Can Google be a “Good Corporation”?
Is it possible to balance Googliness with fiduciary duty to shareholders?
One year ago, myself along with 12000 other Googlers, awoke to a startling email in the morning informing us that our time as employees of Google had ended. We were given a generous severance package, but we were not given support to say farewell to our colleagues, to wrap up projects, or to continue interacting as part of the organization. We were explicitly told we were not welcome at the campus, not even as a guest of another. This was, I think, the largest hit to Google's company culture it has ever seen, although perhaps this was a long time coming, as many folks inside and outside of Google have pointed to a continual degradation of the once great Google culture, a culture that prided itself on being innovative, inclusive and non-conventional; a culture that despite valiant efforts, has struggled to scale effectively with the organization.
One of the defining characteristics of corporations in this day and age is a fiduciary duty to its shareholders that creates a forcing function to pressure all corporations, especially those traded on wall street, to play into the game of capitalism in our world, as it is currently defined. And capitalism, as it is currently defined, has largely failed to adapt to the kind of 21st century economic thinking that Kate Raworth describes in her book "Doughnut Economics". Rather, modern capitalism continues to operate from out-dated assumptions that the market is a self-contained entity rather than embedded within and dependent on a larger ecology; and also that humans are rational economic agents rather than socially adaptable beings. Anyone with eyes to see can recognize the fallacy in this dated economic thinking, and yet these views continue to be a primary driver in our economy today.
Google, at its foundation, had strong intentions to be a good company, to do good in the world. Google’s motto from around 2000 to 2015 was “Don’t be evil”, and then in 2015 with the introduction of the parent company Alphabet, the motto became “Do the right thing”, while “Don’t be evil” was still retained within the code of conduct. There’s a whole conversation to be had about intention vs impact, but it seems clear to me that Google intended to be a good company.. But here comes an issue, Google is a company, a corporation to be specific, and a corporation that is embedded within this present economy with all of its distortions. In its founding letter in 2004, Sergiy Brin and Larry Page articulated that “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one”. I think it’s worth examining whether, 20 years later, Google is still walking this talk. If these recent actions are any indication, it seems Google has become quite conventional, and with that, I think it’s becoming rather clear the challenge that is presented in being a conventional company within this modern economy while also seeking to be good. Because the conditions of this modern economy seem to, in many ways, enact the opposite of what is good, contradicting the very motto that Google has held at its core for so long.
The issue with the current economic structure is that we are distorting our sense of value. By having an economy built on corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, we incentivize companies to prioritize an abstract value defined by the “market” rather than prioritizing the well-being of human beings and the planet we inhabit, and all the other living beings we co-inhabit it with. Furthermore, by creating a structure in which a company is owned by investors who are so distant from the actuality of what is happening within an organization, we forget where the actual value in an organization is, which is in the people who make it up. There are those who are attempting to address these issues, defining businesses, ownership, and responsibility differently. B-corps, social enterprises, and ESOPs are some examples of these. I wouldn’t say that simply transitioning to one of these fixes all the problems of corporations but they do represent a move in the right direction.
I suspect that many of the top leaders at Google recognize that these actions are problematic in the context of the vision “Don’t be evil”, but they rationalize it by suggesting that it is for the greater good; that if they are to succeed in their mission of goodness, these sacrifices are necessary. The fact that a decision is made to make those sacrifices by terminating the employment of many hard-working people who are committed to the Google community, for no reason other than the rationalization that their roles were unnecessary, with no consideration of whether this rationalization is true, and without cutting the excessive salaries of the executives responsible for making the decision, is quite telling. It points to the classic way that people are seen, as rational economic agents or cogs in a machine, rather than as socially adaptable, living beings. When we recognize the humanity of employees rather than objectifying them as assets to the corporation, we will change the way we view them and the way we treat them in regards to the profits being sought. As humans and members of the corporate community, they are more important to the success of the business than the profits; this is contrary to classical capitalism, and this is where the need for change in our perceptions of value is most needed. This means changing the way we assess value to be inclusive rather than exclusive, which is the goal, it seems to me, of a goal such as “don’t be evil” or even “do the right thing”.
