It’s no longer about people, it’s about greed.
Don Dodge’s provides his perspective on1 Marc Andreessen’s2 “The Pmarca Guide to Big Companies, part 1: Turnaround!“. Both posts seem really good assuming this topic is of interest to you. At first I thought it was not of interest to me, but then I rethought that. It is important to understand how these leaders and other leaders think.
One part of the analysis stings for me:
5. Lay off a third of the work force. Tough but necessary. I was at DEC back in 1990 when layoffs happened every quarter for several years. There is nothing more debilitating and demoralizing than constant layoffs. Cut once and cut deep.
Tough, but necessary!? How can share holders’ money be more important than people’s lives?
That is no way to treat our brothers and sisters. You have lost your perspective if you are not smart and creative enough to figure out a long term plan that takes care of the people you are responsible for. A company that is too large to treat their employees as individuals is sick — and there are far too many sick companies like this.3
Empathy doesn’t scale, so until we find a working model where greed does not dictate, I will try to stay away from large companies.
August 21st Update: I have received a few emails asking what can be done if you can’t get out. I have found a few resources, so you can at least laugh at your situation:
- The Art of Demotivation
and other resources from Despair, Inc
- Dilbert and Scott Adam’s blog
What helps you get through your day working at a large company?
- I highly recommend Don Dodge’s blog as a daily read because of his concise, relevant insights. Most often contrary to my own views. [↩]
- I recently wrote Marc Andreessen is on Fire! [↩]
- I can’t imagine wanting to work for Microsoft, a company lead by Steve “the rest are gone” Ballmer. [↩]
- Drama Queens (And Kings!)
- Mad Scientists Missing Supplies
- A Rug to Keep Little Bottoms Off the Floor!
22 Comments
The point of a company is to return profit to its shareholders. It’s unreasonable to expect that companies will act “morally”. They’re in face prohibited from acting in ways that work counter to returning profit to shareholders. As a society it’s our responsibility to ensure companies are legally obliged to behave morally.
Ian, I can smell the cynicism from here. I have heard this before for public company, and know it to be true, but still can’t believe it
This seems like an easy problem to solve if enough people want it solved.
I think the fact that we expect social morality to come out of private enterprise is evidence of the failure of our democratic system to express our society’s moral code. I don’t know what to do about that though as winning elections these days seems to be more about finding the moral issues that divide our societies rather than the ones that unite us.
Man I would have had more fun if I’d studied Politics and Philosophy instead of Engineering and CS…
Wow Ian, you express that well.
Good post!
Seems like the companies are getting more and more similarities with Dilbert comics.
Have you seen the news about IBM maybe laying off 100,000 US employees? They can replace them cheaper with off-shore folks. 100K is truly eye-popping.
While I believe that the company has to return profit to its shareholders, one of the primary reason why a company is stable, is because it is also taking good care of its stakeholders: the investors, the customer and employees. I share the sentiments of those north americans who were laid off from their jobs because of off-shore business. (this may sound ironic because I am a filipina working in a call center for leading telecoms comapny in midwest US).
thet, I think that is the rub. Most people are too busy to care if they are being taken care of as a customer or as an employer. Until we start putting people before cost in our individual lives, nothing will change. As Ian says so well, “as a society it’s our responsibility to ensure companies are [...] obliged to behave morally.”
I think Ian nailed it in a couple of dimensions (structurally: a corp. is legally required to maximize shareholder gain; meta: where is the balancing force from our government?). No easy answers but keep on questing Lloyd.
What about looking at how these companies are built–what are the driving forces behind them? Doesn’t that have a lot to do with how they react to changing times? I agree that as a society we should not tolerate immoral corporate behavior; unfortunately, it seems only the government has the power to regulate such things, but they do it so poorly. I think these issues stem from a really deep place in human nature, and addressing the origins is the only way to find a true solution.
Large companies are for those who would want to relax, at the same time aware of the risks.
If you are good in your area of work, the best thing to do is to join a small company. There is a better return on your work!
Society, corporations, small businesses, government, even families are comprised of individuals.
As each individual has the courage to express their moral conviction, rather than flapping in the breeze of the latest news, you will see morally sound decisions in the larger groups listed above.
Blaming the larger groups is not affirmative, creative or positive. We each have the ability to take action and we must, else we have no moral authority to blame others.
So, the debate is not about which size entity is the most morally reprehensible, it is about each individual and the choices that you make.
Thank you Jim for the provocative perspective. It doesn’t change my mind though, because almost all of the evidence doesn’t support your idealistic perspective.
As I wrote we have a system that encourages individuals to hide behind organizational identifies, and put executives and stoke holders (including themselves) before all the people that are really responsible for the successful of an organization.
PS. It is a bit ironic, that you didn’t provide an “individual” web address.
I worked for a very large mutual fund company in the technology area and before that for two different multi-national hospitality industry leaders and never imagined working for myself. I have been laid off more than once in my career.
I have worked for myself for over 5 years now, there is no partner in JBS Partners, and love the responsibility to make things work, creativity in how to get it done, flexibility in when it gets done, the satisfaction when a successful and lasting project is completed.
But, most of all I appreciate the opportunity to practice trusting my intuition in each decision. There is not a published corporate guideline or policy book in my business. It’s just me trying to do the right thing at each step of the way. I ask myself, would I be proud to have this engagement detailed on the cover of the New York Times? If the vendor/client relationship were reversed, would I be pleased?
