Altruism and Business Sharks — an Unlikely Mix, and Yet
Last Updated on 16 June 2025 at 18:29
First, let’s dissect the term “business sharks”.
These are individuals or entities that operate on a predatory model. Their primary objective is not mutual growth nor win-win strategies but unilateral gain.
A business shark is not interested in a symbiotic relationship — they are looking to exploit it for maximum short-term gain and very often at the expense of medium and long-term stability.
Think of economic layoffs to only increase the share’s price for a couple of months but reuse the same discharged human resources after Social Security paid for their unemployment. Think of reducing salaries of key resources, but the reverse for the C-level incomes. Think of business scandals. Think of spectacular bankruptcies such as Credit Suisse or SwissAir. Think of the negatives in the globalized economy we witness today.
It is not solely about “competition” or “market” because there are other circumstances and elegant strategies to avoid the above.
Those business sharks are looking for the kill and maximizing their gains at the expense of others, including the company employing them and society as a whole — while asking others to be “nice”.
You are a mid-level employee, manager, director, freelance, startup founder, consultant, or a polymath specialized by force in one or two dimensions, and you are in the business of numbers, data, and know-how, with cold and hard facts.
Both your colleagues and clients appreciate your hard work, and you consistently deliver as per market demands and contractual obligations. In contrast, some incompetent C-level employees are at the opposite stand, including skill sets, relying on parasitic revenues, and engaging in empty talks.
Those C-level individuals are (poorly) communicating about “kindness” and encouraging everyone to be “nicer” — while they are not — and also insisting on working more for less. Because you see, the market, the economy, the inexistent competition, or whatever fantasy imperfection is now in charge.
You see the behaviour of that C-level nobody in front of you, and you are thinking, just as any person in business: “What’s the ROI of being nice ?“.
We’ve all heard the siren song of altruism, the idea that doing good for others, with no strings attached, is not just virtuous but also smart business.
But hold on a minute.
What happens when you are swimming with sharks, those business operators whose primary, if not sole, focus is on devouring people and companies for their gain ? The geometry of the relationship changes, and you learn that the hard way. When you are in business for some time, you believe evil exists.
Altruism in such a setting isn’t just naive; it’s downright hazardous.
In today’s business landscape, only numbers and profits reign supreme.
You sometimes put your efforts into a project or a mandate someone else downbid mainly because of incompetence and greed, and that C-level individual is expecting — no, is viciously demanding a huge return on investment (ROI) while key resources are missing.
Verbatim for “huge ROI”.
Doubling down on misery, the strong deadline is often the day before yesterday.
At the same time, those C-level people are over-confidently launching multiple other projects without the needed resources, be it money or people. They are hoping to find the few ones within an already reduced pool of experts, hoping to perfectly reach them at the “desperation stage” of their careers. This approach is not only unrealistic but highly risky for any business.
Several hundreds of millions later in spending, the C-level projects will fail because they have no idea what they are doing, let alone directing others or logically thinking.
The next step is to prepare the business or the project for “operational restructuring” while the root cause of problems is at the strategic C-level. You see, technology disorders everything and is a nasty beast. The usual explanation.
In the meantime, business sharks are trying to take advantage of powerless “little ones” fishes.
But here is the kicker: while this C-level type is obsessing over your ROI and theirs, they are missing out on the more nuanced yet exponentially impactful dimensions of value and delivering as promised.
In crisis management and turnaround, for instance, an altruistic and rational approach isn’t just about salvaging what’s left — nor miraculously fixing all with technology and outsourcing.
It is about building resilience and restoring as much as possible of the brand equity and hopes (yes, at plural) that allows to continue and run the business operations with splendid financial and market strategies. It is not either just about putting out fires but making the whole damn forest and fauna become more resilient to wildfires in the first place.
In other words, doing a good job and covering as much as win-wins as possible. Everyone becomes a winner.
Wait, let’s not put on our nose the rose-coloured glasses just yet.
Altruism isn’t all sunshine and rainbows and happiness for all. You can’t just throw kindness around like confetti and expect to win the market. There are risks — such as financial and operational ones. You could be Mother Teresa or Gandhi, but if altruistic endeavours drain resources, then you are losing.
So, how can you navigate through this difficult situation ?
You integrate altruism into your strategy like it’s another asset class in a diversified portfolio. You hedge your bets. You allocate resources judiciously. You unconditionally help when there is a need for the disadvantaged ones — the underdogs. You measure impact like you’re tracking a KPI. And most importantly, you make it part of your brand’s DNA, not just a marketing gimmick.
Let’s get academic for a moment.
Immanuel Kant had this idea of the “categorical imperative,” which is a fancy way of saying, “Do the right thing, even when no one is watching.” — sometimes, I wish I never had such a great philosophy teacher and influence in my technical and mathematics education.
Now, we all know Kant wasn’t a businessman, but he was onto something big and nice.
So, what’s the alternative ?
I call it “pragmatic altruism.”
You don’t abandon the principle of doing “good” — whatever this action could be according to its refined personal definition.
You become discerning in your generosity, targeting entities and individuals who align with your values and objectives. You employ a due diligence process as rigorous as any M&A evaluation. You look for ecosystems where altruism can be a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one.
In simpler terms, being transactional with sharks makes you a player — being altruistic with underdogs makes you a game-changer.
So go ahead and disrupt the status quo if your financial and personal situation allows it. Rejecting business sharks while they make millions doing nothing or close to it — that’s a “hell no” — and that’s how you don’t lose.
Business sharks are quite often desperate for specialized skill sets, and without them, they’re on a one-way ticket to epic collapses.
Making the right choice at the right moment is not only the ethical thing to do, but it’s also a stylish strategic move.
So, by all means, be altruistic — but be smart about it.
Elena Debbaut is a strategic execution expert to boards and executive teams. She leads and advises on complex transformations when governance barriers, internal politics, or structural fragmentation prevent organizations from executing critical decisions.
Specialities:
• governance-constrained transformation
• operational restructuring
• strategic recovery & execution