Are we Doomed to be Trampled by Unicorns?

In her book, “Trampled by Unicorns,” Maëlle Gavet cuts through the fluff and grandiosity of the big tech industry to arrive and the underlying toxic traits surrounding its culture and foundational ideals. Gavet illustrates that behind the grand economic prosperity, unbelievable innovations of scale, and social connectivity lies alarming issues that big tech has kept out of public view to allow for more growth without proper oversight. As I am currently an undergraduate computer science major, I can attest to the issues the big tech framework has and can empathize with the hard reality of what she brings to light in the Silicon Valley experience. Instead of relying on anecdotes and personal stories, Gavet takes a very practical and engineering centered approach with page after page of study and statistics surrounding the broader themes she presents. This made the reading more impactful and with fact and evidence illuminated some of the darker corners that are often purposely overlooked in the world of big tech. This book brought about many revelations around my own ethical concerns working in tech as well as deeper questions of reflection as I struggled with the nature of the environment my future career will reside in. The issues that Gavet addresses represent central drivers to the industry that I hold so dear. I am brought to question how I can make sense of my pursuits and participation in an industry that is driven by innovation yet remains so morally lax.

Gavet divides her book into two sections: problems and solutions and utilizes separation to understand the issues before tackling them. In the first half of the book, Gavet uses statistics and amazing insights to build up an accurate and terrifying beast of everything that is wrong with the underlying culture and foundations of big tech. Then in the second half, she presents her roadmaps for change and explains how her solutions can slay said beast often with lofty goals and utopian ideas. Unfortunately, Gavet’s underlying logical flow seems to shift between the two halves of the book. While the first half is built on her accurate and methodical breakdown of the innerworkings of the big tech industry, her solutions are grandiose and lack ties to her earlier analysis. While her style of writing did not change, it was concerning as a reader to notice the disconnect between her stellar first half analysis and the impractical ideals in the second half.

The solution portion of her book grasps at unrealistic ideals and monumental changes that do not align with the entrenched culture or the hardline incentives that drive the industry. Most of her solutions are contingent upon all the major stakeholders in the tech: engineers, CEOs, companies, VC firms and other key players in the industry to all suddenly reframe their underlying mindset for the sake of ethical improvement. She speculates that exposure to their own shortcomings will catalyze a top-to-bottom, self-regulated revolution of empathy that will restructure the incentives and goals of tech giants across the board. This is where I disagree.

While I agree with Gavet on her diagnosis of the sickness of the tech culture, I disagree with her over idealistic solutions and their ability to create genuine and impactful change without external intervention.

With incentives so strong and a culture so embedded, it would be near impossible to get every gear of the Silicon Valley machine to realign and change their goals for the sake of ethics and empathy. While it is sad but true, Gavet herself points out that profits and growth win out in the Silicon Valley chart of importance over ethics and morality of users. She presents many chapters revolving around the new feudalism of tech disruption, the holy grail of venture capital scale, as well as the lack of diversity and culture bubble that tech already has but then fails to connect these same issues as roadblocks to her solutions.

One key component that makes me believe that Gavet’s solutions would fall short of their goals is the issue of diversity in tech. Again, Gavet and I agree on the underlying cause for concern in the Silicon Valley bubble: there is a shockingly stark lack of diversity in software engineers, CEOs, VC fund managers, and areas of power and influence in the Silicon Valley. On page 17, Gavet sites the diversity breakdowns of Apple, Facebook (Meta), Google, and Microsoft. On average across these four tech unicorns, the split in terms of percentages of workforce are 77% male, 23% female. Additionally, by race, White and Asian make up 90% with all other ethnic groups making up only 10%. These drastic differences between male and female as well as white plus Asian versus all other races clearly shows the composition of Silicon Valley and by extension, its culture, is driven by a very homogeneous group of people.

Gavet does an excellent job of critiquing the obvious pitfalls and issues that arise from a culture that lacks diversity. Out of the many that she cites, the one that stands out and relates to me the most is the dangers of groupthink. Many times, in my own classes or projects with peers I have seen the negative consequences of a lack of checks and balances when it comes to a new idea or direction. It is exponentially easier to agree and support a seemingly smart and savvy solution rather than to work through the problem on your own and overcome a roadblock yourself. While there is a time and place to stand in agreement and support each other, groupthink embedded into all facets of Silicon Valley make ideas and decisions that lack ethics and morally seem less harmful or the consequences less severe if everyone around you is affirming them.

Additionally, I understand Gavet’s insights on the way that tech culture approaches hot new startups from my own academic progress. From the issues with groupthink, it is unlikely that big firms in Silicon Valley can be trusted to self-regulate on this issue. With such an overwhelming population of White and Asian males, hiring practices, investment in new companies, expansion into product ideas, and everything surrounding the big tech culture would point to hiring creating and funding more of like-minded individuals and ideas. It is in this topic that I do agree with Gavet’s framework of a solution because she calls on not only self-regulation but also a few external changes to help bring about progress. To drive more empathy and diversity into the corporate culture and decision-making process in the valley, Gavet proposes that governments make contracts contingent on improved workplace diversity numbers or quotas of diversity for board members and other areas of representation. It is a simple in clear cut way to change the incentive structure from the exterior to shift the alarming diversity issue within big tech companies. While this is a good start on the path to diversity, I still believe that stricter more impactful regelation with help to change diversity practices in tech. Gavet continues to still offer self-regulation as a viable options which the industry has yet to see work successfully.

