3 ms·

Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals? Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom l

• nolok 9y ago
  I think you misread my statement or intentions. > Do you believe a person's personal beliefs can align with a company's goals? Absolutely. I'm not sure when I implied otherwise ? > Do you think a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals for the bottom line? For 99% of employee no. For CEO, or other employee who speak in the name and are identified as such, no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line (when answering press question for PR, but admittedly pretty much anytime they speak for a CEO). There is a difference between surrendering your morals, and aknowledging that when acting as a representant of the company you are to act in accordance to the company's rules. To expand on my position, and hopefully make you understand me better, I'm also against doctors who refuses to carry abortion for moral belief where it is legal, and I was against the proposition in french law which would have allowed mayors to refuses to marry homosexual couples for personnal belief reasons. They are free to have the belief they want, but when acting on behalf on someone else (a company, or in my other ex. a state) you are expected to act according to the will of the entity you represent and keep your opinion to your own time. If you can't do that (eg because the view you have to defend goes too far against your personnal belief), then you should change job. > the first [that Apple's is for such regulation] doesn't matter That's not what I think I said, nor what I meant. What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising. > the second is expected I don't understand your statement here ? > Is this how you measure your own morality and ethics and how you choose to do business? Is this what people should expect of you also? That, if I say "I will represent [entity]'s views in front of X", I then do so, or refuse the task if I can't (eg if it goes against my belief) ? Absolutely. I have no intention to say that I talk in the name of some entity, only to say the contrary of what that entity believes.
  • grzm 9y ago
    I don't see a distinction between a CEO putting the company before their own personal morals and any other employee. If they're doing so, they probably should quit. In the case of the CEO, it's arguably even more important that they either quit or change the direction (rules) of the company, as they're uniquely able to do so. As you point out, if they can't do that, they should change jobs. I can see there is a bit of misunderstanding with respect to "the first doesn't matter", and I apologize for not being clearer. The "first" I'm referring to is my first, regarding whether a person's morals and values can/should align with a company's goals. That's a direct response to your "I'm not sure if that matters too much for when he speaks as the Apple's CEO." Same with the second, the idea that a CEO or other employee should surrender their morals to the company's bottom line. You seem to confirm that in your response here ("no they should not surrender their morals, but yes in the context where they speak as the employee and not the person they should keep to the company's line"). We do have some common ground as you acknowledge that there are circumstances where one should change jobs. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with these other statements, however. Tim Cook isn't refusing the task of representing Apple. I argue he's saying the things because he believes them and they're part of Apple's values, rather than in spite of his beliefs and Apple's only doing so because it gives them a competitive advantage. Hard to prove a counterfactual, but I'd think it'd be likely that Apple would do so even if the competition were doing so as well. When you make comments like "Apple the company faces major competition from companies who will directly be hurt by this" and "What I meant is that while it's great, it's also unsurprising", I read that as saying Apple is doing this (and Tim Cook saying this) purely for competitive reasons rather than because they believe it's the right thing to do. To me, that's cynical. It's not my intent to misread you or build a straw man, so please do correct me and expand on what you mean. Edit to add: I think I can summarize this long-winded comment as: “Apple holds these values and that guides the design of their products, and that also gives them a competitive advantage”; as opposed to “Apple says they have these values because it gives them a competitive advantage and that drives their design.” I read you as saying the latter, rather than the former.