What every founder fears(medium.com)
medium.com
What every founder fears
https://medium.com/p/2fe173c44215
18 comments
Part of me is nodding in agreement, but another part is wondering 1) am I (unfairly?) biased against the author due to the story from Horvath and 2) is this another example of a woman being criticised for having a voice? Are we unfairly expecting her to be polite, not powerful and proud? Her husband's post was very proud and he didn't get the same criticism, though I think he did a slightly better job apologizing and focusing his message.
Not criticizing. Just sharing my own mixed feelings.
Not criticizing. Just sharing my own mixed feelings.
Definitely agree that it's more socially encouraged to see a woman's egregious faults than a man's. And her husband and his buddies clearly had more power.
On the article though, the aristocrat-wannabee pseudo-fears of "being misunderstood in their motivations as their companies grow", is ridiculous compared to the employees' fears: wasting their one life, humiliation, unemployment, impostor syndrome, abuse, etc.
On the article though, the aristocrat-wannabee pseudo-fears of "being misunderstood in their motivations as their companies grow", is ridiculous compared to the employees' fears: wasting their one life, humiliation, unemployment, impostor syndrome, abuse, etc.
2) is this another example of a woman being criticised for having a voice?
No, it is not - it is rather that you fear it's the case. It's no wonder given the growing emphasis on PC in recent years. Compare the OpenSSL/OpenBSD affair - nobody gave a true shit about attitudes years ago; whereas todays some harsh git commentaries generates a multitude of comments on many blogs; spawns two to three camps sometimes creating cute flamewars and a wikipedia section "Controversies" on an individual's article. And gender didn't even come into play.
Then again, I don't know all of the commentaries on that piece.
No, it is not - it is rather that you fear it's the case. It's no wonder given the growing emphasis on PC in recent years. Compare the OpenSSL/OpenBSD affair - nobody gave a true shit about attitudes years ago; whereas todays some harsh git commentaries generates a multitude of comments on many blogs; spawns two to three camps sometimes creating cute flamewars and a wikipedia section "Controversies" on an individual's article. And gender didn't even come into play.
Then again, I don't know all of the commentaries on that piece.
I agree except we haven't really had a direct response from the cofounder. It could be that he was just naive enough to let the other two work it out amongst themselves. That doesn't work so well when you're dealing with certain personalities. Laissez faire people can get taken advantage of, like to pimp someone's startup internally, or by backstabbing social manipulators. That stuff needs to be proactively kept in check.
You put a vague feeling I had while reading her piece somewhat into words; but IMO, the attribute immature suffices. All I thought after reading was "For the love of $DEITY. Please just grow up.". And I do not consider myself very grown up.
> Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people.
I my opinion, the whole affair, and a whole another in the IT/incubator society where the average (not median) age hovers around 25, are sufficiently summarized with these words.
> Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people.
I my opinion, the whole affair, and a whole another in the IT/incubator society where the average (not median) age hovers around 25, are sufficiently summarized with these words.
> I'm sorry to offend but she is incredibly full of herself and quite immature. Like she's on some sort of pulpit, spouting things she thinks people give a shit about. I mean, she quotes herself numerous times in this post.
I'm confused. What do you find wrong with her quoting herself? If she had been quoting herself for her wisdom or wit, the way one might toss in quotes of Thomas Jefferson or Mark Twain, then yes, that would qualify as being full of herself. That's not what she was doing. The self-quoting here was part of the narrative. For instance, she wanted to write about something that someone said in answer to a question she asked. She quoted herself to tell the reader the question.
I'm confused. What do you find wrong with her quoting herself? If she had been quoting herself for her wisdom or wit, the way one might toss in quotes of Thomas Jefferson or Mark Twain, then yes, that would qualify as being full of herself. That's not what she was doing. The self-quoting here was part of the narrative. For instance, she wanted to write about something that someone said in answer to a question she asked. She quoted herself to tell the reader the question.
What i cannot understand is why the co-founders wife is so involved with the company when she is not an employee there? I would find this very awkward, does anyone know why she is so involved with Github, is there any other ceo's with this precident?
How can you be so judgmental? You have read all of a few paragraphs and you think you know her? You have no idea what these people are like. I know people who, if you listen to them, sound like the most arrogant people you'll ever meet, but if you actually get to know them, really arent that arrogant and are actually really nice. Furthermore, in situations like these, people understandable tend to get really emotional so it is even harder to determine what they are really like.
