4 ms·

To be fair, so many fast growing startups would tick multiple of their 7 boxes. Have you sanity checked it the other way (false positive)?

neltnerb 3y ago
They don't define "ethical collapse" in terms of the company failing to make money. I imagine a fast growing startup could behave unethically without anyone really noticing (or at least saying anything) for a while.
gen220 3y ago
Uber was on the cusp on a bunch of these (numbers pressure, fear/silence, big CEO, innovation, goodness atoning for evil). I think fear/silence tilting + strong governance forced Kalanick out and saved the company. WeWork had every single one of these, and governance ultimately was too little too late to save the company. AirBnb, Stripe had a few of these, but turned out OK. It seems like the common variable that spares startups from ethical collapse is good board governance and having a reasonable / willing to evolve CEO. FB is an interesting case, because they check most of these boxes (maybe not fear/silence?), yet are fairly "successful". Governance isn't the explanatory variable, since Zuck has 90% of voting shares. The explanatory variable seems to be Zuck's willingness to listen to and learn from a board and his execs.
- petsfed 3y ago
  I'd argue that "successful" is a poor measure of how ethical a company is. AirBnb has managed to shake off some pretty bad ethical issues. Facebook was credibly implicated in a genocide, and Instagram in particular (and social media in general) has been causally linked to increased rates of juvenile suicide.
  - gen220 3y ago
    Oh for sure, that's why I put "successful" in scare quotes. As mentioned, FB checks pretty much every one of the "ethical collapse" boxes with a bolded checkmark. That they've managed to be successful financially in spite of that fact (so far!) is pretty singular. That's a rare group. Not saying it's one to emulate, though, far from it.

neltnerb 3y ago

They don't define "ethical collapse" in terms of the company failing to make money. I imagine a fast growing startup could behave unethically without anyone really noticing (or at least saying anything) for a while.

gen220 3y ago

Uber was on the cusp on a bunch of these (numbers pressure, fear/silence, big CEO, innovation, goodness atoning for evil). I think fear/silence tilting + strong governance forced Kalanick out and saved the company. WeWork had every single one of these, and governance ultimately was too little too late to save the company. AirBnb, Stripe had a few of these, but turned out OK. It seems like the common variable that spares startups from ethical collapse is good board governance and having a reasonable / willing to evolve CEO. FB is an interesting case, because they check most of these boxes (maybe not fear/silence?), yet are fairly "successful". Governance isn't the explanatory variable, since Zuck has 90% of voting shares. The explanatory variable seems to be Zuck's willingness to listen to and learn from a board and his execs.

petsfed 3y ago
I'd argue that "successful" is a poor measure of how ethical a company is. AirBnb has managed to shake off some pretty bad ethical issues. Facebook was credibly implicated in a genocide, and Instagram in particular (and social media in general) has been causally linked to increased rates of juvenile suicide.
- gen220 3y ago
  Oh for sure, that's why I put "successful" in scare quotes. As mentioned, FB checks pretty much every one of the "ethical collapse" boxes with a bolded checkmark. That they've managed to be successful financially in spite of that fact (so far!) is pretty singular. That's a rare group. Not saying it's one to emulate, though, far from it.