Now, birds of a feather flock together. So, I tend to work with like minded vendors.
I believe that one could hide from responsible decision making as a solo entrepreneur, just as well as that same individual could hide from responsible decision making in a large business or government entity.
Companies like ServiceMaster are comprised of individuals that run a morally based operation and make a profit for the shareholders.
Tour de France leader Michael Rasmussen was part of a team that put the truth/integrity ahead of winning.
Each of these entities have responsibilities to corporate leadership, but they still made the tough decisions.
So, my point remains that it is the individuals that bear the responsibility to make good decisions. We can’t blame the entity they are a part of.
I hope that this is clearer, second time around, and not so ironic. This is an important topic. I remain grateful that it is being discussed here and elsewhere.
Jim, your points are very insightful!
It is most definitely the individuals that bear the responsibility to make good decisions.
Consider the language that large organizations use? It is not the language of individuals that can be help accountable for their decisions with the support of their organization. It is a language of hiding behind an organization, with no accountability.
Empathy doesn’t scale. Shouldn’t we have systems in place that help people succeed?
In your own web site, why isn’t your service offerings about working with Jim Spencer?
Lloyd, the language you describe is present in many large entities. Your point is valid. It is not in all large entities. In fact, it is present in many small entities as well, as you pointed out.
You introduced the term empathy. There is a difference between what is right and how another person feels about it. If decisions are based on empathy they will twist and turn, based on personality, in a way that will not occur when decisions are based on what is right. Think of the whining child or client that gets what they want, even when it is not right.
Success, hmmm. I am in favor of systems to enable people to do what is right for the individual and for society. Success for one person that results in the demise of another is not something that I support.
I try to ensure that my colleagues, clients, their clients and myself all “win” in an engagement. It would not be a success if only one of the parties listed above was the winner.
To answer your last question, I suppose that in the beginning I was embarrassed to be a small entrepreneur. Later, I had hopes of scaling, in which case clients would work with other folks than just Jim Spencer. And I think most importantly, I did not want the marketing to be personal, because a lot of other specialists contribute to the success of each project.
I may have turned a 180 degrees away from ego building self aggrandizement and run too far in the other direction, leaving my name out. It was a result of focusing on others. I just had to go read my About Us page, and was surprised to see my name is not there at all.
I work with a lot of colleagues and clients. These are the partners as I define my company name - JBS Partners. I never wanted to put me first. I strive to put the clients and colleagues before thinking of myself. I am not great at this yet, but I am striving. It is a humility thing.
I am redesigning my web site now, so, I will add my name to the About Us page. Point taken. It seems I (one person) was doing the hiding you described large corporations as guilty of. Point taken again.
Jim, thank you for the continued food for thought.
I reflected quite about on whether right and wrong is independent of emotion — I wish I had philosophy mentors in my life. My opinion is that emotion, empathy actually defines what is right. How we feel is the only truth.
You can still be empathetic to your child or client without giving them what they want.
I wasn’t suggesting that success was possible without everyone “winning” and paradoxically that means dealing with each individuals needs.
Instead of celebrating your “partners”, you have made them anonymous.
My advice is to put yourself out there. You being a person that communicates and taking responsibility for your actions, and shares the credit for your successes is the best asset you have.
Lloyd,
Let me know if I am monopolizing things here and should switch to email.
I hold a different position. The fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4 has nothing to do with emotion or empathy. The same holds true with musical notes. Furthermore, if you get a speeding ticket your emotion does not change the truth of your speeding. Emotion, how people feel about things is not consistent from person to person. However, our founding fathers tried hard to find truths that were consistent and viable for all.
To pursue this line of thinking will lead the conversation into things spiritual which may be too far afield of the focus of this blog post.
Your advice is excellent and along the lines of what I have been thinking also. This is the trouble with not keeping one’s web site up to date.
How would you celebrate your suppliers? In most cases the suppliers offer the same services as your business. Visitors could simply go to your suppliers and not do business with you. In addition your suppliers may have varying rate structures. Doesn’t this get messy?
Jim, not monopolizing at all. I think our discussion can live with public scrutiny.
You are suggesting those are universal truths, but they aren’t. They are based on assumptions. As you say USA’s founding fathers tried hard to find truths that were consistent and viable for all — all founded in their beliefs. Much reflected, well educated beliefs based on reason. Reason is ultimately based on emotion.
But your founding fathers had many practices that today we think are absurd or even horrible.
Spirituality is a great tool to help us become more empathic.
I understand what you are saying, and its my inability to articulate my own thoughts that I think is the barrier.
The emotional context of what is correct is not based on the extremes, but the beliefs of the many in the middle. Over time what is right has improved in quality and become based on solider foundations. On the other hand, most of us can only can impact the emotional well being of the individuals in our lives.
If you are hiding your suppliers from your customers, then it will be something they want to find out, and your business is based on a very shaky foundation.
What is your business? As opposed to large companies that can always give a better price?
Unless, you have found a way to change the rules of your industry — which is fantastic, but seldom the case, and remember the best large companies are fast followers — you are selling quality and relationships. The relationships you have with your partners and suppliers, and the relationship you are promising your customer. Your promise that your product or service solves your customer’s problems, and if it doesn’t that you can make it.
And what about Google, most loved web company and most wanted to work there company too
scalenger, and what about Google? Have they been through the challenging situations where Larry, Sergey, and Eric will demonstrate their strength or weakness? Do they really have a choice as leaders of a public company?