This kind of moralizing has become the bread and butter of his Twitter brand and it really is tiresome.
This kind of moralizing has become the bread and butter of his Twitter brand and it really is tiresome.
The problems with this idea:
1. It misses that morals can be criticised not just legality, and as economically advantageous as it is, it is still unethical to decieve
2. Even in a totally cold economic sense, the criticism you get if you go back on them is itself a risk that these companies should have considered when they produced these marketing values. This blowback should be an economic disincentive against acting that way in the future if it decreases trust in the company. This may materialise in economic effects as less free overtime and higher wage demands from prospective employees who adopt a similar ruthless attitude.
> Companies aren't the kinds of things that can meaningfully have values, and 'criticism' along the lines of the OP takes for granted that they can and do, in a way that makes outcomes like this Hashicorp layoff meaningfully surprising. This gets in the way of the correct critique— and thereby in setting the correct expectations.
The moralistic tone makes the event described seem somehow exceptional, when the crucial lesson is that it is not at all. It also directs people towards a useless simulation of politics (yelling at people, or in this case companies, to scold them) in place of the real thing (fighting institutions by disrupting their basic functioning, exercising power to change incentive structures, etc.). The stress on the economics is about directing people to the information of strategic significance, not narrowing the bounds of acceptable critique per se.
It might aid your understanding to consider that while companies behave out of economic self-interest, socially conscious human beings have their own vested interest in highlighting behavior that falls short of social standards. Companies like HashiCorp generate brand capital by co-opting the language of human values and social cooperation. It is not unexpected that people would try to hold them accountable to their own positioning on values.
> companies are acting rationally. They are protecting their own interests. Both in espousing values they may not actually hold
A value is only a value if you'll follow it against your own "rational interests". Claiming you hold a value and then ditching it as soon as it's convenient is a form of fraud. Not one necessarily with monetary damages, but fraud nonetheless.
Western society has got quite a lot out of being generally high-trust and it is not good whenever anyone corrodes it by making cynical promises which they do not intend to keep, and it is right to shame them for this.
I don't work at Amazon, but their LPs are well-published, so I'll use them as an example. "Bias for Action" is in tension with "Dive Deep" and "Insist on the Highest Standards". If Amazon takes an action that is quick but didn't dive as deep as literally possible or achieve the highest possible standard, have they violated two of their LPs, or did they just use judgment and prioritize bias for action over those other two?
"Insisting on the Highest Standards" doesn't conflict with "Bias for Action" either. You can take a quick action, realise it's not up to a high standard and insist that it's improved; as opposed to saying "good enough, we're done".
[0] https://aws.amazon.com/executive-insights/content/leading-an...
That's ostensibly why Cantrill was going on [fairly entertaining] tirades about the difference between principles and values. By providing a cultural foundation of muddled and inarticulate precepts, and by ambiguating values and principles, leadership was being derelict in its duty to own the responsibility for discernment in scenarios where principles were in conflict with each other.
[0] https://oxide.computer/principles
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xtofg-fMQfZoq8Y3oSAKjEgD...
I agree. The vast majority of times you pass someone on the street and don't expect that person to turn around and stab you in the back and take your wallet, is not because of the existence of laws, but because of the existence of trust. Laws (particularly criminal code) must exist for the minority. This is one of the reasons why I hate "trust-less" systems -- societies cannot function that way. It's as if a program was not trusted to access even the memory that was allocated to it, and the OS had to check permissions and run validations on every single CPU instruction issued by the program. Trust saves resources.
Companies exist to make a profit for their owners. We work for them exchanging our output/time for money. We aren't family or friends. Companies aren't our church, social club, or local pub.
I've worked at companies that had simple 3 word values list of - Integrity, Discipline, Excellence.
In other words - work hard, get good results, don't lie/cheat/steal. That seems pretty good set of rules to live by.
I take offense at companies that have these lists of core values as if you are in the Miss Universe pageant or applying to an honors society. It's just not what they really want in practice out of you, nor is it how they will really treat you when the chips are down.
It's easy to say that the ZIRP time was the main drive of this decade for the crazy market where we are, but let's not forget that most of those companies lured people and part of the market based on some misleading "employer branding" optics like transparency, being a great employer, autonomy, inflated salaries, distorted incentives and so on.
They are co-responsible for these shaky times as well also.
Your freedom to do something does not stop my freedom of calling you an a-hole for doing so.
Personally if I was looking for a job I’d be sceptical of potential employers who handled layoffs notably poorly; it’s just not a great sign of their general competence. There’s nothing rational about advertising that you’re bad at this stuff.
> their goal is to provide services to people
Their goal is to make as much money as possible. "To provide services" is just a way to get there.
> fucked up immoral things, it will hurt their bottom line eventually, especially if they are called out
There are literally thousands of examples where this is not true, and where the "hurt" comes long after the fact, if ever (DDT, PFAS, plastic, oil extraction, deforestation, animal agriculture, ...).
> try to look good if this was not the case
Hence the popular term "wartime CEO" ... painting the situation with nice words to extend the extraction period.
This isn't a nitpick. It's the point under contention. Companies setting core values like Hashicorp has are ostensibly saying "we're not just all about profit, we care about how we obtain that profit." Positioning companies as having a singular goal of "making as much money as possible" is not a universal absolute. It's a choice we make. Let's choose differently.
For example, I'm not in business just to make money but because I think that what my company does is important, valuable to our customers, and good for the world. I also want to get paid and feed my family, but I have options and will walk if I feel like leadership at my company no longer cares about the values they established. I stay because I trust my leadership.
Money ruin everything, sooner or later.
> Let's choose differently.
Let's. Patiently waiting for it to happen somewhere.
> I stay because I trust my leadership.
You know what? You better don't listen to me. I'm too cynical for this.
He speaks of broad terms of "how things worked", like - there are thousands of EMs and Directors right here on HN with triple his experience who can only speak to their team/group/division, would never act like they know what happens on other engineering teams outside their org.
Other than his "expertise" his newsletter is pretty much the same as browsing Blind. Getting DMs from people with their personal opinions about their employer (im sure he doesnt even verify that) and reposts them
Orosz being Naive or not, there is a contrast to what Reid Hoffman and Netflix have been advocating. Hoffman advocated that a company and its employees form an alliance. When their values deviate, they depart. Netflix advocated something similar using the professional sports team as an analogy. Companies are not families. Companies are not there to "take care of" people. At least to me, the Hoffman and Netflix are more practical and more honest.
corporate "values*" always come with the small print of "*as long as it maximizes profit."
it is silly to think that any for-profit corporation is ever going to do something that is directly contrary to its financial interests.
you can (and i do) definitely argue that having strong values does contribute to long term profitability, but the purpose of the "values" is to maximize profit.
when a conflict arises between the values and profitability, profitability always wins.