Ethics of Impatience and Impermanence - Essay Example

Ethics of Impatience and Impermanence Fast moving, diverse, versatile are some of the words that come to mindwhen one contemplates of the contemporary business environment; however, they are not limited to this sector since modern life is expected to be faster, more predictable and efficient. Many of the principal ideas in which retrospective business practices are grounded, are considered anachronistic and largely ignored by the new generation thinkers. This has brought about a culture of impermanence and impatience with people having little interest in the long-term aspect of business, instead focusing on how much “noise” or impact they can have in the short term. Particularly with the advent of online marketing and business, it is much easier for companies to be created marketed and flipped for a profit. Loosely put, ethics of impatience refers to the perception that when a company has not achieved success in a given period ranging from a few months to a decade, it is deemed to have failed. On the other hand, the ethics of impermanence has to do with the fact that some companies especially in Silicon Valley s are not built to last very long. This appears to be the principal motivation for many modern entrepreneurs. Whereby, instead of building companies that will provide services at present and in posterity, the trend has been to develop new ideas quickly and commercialize them as rapidly and profitably as possible. The impatience of investors and society in general has resulted in impermanence of ideas, which are only considered for their immediate profit as opposed to their potential. Nigel Thrift describes a common corporate phenomenal that he terms as a state of “permanent emergency”, which tends to increase a propensity for focusing on short-term and easily measurable goals (Thrift, 2000). He proposes that modern western business are undergoing a radical change, and they have reached the point predicted by Walter Benjamin where emergency becomes the rule. This notion clearly resonates with the impatience and importance discussed herein since it appears that companies are reluctant to make long term plans or show patience with ideas that do not produce instant results. These ideas have thrived in the capitalistic and highly consumerist modern cultures seeing that the notions appear to be co-dependent (Heelas, 2002). This sharply contrasts with the previously held notion of creating companies built to last with a view to long-term gains and services. This paper will endeavour to explore the underlying connections between the impermanence and impatience in business, consumption and the modern environment. George Steiner, a philosopher who posits that the young in Europe appear to be lacking a sense of direction and many have little hope in realising a mature political and social economic future, personifies the danger of impatience and impermanence (Collins, 2000). In other words, they live for today and today alone with little care for how they can leverage on the present, to build their future prospects. The case of Moritz Erhardt, a German intern working for Bank of America easily contextualized the situation many people and individuals have found themselves although in this instance, the consequences are extreme (Costea, Watt and Amiridis, 2014). The 21-year-old literally worked himself to death in the quest to get a permanent position in the company by working over three days without sleep, which triggered an epileptic fit that led to his demise. Considering that, the case is a reflection of many, less serious although common situations gives credence to the Ideas of Crane (2000) who portrays that the modern corporations are largely designed to escape moral obligations. Today, graduates find themselves faced with tempting and even menacing exhortations for becoming employable, and become obsessed with this idea. They are willing to do anything to secure a job, seeking to stimulate excitement form their peers and target audience who are in most cases potential employers (Costea, Watt and Amiridis, 2014). When these individuals have managed to climb their respective career ladders, it is not surprising that they are equally impatient with projects and plans seeking instant profits and gratification. With such leaders at the helm, companies tend to be short termed and the tendency to flip companies for quick profits is high. Jim Collins (2000) examines the idea of companies built to flip, where one does not need to invest time or money in the construction of an enduring company. All they need to do is to put together an idea, implements a rough draft and open the gates to instant wealth. To put this into context, one can compare Edison Labs and Google.inc. Both companies appear to be built around the genius of their founders. Edison would come up with ideas, which would then be monetized by the firm, and in Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin controlled much of what went on in the company. However in the former, when Edison died, so did the company since it was not built to last, but rather designed around his genius. However, in Google’s case, although the company was built around them, it has diversified to become bigger than the founders which is why it has been in no danger of being flipped since its big enough in itself (Brandt, 2011). Collins (2000) criticizes the “built to flip” notion by analysing the success of companies such as HP, Dell, Walmart and others that might never have come to be the success they are today. In the present mind-set, the founders of such companies are seen as retrogressive and old fashioned yet they have built some of the most profitable and enduring brands of modern times. Many of today’s brands such as; Microsoft, Motorola, Intel and many others exist because the founders were willing to risk. They had the patience to plod