Does it all come down to greed?

SAS workers won when greed lost

So, according to this article, SAS were very fortunate ( by luck or judgment) not to go public at the height of the dot.com boom. Now, however:

Yet now Goodnight is in something of a jam. SAS is in terrific shape to take off in a resurgent tech industry — but to really soar and reach its potential, SAS should go public, industry observers say.

And here is one of those industry observers:"True greatness requires a grand plan fueled with equal amounts of paranoia and greed",.......The demands of Wall Street would drive Goodnight and SAS harder and would give SAS the cash and stock to pay for expansion. "He can and should set his sights much higher,"

And although the article ends by saying lets see what happens this time, the whole tone is that of the conventional Wall Street inspired view that all companies need large buckets of cash and the continual threat of takeover to stretch themselves.

I challenge this view: why can't a firm grow organically? Why can't it reward and motivate its best people without gross dot.com sums of money? Is it only greed and fear which motivate companies to try really hard (too hard)? Or do private companies just bumble along being dumb, fat and happy ? Or do they do well with enlightened leadership and staff who feel they are working in a great environment.

I think that across the world there are plenty of companies run privately and run well. And no I'm not saying that is right for every company - but let's not brainlessly accept the Wall Street view of life.