16 ms·

That's an amazing cop out. Companies are run by people, people make the decisions, and ethics/morality can have an impact on the bottom line. Using "it's a comp

by tedivm 3y ago

That's an amazing cop out. Companies are run by people, people make the decisions, and ethics/morality can have an impact on the bottom line. Using "it's a company, ethics aren't real" is just an excuse people who make decisions use to act unethically.

chii 3y ago
> an excuse people who make decisions use to act unethically. at every level, the incentive is to maximize the profit margins. If acting ethically doesn't increase the profits, then any personal sacrifice on the part of the decision maker to act ethically is only going to get punished (may be not immediately, but certainly some time in the future).
- vkou 3y ago
  If behaving ethically didn't cost anything, everyone would do it.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > at every level, the incentive is to maximize the profit margins This is wildly oversimplifying. For example, it theoretically rules out principle-agent problems.
  - chii 3y ago
    While true, you can somewhat assume that the principle could have already incentivized the agent to align by assigning rewards for increasing profits (aka, bonuses, stock grants based on performance targets etc).
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you can somewhat assume that the principle could have already incentivized the agent to align by assigning rewards for increasing profits No, you can’t. This is the problem of corporate management. Management will tend to act to maximise profit margins or even the stock price is a bad explanatory model.
- Arainach 3y ago
  >at every level, the incentive is to maximize the profit margins Over what time frame?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
michaelt 3y ago
You're absolutely right; shame on whoever made the decisions! In this case, it was certainly within their power to make a better choice, and they should have done. However, if you want tech jobs to have a higher and guaranteed severance, national legislation might be more effective. After all, many acquisitions and layoffs are at companies that are in dire financial straits, which limits discretionary spending.
- tedivm 3y ago
  I'm certainly a fan of legislation to require severance. That said I'm also all about shaming bad actors so that other workers are aware of what they can expect when engaging them.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    There is no reason to involve businesses in the equation. If your goal is to ensure people have cash in the event they are terminated from their job, then have the government give them cash in the event they are terminated from their job.
    - jdbernard 3y ago
      Why should the taxpayers bear this cost instead of the business who is choosing to terminate the person, especially in situations like those discussed where it has nothing to do with the performance of the individual?
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        The government can collect taxes from the businesses, and call it something like unemployment insurance premiums in the US. There is no reason to over complicate things and require businesses to directly pay, figure out how much cash to always have to be able to pay, hire auditors to make sure they have enough cash, then take them to court when they don’t have enough cash to pay, yadda yadda. Business sells product or service. Employee sells labor to business. Government takes care of the safety nets.
JeremyNT 3y ago
> That's an amazing cop out. Companies are run by people, people make the decisions, and ethics/morality can have an impact on the bottom line. Using "it's a company, ethics aren't real" is just an excuse people who make decisions use to act unethically. FWIW, I didn't read parent post as making an excuse, just describing the reality. In the corporate world, approximately nobody is rewarded for acting ethically, and as such it's a reasonable assumption that corporations will always trend towards unethical behavior (read: any behavior that pushes costs onto some other entity, while bringing profits to the company), because that can be a competitive advantage. Acknowledging this is a first step in fixing the problem. We need to incentivize companies to do do the "right thing" - where the "right thing" is something other than simply maximizing profits - because we can't rely on "good people making moral choices" when they are incentivized not to do so.
- NotSammyHagar 3y ago
  But how? I can’t know if I’m buying xyz software if 3rd level manager Janet acted ethically, or not. There are many other people involved. Companies always claim to be ethical, in some way that might even be true.
  - JeremyNT 3y ago
    That's the point/trick of the status quo. It's impossible as a "consumer" to make choices that can meaningfully impact anybody's behavior in a system like this. The only way to achieve a change in behavior in corporations is to change the regulatory framework in which they operate. In the narrow context of the OP, this doesn't even need to be very heavy handed (unlike say environmental devastation, which is a much bigger challenge). One option would be to pass legislation that makes it harder for megacorps like Cisco to eat smaller companies. Another would be to make layoffs relatively more expensive (require better severance, etc) or to limit them during the M&A phase that Splunk is currently in.

