Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
How Should Business Act? - Coggle Diagram
How Should Business Act?
On Contradiction
The public relations of a business are first and foremost to protect the interests of profit, and doing so often requires denying that to be the case
To avoid the backlash of nuance, businesses often make absolute statements. The consequences of this is the complete erosion of public trust, ending up worse than if they just spoke with nuance and admitted their faults
Businesses have been discussing the virtues of improving WLB and catering to the mental health of employees for some two decades at this point. However, the tangible steps have been extremely narrow. It appears the value is in the messaging and not the action
On Power
Similar to the questions posed by private equity in healthcare, Palantir forces a question about the line of where we stop allowing corporations to dictate reality. When your company is used to conduct mass surveillance for a police state, kill tens of thousands of people, and usher in far right extremism, where do we decide it has gone too far and needs to be reigned in by force?
Palantir's co-entanglement with the CIA makes us question the supposed relation between government and business. Often people advocate for more regulation or for government intervention but what happens as corporations increasingly influence the government outright?
On Purpose
Private equity in healthcare drives a question in the purpose of the program. Are short term losses in health outcomes acceptable for long term profitability? What about when some hospitals are sacrificed so that organizations in the parent group can succeed?
The age old wisdom of corporate political neutrality is inherently illogical. A corporation is an organization and interacts with other organizations. All organizations are political and neutrality is a political opinion.
How can the purpose of initiatives be co-opted and changed over time. Initially, B-corps began as a certification for those who went above and beyond the basic goals of business. However, over time it became more and more of a rubber stamp to get more customer trust.
DEI has been curated for the purpose of maximum value extraction. What I mean is the optics of combating social injustice are far more important than tangibly taking steps to do so. In doing so, the purpose of it morphed into a tool for virtue signaling.
On Morality
How do we delineate between what is acceptable and unacceptable in prestigious employment? Does the financial security of IB validate the brutal workplace abuse?
Businesses increasingly take a moral political stance on issues publicly regardless of what their internal actions show. What is the requirement for alignment between these two areas? How do we hold powerful organizations responsible in a time where political developments are heavily at their whims?
On Incentives
Stakeholder theory asks for managers to consider the interests of those to whom they are not accountable to.
The RBV implementation of IST hinges on rarity and difficulty of imitation, thus incentivizing the majority of managers to abandon the pursuit altogether.
Private equity ownership in healthcare is diametrically opposed to the purpose of providing healthcare. When PE takes over, the operations of hospitals fall drastically in patient experience and health outcomes.
Palantir's dependence on the US government for contracts and business morphs the goals and beliefs of its leaders. Alex Karp's shift from a progressive liberal to a far right populist is characterized by the incentive of being on Trump's good side.