3 ms·

The problem with "grinders" and taking the passion out of business is that it implicitly encourages amorality. One of the biggest reasons that Google's "don't

by Amadou 13y ago

The problem with "grinders" and taking the passion out of business is that it implicitly encourages amorality. One of the biggest reasons that Google's "don't be evil" mantra gets so much play is because it is so rare for a modern corporation to even acknowledge the concept of morality, much less explicitly name it as a goal even if the execution is imperfect. I think moral behavior can only come from passion. If you don't have strong beliefs about the role of your business in society then it is entirely too easy to rationalize socially destructive practices in pursuit of financial success. I'm not saying passion is a cure-all, there is no such thing as a cure-all and it is clearly possible to be passionate about a socially destructive idea. But from a social perspective, I think we are better off with a lot of passionate failures and a few passionate successes than a lot of purely financial successes.

noname123 13y ago
Wait, don't public corporations have an fiduciary duty to their shareholders, debt duty to their bond holders and payroll obligation to their employees. To be honest, if I was a shareholder of GOOG or more likely the via fund manager of my 401K who is managing a portfolio of thousands of publicly traded companies, I could care hardly less about the company and more about their bottom-line; because the fund manager has a moral responsibility to manage the assets of the little guys /working class/teachers/firefighters - cue the TIAA-CREF feel good commercial. IMO, this is the true banality of evil that is not talked about. There is no invisible evil man pulling the strings behind the scene, only layers of our self-interest all conveniently shielded by complex layers of capital structures and financial incentives that no one wishes to really confront the conflicts and zero-sum nature involved in it all. I could hardly care less about corporations trying to be 'not evil' because that's a marketing gimmick. I'd rather have a company tell me how they are screwing honestly their customers, employees and shareholders; there's no shame in that because it's a given and the company would instantly gain respect for their honesty.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Wait, don't public corporations have an fiduciary duty to their shareholders, debt duty to their bond holders and payroll obligation to their employees. Sort of. It sounds good on paper - in a perfect world perhaps the invisible hand of the market would make "greed is good" a functional philosophy. But that's not the world we live in - there will always be significant friction, imperfect knowledge, etc in the market such that insisting that one part of the entire system be "pure" in the economic liberal sense is really just denying the obvious in a way that encourages exploiting those imperfections. FWIW, the concept that corporations have no public duty beyond maximizing profits as a course of business is quite new. Here's some background: False Profits: Reviving the Corporation's Public Purpose http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=1056 http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=1056
- stormbrew 13y ago
  You ignore that "don't be evil" can be a competitive advantage. Certainly, it was premised to be in many of the texts that form the foundation of laissez-faire capitalism (Adam Smith, who coined the invisible hand, most notably). Focusing on the bottom line to the exclusion of all else also tends to encourage static short term thinking that leaves businesses unprepared for a changing market. A good long term investment is more than just a currently decent dividend.
tieTYT 13y ago
Don't amoral people have passion, too?
- 011011100 13y ago
  "and it is clearly possible to be passionate about a socially destructive idea"
sethkojo 13y ago
It can be the other way around too. What if you feel so strongly about your company's role in society that you rationalize socially destructive practices in pursuit of attaining/maintaining that role? I doubt passion for business has much to do with morality. Simply being mature and having a bit of empathy is enough.
obstacle1 13y ago
Moral behavior is basically antithetical to passion; it is a concept we've invented via reason, it has no meaning outside rationality. If you're making a moral judgment, you're being reasonable, not passionate. Also you've failed to give any evidence for your hunch that 'grinding' in business implicitly encourages amorality. As far as I can tell there's absolutely nothing necessitating this, you've just made it up.
- Amadou 13y ago
  I'm not talking about passion in general, I'm talking about passion for the results of your work. Do you work solely to get rich, or do you work to create something that others will appreciate and benefit from? Do you have pride in your work beyond the effort you put in and renumeration you receive? If you work solely to make a buck, "grinding" as describe in the article, then you don't give a damn about the results of your work beyond the dollars it puts in your pocket. And that's pretty much the definition of being amoral.

by Amadou 13y ago

noname123 13y ago

Wait, don't public corporations have an fiduciary duty to their shareholders, debt duty to their bond holders and payroll obligation to their employees. To be honest, if I was a shareholder of GOOG or more likely the via fund manager of my 401K who is managing a portfolio of thousands of publicly traded companies, I could care hardly less about the company and more about their bottom-line; because the fund manager has a moral responsibility to manage the assets of the little guys /working class/teachers/firefighters - cue the TIAA-CREF feel good commercial. IMO, this is the true banality of evil that is not talked about. There is no invisible evil man pulling the strings behind the scene, only layers of our self-interest all conveniently shielded by complex layers of capital structures and financial incentives that no one wishes to really confront the conflicts and zero-sum nature involved in it all. I could hardly care less about corporations trying to be 'not evil' because that's a marketing gimmick. I'd rather have a company tell me how they are screwing honestly their customers, employees and shareholders; there's no shame in that because it's a given and the company would instantly gain respect for their honesty.

Amadou 13y ago
Wait, don't public corporations have an fiduciary duty to their shareholders, debt duty to their bond holders and payroll obligation to their employees. Sort of. It sounds good on paper - in a perfect world perhaps the invisible hand of the market would make "greed is good" a functional philosophy. But that's not the world we live in - there will always be significant friction, imperfect knowledge, etc in the market such that insisting that one part of the entire system be "pure" in the economic liberal sense is really just denying the obvious in a way that encourages exploiting those imperfections. FWIW, the concept that corporations have no public duty beyond maximizing profits as a course of business is quite new. Here's some background: False Profits: Reviving the Corporation's Public Purpose http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=1056 http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=1056
stormbrew 13y ago
You ignore that "don't be evil" can be a competitive advantage. Certainly, it was premised to be in many of the texts that form the foundation of laissez-faire capitalism (Adam Smith, who coined the invisible hand, most notably). Focusing on the bottom line to the exclusion of all else also tends to encourage static short term thinking that leaves businesses unprepared for a changing market. A good long term investment is more than just a currently decent dividend.

tieTYT 13y ago

Don't amoral people have passion, too?

011011100 13y ago
"and it is clearly possible to be passionate about a socially destructive idea"

sethkojo 13y ago

It can be the other way around too. What if you feel so strongly about your company's role in society that you rationalize socially destructive practices in pursuit of attaining/maintaining that role? I doubt passion for business has much to do with morality. Simply being mature and having a bit of empathy is enough.

obstacle1 13y ago

Moral behavior is basically antithetical to passion; it is a concept we've invented via reason, it has no meaning outside rationality. If you're making a moral judgment, you're being reasonable, not passionate. Also you've failed to give any evidence for your hunch that 'grinding' in business implicitly encourages amorality. As far as I can tell there's absolutely nothing necessitating this, you've just made it up.

Amadou 13y ago
I'm not talking about passion in general, I'm talking about passion for the results of your work. Do you work solely to get rich, or do you work to create something that others will appreciate and benefit from? Do you have pride in your work beyond the effort you put in and renumeration you receive? If you work solely to make a buck, "grinding" as describe in the article, then you don't give a damn about the results of your work beyond the dollars it puts in your pocket. And that's pretty much the definition of being amoral.