from the bottom and in some cases wait for years before their enterprise could turn profits. However, the world is at a critical point where the explosion of the internet related business ideas has created a culture where entrepreneurship is seen as the key to wealth and entitlement (Teece, 2010). People, are willing to go to great lengths to come up with new and original ideas and acquire funding for them; however, they do not do so because for the sake of the idea (Solomon, 2004). On the contrary, the watchword is money; everyone wants to accumulate as much as possible irrespective of the potential of the project at hand. In case it does not generate profit in the short run, it will be likely ignored and finding sponsors will be a nightmare. The present culture appears to be steeped in the notion that has been superseded by a mind-set that emerged in the 80s of a culture that celebrates greed and where more is always better. The cavalier and myopic attitude with which the environment and the welfare of the physical world are being handled is a reflection of the impermanence characterizes corporate and government ethical practice. Over the course of the past century, humanity has accumulated more material and technological possessions than has ever been the case in retrospect. However, the 21st century is faced with critical challenges of inadequacy of resources mostly stemming from the degradation of the ecosystem. The state of earth is at an all-time low because of overexploitation of natural resources and extreme levels of pollution. The yardstick for measuring progress and development is industrialization, which gives credence to the division of developed vs. developing countries. These are also referred to as, industrialized vs. none industrialized. This process of industrialization has however had an incredible impact on the ecosystems resulting in an imbalance of nature, pollution and even climate changes. For example, t is estimated that the oil that has been extracted so far, is enough to cause irreversible damage to the environment. However, even with full knowledge of this, there are still thousands of companies digging for oil world over. Along with the challenge of pollution there is the issue of over population, despite the marked limited resources for people already on the planet, the population appears to be increasing exponentially. This means that world is quickly depleting its natural resources, which implies that in posterity there will be even less. The fact that this is statistically self-evident and common knowledge little is done of a large scale to counter it bespeaks the common short-sightedness and inability to take decisive action. Steffen et al. (2011), notes that one of the most overt signs of human-driven change in the global environment: The warming of the earth atmosphere and depletion of the Ozone layer are unequivocally caused by human activity. The possible consequences are immense and include among other things the risk of the sea level rising and extreme temperatures, which will cause much more damage than the projected climate, change statistics. Explicably, the same way, the environment is treated, applies to the manner in which companies are flipped about. According to Collins (2000), the company is little more than a “disposable injection”. In many cases, people create companies with the sole objective of introducing a product in the market and as soon as the primary objective is accomplished, the company is discarded. In the case of many ventures today, the main question is which company will end up owning a given piece of technology. Inventors and developers tend to produce technology with the view of commercializing by selling them to a few multinationals. While in some cases, this is the most logical and practical cause of action, the lack of emphasis on performance as well as the prevalence of impatience among founders negatively affects creativity. For example, in case Facebook had been sold off to Microsoft or some other tech Giant that would seem more “capable” of leveraging its potential, it would have been unlikely to reach the highs it has achieved today because of patiently pursuing an idea. In the end, although the two notions appear to be disconnected, the same culture of impatience that allows people to neglect the environment and take for granted factors that will directly affect their future is manifest in the corporate world. Whether concerning business the environment or socialization, society appears determined to sacrifice stability and potential for the sake of the short run profits they stand to make from various ventures. In many ways, instant gratification appears to be the cornerstone of modern life and many social groups; more so the youths, have become addicted or at least constantly expectant of immediate results (Zur & Zur, 2011). Technology has greatly contributed to this with the availability of real-time solutions to numerous social challenges more so communication. Everyone wants the fastest internet connection and although few can actually tell, for instance, the difference between 4G and 4GLTE the will opt for the latter since it is considered the fastest and the best. Smartphone owners are on the lookout for the latest models, which they update at high cost, not because the old ones are obsolete but because there are new ones available. When the same is applied to the environment, negative consequences are inevitable (Steffen et al., 2011). As aforementioned, there is enough oil to cause significant damage to the environment but despite this, there has been little actual effort to reduce or even stop the exploitation and even exploration of new reserves. This means that humanity is consciously engaged in activities that can be directly attributed to its future destruction but keeps doing so for the sake of short-term profits. Most of the world economies