I believe that the inability for business in our society to be socially aware or responsibile stems from the separation of private life and public life. I can't remember what book this was, but it looked at what war criminals were like in private life. Its main point was that, in private, war criminals were nice guys.
According to the book, the transition from being war criminals by day and family men by night, was possible through some rationalisation acrobatics or detachment from responsibility. As an example of detachment, the Nazi concentration camps didn't have an atypical ratio of psychopath to average joe. The predominant "average joes" would offload responsibility by telling themselves that this is not their decision, but that this is the _current policy of the organistation_, which is an interestingly complex statement, in the subconscious sense. It detaches the organisation participant from the organisation, and it detaches the organisation from their policy.
To come back to business v family, I think the old koan holds: separation isn't good. The rule of thumb in social situations is if detachment or separation is the easiest route, you're doing something wrong. Business is social action by necessity. So should we separate action from responsibility? What do we think of someone who is selfish and avoids responsibility?
> The predominant "average joes" would offload responsibility by telling themselves that this is not their decision, but that this is the _current policy of the organistation_, which is an interestingly complex statement, in the subconscious sense. It detaches the organisation participant from the organisation, and it detaches the organisation from their policy.
Yes, your job as the "average Joe" is to be loyal to the organization. That statement doesn't sound surprising to me, and it took me a few seconds to realize why. I've heard it before. I grew up in a religion where there was an organization, and your job was to be loyal to God by being loyal to the Organization. Only by being on the outside now I see how this is a neat way to release responsibility. See also: "Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die.".
> The rule of thumb in social situations is if detachment or separation is the easiest route, you're doing something wrong. Business is social action by necessity. So should we separate action from responsibility?
It was easier back when you were naturally limited by geography to do business with people you also knew "after hours". These days, business and personal relationships are almost entirely non-overlapping. Hell, it's a common advice to avoid that overlap.
According to the book, the transition from being war criminals by day and family men by night, was possible through some rationalisation acrobatics or detachment from responsibility. As an example of detachment, the Nazi concentration camps didn't have an atypical ratio of psychopath to average joe. The predominant "average joes" would offload responsibility by telling themselves that this is not their decision, but that this is the _current policy of the organistation_, which is an interestingly complex statement, in the subconscious sense. It detaches the organisation participant from the organisation, and it detaches the organisation from their policy.
To come back to business v family, I think the old koan holds: separation isn't good. The rule of thumb in social situations is if detachment or separation is the easiest route, you're doing something wrong. Business is social action by necessity. So should we separate action from responsibility? What do we think of someone who is selfish and avoids responsibility?