Current Social and Economic Issues

GA 332b — 1 November 1921

Memorandum on Futurum and Coming Day for the Attention of Their Directors

Strictly confidential!

Futurum and Coming Day require a reflection on the principles given at their creation. Only in these do they find their justification and the possibility of their success. In both cases, these principles are included in the first issue prospectuses. In practice, however, they have been abandoned. The essence lies in the interaction of the banking and the entrepreneurial aspects, with the latter working with real assets.

Therefore, at the center of each undertaking there cannot be a management that functions as a mere directorate, but one that combines the effectiveness of the individual managers into a whole. There should not be a single manager who is not connected with his interests to the whole “futurum” or “coming day.” The present system of “affiliation” of enterprises, especially in the case of “Futurum”, places the individual enterprise too far away from the central management. Under such a system, “Futurum” can never flourish. For it is not at all clear on what grounds the individual manager should have an interest in earning money for the “Futurum” company as a whole. This merit remains an incomprehensible “added value” for him.

This can already be seen in practice. The directors at headquarters must be fully involved in every single undertaking. They must not only be familiar with the financial course of the companies and the conditions of this course, but also with the introduction of the business process itself. Only in this way can they get close enough to the individual company managers to have a heart for the company as a whole. It should not happen that a sole proprietorship slips away from the company as a whole, as has happened with the office organization.

The moment the central office succumbs to bureaucracy, the individual companies will slide from the first point, where they only look out for themselves, to the stage where they become unproductive and let the central office take care of them. Anyone who disputes that this is justified to say, forgets that this aberration is already beginning in some respects.

Without the lively interaction between management and individual companies, “Futurum” and “Tomorrow” have failed in their purpose. I cannot see that the initiative is a great one in the sense of the first principles. The nature of the interaction is always very loose. If it continues like this, it is quite certain that imbalances will arise. Because with this affiliation system, the management department gradually turns out to be a superfluous apparatus.

What would be necessary for control first is a precise overview of how much is invested in the initially unproductive enterprises and how this figure relates to the prosperity of the productive ones. If the expenses for the former only consume capital without the latter bringing anything significant in return, then the whole point is not fulfilled.

What must the cooperation between the Stuttgart headquarters and the Guldesmühle have been like, for example, if it is now possible for such a damning report to be submitted to the supervisory board, as has happened? How has it become possible for the confusion with the office organization to have reached the present state?

Only if changes are made in this regard can the supervisory board continue to bear responsibility. The way things have been handled so far must not continue.

R. St.