[{"jcr:title":"Fake it till you (don’t?) make it"},{"targetId":"id-share-1","text":"Confira mais em:","tooltipText":"Link copiado com sucesso."},{"jcr:title":"Fake it till you (don’t?) make it","jcr:description":"The Theranos case must be seen as a model of what should not be done by entrepreneurs who, like Elizabeth, aspire to be revolutionary but seek to act ethically"},{"subtitle":"The Theranos case must be seen as a model of what should not be done by entrepreneurs who, like Elizabeth, aspire to be revolutionary but seek to act ethically","author":"Ernesto Yoshida","title":"Fake it till you (don’t?) make it","content":"The Theranos case must be seen as a model of what should not be done by entrepreneurs who, like Elizabeth, aspire to be revolutionary but seek to act ethically   Gabriel Yamin Nogueira     “Fake it till you make it” is a common saying among entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. It is not rare to observe startups lying about having achieved impressive results in the preliminary tests of their products. What happens in these cases is an attempt to mobilize investors, forging the tests until there are sufficient funds to develop the revolutionary products or services. But what happens when the “making it” is left aside? The documentary “The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley” portrays the most famous ethical violation case in recent years in the corporate world. The company in question, Theranos, led by CEO Elizabeth Holmes, promised to revolutionize medical technology by developing a device that would only require a drop of blood to perform hundreds of tests and diagnose possible diseases. With her impeccable oratory and impressive articulation, Holmes soon became the center of attention in Silicon Valley and mobilized significant investments for her company. However, Theranos had not achieved the promised results and, according to the tests conducted, was still far from achieving them. However, the product’s inefficiency was discussed only internally, with Holmes suppressing and threatening employees who reported failures and insisting on the “fake it till you make it” strategy. Thus, the entrepreneur lied about the device and deceived investors, media, and patients who trusted the company to conduct their tests. Eventually, the scandal was revealed, and Elizabeth went on trial and was judged guilty of fraud and conspiracy. The Theranos case allows us to identify critical ethical problems that should be avoided, especially in the corporate environment. The first is related to the idea of the Ring of Gyges. This device allows the individual to become invisible and do everything without being noticed (and consequently punished) by others. The dilemma lies in the following question: if the individual were given this device, would they act justly or unjustly? Even though she did not become invisible, Holmes used the investors she had already managed to mobilize and all the support from the media and society to hide the flaws in her speech and product and continue to act unfairly. The lack of practical proof of the device’s efficiency was not seen as suspicious by external agents, and even when patients and doctors pointed out the first failures, Theranos continued to receive support and financial investments. Additionally, the concept of strategic ignorance can be applied to how Elizabeth attracted the initial investments to her business. Influent people, such as former US Secretaries of State and renowned investors, inspired by the CEO’s speech, decided to invest millions of dollars in Theranos when the idea of its revolutionary technology was still only in Holmes’ mind (where it never actually came out from). The strategic ignorance lies in the fact that Elizabeth intentionally chose investors who were not from the healthcare sector, making it easier for them to believe in her proposal without questioning whether what she presented was actually possible. These ethical deviations were made possible by two fundamental factors: the company’s external secrecy, which did not disclose the progress of the tests to the media (lack of transparency), and the lack of an official audit for investors—yet they continued to invest money. It is uncertain whether Holmes’ goal was only to deceive and take advantage of those who believed in her speech or if she genuinely believed that what she proposed was achievable but failed to achieve it. The fact is that, by justifying her actions with the utilitarian prerogative that “the ends justify the means,” Holmes used lies and omissions as means but still did not achieve her desired ends. Thus, the Theranos case must be seen as a model of what should not be done by entrepreneurs who, like Elizabeth, aspire to be revolutionary but seek to act ethically. The search for investors, especially when the business is still in its infancy, is arduous, but it should never be done deceitfully or exploitatively. “Faking it till you make it” can be a valid approach at the beginning of the venture as long as the “make it” actually occurs.     Bibliografia: • SANDEL, Michael J. Justiça – o que é fazer a coisa certa. 6ª Edição, Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2012, Cap. 1. • Khalifeh, Tala. Theranos Cautionary Tale of Ethical Failings. Strategic Finance, 2022. Disponível em: [https://www.sfmagazine.com/articles/2022/june/theranos-cautionary-tale-of-ethical-failings/](https://www.sfmagazine.com/articles/2022/june/theranos-cautionary-tale-of-ethical-failings/) • Clayton, James. “Elizabeth Holmes: A ‘cultura de Fingimento’ Que Favorece Escândalos no Vale Do Silício.” BBC News Brasil, BBC, 9 Jan. 2022,  [www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-59874053](https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-59874053) • Gibney, Alex. The Inventor: Out for Blood in the Silicon Valley. 2019. Disponível em: [https://play.max.com/video/watch/60158ef5-c8c8-4d15-8d61-211d6e97e42c/ffb69574-33ac-4c16-9528-5bd37c2302f7](https://play.max.com/video/watch/60158ef5-c8c8-4d15-8d61-211d6e97e42c/ffb69574-33ac-4c16-9528-5bd37c2302f7)  "}]