Forcing Scarcity & Paranoia for Growth
One draw I have to Stoicism is the idea of less. Other -isms like minimalism or essentialism touch upon a similar idea. It’s not that Stoicism says one should live below their means but to conduct one’s life being happy with less.
Such a view may be great for contentment and happiness if we consider the practice to lead to low expectations. It may also be a great antidote to comparison games of things, statuses, and financials.
Another way such a stoic setup with one’s life (i.e. few possessions, humble living conditions) is inhibiting complacency. Feelings of “I’ve made it” are often shown with nice material personal possessions. This is the same for companies as well with fancy meal services, swanky offices, and various financial benefits.
Bezos is famous for talking about how it is always Day 1 at Amazon and continuously instilling a sense of paranoia. Maybe the lack of free lunches in Amazon isn’t such a negative either given what they’ve been able to build. Is it “despite” the lack of fancy perks or “because” of the lack of them…a kind of Spartan attitude within that has allowed the company to do so well? I can’t say definitively but it seems reasonable to think a very cost-conscious company seems to be able to last longer than a lavish one. It should be noted that Amazon continued to have a culture of experimentation whilst having a cost-conscious culture so it’s not that they are mutually exclusive. Companies with lavish perks and swanky offices could have cultures that don’t allow for any experimentation.
A similar mindset seems to be applicable in startups where a company that works out of a dingy room of some run-down house may maintain a greater element of hunger and drive than one that is in a beautiful glass office in a skyscraper. Those perks might draw in more candidates but the question is if it will bring in the “right” kind of talent. A common complaint I heard from engineering friends was that Amazon paid them less than Google, worked them harder and the benefits and office weren’t as nice. If those are the determining factors for people who choose Google over Amazon, I wonder how driven such individuals will be to solve really hard problems. I do admire Google’s intent behind why they provide various amazing benefits to its employees. I believe the initial intent was to make those an added function to enable more out of their people but it’s very possible such perks became the prioritized reason for why people might wish to work at Google. In that manner, maintaining a Spartan-like environment even after a company is successful might filter for the kind of people who truly want to be in the company despite (or because of) the environment.
Adopting a system of scarcity and paranoia seems imperative to limit complacencies and further position oneself (or an entire organization of people) for growth. Ironically, it seems this may lead to greater results of achievement and sustained success. Just like how success and happiness seem out of reach for the person obsessed with it, abundance and positions of dominance may only come to those focused on scarcity and paranoia.