Mission and vision DO matter. This post is itself is a victim of narrative fallacy. It relies on the availability heuristic to assume that “no amount of mission and vision will supersede” a big bag of money, because the only announcements we’ve seen are from the people who chose the money. Picture the Abraham Wald airplane with bullet holes. The would-be analyst doesn’t account for the many other people who have turned down massive offers because they sought a different “mission and vision.” Incredibly, he attempts to calculate a conversion rate while looking at the numerator, ignoring the denominator. Since we’re being frameworks bros: also on display is the false consensus effect, a bias where someone overestimates how much other others share their personal views. Reducing all companies “to the same basic economic equation,” selling mission and vision as “a lie,” and automatically choosing to build wealth “when given the chance”? These may represent the op’s personal views, but it’s a mistake to assume everyone else feels the same way, especially based on a small sample size with, again, non-representative results. This isn’t analysis, it’s projection. Of course there are biases on my end too, not least wishful thinking. I really want to believe that mission ultimately matters more than money. Maybe I’m wrong. But I think I’m right, and he’s the one that’s wrong.