On Using Tinder for Executive Research
There are sentences that should be kept in museums.
Not because they are especially wise.
Because they show the exact moment language leaves reality and hides in a Swiss mountain bunker.
A former chief executive of one of Switzerland’s largest banks is back in court again. The accusations are pretty serious: hidden business interests, questionable deals, private expenses paid by the company, expensive travel, nightclubs, strip clubs, hotels.
Complicated stuff indeed.
Corporate law is complicated.
Accounting is complicated.
Conflicts of interest are complicated.
Tinder is not complicated.
The banker literally says:
“Tinder was, at that time, a social-media offering. We all used such social-media offerings to acquire knowledge.”
I think this is magnificent.
Not just good.
Magnificent.
Because suddenly I realized that I have misunderstood Tinder for years.
I thought people went there for dating.
Apparently they were studying.
Swipe right?
Candidate screening.
A match?
Mutual interest confirmation.
A drink?
Informal consultation.
“Come over”?
On-site assessment.
“Looking for something casual”?
Flexible engagement model.
A hotel room?
Temporary project headquarters.
And if the room gets damaged during the evening?
Accelerated infrastructure transformation.
This is how institutional language works when it gets desperate.
Because you did not go on holiday.
You conducted an international market visit.
You did not buy champagne.
You improved liquidity.
You did not have an affair.
You diversified your relationship portfolio.
You were not on Tinder.
You were acquiring knowledge.
At some point, nothing private exists anymore.
There are only badly documented business activities.
The comedy is the refusal to say one very simple sentence:
“Yes. That Tinder stuff was private. That was stupid.”
That sentence would take five seconds.
It would also make the banker look human.
There is another option, of course.
Say nothing. Take the Fauci.
The banker could simply say:
“I do not wish to comment on that.”
Or:
“My lawyer will address that.”
Or, in the language of our time:
Switzerland does not have the Fifth Amendment, but the basic strategic insight survives.
Sometimes silence is better than Tinder epistemology.
And this is, after all, one of the reasons people hire expensive lawyers.
If you are going to ignore them**,** you might as well save the money.
Defend yourself.
Bring a notebook.
Perhaps open Tinder during the lunch break.
For research assistance.
There is something almost philosophical about this.
Perhaps this is what management language does at its most advanced level.
It does not make embarrassing things disappear.
It puts them in a suit and a tie.
There is also something wonderfully Swiss about the whole episode.
Switzerland does have a certain talent for placing something ridiculous inside a formally correct sentence and hoping seriousness will transfer by contact.
“Tinder was, at that time, a social-media offering.”
Yes, technically.
A cow is also a grass-powered protein conversion unit.
A hangover is also a post-consumption neurological reconciliation process.
A strip club is also a vertically integrated entertainment service provider with variable textile requirements.
A traffic jam is also a temporary synchronization of individual transport assets.
…and that is where the whole thing stops being just funny.
Because there is a real danger in becoming too good at explanation.
Sometimes your past does not need representation.
It does not even need a complete sentence.
Maybe it needs just three words:
“That was stupid.”