4 ms·
> Yes, you should look out for yourself first, but that doesn't require taking an adversarial stance to management. I don't think the OP ever suggested this? U
by RussianCow 5y ago
> Yes, you should look out for yourself first, but that doesn't require taking an adversarial stance to management.
I don't think the OP ever suggested this? Unless I'm missing something, here was the original comment:
> Unless you own the company, it’s not your business. Act accordingly.
"Act accordingly" does not mean "don't ever put any effort in". My interpretation was more along the lines of, "Don't stress yourself out over someone else's company", which is great general advice.
- dasil003 5y agoWell this is a reply to a reply, so it's more to clarify where my point was missed. But to address this directly, I don't think owner/not-owner is the right mental model. Having been on both sides, you don't want to stress yourself out even if you are the owner. What's healthy is to focus on what you can control and try to get the best outcome you can. Using lack of ownership stake or impact as a reason for choosing any behavior just doesn't make sense to me as a first principle. I realize this may not make sense to people who have spent their entire career in giant corporate moral mazes, but for me it's actually pretty important to have some integrity around my work, regardless of any lack of control and corporate bullshit I have to deal with.
- scarface74 5y agoNo for profit company is inherently “moral”. Everything is in pursuit of either profit or an “exit”.