That first one is stretching the definition of "customer" quite vigorously. Certainly beyond the bounds of the post I was replying to. A company's reputation does not hinge on whether the janitor's keycard works on the ladies' bathroom at 2am by a made-up date.
Long-term profit is not the number-one actual priority of American management methods. Not even close. As an example, look at Toyota versus the big 3 American car manufacturers. Toyota is much more profitable [1] and has been for decades. That's because for Toyota profit is an outcome, not a holy grail. The actual priority of American management methods is making executives look/feel smart, in control, and dominant so they can justify extracting lots of cash.
I do agree that they use management techniques likely to achieve those feelings. And that includes making up bullshit dates and then insisting everybody make them happen. But that's part of the problem.
Toyota is still pursuing profit. They are just operating within a larger scope of time. Profitable this quarter vs this year vs this decade are all very different goals.
Edit: And that definition of customer is not uncommon in the industry. It helps to know who your customer is.
Doesn't seem to me like you contradicted your parent poster. They said that profit is not number one and that's it an outcome, not the one and only metric. Also you didn't address their claim that USA companies value good PR and executive bonuses above everything else, even if the project fails miserably -- which matches my observations from 20 years of career as well.
Beware confirmation bias. There are certainly companies like that, but I bet there are many more that aren't that don't rise to your attention level.
Profit is the holy grail for all companies. It's not an accidental outcome that Toyota is profitable. The quest for profit is the basis for everything they do, even if it doesn't seem like it. They just picked their heads up a little compared to their US peers so they can see farther down the road.
You are absolutely incorrect about Toyota. And most Lean companies. Their management philosophy is fundamentally different. If you'd like to learn more, maybe start with Rother's "Toyota Kata". Maybe along with the This American Life epsiode "NUMMI".
This whole reductionist notion that an 80-year-old company with 300,000 employees has a single goal is part of your problem. Embrace complexity. But if you're looking for their take on the basics, start with their website: https://search.newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/all/search.x?tag=Vis...
I've read War and Peace, I get that you can model the goals of an organization as the integral of the goals of its constituents. I do embrace that complexity.
But reductionism is helpful sometimes. The integral of a complex equation can add up to an integer. Modeling planetary movements in a way that's similar to a spherical cow in a vacuum may not be perfect, but it is possible, and tells you quite a bit.
Reductively, companies pursue profit, in the same way that people pursue money. It's not all-consuming, but if you want to model behavior, that's probably the place to start.
A fine argument for you clinging to your too-simple model and your ignorance. And a good sign that I wasted my time giving you citations you were never going to read.
Long-term profit is not the number-one actual priority of American management methods. Not even close. As an example, look at Toyota versus the big 3 American car manufacturers. Toyota is much more profitable [1] and has been for decades. That's because for Toyota profit is an outcome, not a holy grail. The actual priority of American management methods is making executives look/feel smart, in control, and dominant so they can justify extracting lots of cash.
I do agree that they use management techniques likely to achieve those feelings. And that includes making up bullshit dates and then insisting everybody make them happen. But that's part of the problem.
[1] https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/02/22/...