[ringdabell]

That's a bit too cynical...

I read that more as a "company should seek to provide sustainable financial prosperity for the employees". What's wrong with that? It's hard to provide for your customers if you and your employees are struggling.

> If it does no good to the rest of the world, generating bonuses for its employees is... lame.

I don't know. Not every business produces world-saving value. And that's fine.

You shouldn't need kool-aid level propaganda to validate your business and motivate your employees...

A primary motivation for me and my business, is creating an institution that enriches the lives of those part of it. I want to create the type of company where everyone has some say, where the mission is bigger than any one individual, and whose employees feel empowered and respected. I've worked too many bigco jobs that wore and ground people down. My first job out of school was at a management consultancy. The pay was excellent, the projects were interesting (and truly made an impact), but the culture of the industry/company was such that people were ground down to the point that they became extremely jaded, materialist, negative, etc.

For my older co-workers and bosses that were married and had kids, I always wondered how that impacted their lives at home and how they treated their love ones, and in turn the ripple effect that would have.

From reading your blog, I know you have a similar background, so I think you know what I'm talking about.

The startupbro culture sneers at these "lifestyle business" sentiments, but there is no shame in a more modest (and I think, balanced) approach.

[swombat]

I certainly do know what you're talking about, and definitely agree that that should be one of the primary objectives of a company... But I think if it's the only one, then something's wrong.

The company should have an objective to do something good and worthwhile for people outside of the business. Even "lifestyle businesses", whatever they may be, should.

All three are fundamentally necessary, sine-qua-non: making money, doing something worthwhile, and doing it in a way that builds people up rather than grinding them down.

[ringdabell]

Fair enough. This is where I'm the cynical one in the sense that I don't see the point of having a visionary mission statement if you have to resort to spin and propaganda tactics to convince your employees to buy into it.

The qualification of "worthwhile" is really subjective to the point where unless you're literally doing something truly impactful (which I define as value + massive scale, e.g., cure to cancer, etc.), your value is at best a surface scratch and at worst a fad.

Consumer oriented startups like Snapchat spring to mind, which seems to have both a questionable mission statement + a shameless pursuit of founder enrichment. Not judging (I'm jelly), but I do think it serves the greater point I'm trying to make.

[swombat]

To give you a tangible example, GrantTree's mission has been, from day one, to help UK startups, by being one of the better players in the UK startup ecosystem. It's a tangible positive difference which we can all feel we're making.

Of course, making money is also important, if only because money allows us to hire better people and do a better job, and it was also a primary reason of starting GrantTree... but it's not a good enough reason to put all the energy to grow it past the stage where it is an extremely profitable hobby, to the stage where it is a genuine business.