Image: Getty Images
In Brief
- People compete against one another to come out on top—and they also collaborate with others to succeed. This yin and yang of our natures expresses itself in the working world today just as it did in our ancestors as they struggled to survive and thrive.
- Studies of how corporations work give us insights into the evolutionary underpinnings of our morality, including concepts such as reciprocity, altruism and fairness.
- Examining the history of two companies, Enron and Google, illuminates the interplay of personal relationships and social institutions in the modern world.
In the 1987 film Wall Street, Michael Douglas’s character, the high-rolling corporate raider Gordon Gekko, explains why America has lost its standing atop the industrial world: “The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated.” He elaborates:
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed—for lack of a better word—is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms—greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge—has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed—you mark my words—will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add Comment"The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow a 2-3% population tribe of people are dominating American Banking, Media, Business and recently "Internet" seems like something somewhere is rotten.
This is possible only through pure Evil !
Sorry - but this is a weak article. Rather than just looking at two examples that help the argument, the question is whether there are counter examples. Ask the salesforce at SAP or Oracle about compensation and cutting the weak, look at the Goldman Sachs or GE peer review mechanism, etc. and you will find that significant internal competition does not necessarily bring out the worst in people. Firing the weakest 10% is not an issue - tolerating unethical behavior is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou call this article weak but your argument is also equally weak. It would have been better if you had used solid facts before you debunked the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrust is the essential lubricant of commercial activity. Cheating, lying, stealing, violence and fraud are sand in the system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure I understand. You can disproof a statement by examples where the theory does not hold up, no?
While I was not planning to write a full counter-article, I think the examples indicate that internal competition and cutting the "worst performers" does not seem to be a core root of evil.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=6571261e-e45a-4933-8120-05bddcc92951
http://www.news.com/2009-12-950200.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Atamas: Personally, I think the weakness in your statement is due to the fact that the author expressly and repeatedly states that the culture at Enron was the main factor in the problems there. Sure, the attrition was put forth as a major factor. While he probably should have mentioned that similar systems implemented differently could have different outcomes, he describes the ways that made it lead, in this particular instance, [i]because of the culture[/i], to Machiavellian backstabbing and dishonesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would seem that the real question being addressed through these two examples is "do all companies have to be dysfunctional?" The answer to this question is probably "yes, to some extent, but probably not as much as outliers such as Enron." Evil really doesn't seem like the right term to apply to organizations' irrational behavior stemming from the rational choices of individuals. I understand that the term is drawn from Google's credo and is probably just a device for framing the discussion (you don't really believe that Enron was evil, right?), but I think an important corollary to the argument here is that organizations en masse do not reflect intentionality, evil or otherwise. While the Nazis or the KKK are arguably examples of evil organizations, people who align with such organizations generally tend to understand what it is they're joining. Even with the cutthroat culture of Enron, I imagine many people just thought they were joining an energy company. That's not evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note that Google follows a path set by such innovators as Hewlett Packard, NewTek, and the ever-growing Mondragon Cooperative. I, on the other hand, work for a traditional Chinese company, in which the environment for employees is almost as bad as that described at Enron at its worst.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause I am very productive, maintaining and authoring the 2,000-page corporate website since 1998, I am punished, as my critical position in the company inherently gives me too much power, and the fundamental rule of Chinese business is that "if you have power, you can get anything; if you lack power, you will lose everything."
Thus, I, the web designer, alone among employees, do not have access to the web on my computer. I have to borrow time from someone else to see the actual web. Meanwhile, my mouse is two years wear past the point at which it normally would have been discarded, and it takes two fingers to press the Enter key on my keyboard, as it and several other keys are sticking.
Normally when sciam runs multi-page adverts, it's so noted at the top of each page. Why wasnt this 7 page ad for Google also marked? Or is this part of Google's move into print advertising?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSarcasm aside, this article is full of anecdotes and opinions that do not support his hypothesis. Michael says, "we learn that Enron and the Gordon Gekko 'Greed Is Good' ethic are the exception and that Google's 'Don't Be Evil' motto is the rule."
You compared two companies and found that one was corrupt and the other wasn't. How is this proving a rule or an exception?
I expect good science from sciam not Michael Shermers opinion!
Google "corporation" and "phsychopath" One of the best books on corporations is http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743247442/commondreams-20/ref=nosim/h and the associated film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt shows how corporations, unlike most human individuals, actually benefit from psychopathic behavior. Also, unlike other behaviors, nothing can be done to contain and change psychopathic behavior other than the threat of punitive consequences. This is the way in which society curbs individual psychopathic behavior, but the ever more loose corporative laws do not. This situation is made even worse the situation because a corporation does not need to have friends (most corporation treat "goodwill" as an extremely weak asset). Google is the exception other than the rule and its code of conduct was probably established as a counterbalance to the predatory and monopolistic practices of a mildly successful company called Microsoft.
I was working for a very successful company under an extremely ethical CEO in which work was a pleasure. After I left, a new CEO changed the company to one about which (whom?) the employees say "it's now driven by the almighty buck". But the investors are happy...
I believe the Enron story of two management styles is an oversimplified view of a much more complex issue. Jack Welch used the same (hideous) management style at GE, which presumably brought down Enron, with spectacular results (for the survivors at GE). It would be interesting for the author to discuss the differences between Enron and GE that spurred so drastically different results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPower versus Force: transient Force, although more apparent, seems not to have longevity; authentic Power is Forever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this