Something about your quote screams "maybe true in a perfectly efficient/functioning economy", but my gut says, maybe not always true when there are inefficiencies.
There are tangible and intangible costs and benefits to every pursuit (interesting example, externalities in economics). Focusing on only tangible benefits (money) does, to me, seem very common - rarely do I see intangibles being considered.
For example, how many times I see profitable companies making money hand over fist, but when you look at their operations internally, they are completely inefficient and chaotic, maybe even damaging. Like, if they did things even 10% more effectively (let's say at a bit of reasonable cost), they would make even more profit. But doing so takes hard work, they are already making so much money, so they have no desire to look further.
If the profit is so good, that ignoring the money "left on the table" doesn't cause enough pain for the subject involved - well, I think that also creates inefficiencies, complacency, etc.
I also think, when profit is "so good" that other efficiencies go by the wayside, the same behaviors you describe continue. I don't find that the other behaviors go away, really.
I once heard a quote that said, if you wanted any data project funded, convince the CFO that it makes money and they'll go for it. Much like the approaches of TCO, ROI, NPV, IRR, etc - prove the profitable case and you'd think people would buy in.
I have found something like this to be somewhat true - except in companies where they are already making so much money, they don't care about doing the right (or "better") thing. The "more money" they could make is imaginary to them, and they are happy with how much they are already raking in. Until it's super, super tangible/convincing.
I think you're identifying the difference between lots of money being made available to a team and revenue being the main focus of that team. Not the same.
For example, the Fed can shower Wall St. with all the money it wants to, and it may actually make teams inside those companies less efficient and less of a joy to work for. Although money is available, making money is not the main goal of the team.
Or take a fictional company with 100 projects and 1,000 engineers, where only 1 project with 10 engineers makes 90% of the revenue. The 99 other teams at the company are probably not going to have the best culture because the revenue incentive isn't present on those teams. They might just exist to check some compliance checkbox or stroke the ego of some middle manager.
What I'm talking about is not necessarily the availability of money, but a direct relationship of your project to the money-making potential of the company. Big difference.
Hmm, I see the clarification you're making here. Availability of money <> revenue impact, I get it.
Still, seeing that a project is revenue-impacting or revenue-generating (has the relationship to the money-making potential of the company) is relative to the individuals who are viewing it. For example, if there is an effort you could do that generates 2x revenue, but those in charge of your company choose not to pursue it "because they are already making a ton of money and cannot see past the costs".
I guess this comes down to how good of a business leader one has.
I have so many times seen good projects/ideas, ideas that can clearly make money, even lots of money - but in the wrong company, with the wrong people, or attitudes, or beliefs - don't matter. These are the times when, if you are the person with such an project or idea, you ask whether or not you are the right "fit" for the organization - since they are not recognizing or prioritizing the value of your project/idea.
I suppose you could look at this as efficient capital allocation, if you assumed perfect business leadership. Perfect business leaders would only pursue the revenue generating activities that made the most sense.
I would argue that we are far from perfect, and that we often let ego, opinion, culture (or even "data") influence our decision-making about revenue-generating activities.. which brings us back to the point that culture is still relevant. Something that popped to mind related to this is the "Ultimatum game" from psychology/economics [1].
There are some problems with a focus on making money.
Alas, when you remove that particular focus, you don't end up with something pure left over. But more often with the worst pathologies organisations have to offer. As the original commenter points out:
> The drive to make more money is the only thing that trumps every other petty motivation people follow at work. It trumps favoritism, empire building, and intra-office rivalries. It trumps good ol' boys networks and tech bro networks. Money brings people into the same room who would never normally be in a room together, and they do it willingly. It forces people in power to listen to small fries. While money corrupts on an individual level, it purifies on an institutional level. Its universally accepted value allows a variety of individual motives to flourish.
There are tangible and intangible costs and benefits to every pursuit (interesting example, externalities in economics). Focusing on only tangible benefits (money) does, to me, seem very common - rarely do I see intangibles being considered.
For example, how many times I see profitable companies making money hand over fist, but when you look at their operations internally, they are completely inefficient and chaotic, maybe even damaging. Like, if they did things even 10% more effectively (let's say at a bit of reasonable cost), they would make even more profit. But doing so takes hard work, they are already making so much money, so they have no desire to look further.
If the profit is so good, that ignoring the money "left on the table" doesn't cause enough pain for the subject involved - well, I think that also creates inefficiencies, complacency, etc.
I also think, when profit is "so good" that other efficiencies go by the wayside, the same behaviors you describe continue. I don't find that the other behaviors go away, really.
I once heard a quote that said, if you wanted any data project funded, convince the CFO that it makes money and they'll go for it. Much like the approaches of TCO, ROI, NPV, IRR, etc - prove the profitable case and you'd think people would buy in.
I have found something like this to be somewhat true - except in companies where they are already making so much money, they don't care about doing the right (or "better") thing. The "more money" they could make is imaginary to them, and they are happy with how much they are already raking in. Until it's super, super tangible/convincing.