by tedivm 3y ago

chii 3y ago

> an excuse people who make decisions use to act unethically. at every level, the incentive is to maximize the profit margins. If acting ethically doesn't increase the profits, then any personal sacrifice on the part of the decision maker to act ethically is only going to get punished (may be not immediately, but certainly some time in the future).

vkou 3y ago
If behaving ethically didn't cost anything, everyone would do it.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> at every level, the incentive is to maximize the profit margins This is wildly oversimplifying. For example, it theoretically rules out principle-agent problems.
- chii 3y ago
  While true, you can somewhat assume that the principle could have already incentivized the agent to align by assigning rewards for increasing profits (aka, bonuses, stock grants based on performance targets etc).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > you can somewhat assume that the principle could have already incentivized the agent to align by assigning rewards for increasing profits No, you can’t. This is the problem of corporate management. Management will tend to act to maximise profit margins or even the stock price is a bad explanatory model.
Arainach 3y ago
>at every level, the incentive is to maximize the profit margins Over what time frame?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

michaelt 3y ago

You're absolutely right; shame on whoever made the decisions! In this case, it was certainly within their power to make a better choice, and they should have done. However, if you want tech jobs to have a higher and guaranteed severance, national legislation might be more effective. After all, many acquisitions and layoffs are at companies that are in dire financial straits, which limits discretionary spending.

tedivm 3y ago
I'm certainly a fan of legislation to require severance. That said I'm also all about shaming bad actors so that other workers are aware of what they can expect when engaging them.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  There is no reason to involve businesses in the equation. If your goal is to ensure people have cash in the event they are terminated from their job, then have the government give them cash in the event they are terminated from their job.
  - jdbernard 3y ago
    Why should the taxpayers bear this cost instead of the business who is choosing to terminate the person, especially in situations like those discussed where it has nothing to do with the performance of the individual?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      The government can collect taxes from the businesses, and call it something like unemployment insurance premiums in the US. There is no reason to over complicate things and require businesses to directly pay, figure out how much cash to always have to be able to pay, hire auditors to make sure they have enough cash, then take them to court when they don’t have enough cash to pay, yadda yadda. Business sells product or service. Employee sells labor to business. Government takes care of the safety nets.

JeremyNT 3y ago

> That's an amazing cop out. Companies are run by people, people make the decisions, and ethics/morality can have an impact on the bottom line. Using "it's a company, ethics aren't real" is just an excuse people who make decisions use to act unethically. FWIW, I didn't read parent post as making an excuse, just describing the reality. In the corporate world, approximately nobody is rewarded for acting ethically, and as such it's a reasonable assumption that corporations will always trend towards unethical behavior (read: any behavior that pushes costs onto some other entity, while bringing profits to the company), because that can be a competitive advantage. Acknowledging this is a first step in fixing the problem. We need to incentivize companies to do do the "right thing" - where the "right thing" is something other than simply maximizing profits - because we can't rely on "good people making moral choices" when they are incentivized not to do so.

NotSammyHagar 3y ago
But how? I can’t know if I’m buying xyz software if 3rd level manager Janet acted ethically, or not. There are many other people involved. Companies always claim to be ethical, in some way that might even be true.
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  That's the point/trick of the status quo. It's impossible as a "consumer" to make choices that can meaningfully impact anybody's behavior in a system like this. The only way to achieve a change in behavior in corporations is to change the regulatory framework in which they operate. In the narrow context of the OP, this doesn't even need to be very heavy handed (unlike say environmental devastation, which is a much bigger challenge). One option would be to pass legislation that makes it harder for megacorps like Cisco to eat smaller companies. Another would be to make layoffs relatively more expensive (require better severance, etc) or to limit them during the M&A phase that Splunk is currently in.