Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[garbon]

I feel like their might be different incentives in the naval situation vs Meta.

[Tamas]

Indeed the military is "slightly" different than a private company. In the Navy it's people's life at stake. At "Meta" it's the profit margin. Both important, but not exactly to the same degree.

[Josquius]

I do wonder about Facebook.
It used to be one of the big names people aspired to work for. Considering how it's reputation has plumetted is it still managing to attract top people?

[Berkut]

They give generous stock options. Yes, they still attract rtop people.

[The Minsky Moment]

"Meta, Metamates, Me"

New value statement for fbook employees with order of importance on how employees should place their own interests relative to company and colleagues.

I am starting to think Zuckerberg is cracking under the pressure of having taken over from Gates as Evil IT Guy in the eyes of the public. No I don't mean the "world destroyer evil rich guy" role which Gates holds (and fairly recently), but rather the old role he had around "Windows monopoly destroying freedom" nonsense from a while back.

That "Metamates" statement is just a restatement of the US Navy's "Ship, shipmates, self" philosophy.  It's not particularly evil.

Agreed, it would be odd for any organization to urge members to prioritize self-interest, unless they are Randians.

[garbon]

"Meta, Metamates, Me"

New value statement for fbook employees with order of importance on how employees should place their own interests relative to company and colleagues.

I am starting to think Zuckerberg is cracking under the pressure of having taken over from Gates as Evil IT Guy in the eyes of the public. No I don't mean the "world destroyer evil rich guy" role which Gates holds (and fairly recently), but rather the old role he had around "Windows monopoly destroying freedom" nonsense from a while back.

That "Metamates" statement is just a restatement of the US Navy's "Ship, shipmates, self" philosophy.  It's not particularly evil.

Agreed, it would be odd for any organization to urge members to prioritize self-interest, unless they are Randians.

On the other hand would probably be a shitty manager who explicitly told a direct report: I need you put the company's interests ahead of your own.

[The Brain]

First comes the Lord Jesus Christ.

[crazy canuck]

"Meta, Metamates, Me"

New value statement for fbook employees with order of importance on how employees should place their own interests relative to company and colleagues.

I am starting to think Zuckerberg is cracking under the pressure of having taken over from Gates as Evil IT Guy in the eyes of the public. No I don't mean the "world destroyer evil rich guy" role which Gates holds (and fairly recently), but rather the old role he had around "Windows monopoly destroying freedom" nonsense from a while back.

That "Metamates" statement is just a restatement of the US Navy's "Ship, shipmates, self" philosophy.  It's not particularly evil.

Agreed, it would be odd for any organization to urge members to prioritize self-interest, unless they are Randians.

On the other hand would probably be a shitty manager who explicitly told a direct report: I need you put the company's interests ahead of your own.

Not sure where you are going with that.  All employees owe a duty to their employer to act in the employer's interests - with limited exceptions (basically health and safety and the actions must be lawful).

[The Brain]

Leaving out the exceptions can easily give the impression that you don't think there are exceptions.

[crazy canuck]

Leaving out the exceptions can easily give the impression that you don't think there are exceptions.

Perhaps, but giving the impression that employees are entitled to consider their own interests ahead of the organization that is paying them to do otherwise is a bit odd.

[garbon]

Not sure where you are going with that.  All employees owe a duty to their employer to act in the employer's interests - with limited exceptions (basically health and safety and the actions must be lawful).

I'm not going anywhere with it. I think it is implicit that you have to work with your employer's interests in mind but it is a very different thing to be told that you need to put your employer's interests above your own interests. I see little to no value in have a value statement that explicitly states that to employees.

[grumbler]

Not sure where you are going with that.  All employees owe a duty to their employer to act in the employer's interests - with limited exceptions (basically health and safety and the actions must be lawful).

I'm not going anywhere with it. I think it is implicit that you have to work with your employer's interests in mind but it is a very different thing to be told that you need to put your employer's interests above your own interests. I see little to no value in have a value statement that explicitly states that to employees.

Who is telling their employees to put the employer's interests above their own interests?

[crazy canuck]

Not sure where you are going with that.  All employees owe a duty to their employer to act in the employer's interests - with limited exceptions (basically health and safety and the actions must be lawful).

I'm not going anywhere with it. I think it is implicit that you have to work with your employer's interests in mind but it is a very different thing to be told that you need to put your employer's interests above your own interests. I see little to no value in have a value statement that explicitly states that to employees.

There is an important distinction between what a person does while employed (let's call that on the clock) and what they do in their own time (off the clock).  On the clock an employee has a duty to their employee to perform the duties they have contracted to do.  That will almost always mean subordinating their own interests to that of the duties they must perform on behalf of the employer.  No organization could function effectively otherwise.  Imagine a world in which a person could say, "you know, I just don't feel like doing that today.  Find someone else to do it would you."

Off the clock you can think about whether that is best for you all you want.  And you can take steps to find better employment, retire or do whatever you want.  But on the clock, you have agreed to do what you being paid to do.

[Jacob]

Well... if the phrase is meant to reflect the basic facts of employment that apply to all jobs, it seems a bit weird to make it the company value statement.

To me it comes across as an attempt to require the kind of dedication and esprit de corps you find in high morale military units. I can understand why it's desirable for a corporation if its people have that degree of commitment, but it seems a bit rich from the perspective as an employee. The context is a bit different, I'd think. Then again, I'll probably never work at Facebook, so what do I know?

[mongers]

Well... if the phrase is meant to reflect the basic facts of employment that apply to all jobs, it seems a bit weird to make it the company value statement.

To me it comes across as an attempt to require the kind of dedication and esprit de corps you find in high morale military units. I can understand why it's desirable for a corporation if its people have that degree of commitment, but it seems a bit rich from the perspective as an employee. The context is a bit different, I'd think. Then again, I'll probably never work at Facebook, so what do I know?

Well put, Jacob.