Dangerosa, I agree with you. I also think that people and companies that violate laws and regulations do get caught over the long term, which is why many companies do fail or have to be sold and fixed by other owners. Look at the Dow Jones Index of companies, of the original list of 12 companies from 1896, only one still exist today…General Electric. Of the original Dow 30 list from 1928, only two are still on the list today, GE and GM. Not all of those original companies were cheaters that got caught, but they weren’t successful for one reason or another.
Being successful takes integrity and providing constantly innovating products that your customers want and demand.
There was an academic paper a while back where researchers found a correlation between being successful and being an asshole. Their second study was going to focus on what it was about success that turned people into assholes.
Wha???
My takeaway would be that assholery breeds success.
It depends on what you mean by “assholery”. One can be an asshole without being a cheat or even unethical.
What’s unethical about that? Taxes are an artificial construct created and enforced by government and regulatory agencies. You are not obligated to pay a cent more in taxes than is dictated by the law. If there are “loopholes” in the tax laws, it’s up to legislators to fix them.
Breaking the rules covers such a lot of ground - it can be generally bad (e.g. the rule of law), or it can be essential to any sort of progress (e.g. rules of thought or behaviour). Any serious creative advance is rule-breaking to a degree, creativity always encompasses a disruptive element.
It’s Arnold’s second rule, after all - break the rules.
It is impossible to be a maverick or a true original if you’re too well-behaved and don’t want to break the rules…what is the point of being on this earth if all you want to do is be liked by everyone and avoid trouble? The only way I ever got any place is by breaking some of the rules.
Arnold should get himself a job in science, where it IS totally possible to be innovative and original without also being an asshole. Arnold sounds like the kind of guy who steals people’s lunches from the break room fridge.
PS, the reason I avoid being an asshole is not so other people will like me; it’s so I will like myself.
PPS, Ah, I see that the Arnold you mention is Schwarzenegger. Yeah – asshole.
In my experience, small businesses are way more unscrupulous than any large corporations I have worked for. They aren’t necessarily deep down worse people morally, they’re usually just so small and pathetic that they need to cut a few extra corners to survive. I think there is some sort of weird bias some people have against large corporations. I would never work for a small mom and pop business again, unless their was no other option. Usually that’s why they hire family or young people, most people have enough sense to move on to bigger things when they get older and have more experience.
I’ve known so many people who can’t get ahead in life and they start going on this mantra about how everyone who does is an asshole - "my boss is such an asshole - he gets so mad if I miss one deadline, all these corporate people care about is sales . . . blah blah blah; it probably wouldn’t matter what profession they are in.
I have. One skeevy large one. They didn’t want to pay for software - which is great when your contract says you don’t need to pay for - say your dev environment - but isn’t legal or ethical when you hide your dev environment and don’t tell the external auditors about it when you don’t have that exclusion. I left. My boss got promoted.
I also worked for UHC when Bill McGuire was backdating his options and knew a lot of Best Buy people when the Brian Dunn scandal happened. I worked for a company where the head of Security used to follow the married CEO around and remove his hotel room key from the hands of young, pretty employees at events.
What does it take, above all, to push back the frontiers of science? It takes money. As was made clear to me at day one - you can be a great scientist, but with nae funding you can’t do shit. Mediocre scientist with funding, well maybe you can do something because you might get lucky.
And pimping ain’t easy when it comes to raising research funding, which breeds the same sort of sociopathic traits in PIs that (are said to) characterise CEOs. Maybe worse, because the extremely adversarial clash of intellects and ideas in competitive research areas doesn’t have a close analog in the corporate world AFAICT. Anonymous peer review, for example - introduce that to the workplace and the nation would drown as a million middle managers started crying their eyes out.
So you’re right of course - one doesn’t have to be as asshole to be innovative and original in science, but it certainly helps
I don’t know what they are talking about either. Lying and backstabbing are there, sometimes admired, but cheating as mostly described here is about cheating the company, and that doesn’t get you promoted. Cheating the competition, or the government maybe, as long as there aren’t repercussions, but padding expenses to a noticeable degree is a way to get caught, and never be trusted again.
Something that surprised me about “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap is that he got one of his CEO jobs despite a big gap on his resume. I can imagine that a resume for Asst. Manager at McDonalds may not get checked carefully, but for a Fortune-500 CEO job? :eek:
“Successful” is relative, but serial fraudster Dunlap never went to jail. I’m not sure he lost any lawsuits. I’m sure he’s still a multi-multi-millionaire.
I guess I am trying to consider Business Humans vs. Humans in General. I mean, humans are a frail, failing lot. We are constantly finding new ways to screw up, be weak, self-serving, greedy - evil even.
But are Business Humans more likely to act on their Bad Guy impulses? Are they more likely to advance if they act on their Bad Guy impulses?
I really don’t see it. For the most part, capitalist companies that make and sell goods and services are rewarded better - over the long run - if they do the right things and do things the right way.
