I think part of the answer to Ryan’s question lies in Google’s ability to find products that already exist, and improve them. Search engine? We’ll build a better one. Webmail? We’ll give you more storage space than anyone, and throw out Outlook Express because our web interface is better. I don’t know enough about the company to pinpoint more specific examples, but this seems to be more relevant.

There are a lot of people that want to paint morality as this big gray area of human understanding, where everything is indeterminate and subjective. But it is irrelevant whether there is some sort of universal morality when there clearly DOES seem to be a morality that holds for about 99% of the people you will encounter.

What Google understood is that it would be worth the extra energy and forfeited short-term profit to establish themselves on a plateau of morality and consistent effort. They knew that there was a level of effort that people would take advantage of and then there is a level of effort that people would admire and want to contribute to. To keep pushing through that first level takes some serious discipline and farsightedness.

Morality is not altruism. It’s collaboration for mutual gain. But once you’ve made your gains, it pays dividends to give away even more and to try new things. Like Ryan said, this has been the basis for common decency and personal growth since people began writing about such things. Now that companies must be as accountable as individuals, it makes sense that these “rules” would obtain in the business world.

Keep up the good work.

“When their needs are met, they naturally act in more psychologically healthy ways…”

I’ve always been annoyed with people who call themselves philosophers because they sit around and think but do nothing (and probably smoke a lot of weed). Saying things like “act that way” “allow freedom” is extremely vague; that’s more of the same talk. It’s not easy to be “happier” or “more caring.” I don’t think it’s natural to behave in these ways, these people aren’t inherently different. It’s a continuous conscious effort, examining their actions and possible outcomes — really understanding this, people who check and balance each other when the shady alternative is the easiest.

It’s a from the bottom up view, vs top down. Take care of the employee, who will choose take care of the org vs take care of the org which will keep the employee in line. Taking care being, acting in highest moral regard…. although that is subjective…Hmm.

I think that psychology applies to the individual, to better help them come up with strategy and philosophy which leads them to create the organization, it’s values and culture. This leads to the actions that the company is able to take. Highly macavelian philosophies, created by leaders that are not healthy mentally who think that macavelian strategies are the way businesses work create companies that are highly macavelian.

The leaders of google and the like, I think, are philosophers, thinkers and idealists… and part of that is people try to live up to those ideals set up by their org. They take into account that people will act that way, and allow them the freedom too, while expecting them to live by higher standards. When their needs are met, they naturally act in more psychologically healthy ways, ie, happier, more caring etc…

They design an organization in accordance with their philosophies, perspective for the world, and knowledge… which is based on their psychology and how healthy they are mentally.

So their company is an extension of their perspective and psychology?

Thinking out loud,

John

He’s on the right track, but it’s the actual organisation and development of platforms that will get us there.

Great post.