Social | Make Him | Founders' Review Editorial

This article is about the limits of conservative, orthodox management that embraces the priority of loyalty as opposed to individual liberties.

The scenario resembles a cinematic script: In a nuclear missile silo, two airmen are assigned to execute commands from the President. Upon receiving such a command, they are required to turn two keys simultaneously, each airman responsible for one. If one airman hesitates, protocol dictates that the other must eliminate the hesitant party and proceed with the missile launch. It is imperative that all commands issued by the President are adhered. It is a simplified logic like a Western movie.

Similarly, certain military forces implemented stringent rules during live ammunition training. If a member of a squad turns back while in formation, the guard on duty is instructed to take lethal action to prevent potential injuries, acknowledging that a single AK-47 round can penetrate multiple soldiers. These represent some of the most severe and alarming examples of hierarchical command structures.

Link of the day.
The era of pagers for top executives is here. Here.

Link of the day.
Andreessen Horowitz, the top 100 AI apps. Here.

Regulatory.
Samsung workers protesting in India. Here.

However, more grounded instances of managerial overreach are evident in various industries. In the case of United States v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, Intuit, Inc., and Pixar, the court mandated compensation in 2014 due to cartel-like behavior arising from agreements that limited employee mobility and suppressed competition in hiring practices. While it is beneficial for management personnel to transition among companies within the same industry, concerns persist regarding whether the requirement of professional references effectively safeguards employee rights. The often limited and opaque information resulting from "employment at will" management styles can contribute to cartel-like behaviors.

In terms of feedback and review processes, if an employer willfully and repeatedly disregards standard protocols, such behavior may be construed as contributing to a hostile work environment.

"Employment at will" refers to an employment arrangement where there is no obligation to disclose reasons for termination or other employment decisions. This approach can avert costly lawsuits but may also delay more serious legal actions related to discrimination, defamation, or improper wage practices. Management positions often symbolize seniority; however, questions arise about the transparency and accessibility of information necessary to attain such roles.

A typical corporation may prioritize loyalty as the fundamental principle for managerial roles. Executive management sets the overarching strategy, and middle management is generally responsible for conveying and implementing this strategy among individual contributors. This task-oriented management approach focuses on allocating budgets and ensuring project completion.

Despite this rational methodology, many corporations adopt relationship-based management practices that require staff to ascend hierarchical ladders. While building relationships fosters trust, it may also introduce emotional dynamics into teams, which is not always conducive to a healthy work environment. Teams operating under constrained budgets often attempt to train and retain a core staff while leveraging vendors for additional work or to inflate budgets through increased headcounts. Such diverging strategies may lead to burnout, performance issues, and conflicts stemming from a shift away from company strategy toward internal politics.

International clientele can sometimes amplify risks due to diplomatic concerns over current account deficits, which can distort revenues and lead to increased taxation. The influence of foreign governments may conflict with the interests of investors who hold such securities in their retirement portfolios.

The author suggests that antitrust authorities should reassess the requirement for professional references in hiring processes. Such prerequisites may inadvertently create legal loopholes, allowing prospective employers to conduct background checks using "objective" references obtained through alternative means such as government agencies, special interest groups, or diplomatic channels.

Similarly, "employment at will" clauses may need to be supplemented with non-retaliation provisions. There have been instances where illicit groups attempt to forge connections with management and executives, targeting influential circles.

Many lawsuits prove that criminal circles oftentimes seek connections and meet management and executives like the meetings between convicted Jeffrey Epstein and Microsoft executives. It is not a surprise that criminals try to target the circles where the money is. Amazon's top law executives described a worker "not smart or articulate" and vowed to "make him the face of the entire union/organizing movement". People are independent citizens making their story themselves. It is important to note that such conservative, orthodox remarks reflect an overly aggressive management approach that reflects the stressful environment of top performing places. There is oftentimes more rhetoric than actual intent behind it. Still, some team members may act on such words considering them as strategic instructions.

Reports have emerged of executives making derogatory remarks about employees and allegations of improper conduct within corporate structures. The remarks of Microsoft executives excuses pointing on organizer "engineers" at the go-go dancer scandal of Xbox in 2016 that disappeared from the internet is an example. Notably, there is no evidence to suggest that educational backgrounds in engineering, law, or finance prescribe different ethical standards in professional practices. Art schools are distinctly unique, each providing a different perspective on education in the arts.

Such assessments are oftentimes tied to marketing brand strategy, and management's prestige to show the ability to enforce them. It is related less to ethics in general rather than securing a diverse revenue base by not alienating women for example. This is why shadowing the image of engineering schools seems strange from the executive of a brand corporation. If a manager is seriously working on a brand image, the first ethical rule is to respect the brand image of third parties.

The "employment at will" doctrine does not adequately address the disproportionate power that even a small corporation can exert over an individual post-employment. Factors such as associations with individuals later convicted of crimes, media relations, informal networks, and opaque "no-hire" lists - particularly those integrated into artificial intelligence systems - exacerbate this imbalance. Legislation is still adapting to an era characterized by limited reasoning and virtually limitless avenues for disseminating information. It is imperative to recognize that limited liability is a right afforded to employees, including managers. Governments should consider imposing criminal liability on managers in instances of retaliatory defamation, as legal departments may prioritize expedited monetary settlements and the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements over thorough investigations - practices that disproportionately favor financially robust corporations over individuals.

Protecting individual human and privacy rights against corporate interests remains challenging in the current decade. The proliferation of remote work has integrated aspects of employees' private lives into the corporate environment, allowing corporations to extend their influence into private networks, albeit within certain limits.

Returning to the original premise, the author asserts that nuclear deterrence must be employed with the utmost caution. Instances necessitating immediate strategic action are exceedingly rare, one such scenario being the defense of a nation's nuclear strike capability. The notion of enacting "capital punishment" on nations is not to be taken lightly. Nonetheless, the potential for immediate retaliation was a genuine concern during the Cold War, influenced by the prevailing Western frontier mentality of the era. It is important for such critical decisions to be understood by the electorate; educational tools like the early 2000s British game "DEFCOИ" serve as illustrative examples.

The author believes that management should possess a broad array of tools to motivate and discipline employees, while operating within legal and ethical boundaries of course. Any influence exerted beyond the term of employment should be regulated by criminal law, as protections against retaliation may be limited when involving a former employer of both the team member and the manager.