I find the generic “workers are important” quotes remarkable, in the sense that they do nothing but contribute to the sense that these companies really don’t care.
The ppl in the companies care. But they have become small replaceable cogs/machine parts given the scales the machine has reached. The machine has become mindless and uncontrollable.
Larger things scale less control over everything the chimp troupe with their 6 inch chimp brains have. Its the lesson of the last 2O years - we quickly loose control and enter Jurassic Park style reality.
One perspective is that large institutions have a sort of life of their own, caused by the interaction of internal factions and priorities, and almost beyond the ability of any individual to change.
Nobody in America is in favour of school shootings, and yet they get loads of them. Nobody at Google wants people to avoid their products expecting them to be cancelled, and yet they have that reputation.
Another perspective is that of course the institution's actions are the result of individuals' actions, what else could it possibly be?
That multinational that appears to have committed manslaughter would like us to believe nobody was responsible and it was just a tragic series of misunderstandings and communication breakdowns, so nobody should face any punishment. Are we fools to believe that?
> Another perspective is that of course the institution's actions are the result of individuals' actions, what else could it possibly be?
Of course, but the naive part is believing all those individuals are spherical people in a vacuum, making independent decisions that are all well-thought-out and optimize for globally best outcome.
> That multinational that appears to have committed manslaughter would like us to believe nobody was responsible and it was just a tragic series of misunderstandings and communication breakdowns, so nobody should face any punishment. Are we fools to believe that?
Yes and no. It's foolish to believe individuals have much agency in this setting. Everyone, from the bottom tier to C-suite, is entangled in a web of interlocking incentives, that are ultimately anchored outside of any one company or institution[0]. Some people are handling large levers and could almost unilaterally make the company change course, but at a great cost to themselves[1], and thus it's foolish to expect them to become heroes, especially before an issue hits the news cycle. It's the same kind of error in thinking that rests behind ideas like "voting with your wallet".
That said, the conclusion that "nobody should face any punishment" is also wrong. Punishment is a powerful incentive that can cut through the tangled web. Even if you believe nobody is by themselves responsible for a bad thing, targeted punishment (or threat of it) at e.g. people holding the levers can encourage them to be more eager to pull those levers and steer the entire system away from causing the bad outcome.
----
[0] - Like, desire to keep your current standard of living, whatever it is, which may be driven not by your own need for comfort, but a desire to not disappoint your spouse and/or children.
[1] - And highly likely it would be reversed the moment they got fired for operating the lever wrong. Checks and balances :).
This. It only gets the way it is, because the people have allowed it.
I know it's not ideal to have to go through the pain and trouble of being the good and righteous person who stands up against bad employers; but you HAVE to do it, or this is what happens.
Too often the people at the top don't define the culture explicitly. Instead, they do it accidentally through behaviors they incentivize, often without even realizing it. Sometimes they do this in direct conflict with the culture they are trying to explicitly champion (e.g., saying "we believe in transparency" while subtly punishing people for being open, maybe for well-intentioned reasons). And once a given company culture takes hold, it can be very hard to change because people who thrive in that culture tend to stay longer and get promoted more. Those people end up being a kind of "momentum" for the proliferation of said culture.
In my experience, it takes people in positions of power, and with real skills for cultivating culture, to deeply change an existing work culture for the better. I've seen a few leaders with such skills make wonderful changes at their scale of influence. But I've seen far more people in leadership positions who act as if they are largely unaware of the nuance and importance of good company culture.
Such changes are also hard because meaningful cultural improvements often conflict with short term revenue/profit. It takes a lot of discipline in senior leadership to maintain the needed resolve given ever-present pressures to produce in the short term.
It would almost be better to say nothing.