This text tries to make known the changes that capitalism has had in the last thirty years,
second the opinion of several authors. It makes a comparison between different texts of the
1960s, where family capitalism is criticized, and the texts of the 1990s, where there are already
large planned organizations, hierarchies.

In relation to Objective Management in 1960, two major problems arise:
– Strong dissatisfaction on the part of the “ Cadres”
– Management problems that are linked to the giant size of companies.
Cadres, it is the meaning of the value they have for a company. On the one hand, we have the
role of “technical expert “and on the other the “relay managemen” the transmission of orders
from above and the adoption of problems from below. They aspire to share the power of
decision, to be more autonomous, to be informed of the progress of business, etc.
In the 1990s, with respect to Objective Management, they refer to the “ Cadres” as a new
social body that accompanies the growth of companies. The separation of property would not
matter, until thirty years later. This was because the desire for a lack of interest in family
capitalism had been fulfilled, and it was no longer important to define what was the most
modern category.
Managers added more levels of hierarchy, without giving any kind of power. In addition, big
business inspires fear, as it is presented as a major factor threatening freedom in democratic
countries. There is a view that sees the capitalists with points in common with a fascist
enterprise. They propose as solutions to these problems : decentralization, meritocracy and
management by objectives.
With respect to the new spirit of capitalism , the authors describe two new methods of
management. Management by objectives serves to give the Cadres the autonomy they want
and to decentralize decision-making, as this will benefit the interested.
All Cadres are autonomous but still controlled : on the one hand, by job descriptions which
allow the detailed specification of the autonomy granted and , setting objectives in line with
the general policy of the enterprise.
Now, the “ Cadres” will be evaluated by the degree of success in their work. They are given
greater autonomy, given resources and monitored for the overall outcome. In this way, Cadres
have autonomy and companies have a motivated workforce. Promotion will be given to those
who meet its objectives.
The new evaluation systems , have the same objective of eliminating preference for seniority
reasons, which rewards only loyalty and not efficiency, and also reducing the role played by
social relations in professional success.
On the other hand, in the 1960s, the legitimization of the "Cadres" had as a negative point the
delegitimization of traditional employers with criticism of their authoritarianism and
irresponsibility. Especially for small employers.

At the beginning of the 1980s, large-scale restructuring led to redundancies being accepted as
normal management acts. Therefore, a manager inspires and encourages, and the Cadres
should not be led to believe that they can decide everything and comment on everything just
because they are allowed to participate.
In the 1990s, the authors come to a conclusion: hierarchy is a form of coordination that must
be excluded to the extent that it is based on domination, in order to liberate both the Cadres
and the wage-earners. The rejection of the hierarchy in the 1990s, consists in the fact that the
big groups and multinationals have great difficulties in dispensing hierarchies. The reasons for
this accusation relate to an irremediable process of social evolution. Another important
feature of this decade is that technological change and competition are very important.
In the 1960s, there was a world represented by:
-the free and capitalist world ( Western Europe and the United States)
– Socialist countries with a planned economy.
In the 1990s, one could see the old capitalist countries facing the rise of the capitalist world in
Asia, where Japan was the most important country.
The mechanisms proposed by the authors in the 1990s to address the challenges were :
companies have to work with many participants, organizing teamwork, with the aim of
achieving customer satisfaction , etc. To achieve these methods , they speak of : Just in time,
total quality, autonomous production equipment …
The image of a modern firm is a mixture of suppliers, subcontractors, temporary staff, service
providers … That’s why they say it works like a network.
It is said that workers have to organize themselves into teams , to be more qualified, more
flexible, more autonomous … and their employer is the client and they have a coordinator not
a boss.
Teams are a place of self-organization and self-control. Thanks to this , the hierarchical
principle is eliminated and organizations are more flexible and innovative. It also has a
specialisation advantage, as a company has many functions and has to maintain those
operations in which it has a competitive advantage, so you have to focus on your core business
leaving the rest of your activities for subcontracting.
Faster information flow and innovation are very cost-effective. With the effects of learning and
information transfer between different , the level of information is improved.
The vision, guarantees the commitment of workers are to resort to orders, making everyone’s
work important. The key point in this mechanism is the leader, who has to be able to see,
communicate and get others to support him. It’s got to work like a coach.