"so now we have a policy prescribing a mandatory email footer or something like that."
regrettably, this goes beyond corporate stupidity. In Germany, this is caused by government stupidity. The footer is mandated by law, and there are actually people in Germany making a living out of suing companies that forget to add these.
It is always more subtle than that. This prescription is "In einem Geschäftsbrief und damit in (der Signatur) einer E-Mail im kaufmännischen Schriftverkehr". We can quibble over when exactly an email is part of that particular definition, but it definitely does not hold *within* the company. My gut feeling is that this is only relevant in emails where you are making some commercial representations about products or services that you want to buy or sell. A blanket policy that says: "Everyone shall henceforth put _this_ footer in all their email" is unnecessary.
Loved the update, as always. That said, there's a potential risk—much like what unfolded at HP years ago (Hurd era)—where the constant presence of 'career tigers' begins to erode the integrity of company values over time.
Yep, definitely a problem. I did a lot of work for HP in the 90s and in the beginning they were an excellent company to work for/with; great culture, focus on quality, etc.
Not that you're wrong, there's definitely changes that have to be made as a corporation goes from a family to a small town to a city (and in some cases a country!). I think your post gives too much inevitability to what sort of small town or city the company grows into. If you were exaggerating to make your good points, then consider this an AND ALSO...
I was in Google Search in its time of most explosive growth, and at the beginning I had some real faith in... well, not the company, I was too senior, but that the principles of the company were sound and straightforward. There was a kind Googliness that had survived increases of a couple of orders of magnitude.
One thing this time taught me is how to change a culture out from under people. All you have to do is hire massively and onboard the newcomers with different messages. Your population will immediately divide into old-timers who are entitled and cranky about something and the new up-and-comers, who will show the more senior people what they're made of. That's all it takes, and it really shook my faith in vulnerable institutions. And they're all vulnerable.
Is there a counterexample of a company that became big and did not go in this direction? I have been thinking about that for a while and couldn't really think of one...
I can think of a few. What distinguishes them is that they're most often kept private, they have a very low number of owners, and the owners are very involved either as C-suite or board members. Google's decay started with the IPO, and was sealed when Lary and Sergey stopped caring and being involved.
P.S. The Milgram experiment turned out to be a fraud and shouldn't be used as example.
The Milgram experiment was not a fraud in the sense of being outright fabricated or faked, but it has been criticized heavily for:
• Ethical violations
• Misleading presentation
• Selective reporting
• Oversimplified conclusions
Like many of these experiments things are much more subtle and in psychology there are rarely simple convenient truths that are generally applicable. I will credit Milgram for starting it all, leading to more and better research on the topic.
That said, you might not be able to turn a random person into a concentration camp guard with some simple tricks, but there definitely seem to be a whole crew of people who only need a little motivation to become cruel (but not unusual).
We need to view all of this in the context of 1961. At that time methodological rigor was not what it is today. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ethical standards w.r.t. treatment of test subjects came out of these experiments and others like it (like the Stanford prison experiments).
"so now we have a policy prescribing a mandatory email footer or something like that."
regrettably, this goes beyond corporate stupidity. In Germany, this is caused by government stupidity. The footer is mandated by law, and there are actually people in Germany making a living out of suing companies that forget to add these.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signatur_(E-Mails_im_Gesch%C3%A4ftsverkehr)#Inhalt_und_Pflichtangaben_in_der_Signatur
It is always more subtle than that. This prescription is "In einem Geschäftsbrief und damit in (der Signatur) einer E-Mail im kaufmännischen Schriftverkehr". We can quibble over when exactly an email is part of that particular definition, but it definitely does not hold *within* the company. My gut feeling is that this is only relevant in emails where you are making some commercial representations about products or services that you want to buy or sell. A blanket policy that says: "Everyone shall henceforth put _this_ footer in all their email" is unnecessary.
right. In my corner of corporate gravity, we only had the policy for external e-mails.
The Trips solution was awesome. But yes, the logic for unknown city-pairs may have resulted in some abnormal results that benefited some people. 🙈
❤️zoë and your wisdom
Loved the update, as always. That said, there's a potential risk—much like what unfolded at HP years ago (Hurd era)—where the constant presence of 'career tigers' begins to erode the integrity of company values over time.
Yep, definitely a problem. I did a lot of work for HP in the 90s and in the beginning they were an excellent company to work for/with; great culture, focus on quality, etc.
Great company! From time to time I re read the HP Way (https://cdn.bookey.app/files/pdf/book/en/the-hp-way.pdf)
Yes, great book!
I have a quibble (I know you love hearing that).
Not that you're wrong, there's definitely changes that have to be made as a corporation goes from a family to a small town to a city (and in some cases a country!). I think your post gives too much inevitability to what sort of small town or city the company grows into. If you were exaggerating to make your good points, then consider this an AND ALSO...
I was in Google Search in its time of most explosive growth, and at the beginning I had some real faith in... well, not the company, I was too senior, but that the principles of the company were sound and straightforward. There was a kind Googliness that had survived increases of a couple of orders of magnitude.
One thing this time taught me is how to change a culture out from under people. All you have to do is hire massively and onboard the newcomers with different messages. Your population will immediately divide into old-timers who are entitled and cranky about something and the new up-and-comers, who will show the more senior people what they're made of. That's all it takes, and it really shook my faith in vulnerable institutions. And they're all vulnerable.
Is there a counterexample of a company that became big and did not go in this direction? I have been thinking about that for a while and couldn't really think of one...
I can think of a few. What distinguishes them is that they're most often kept private, they have a very low number of owners, and the owners are very involved either as C-suite or board members. Google's decay started with the IPO, and was sealed when Lary and Sergey stopped caring and being involved.
P.S. The Milgram experiment turned out to be a fraud and shouldn't be used as example.
The Milgram experiment was not a fraud in the sense of being outright fabricated or faked, but it has been criticized heavily for:
• Ethical violations
• Misleading presentation
• Selective reporting
• Oversimplified conclusions
Like many of these experiments things are much more subtle and in psychology there are rarely simple convenient truths that are generally applicable. I will credit Milgram for starting it all, leading to more and better research on the topic.
That said, you might not be able to turn a random person into a concentration camp guard with some simple tricks, but there definitely seem to be a whole crew of people who only need a little motivation to become cruel (but not unusual).
Yes, I believe that list is a good definition of what is commonly meant as "fraud", not just inventing things out of thin air.
We need to view all of this in the context of 1961. At that time methodological rigor was not what it is today. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ethical standards w.r.t. treatment of test subjects came out of these experiments and others like it (like the Stanford prison experiments).
I would also like to point to Jerry Burger's study done in 2008: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/12/replicating-milgram, which seems to confirm some of Milgram's assertions.
Costco, REI, and Gore-tex come to mind. Ben and Jerry's before it was acquired.