Comment by freshfunk

15 years ago

I understand the positive qualities of being Kirk-esque and creating one's own rules (see Kobayashi Maru). I also understand the qualities of being single-minded in purpose, determination and the will to succeed. These are qualities needed to survive in the uncertain, risky and scary environment of an entrepreneur.

However, I wonder when we begin to cross the fine-line between naughtiness, white-lies, small-rule breaking and moral flexibility to privacy-violating, scamming, propaganda spreading and even law-breaking actions.

In a world where one will do anything to win, it seems all too easy to fall by the wayside towards morally-questionable deeds.

7 comments

freshfunk

Reply
Duff  15 years ago

I think that you're zooming into this too much and missing the point.

Think about the difference between success in the military versus success in a small business. In the Army, a protocol faux pas or a single ill-considered statement can implode your career path. Understanding of and adherence to the rules is job 1.

In a startup mode, you can ignore conventions/rules, because those things are often not relevant to a tiny company. That doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to rob a liquor store -- but it does mean that you don't need approval from a VP to fill out a 4 page expense report to buy a bottle of booze for a client.

  • freshfunk  15 years ago

    Actually I think you misunderstand and misinterpret my point. I'll try to clarify.

    I think much of what's excepted in today's business environment can be summarized by the following statement:

    "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission."

    This logic has been used to justify all sorts of questionable actions. It's what Pincus was speaking to when he said, "we broke every rule in the book" or when Facebook unilaterally changes a once private profile to a public one. Heck, I'd even characterize Google's Buzz in this category.

    Businesses do this all the time. I don't necessarily blame them. Most times it's easier and quicker to simply execute on an idea and see if there's any backlash. Much of innovation comes about this way so I do see the value in it.

    But I also see the negative consequences of it.

  • skmurphy  15 years ago

    You are talking about a peace time military. A war time military is much more focused on results. It's an important distinction.

smokeyj  15 years ago

I feel 'naughtiness' represents disregard for the status quo, rather than a commitment to immorality. The obedient drone regards law-breaking as immoral, whereas the independent thinker would ask why the law exists.

  • freshfunk  15 years ago

    The thing is that both the status quo and immorality often come down to judgment calls.

    Is it immoral to gather personal data and then share it on the internet? (Facebook personal profiles going public.)

    Is it immoral to pay a PR firm to portray a competitor in a negative light if it means highlighting their questionable practices? (Facebook hiring a PR firm to highlight Google Social.)

    Is it immoral to characterize a service you offer one way while leaving important details to fine print or convoluted text? (Zynga's lead gen offers, DropBox security.)

    • smokeyj  15 years ago

      I tend to equate status quo as standing-practices that remain unchallenged. The ethics of defiance would be contingent upon which practices are being violated. Being 'naughty' is an amoral mental state of being, which has no ethical implications until acted upon. Gandhi defied status quo, as well as Hitler. Not much can be drawn from such naughtiness, except that Hitler and Gandhi are both non-conventional and extraordinary.