4 ms·

Bad cultures ignore values, or have toxic values and toxic social outcomes. Good cultures incorporate values, live them consistently rather than just talking a

Bad cultures ignore values, or have toxic values and toxic social outcomes. Good cultures incorporate values, live them consistently rather than just talking about them, and have good values and outcomes. This isn't just a moral position. Your culture is like code. Ethics define your edge cases. You do not want code - or a culture - that works of the time, but collapses when it has to deal with an input that is difficult or unexpected.

nabla9 6y ago
That's not my experience. In fact it's the opposite. I suspect that incorporating values can work, but it's not universal. Best company cultures usually concentrate on good work, not values. Results to the society don't matter when people get things done. I think most companies should try to be as amoral as possible outside the purpose of the company. People choose to work in different companies based on their values or other needs.
- watwut 6y ago
  > Results to the society don't matter when people get things done If the results to the society are negative, I prefer if you dont get things done. Because it would negatively harm me too.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    That's different discussion. Acknowledging that people can have high morale, and deep sense of purpose and fun when doing stuff that is net negative for the society is important if you want to improve society. When people associate causing harm with low morale, it distorts what people think is acceptable. "But my work is meaningful to me and we have a greatest team in the world".
- Loughla 6y ago
  It's not that simple. I have never been convinced that there is actually such a thing as 'amoral' decision making. Making the sole decision to focus on good work and results (presumably making money for the company) is a moral choice. You have said to your employees and society at large that what is important is money. Make money. Ethical considerations are second. That is a moral stance. Let's say your company makes widget A. You can source part B for the widget from a company that is suspected of using child or slave labor overseas. They are half the price of part B's competitor. Your 'amoral' decision to focus on the purpose of the company (which, again, is presumably making money) would have you make a very, very bad decision, ethically. Ignoring your place in society and an organizations obligation to at least speak to the ethics of the people that work there is not really realistic in today's society, I would argue.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Your example is wrong. Many companies are careful not to use suppliers that use child labor because if they don't the negative media attention will collapse their market and in turn result in less money. A better example is today many companies have no problem with doing business with suppliers that donate to planned parenthood, even though that means they are morally contributing to abortion. I know right now many of you will be screaming but abortion is morally okay, and others will screaming that they wish they could punish such companies...

nabla9 6y ago

That's not my experience. In fact it's the opposite. I suspect that incorporating values can work, but it's not universal. Best company cultures usually concentrate on good work, not values. Results to the society don't matter when people get things done. I think most companies should try to be as amoral as possible outside the purpose of the company. People choose to work in different companies based on their values or other needs.

watwut 6y ago
> Results to the society don't matter when people get things done If the results to the society are negative, I prefer if you dont get things done. Because it would negatively harm me too.
- nabla9 6y ago
  That's different discussion. Acknowledging that people can have high morale, and deep sense of purpose and fun when doing stuff that is net negative for the society is important if you want to improve society. When people associate causing harm with low morale, it distorts what people think is acceptable. "But my work is meaningful to me and we have a greatest team in the world".
Loughla 6y ago
It's not that simple. I have never been convinced that there is actually such a thing as 'amoral' decision making. Making the sole decision to focus on good work and results (presumably making money for the company) is a moral choice. You have said to your employees and society at large that what is important is money. Make money. Ethical considerations are second. That is a moral stance. Let's say your company makes widget A. You can source part B for the widget from a company that is suspected of using child or slave labor overseas. They are half the price of part B's competitor. Your 'amoral' decision to focus on the purpose of the company (which, again, is presumably making money) would have you make a very, very bad decision, ethically. Ignoring your place in society and an organizations obligation to at least speak to the ethics of the people that work there is not really realistic in today's society, I would argue.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Your example is wrong. Many companies are careful not to use suppliers that use child labor because if they don't the negative media attention will collapse their market and in turn result in less money. A better example is today many companies have no problem with doing business with suppliers that donate to planned parenthood, even though that means they are morally contributing to abortion. I know right now many of you will be screaming but abortion is morally okay, and others will screaming that they wish they could punish such companies...