today measure success by GDP rather than quality of life; it does not matter if people have access to clean and fresh air or a noise free environment. The exchequers account is the ultimate means of keeping score and as long as money keeps pouring in, it matters little the extent of damage it has on the ecology or the social fibre. According to (Costanza, 1992), when the ecosystem services fail to be captured in commercial markets and are inadequately qualified about economic services, they end up having insufficient weight in policy decisions. Because of this neglect, the sustainability of humans in the biosphere is constantly under threat. Given the dependence of humans on the ecosystem, it is likely that the economies of at least half the developed world would come to a near stop if they had suddenly to stop polluting the environment or were forced to take up “green” practices. However, it is ironic that these same nations also know that the rate at which they are producing toxic emissions in endangering their very future but they keep at it for the sake of short-term profits. An individual will start up a venture and as soon as it is profitable sell it to the highest bidder for the cash reward. This might be geared towards providing him with short-term wealth perhaps to compete with his contemporaries. In the same way, nations keep competing to have the best GDP but the citizens end up paying for it since these achievements are by sacrificing their welfare through pollution, which jeopardizes the quality of life. In addition, there has emerged a growth of corporate culture where multinationals are becoming just as, and in some cases even more powerful than governments. However, their priorities have been underscored by a profit motive and they are willing to do virtually anything to meet this end irrespective of the impact it has on people or the environment. An example of this was demonstrated in the 2010 BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf, the company it turned out had failed to follow the right procedure and this resulted into an ecological catastrophe. This is just one of many examples where the interests of the society or the environment have been put in the peripheral in pursuit of profit (Brennan, 2013). As mentioned in the thesis of this paper, there is a distinct correlation between individual tendency for impatience and the impermanent of companies and the global propensity for shorter money oriented objectives. This short-termism can only be overcome if individuals and corporates are willing to practice patience and learn from the experiences of firms that have become successful as result patience and endurance over long periods. One of way this can be achieved is using technology to make long term projections, for example, when sponsors or potential stakeholders are gauging the viability of a company, they typically don’t try to see past the profits for the first few months or years. In the same, way when it comes to matters of pollution and population, corporates should make effort (which is very easy) to confront the medium and long term impacts of their action. In the end, companies that spew toxic fumes into the environment should consider the impact of climate change and acid rain not only on the world but also on even themselves. In conclusion, it is apparent that the contemporary culture, impatient and impermanence have come to characterize business practice and the general attitude towards the environment. The primary motive is profit, which is made as quickly as possible with little regard to the consequences to the environment or the business potential of an idea. While admitting that flipping can be used solid business strategy for various projects it is often short sighted and reduces the potential of developing lasting business ideas. Many of the companies that provide essential services such as Microsoft are founded on a culture of endurance, which allows them space and time to grow and achieve much more than would have been possible if they had just been flipped and sold. Creativity is the often the result of the innovativeness by fresh minds in an industry and when they simply use it to feed already existing models with fresh ideas, the space for growth of ideas will be greatly reduced. Ultimately, even when it comes to the environment, it is critical that the stakeholders should take to account the permanent nature of the consequences of their actions. References Brandt, R. L., 2011. The Google Guys: Inside the Brilliant Minds of Google Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. London: Penguin. Brennan, L.C., 2013. Gulf oil spill. Minnesota: ABDO Publishing Company. Collins, J. 2000. Built to flip. Fast Company, 32, 131-50. Costanza, R., 1992. Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press. Costea, B., Watt, P. and Amiridis K., 2014. What killed Moritz Erhardt? Idols and ideas in “graduate” images or, the cultural dangers of ‘positive’ ideas. Lancaster: Lancaster University Crane, A. (2000). Corporate Greening as Amoralization. Organization Studies,21(4), 673-696. Heelas, P., 2002. Work ethics, soft capitalism and the “turn to life”. Cultural economy, 78-96. Solomon, R.C., 2004. Aristotle, ethics and business organisations. Organisation Studies, 25(6), 1021–1043. Steffen, W., Persson, Å., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., & Svedin, U. 2011. The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio, 40(7), 739-761. Teece, D. J., 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning, 43(2), 172-194. Thrift, N. (2000). Performing cultures in the new economy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4), 674-692. Zur, O., & Zur, A., 2011. On digital immigrants and digital natives: How the digital divide affects families, educational institutions, and the workplace. Zur Institute. [Online] Available at: [accessed 11/01/2015] Read More