3 ms·

Many of these resonate with me, but I feel 150 is too many. I try to live by the following: 1. A corporation must equally serve the three groups that come toge

by hliyan 7y ago

Many of these resonate with me, but I feel 150 is too many. I try to live by the following: 1. A corporation must equally serve the three groups that come together to make it possible: investors, customers and employees. Losing the long term goodwill of customers and employees for quarterly (or even annual) targets is ultimately unprofitable. 2. Technology is not an end in itself. Focus on solving problems. Don't use machine learning where a spreadsheet would suffice. Don't use Redux, GraphQL etc., unless you have the particular problem they try to solve. Don't cram blockchain into everything. 3. Don't use technology to solve human problems. Use it to make the solution easier. If your team is unhappy, talk to them. Don't create apps to manage their sentiment. But do create an app that helps them express themselves to you easier. 4. Question the prevailing view, especially if it's super-popular: "Fail fast", "Move fast, break things", "Fake it till you make it", "Premature optimization is the root of all evil", "Man days estimates are anti-agile", "Relational DBs constrain your ability to develop quickly" etc.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
Neat point: "the three groups that come together to make it possible: investors, customers and employees." But - there are two more entities in direct relationship: suppliers, debtor; and more importantly many externalities, like non-participants, non-customers, the environment etc.. I don't think it's practical to promote this 'arbitrary equality' ideology on everything because it has a 'good sensibility'. A 'corporation' is just a group of people doing stuff. They can do whatever they want: make profits, not, have fun, make stuff, provide some service, or not. It's entirely up to them how to determine the 'balance' between the various actors. As for many of the remaining points in the article, I suggest people can do whatever they want as well, so long as they trying to be good people. "Move fast and break things" is a perfectly suitable approach in some situations, though obviously not always.
- hliyan 7y ago
  I think you're missing my point. The reason for (1) is the idea that "maximizing shareholder value" is the only goal of a corporation. There are two other stakeholders in a corporation who get shortchanged because of this principle. Of course, suppliers are there, but consider that we are their customers (we being the corporation under consideration). Also note that this is what I follow personally and it's based on fifteen years of experience working for many companies. I would hardly call that arbitrary, and certainly not arbitrary in quotation marks. Whether that's right for an entire industry, is an open question.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    I did see your point, I'm trying to get you to consider what those '3 parties' actually are, and that there are actually other participants as you would like to define it. "There are two other stakeholders in a corporation who get shortchanged because of this principle." There is at least one other obvious group: suppliers. There is a buyer/supplier relationship equilibrium on both sides not just one side - is my point. For example, if you 'contract' for a company, well - you're not an 'employee, shareholder or customer'. But you are 'part of that equation' as a supplier, as important as customers. The other major party that's missing is the lender - this is very much like the 'investor relationship' and so they can't be left out. Remember that financiers who provide debt to a company have senior rights to assets, above and beyond the investors. They can also have special covenants that give them incredibly control. Those financiers can even be individuals (i.e. many 'bondholders' are individuals). They are not investors. So you talk about 'investors getting the advantage' ... that's actually not quite true - many cases it's not the investors, it's the lenders/bond holders who are making bank. Lastly are the externalities. While a company has 'responsibility' towards it's employees and customers, it absolutely has a relationship with every entity that it doe any kind of business with - and those parties matter. The 'economy' is basically a big web of those entities: buyers, suppliers, investors, lenders, workers, externalized entities (+government +NGOs).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by hliyan 7y ago

sonnyblarney 7y ago

Neat point: "the three groups that come together to make it possible: investors, customers and employees." But - there are two more entities in direct relationship: suppliers, debtor; and more importantly many externalities, like non-participants, non-customers, the environment etc.. I don't think it's practical to promote this 'arbitrary equality' ideology on everything because it has a 'good sensibility'. A 'corporation' is just a group of people doing stuff. They can do whatever they want: make profits, not, have fun, make stuff, provide some service, or not. It's entirely up to them how to determine the 'balance' between the various actors. As for many of the remaining points in the article, I suggest people can do whatever they want as well, so long as they trying to be good people. "Move fast and break things" is a perfectly suitable approach in some situations, though obviously not always.

hliyan 7y ago
I think you're missing my point. The reason for (1) is the idea that "maximizing shareholder value" is the only goal of a corporation. There are two other stakeholders in a corporation who get shortchanged because of this principle. Of course, suppliers are there, but consider that we are their customers (we being the corporation under consideration). Also note that this is what I follow personally and it's based on fifteen years of experience working for many companies. I would hardly call that arbitrary, and certainly not arbitrary in quotation marks. Whether that's right for an entire industry, is an open question.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  I did see your point, I'm trying to get you to consider what those '3 parties' actually are, and that there are actually other participants as you would like to define it. "There are two other stakeholders in a corporation who get shortchanged because of this principle." There is at least one other obvious group: suppliers. There is a buyer/supplier relationship equilibrium on both sides not just one side - is my point. For example, if you 'contract' for a company, well - you're not an 'employee, shareholder or customer'. But you are 'part of that equation' as a supplier, as important as customers. The other major party that's missing is the lender - this is very much like the 'investor relationship' and so they can't be left out. Remember that financiers who provide debt to a company have senior rights to assets, above and beyond the investors. They can also have special covenants that give them incredibly control. Those financiers can even be individuals (i.e. many 'bondholders' are individuals). They are not investors. So you talk about 'investors getting the advantage' ... that's actually not quite true - many cases it's not the investors, it's the lenders/bond holders who are making bank. Lastly are the externalities. While a company has 'responsibility' towards it's employees and customers, it absolutely has a relationship with every entity that it doe any kind of business with - and those parties matter. The 'economy' is basically a big web of those entities: buyers, suppliers, investors, lenders, workers, externalized entities (+government +NGOs).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]