Do No Evil?

At a St. Patrick's party tonight, a non-technical type wanted to know why the media was all over Google's self-proclaimed mission that it would do no evil. "It's just a tagline," I said, although it's also a hopeless kind of wishing that a big corporation like Google with the power that it has to influence the way people seek information won't abuse that power. Hopeless, because the company already has treaded on personal turf with an invasive tracker it introduced into its toolbar, and other little misdemeanors against the trust it's built are starting to crop up day by day.

Can a company that wants to do good stay true to its principles and honor its commitment to its customers and employees while experiencing enormous growth? Even a profitable nonprofit like the Catholic Church has been having a hard time practicing what it has been preaching for over a thousand years.

I've seen company after company grow to the point where not only is evil permitted, it's sanctioned. It's like a Jekyll-and-Hyde metamorphosis of the business. It's like a sickness that permeates every large corporation, from WorldCom to Hewlett Packard, which began by two guys who supported a non-evil workplace and turned into a company where evil vibes are commonplace.

Execs at big companies don't get to say what they want anymore, and if they do mouth off, like Scott McNealy at Sun, they get ridiculed and eventually succumb to corporate-speak, making nice-nice to Microsoft after years of intercarnal wordwarfare.

Not that growing big has to become bad, but it requires a commitment to keeping the same practices and values that launched the company, and raising the financial stakes usually lowers that commitment.

Maybe we'll see a new trend in the coming years: a break-up of large companies, as Viacom is on the verge of doing, a disintegration into specialty businesses. Outsourcing is one symptom. Spinning off units is another. Large Hollywood studios are seeding independent shoots, realizing there is more creativity in a small venture than a large one. And maybe Google will sprout Googlets, each one regenerating its parent company's original mission.

Comments

[AF]

Something that's been on my mind a lot lately. Google is especially vulnerable not just because they're growing, but because they went public, and now have to answer to ADD shareholders. And you correctly point out, even good people with good intentions can slide into the undertow of a Wall Street construct.

Harold Evans, a British journalist who wrote "They Made America" says the obsession with quarterly earnings on Wall Street is killing innovation right now. No long term vision, no patience, no delayed gratification, no RISK.

Have been meaning to ask an economist phd friend and about ebbs and flows with this quarterly earnings obsession cycle. I imagine it was last beat back with Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting, hope it was more recent than that.

[Bruce Hughes]

Sylvia, I think you are right concerning the inherent problems of bigness. Clayton Christensen writes about the difference between "smart money," which is patient for growth and wants real profits--and "dumb money," which is impatient for growth. Going public means accepting dumb money, and it will force managers to do dumb things--or forfeit their jobs. Hence the parachutes most public company managers negotiate for themselves. They would be foolish--or unusually idealistic--to do otherwise.

[anonymous]

Google hasn't abused anything. This post is rediculous. You are just agreeing with Dave Winer to get your fifteen minutes of fame ,but you dont realize that Dave is nothing ,but a winer.