Google has demonstrated a company culture that values innovation, trust, transparency, creating and sustaining community, with a goal to do good in the world. It’s this culture that has made so many brilliant people want to come to work at Google and want to stay there. Several aspects of this recent layoff violate these values and so concern me as indicating that being a good corporation is not so easy, and requires continual self-examination and participation by the entire community, to prevent falling into the old ways of corporate business, putting profits before people, which negates all of the ideals set forth from the beginning by Google and its founders. The question for Google leadership right now is this: Is it possible to succeed as a corporation and be good?
Too Big to Be Evil: Google's Descent into Corporate Malevolence (A Friendly Rebuttal)
In the exploration of Google's corporate journey, it becomes imperative to cast aside any semblance of rose-colored glasses and confront the harsh reality that the tech giant has embraced a trajectory towards malevolence. The ostensibly innocuous facade of innovation and progress has been torn asunder by a dark alliance with censorship and authoritarianism, betraying the very ethos the company once claimed to champion.
Google's dalliance with censorship is a glaring stain on its purported commitment to an open and free exchange of ideas. The company, once celebrated for organizing the world's information, now stands accused of systematically suppressing dissenting voices and curating a sanitized version of reality. The censorship nexus extends its reach to the heart of free expression, transforming Google from a beacon of information into an arbiter of permissible thought.
The company's unscrupulous entanglements with authoritarian regimes reveal a chilling indifference to human rights and ethical considerations. Google's pursuit of market share has led it down a path where it willingly cooperates with oppressive governments, offering a tacit endorsement of autocratic practices. By aligning with regimes that stifle dissent and trample on fundamental freedoms, Google has become a willing accomplice in the erosion of democracy and human dignity.
The founding principles encapsulated in the motto "Don't be evil" have been callously discarded, relegated to the annals of corporate nostalgia. Google's actions speak louder than its slogans, with a disregard for ethical considerations that extends to the heart of its corporate culture. The once-innovative company now finds itself mired in a quagmire of compromise, sacrificing its moral compass at the altar of profit.
The recent large-scale layoff, devoid of empathy and bereft of compassion, epitomizes Google's shift towards a callous disregard for its most valuable asset – its people. The termination of loyal employees without proper farewells or considerations speaks volumes about a company that now views its workforce as expendable commodities, casting shadows over its purported commitment to community and transparency.
In confronting the question posed to Google's leadership — whether it is possible to succeed as a corporation and be good — the evidence suggests a resounding negation. The company's actions, a betrayal of its foundational ideals, paint a stark portrait of a corporation veering into the realms of corporate monstrosity.
In the face of these revelations, it is incumbent upon society to scrutinize Google's actions and hold the company accountable for its deviation from the principles that once made it a beacon of innovation. The shadows cast by censorship, authoritarianism, and a callous corporate culture must be acknowledged, for only in doing so can we strive for a future where benevolent corporate behemoths are not derailed by their descent into darkness.
As Google expands its dominion across the digital realm, the paradox of its ascent becomes increasingly apparent. The very attributes that define its success — technological prowess, market dominance, and relentless expansion — lay the groundwork for a descent into a darkness where ethical considerations become mere casualties of corporate ambition. The notion that a corporation can navigate this treacherous path without succumbing to the allure of unbridled power seems increasingly far-fetched. as we witness the apparent obliteration of all ethical guardrails.
As we navigate the dystopian reality crafted by corporate titans, the question morphs into a more ominous inquiry — not whether Google, or any corporate leviathan, is too big to be evil, but rather, if it is plausible for success to exist without descending into the darkness of corporate malevolence. The trajectory of these entities, driven by profit margins and unbridled expansion, casts a long and ominous shadow over the very essence of ethical corporate behavior.
The real challenge lies not in naively hoping for benevolent corporate giants but in recognizing the inherent contradictions of success within a system that values growth above all else. In this dystopian hellscape, the bleak truth emerges: the more a corporation expands, the more it becomes an instrument of its own malevolence.
In the face of this grim reality, the prospect of a corporation succeeding without succumbing to the temptations of corporate gigantism appears increasingly illusory. The journey ahead requires a reckoning with the dark underbelly of success, a realization that the very nature of corporate triumph may be intrinsically tied to a descent into the moral abyss.
As Google's shadow looms large over the corporate landscape, the real question haunting us is not just whether it is too big to be evil but whether the very concept of success within the current corporate paradigm is inherently entwined with a descent into the depths of ethical oblivion. The abyss awaits, and the journey ahead is fraught with peril.