input from the

More about Louis Kelso Case Summary

Open Document