There are investor/services companies (IBanks, Private Equity firms, Hedge Funds, etc.) that focus more on engineering business models and financial results vs. “doing stuff” - history suggests specific niches like that can be a breeding ground for Slimy Business Humans. But there are countless examples of Humans in General being put in similar situations in their context who also tend towards sliminess, so even then…
Agree, but take for instance, other industries - a friend works in community organizing - not politics, but neighborhood development. There isn’t money there, so there isn’t incentive. Another works in environmentalism, writing grants to get money to clean rivers and such - again, its a field that attracts people who are altruistic.
Business humans are most successful when they are pragmatic rather than idealistic. Pragmatism isn’t evil, but its a shorter distance from pragmatic to slimy than from idealistic to slimy. Business humans - especially those climbing a corporate ladder, tend to have an attraction to power - and power corrupts.
You certainly don’t want to cheat to the point of getting caught - and I think corporate America is more likely to reward those that cheat on behalf of the organization rather than pad expenses (I agree, that is stupid) - or rather, get good results, and if no one digs too far into how those results were achieved, and no laws were broken…
I am in middle management in a defense company. I think Mr. Nylock is right and I have seen far more fraud in the defense industry with small businesses than with large ones.
The assholery = success is only true to a degree. In my experience, the small business CEOs start out being aggressive towards their competitors, but treat employees well, and tend to grow in fast increments up to a point. When the growth slows down, often in no part due to the employees, the boss turns his aggression inward, and the expectations of the employees becomes unrealistic. We are all salaried employees, which starts to become a joke when the request for “can you just work this ONE weekend?” quickly becomes a demand to work every weekend for no extra pay. What’s worse is, if everyone starts doing it, the one guy who doesn’t or can’t work the insane extra hours is somehow viewed as a slacker by comparison.
As far as the OP goes, I too see a lot of gray areas in the term “cheating”. For example, a big deal in my industry is what is called ‘organizational conflict of interest’ or ‘OCI’ for short. It generally means that if you make a widget, you should not be in charge of how many widgets are ordered for the government, and if you are responsible for overseeing the quality or funding for a widget or service, then you should not also be performing the service. Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what is an OCI, and companies always skirt the rules as much as they can, often with good reason. For example, if company X makes an aircraft engine, they are the most qualified to understand the servicing of that engine and have the best idea for how many spares are needed. Yet they could also suggest over-servicing of the engine in the name of ‘safety’ to overbill the government, or order many more spares than are needed, also in the name of avoiding long delays and parts obsolescence issues. Is that necessarily cheating?
My company will often do both the finances for a particular group within the government and do services for the same group, which some would consider an OCI. After all, we could play with the numbers to increase the amount of services needed. In reality, our company is big and the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing, so both sides are pretty honest from what I’ve seen. We also have a problem of people changing jobs. If person X leaves a competitor’s company and works for mine, he obviously knows what the weaknesses are of that competitor. Is it cheating if I use those weaknesses in a proposal against my competitor? It is also unethical if he tells me that person X, Y, and Z who are critical to the competitor winning, hate their jobs and want to come work for me instead, at which point I recruit them?
As far as the selling part goes, would you say that cheating and breaking the rules won’t get you anywhere in sales? Glengarry Glen ross was not a documentary (AFAIK), but it’s a sleazy area by popular reputation.
Holywood imagery aside, it definitely seems like a field governed by short-term considerations. High pressure, massive staff turnover (rel to other areas, so failure is indeed an orphan as you fucked off 6 month ago), less direct supervision - for sure there’s more opportunity to run wild. Whether that approach works in the longer term for individuals I really don’t know.
Oh, I don’t think those folks cheat or break the rules at all. If anything, they stick to them like glue.
What I do think is that most of them have their own interests in mind first and foremost, and that if they happen to line up with the company’s and their co-workers goals, then it’s a serendipitous bonus.
In my experience, most of them seem to be some combination of yes-men and relentless self-promoters/game players, because that’s what gets THEM noticed, not because that’s what’s best for the section, or the department or the company. That’s not to say they’re incompetent, but that their goals are inherently self-centered, and that their motivation isn’t to do a good job, but to be recognized and be in positions of power. The management is usually composed of people just like them, who see this guy stand out and think “Wow, this guy’s a go-getter!”, when in reality, it’s just that this guy is making a point of being noticed.
I can’t help but be reminded of a college friend’s story of working for a defense manufacturing company as a technical writer, where my friend budgeted his time, worked 8 hour days, and got his shit done early, well, and with no drama.
A co-worker loafed for 3/4 of the time, and then made a big show in the last 1/4 of the projects about how hard and how much time he was spending on it, including all-nighters, and then this ass got recognized for his “commitment” to the project, which was total BS, because this asshole gamed the system, while my buddy did it right and didn’t cause any drama/attract any attention.
Yes, sliminess abounds with the right motivations, and money/power/business success can be powerful motivators.
But where isn’t that true? If there are motivators regarding academic scholarship, scientific discovery, advancement in government or an organized religion, etc., won’t Humans act in slimy ways in various forms and degrees?
Are Business Humans more inclined to be slimy or realize more success because of it vs. a professor, doctor, government bureaucratic, scientist, etc.? I don’t see it.
