Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The above article covers it nicely but corporations and our economic system in general rewards sociopathic behavior.
I worked in the executive suite of a Fortune 100 company for 18 years, writing for the highest-level executives — speeches, op/eds, presentations to stockholders, text for annual reports, etc.
And I completely agree with MSchemist. The system rewards behavior that is at best antisocial and at worst criminal. Did I know some intelligent executives? Absolutely. Did I know some who were nice to be around and seemed to care about other people on some level. A few. But the more humane they were and the better they were as citizens of the community and the world at large, the least likely they were to succeed to the highest levels. The ones who rose to the top thought only of how to make money for the stockholders and THEMSELVES.
The minute what was better for the world at large entered their minds was when their careers stalled. Even thinking of consequences for their long-time co-workers would hold them back. I saw some behavior in my tenure there that made my jaw drop and I still marvel at the level of sociopathy I observed on a regular basis. I later had some experience with venture capitalists and they were even worse than corporate executives. In a just society they would be locked up. The public never found out how much money Mitt Romney has, and where it is held and why, for a reason. You wouldn't want to live next door to him, let alone endorse him running the country.
And they are not held accountable. They F up an entire company they leave with a golden parachute.
The existence of golden parachutes itself point to a general recognition of where the real problem with corporations rest: With the shareholders, who cannot be trusted to live up to their commitments they make to leaders. Golden parachutes recognize that more often than otherwise, when things go south, either [a] it is the result of normal variation of performance and the vagaries of the marketplace, and investors are arrogant and vindictive cretins who need their pound of flesh when they don't get the quarterly results they demand, [b] it is the result of the shareholders being unwilling to authorize the kind of widespread changes that the CEO wants to implement, or [c] the executive made mistakes, but the shareholders operate in an environment within which they can act without accountability for the draconian nature of the sanction that they would impose. Like many other things it boils down to the nature of the individual in society who cannot control their blood thirst impulse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl
The system rewards behavior that is at best antisocial and at worst criminal.
Antisocial yes, as explained early in the thread, but there is no sound basis for implying that criminal behavior is sanctioned or rewarded by the system. Like it or not, "criminal" is a black and white thing: Either something is illegal or it isn't. We may not be sure or agree about where the line is, but we do all agree that there is a line, because without a line, there's no way to legitimately sanction anything. So given there is a line, the system rewards behavior that has companies operating just inside that line. And that's deliberate. Remember: The line is drawn specifically because business isn't supposed to act based on conscience, but rather in the best interests of its shareholders. The conscience of society is supposed to be codified in the line, which is then imposed on the business' behavior. The situation is such that it is like telling an employee that they're entitled to $100 of compensation per shift, and that they can take it out of the till. If they take $101 that's criminal. If they take $99 that's stupid.
Most everyone I know seems to have a poor opinion of executives. They're viewed as cutthroat and not caring about others. Are most executives you know seem like they're bad people?
You obviously know a bunch of uneducated losers. Like people in all phases of life, some are good and some are bad. To make a stupid general statement (in the third party) reflects poorly on the person communicating. I am a retired executive that worked my way up from nothing. I'm not going to say that non-executives are lazy, uninspired low-lives as your friends would likely do if the shoe were on the other foot.
I am a CEO of a oil company in Midland,Texas and my ultimate purpose is making money.I also am a bipolar aspie so I am machiavelian but I am a benevolent dictator
Most everyone I know seems to have a poor opinion of executives. They're viewed as cutthroat and not caring about others. Are most executives you know seem like they're bad people?
no they are actually great people. the ones that hate employers are those unskilled help that want something for free
The people who "make it to the top" are generally the ones willing to do almost anything to make it. People willing to do almost anything in order to get what they want are known as psychopaths.
Actually, psychopaths are too crazy to know right from wrong. Sociopaths just don't care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
