In judging people it’s often helpful to divide them into dog people or cat people. Can you characterize corporations the same way?
Since you probably haven’t read Google’s Code of Conduct you will not be aware that Google is a dog company. The preface to the Code’s dog policy states,”Google’s affection for our canine friends is an integral facet of our corporate culture.We like cats, but we’re a dog company, so as a general rule we feel cats visiting our offices would be fairly stressed out.”
Though you could argue for hours about the natures of cats and dogs, animal-lovers instinctively understand what Google means when it says it’s a dog company. Most of us think of domesticated dogs as friendly, sociable, trustworthy and happy to serve mankind. For that reason, when Google declares “Don’t be evil” as its guiding principle we’re inclined to give it more credence than if it were the slogan of a company that behaved more unpredictably and deviously – a cat company, in other words.
Wicked?
It must be deeply distressing to Google’s management to be characterized by its critics as wicked. That epithet and variations on it have recently been alleged in response to Google’s aggressive initiative to digitize the world’s inventory of out of print books. “Years after cracking the very code of the Web to lucrative ends,” writes the New York Times‘s David Carr, “Google may be in the midst of trying to conjure the most complicated algorithm yet: to wit, can goodness, or at least a stated intention not to be evil, scale along with the enterprise?” Carr’s article is entitled How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google?
Note that Carr distinguishes between a mandate to do good and one not to do evil. The two are vastly different from one another. Hippocrates drew the distinction in his instructions to physicians: “As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm.” There are also two strikingly contrasting expressions of the Golden Rule: one is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The other: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.”
Google’s mission is phrased in the negative: Don’t be evil rather than Do good. Why? One reason might be credibility: we tend to doubt the probity of do-gooders. But the struggle to avoid evil is universal; everybody roots for those who strive to resist temptation.
The Code
Just what does Google mean by “evil”? I’m reminded of a story about President Calvin Coolidge, a notoriously taciturn man. One Sunday as he left church a reporter asked him what the minister’s sermon was about. Coolidge said “Evil.” “What did the minister say about evil?” the reporter pressed. “He was against it,” Coolidge replied.
It’s easy to be against evil until you’re asked to define it. But here’s the interesting thing about Google: it does defines it. It defines it in the 15 single spaced pages of its Code of Conduct.
Here’s a statement from the Preface:
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, who then build great products, which in turn attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.
Among the provisions of the Code are positions on integrity, respect, privacy, freedom of expression, drugs and alcohol, co-worker relationships, gifts, expenses, anti-bribery, confidentiality, insider trading and yes…dogs. The spirit of the document is not unlike that of the honor codes of some colleges like Haverford College or West Point. Employees are expect to read the Code thoroughly and not only to be aware of its requirements but to make sure vendors, licensees and others adhere to them as well.
Because the Code of Conduct is educational, entertaining and even inspiring, from time to time we’ll excerpt some of its provisions and discuss them.
Is Scale Sinful?
It’s not likely that Google’s critics have read the Code, because the sin they seem to be accusing Google of – “Do not grow huge” – appears nowhere in the document. The Times‘s Carr puts his finger on it when he wonders whether goodness can be scaled up. Once a company becomes big can it any longer do good? Or is there one rule for large enterprises and another for small ones?
It might help to look at a small one that does the same thing as Google, Project Gutenberg. Project Gutenberg has been digitizing out of print books for decades. Employing volunteer labor, financed by contributions and offering its editions free or at low cost, it has functioned without raising an eyebrow since its startup in 1971. It boasts a catalog of nearly 30,000 free books and tens of thousands more available through partners and affiliates. Has anyone accused Project Gutenberg of overweening greed or untrammeled ambition?
Nobody that we’re aware of.
Google on the other hand has scanned and digitized a staggering number of books, somewhere in the millions. The sheer dimension of the enterprise provokes anxiety, suspicion and jealousy. And, unlike Project Gutenberg, Google is doing it to make money, which only magnifies the hostility toward it.
So – is it possible that evil is simply a function of scale? Can Google continue to do good when, to use Shakespeare’s phrase, it bestrides the world like a colossus?
How Big Is Colossal?
Those who think that iniquity is a function of size will find plenty of ammunition when they take Google’s measurements. According to the investor relations page on its website, Google’s 2008 gross revenues were $21.795 billion. Using statistics provided by the World Bank, that placed Google ahead of the gross national product of 90 other nations including Bolivia ($16.674 billion), Jamaica ($15.068 billion), Afghanistan ($10.170 billion) and Bermuda ($5.855 billion). In fact, Google’s gross revenues were higher than the gross national products of the bottom 28 nations on the World Bank’s list combined!
With resources like that at its command, a corporation bent on evil could wreak a great deal of havoc. It could finance militias, undermine governments, build arsenals. The news gives us no assurance that corporations are benign. How many companies brandish meaningless mottoes while exploiting, plundering and corrupting? It’s easier to be cynical about Google’s intentions than to believe that they are sincere. But – is it possible that just this once, a capitalistic behemoth will put its money where its mouth is?
E-Reads has no corporate ties to Google. But we are heavily dependent on them, and we’d be amazed if you were not as well. I certainly would feel better knowing that the company that brings me gmail, Chrome, AdWords, Picasa, Android, Blogger, Google Maps, and YouTube is not evil. Wouldn’t you? Read Google’s Code of Conduct and reflect.
Richard Curtis
Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times.
