Most workers want their employer to share their values
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Flip-side: I'll bet that a lot of employees of older & larger corporations, governments, etc. are quietly practicing some combination of willful blindness and cognitive dissonance - because "leave because of my values" is really not a workable option for them.
The implication is that they only care in so far as they are perceived to care.
naniwaduni summed it up there: "The trick is that they're not promoting an ideology/cultural value domestically; they're bowing to local influence everywhere, including domestically. i.e. we should not take corporate Pride as sincere support, but as an indicator of the zeitgeist." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31932146
If I understand "performative activism" correctly, it might include spending money on conspicuously proclaiming support for some cause, while undermining that cause (or at least omitting to benefit it). After all, money spent on public relations needn't be paid to the causes corporations want to associate themselves with.
Performative Activism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_activism
For a sizable corporation, that can include all sorts of cheap or self-promoting lip service, burying evidence that your "carbon neutral" plan is a mix of delusion and fraud, spending 100X the money on tight-lipped lobbying for things directly opposed to your supposed "values", and more.
This parody commerical explains it pretty succinctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcI7FArUlL4
IIRC, the actual episode that's from had the evil corporation cutting it charitable contributions but continuing to run the ads telling people about them.
I know that in ancient times people used to think the folks at HP, with their "HP Way[1]," were idealists trying to make better.
These few anecdata cannot contradict "a lot of employees." Just sayin'.
I suspect that there are not too many companies out there that really diverge too far off of the pretty middle of the road social cause paths anyway.
This is true even when your employer is you. :) I feel like it gets even worse when you start a business and become a walking self-contradiction. That’s when I started doing things, like advertising, and adding analytics, stuff I normally don’t like as a user. (The problem, of course: advertising and analytics work.)
Maybe these things are below the threshold of values we’d quit over, and maybe some companies can be pretty extreme, but I think there’s a fuzzy gray line between the small values we overlook and the values we care enough to decline employment over, or at least I can see that in myself.
I'm talking about the ads you find on places like https://hearthstone.fandom.com/wiki/Hearthstone_Wiki for example; they're basically noise and useless.
The ads in YouTube videos I don't even really mind as much, at least someone took some time to make professional ones.
So what? Is Youtube OK because they only show scams to people they think are vulnerable to them?
Google and Facebook are incredibly evil companies, all in all, and it's purely the money that makes people in tech pretend otherwise. As a group we'd "well actually" defend Enron if they paid well and had a good cafe.
If you think that I was somehow denying that YouTube shows crypto ads, you’ve missed my point entirely. YouTube doesn’t “show a lot of crypto ads,” YouTube shows YOU lots of crypto ads.
> As a group we'd "well actually" defend Enron if they paid well and had a good cafe.
What are you talking about? Have I offended you into talking complete nonsense?
Again, from a question of company ethics, what is the point of noting that it's focused on people the algorithm thinks are vulnerable? Does that somehow make it better or change the point?
Please reread my original response without emotionally inferring a bunch of stuff I'm not saying and tell me whether a response of "No." is really warranted.
> 54% — said they would be willing to take a pay cut to work at a company that shares their values.
> And 56% said they wouldn’t even consider a job at a company that has values they disagree with
So, for a company that doesn't go around taking sides, there may be less willingness to take a pay cut for a good cause, but presumably the full talent market is open for them.
Facebook? Yes, of course. The core of their business model is stalker-like spying, which they then leverage against their users (and non-users). They are irredeemably evil. Fixing the evil would ruin the business. Their business is evil.
Paypal? See: literally any discussion of them on practically any website, including this one. Yes, they're evil. Unlike Facebook, though, they could probably remain profitable while not being evil, so they're a bit better I suppose.
In the past, the east India company seems like a good one.
Any company with at least one shareholder or exec who's a billionaire.
Any company that sells a product at a loss to drive smaller competitors out of business.
Any company that supports politicians who promote the lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
Any company that lobbies to stop or reduce the fight against climate change.
It would be easy to go on.
Sometimes people don't realize what they will decide until they're actually faced with the decision.
It's like asking someone "Would you pay money for [product or service you're thinking of selling]?" And when you have the product or service and ask people to pay, most people turn you down.
I'm working on a new company right now and this is one of those things that is front of mind if you've been there before.
You can still have these things while keeping your integrity/values, unlike the boomer generation. I do, and my family lives within our means.
Also, this cuts both ways. I've worked for companies that were outspoken in the political affiliation and were not shy about telling employees which political candidates were scratching the company's back. Ironically, the deregulation they pushed so hard ended up being irrelevant years later.
Most, even the big one's have surprisingly little influence over governance, even when big cheques are written. And almost exclusively, that money goes into getting 'good legislation for them to make money' - not some kind of moral/social issue.
Yes, a few companies are known to direct funds for 'socially contestable things' but it's not entirely common.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c...
Much, much, MUCH more powerful than donations are just talking with the politicians and letting them know which way the wind lies, and letting you 'adjust' things for your benefit. And this can and will happen without any money changing hands at all.
leetcode.com has interviews you can pay for
Anecdotally, some of the biggest SJWs I know cash their employment checks from companies that have a terrible reputation when it comes to values these people keep talking about so loudly, mostly because the checks are fat as f.
People can't even successfully boycott companies that are entirely interchangeable, they're going to have an even harder time boycotting their paycheck.
Where you may see some effects in the margin are where people will apply to work, as applying takes some effort, but it takes no effort to not apply at Facebook, for example.
But, would I work for PETA? The DNC/RNC? Chic-Fil-A? A pantent troll? Monsanto? Cambridge Analytica? A Defense Contractor? Most of these aren't companies with large software engineering staff or just aren't knocking down my door, but I wonder how often the lines of the 44% are truly tested. Also, how different is this at different income levels?
Half of the companies that regularly put rainbow flags on their social networks in June wouldn't probably bother helping their own employees if they got arrested for having gay sex in Dubai.
I'm not sure how many companies are left that would basically invade a country for their employees like Perot did.
Right now they'd have to do it based on voluntary disclosure, but states could make lists of firearm owners or concealed carry permit holders public.
And California already "accidentally" doxed all of their permit holders.
Good news for cynical employers looking to save a buck?
... but I think most of corporate America would be regarded as roughly 'neutral' - in that basic professionalism should accommodate 85% of our 'values'.
And then maybe a bit of a 'tilt' towards your own kind of culture.
I'd be skeptical of anyone wanting/expecting anything beyond that.