Five Reasons Ayn Rand Is Bad for Business

CNBC ^ | 8-20-12 | Geoffrey James, INC

[dynachrome]

1. Rand focuses employees on money.

Rand practically worshipped the almighty dollar, seeing the acquisition of wealth as a goal worthy in and of itself.

Unfortunately, when that attitude spreads throughout an organization, a higher salary becomes the only motivation that really works. That means top workers will, of course, leave the moment they get a better offer elsewhere.

[dynachrome]

A load of codswollop from cnbc

[dynachrome]

ping. So much wrong here, hard to know where to start.

[Da Coyote]

Remember, these folks believe in “climate change” too.

That says it all.

[usconservative]

That means top workers will, of course, leave the moment they get a better offer elsewhere.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that either. Talent moves, influences other organizations to become better, then moves on again and the cycle repeats itself.

I for one willingly whore myself out to the Company that pays me the highest dollar. It's in MY and MY FAMILY's best interest, and those are the only two interests I serve.

Company "loyalty" hasn't been rewarded for a long, long, time. I learned that lesson the hard way when I literally gave my life for a Company that I loved, only to be released after nearly 10 years of service because I had a severe back injury which required surgery and 4 months to recover from.

Learned my lesson after that. Highest bidder for my services wins.

[Publius]

Oh dear!

[dynachrome]

Offer me $10 dollars more an hour, but I have to move to Deeeeetroit, I say FU.

[Bryanw92]

>>Company “loyalty” hasn’t been rewarded for a long, long, time.

Exactly. Employers try to convince you that your loyalty is important to them, right up until they decide they don’t need you anymore or they can find your labor cheaper. It only makes sense to return that level of loyalty to them. As long as they offer the most bucks, I’ll give them the best work I can.

[andyk]

Talent moves, influences other organizations to become better, then moves on again and the cycle repeats itself.

Exactly - what is wrong with a company realizing that they can't rely on employees sacrificing their futures for the "greater good"?

[Still Thinking]

That means top workers will, of course, leave the moment they get a better offer elsewhere.

Cause after all, why should you have to pay top dollar just to get top talent? (And they think conservatives are the robber barons!) [facepalm]

[piytar]

Wow, is the author brain damaged, totally ignorant of economics, or being an obastard whoreshipper?

I’d bet on all three...

[dila813]

I think someone pointing out why it is good, if the business wants the person they will be willing to pay for them.

If they want a cheap employee, then they can get a cheap employee.

[dynachrome]

Sure, I am just saying that salary is not everything.

[Billthedrill]

For Rand, there is no higher good than pursuing one's own happiness. The problem with that philosophy is that it encourages workers to view their personal success as being far more important than the group's success...

Is that you, Jim Taggart? This is some of the funniest stuff I've read in ages, and thanks for posting it. Good heavens, workers considering themselves individuals and working for money? How dare they?

The author is either the most clueless individual on teh Interwebz at the moment or the most excellent parodist. Yes, Rand is bad for business because she encourages individual achievement and an insistence that reward be commensurate with it. Lord knows you can't run a business on the basis of individual achievement and reward. That would be (shudder) capitalism.

[denydenydeny]

“One major misconception is that Rand worshipped the rich and saw moneymaking as life’s highest goal. In fact, most wealthy characters in her novels are pathetic, repulsive, or both: businessmen fattened on shady deals or government perks, society people who fill their empty lives with luxury. (There are also sympathetic poor and working-class characters.) . . . .To Rand, being ‘selfish’ meant being true to oneself, neither sacrificing one’s own desires nor trampling on others. Likewise, Rand’s stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collective—state, church, community, or family.”
—Cathy Young, “What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand”

[mnehring]

+1 times infinity.

[William Tell]

From the article:"The problem with that philosophy is that it encourages workers to view their personal success as being far more important than the group's success..."

While we all know that the proper perspective is that one should sacrifice all for the good of the collective group. This concept is so key to economic success that the government should play the role of umpire to decide who sacrifices and who benefits.

I wonder if the writer realizes just how ridiculous he appears to those who recognize and revile those whom Rand identified as the "moochers" and the "takers".

[mnehring]

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. - Ayn Rand

[The Duke]

Exactly. Employers try to convince you that your loyalty is important to them, right up until they decide they don’t need you anymore or they can find your labor cheaper. It only makes sense to return that level of loyalty to them. As long as they offer the most bucks, I’ll give them the best work I can.

I'm an employer and loyalty is *EXTREMELY* important to me. In fact, I consider it to be a big revenue generator.

[William Tell]

From the linked article: "Please note that I am not making a judgment on the philosophical validity of Objectivism or Ayn Rand's work in general. I'm only pointing out that if you promote her writing inside your own company, you're shooting yourself in the foot."

I expect that this author's next article will be an enumeration of all those companies that embraced Rand's teachings and have ended up in bankruptcy court. Is it possible that Solyndra was such a company? How about General Motors? Or the United States Postal Service?

Why, the bankruptcy courts must be crowded with the many companies that insisted on giving value-for-value to their customers and who refused to even consider government bailouts or other interference.