3 ms·

> Don’t fall for their “mission” nonsense. It’s a monstrous lie designed to keep funneling tremendous amounts of money to the people at the top. 100%. I've rec

> Don’t fall for their “mission” nonsense. It’s a monstrous lie designed to keep funneling tremendous amounts of money to the people at the top. 100%. I've recently run into this with companies peddling that they're "mission-driven", as if that's somehow a replacement for compensating their employees appropriately. If it's a for-profit company then this "mission-driven" term is absolutely nonsense because the cap tables prove the people at the top with the large chunks of equity aren't foregoing any compensation to achieve this "mission".

qchris 7y ago
I'm a little curious to see if this distinction might provide a competitive advantage to public benefit corporations. Objectively, I believe there's some literature to back up that a person's belief and interest in the work they're doing plays a role in their likelihood to work at an organization [1] (tangentially, I imagine that this has played a role in the success of Elon Musk's companies). If we axiomatically say that talent plays a significant role in a company's success, and that top talent cares about the mission of the company that they work for, it follows that a company that puts it money where its mouth is (so to speak) wrt to a corporate governance structure that seems to place that mission at least in the neighborhood of parity with profit motive, they might be able to leverage that as a competitive advantage. Of course, whether that initial assumption is correct is up for debate, as is whether a PBC structure affords enough to move the needle on perceived mission-alignment. [1] https://hbr.org/2018/11/9-out-of-10-people-are-willing-to-earn-less-money-to-do-more-meaningful-work?referral=03759&cm_vc=rr_item_page.bottom https://hbr.org/2018/11/9-out-of-10-people-are-willing-to-ea...

3 ms·

> Don’t fall for their “mission” nonsense. It’s a monstrous lie designed to keep funneling tremendous amounts of money to the people at the top. 100%. I've rec

by ssorallen 7y ago

qchris 7y ago
I'm a little curious to see if this distinction might provide a competitive advantage to public benefit corporations. Objectively, I believe there's some literature to back up that a person's belief and interest in the work they're doing plays a role in their likelihood to work at an organization [1] (tangentially, I imagine that this has played a role in the success of Elon Musk's companies). If we axiomatically say that talent plays a significant role in a company's success, and that top talent cares about the mission of the company that they work for, it follows that a company that puts it money where its mouth is (so to speak) wrt to a corporate governance structure that seems to place that mission at least in the neighborhood of parity with profit motive, they might be able to leverage that as a competitive advantage. Of course, whether that initial assumption is correct is up for debate, as is whether a PBC structure affords enough to move the needle on perceived mission-alignment. [1] https://hbr.org/2018/11/9-out-of-10-people-are-willing-to-earn-less-money-to-do-more-meaningful-work?referral=03759&cm_vc=rr_item_page.bottom https://hbr.org/2018/11/9-out-of-10-people-are-willing-to-ea...