Fore example, a news report by CNBC examined the disconnect between big tech’s supposed “value of diversity” but found that on most metrics, little to no change has occurred. The article concludes that while big tech may have introduced diversity and minority metrics, minimal change was seen with self-regulation of these program. In short, these companies know they are not diverse but do not have a reason to change their practices. This is a prime example of why I cannot envision Gavet’s trust in big tech to self-regulate on issues of diversity. Without a formal regulation or external pressure to change, the incentives and culture of Silicon Valley will continue to drive companies on the same trajectory as now.

Furthermore, I think that given time the natural incentives of the products versus user relationship would affect diversity in big tech. More diverse VC funds, more diverse CEOs and more diverse companies in turn produced more diverse and more relatable products to the wider general audience of the entire marketplace. A recent study done by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that diversity increases the bottom line for companies. After examining 1700 different companies, BCG concluded that a more diverse management team yields a 19% higher revenue from innovation (BCG Global). Therefore, I believe that given enough time, natural correction towards the incentives for VC funds and big tech companies to invest and support a wider range of diversity will come into play. However, to kick start this event Gavet and I agree, outside intervention to change the incentive structure would not be beneficial to solve the toxic issues surrounding groupthink and lack of diversity in big tech.

Gavet hints at the idea that the trouble with the Silicon Valley culture stems from the lack of laws and regulations surrounding the practices of major tech firms and VC funds when she states, “…they are also the beneficiaries of a once-in-a-century alignment of circumstances, ranging from the development of the Internet itself into the Wild West style lawlessness of the valley, which was left free to roam far ahead of governments, regulators and tax codes to today’s unprecedented surfeit of venture capital and scale culture” (20). In this sense I do agree with Gavet and I think her use of the metaphor of the Wild West lawlessness is a spot on comparison. If you think back to the last major crisis, the 2008 financial crisis, the state of the banking systems could aptly be described as lawless. With shady practices, greed running rampant, and an incentive structure that encouraged those in the industry to lie and cut corners for the sake of a bigger paycheck; this landscape was also a “Wild West”. Fortunately, after this massive bubble popped and millions of people around the world were affected, the government stepped in with one of the most restrictive pieces of legislation known to date: the Dodd-Frank Act. From increased oversight, restrictions on lending and borrowing practices, investment practice regulations and much more, the Dodd-Frank act was the governmental oversight that would have prevented such a global catastrophe from happening in the first place. However, in 2018 Congress voted to pass a major rollback to the Dodd-Frank Act. From this change, federal oversight of banks with assets of less than $250 billion would significantly weaken. Many opponents of the bill cited similar thinking to Gavet, saying that relaxing regulation would in turn create another era of unchecked recklessness. Sure enough, from recent events we all know about the risky practices leading to the meltdown of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). Under the original Dodd-Frank Act, SVB would have had the restriction and commissioned oversights to prevent such a meltdown from occurring. In short, the role and importance of government and regulation to combat the lawlessness in the current tech bubble is one of our best ways to curtail recklessness. While keeping up with the rapid scales and changes of innovation is difficult for government, if there are not committees and governing bodies to slow down and oversee big tech, they will continue to push forward leading to the issues Gavet details in her book.

I want to emphasize importance and gravity of starting to reach young engineers and founders in the tech world and attempt to guide them towards paths of empathy and ethical reason as attempting to shift the current tech giants may already be too late. Gavet explains:

It may be too late for the current crop of tech giants. As we’ve seen, arguably many of their teams have strayed too far from their original visions, have cut too many ethical corners, and have built an expectation of gravity dash defying growth rates among their shareholder base that would make a wholesale change of direction all but incredibly difficult. But it’s not too late for the many thousands of tech startups around the world, among them unicorns-in-waiting, and for other stakeholders — from boards and investors to casual users — who can demand from these companies more empathy” (189).

As a computer science major, I am the next generation that Gavet is calling upon to begin sustainable and monumental change to the culture in big tech. The persistence of power, scale, and rapid growth in the valley have created a bubble so entrenched that I firmly believe it cannot be changed from those currently within its walls. As I explained earlier, therefore real change can only come from external government intervention or changing the mindsets of those championed to make the next wave of unicorns and tech companies in the world. True and lasting change can only come from this idea add the inputs to the system, the young CEO’s and engineers like me, have better empathy and ethical understanding for their actions and industry that touts such grand influence. While this book clearly outlines the current crises we face with the overwhelming power of big tech, it is also a story of hope as the same power, influence, and reach that big tech has can also be gradually changed to spread empathy and awareness to millions of users everywhere. So, while I agree with Gavet in the toxic symptoms that the tech culture currently has, I believe but only by influencing the younger generations to come and focusing on external regulation and governance that we can truly bring the ideals of her solutions to light in the future.

Citations:

Cooks-Campbell, A. (2021, December 3). The difference between diversity hiring and a ‘diversity hire’. The Difference between Diversity Hiring and a ‘Diversity Hire’. Retrieved from https://www.betterup.com/blog/diversity-hiring

Lorenzo, R., Voigt, N., Tsusaka, M., Krentz, M., & Abouzahr, K. (2023, January 22). How diverse leadership teams boost innovation. BCG Global. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/how-diverse-leadership-teams-boost-innovation

Rooney, K. (2020, June 12). Tech companies say they value diversity, but reports show little change in last six years. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/12/six-years-into-diversity-reports-big-tech-has-made-little-progress.html