Democracy and capitalism gave way to concentration of wealth amongst a small group of people. Private entrepreneurship got a boost due to capitalism. Given this scenario, many private entrepreneurs rose to build their industrial empires. There are many examples, where, the starting point of a given business was zero, and it rose to become a leading international business house. Increase in business, resulted in exaggerated accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, and that was the time, when these new class of rich entrepreneurs, gave a thought to the society, in
which they have been operating, and which has supported their enterprise in its rise. Carnegie Melon, at the beginning of industrial revolution, and Bill Gates, at the end of the twentieth century, are two solid examples of business rise from zero to international giants. Both of them, spent their full life, in amassing wealth, and as they grew, they started framing corporate philosophies, which put society at the focus of their activities. While they applied the rule of ‘everything is fair in business’, they turned towards society at the fag end of their lives.
Corporate philosophies, by and large have nothing new to say, except that they work for the society, and they care for their customers. All corporate philosophies are concentrated around these central themes, in different words and sentences. Often, it is proved that corporate philosophies are not as sweet as they sound. When it comes to business, these philosophies are sacrificed, partially or fully. Was only genuine software skill responsible for the stupendous rise of Bill Gates and Microsoft? Of course no. There is in fact, considerable shrewdness going into
the rise of Microsoft. In fact, corporate houses, as they grow, turn their attention towards betterment of society, in one or the other way. There are numerous examples to prove this, in the time gap between Carnegie Melon and Bill Gates. However, they are targeted at multiplication of business. An average American fully understands the implications of these corporate philosophies, and their implied meanings. For example, when cyber attacks started assuming alarming proportions, Bill Gates ordered a change in their corporate philosophy. It implied change in the approach of
all software development. Now, instead of adding new features to the software, the focus was to be laid on protection of the software, because, Bill Gates argued, “In the past, we’ve made our software and services more compelling for users by adding new features and functionality, and by making our platform richly extensible . . . but all those great features won’t matter unless customers trust our software,” wrote Gates. “So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security. ” ( Trustworthy computing,
para 2) “Some of Microsoft’s perennial critics claim the initiative is long overdue, and question whether or not Microsoft will follow through on its promises, as the company could be forced to bear a reduction in the number of new features in its programs and significant new product delays. Some go further in arguing that such a massive security initiative cannot be undertaken without subjecting the Windows operating system source code to public domain — something the company has fought hard to avoid”. Writes an observer, in his opinion. ( Trustworthy
computing, Para 4) What is true of Microsoft , is perhaps true of other companies also. An average American is well aware of the status of the company, and its capacity to deliver the promised goods, and is also right in judging the ethical behavior of a company. Conclusively it can be said that despite the tall claims made by the corporate philosophies, the average American of the ins and outs of that firm. References: 1) Trustworthy computing, Security and privacy deemed Microsoft’s top priorities, retrieved on 5 May 2009 from : <http://www. cfif. org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/fl_trustworthy_computing. htm >