In fact, your post comes off as arrogant and immature. For example, you say "She had literally zero to do with the success of Github." I dont know how many relationships you've been in, but women I have dated have helped me keep my sanity and my happiness while doing difficult things. That in and of itself has helped me do better and therefore increased the chance of success of whatever I have been working on. There are also many historical examples of this effect at work. In short, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
In fact, your post comes off as arrogant and immature. For example, you say "She had literally zero to do with the success of Github." I dont know how many relationships you've been in, but women I have dated have helped me keep my sanity and my happiness while doing difficult things. That in and of itself has helped me do better and therefore increased the chance of success of whatever I have been working on. There are also many historical examples of this effect at work. In short, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I think you're right. I've worked and been close friends with both people like her, and with people who have had a rough ride at work like Julie Horvath - and although we'll probably never know what really happened in the end - I have a lot of trouble believing Ms. Werner's side of the story after a write up like this.
She seems to vaguely admit fucking up, but that any sort of passionate founder eventually leaves to work on something new and exciting anyways, or that "even when their company was at the height of success [...] they try their hands at something different". I think that's total bs, and that it's certainly not necessary to plug the name of your charity 3 times in this post, because this whole situation has nothing to do with your charity.
She seems to vaguely admit fucking up, but that any sort of passionate founder eventually leaves to work on something new and exciting anyways, or that "even when their company was at the height of success [...] they try their hands at something different". I think that's total bs, and that it's certainly not necessary to plug the name of your charity 3 times in this post, because this whole situation has nothing to do with your charity.
After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit.
This appears to be the real reason for Tom's resignation.
This appears to be the real reason for Tom's resignation.
She couldn't have possibly thought that broaching the topic of her own venture with her husband's employees could've been construed as anything but pressure to help her on it. Are people really this fucking dense?
Er, I originally came to the comments section to say the exact opposite. I guess this is what happens when you're too close to your colleagues and your company grows up.
> I guess this is what happens when you're too close to your colleagues and your company grows up.
There's also a difference between "colleagues" and "employees" let alone "partner's employees".
Look at it like this: a student flirting with an other student[0] is generally appropriate, a teacher flirting with a student not so much. Because the teacher is in a position of abusable power compared to the student an otherwise harmless situation easily becomes fraught with peril.
[0] assuming reason, acknowledgement of rejection, etc..
There's also a difference between "colleagues" and "employees" let alone "partner's employees".
Look at it like this: a student flirting with an other student[0] is generally appropriate, a teacher flirting with a student not so much. Because the teacher is in a position of abusable power compared to the student an otherwise harmless situation easily becomes fraught with peril.
[0] assuming reason, acknowledgement of rejection, etc..
> Because the teacher is in a position of abusable power compared to the student
From what it sounds like, the relationship between the employees/execs at Github was much more friendly than the teacher/student relationship you mentioned. The pitty is that this is super common at small companies, and it would appear this is the relevant fallout after you grow beyond a certain size.
From what it sounds like, the relationship between the employees/execs at Github was much more friendly than the teacher/student relationship you mentioned. The pitty is that this is super common at small companies, and it would appear this is the relevant fallout after you grow beyond a certain size.
> From what it sounds like, the relationship between the employees/execs at Github was much more friendly than the teacher/student relationship you mentioned.
Teachers and students can have very friendly relationships (common when the teacher is young, or in uni-level courses, I've had excellent relations with teachers in the past). That does not change the power relation and the risks of abuse thereof.
Teachers and students can have very friendly relationships (common when the teacher is young, or in uni-level courses, I've had excellent relations with teachers in the past). That does not change the power relation and the risks of abuse thereof.
Agree 100%.
It does not seem difficult to understand both sides in a situation like this. It seems like something that probably happens all the time, especially in regards to charities.
It does not seem difficult to understand both sides in a situation like this. It seems like something that probably happens all the time, especially in regards to charities.
boundaries
people need them
they also help prevent really bad situations being created (quite possibly unintentionally) when there exist power differentials
people need them
they also help prevent really bad situations being created (quite possibly unintentionally) when there exist power differentials
Absolutely.
Good fences make good neighbours.
To some, no fence or small fence is an invitation to overfamiliarity.
Make it too tall and create suspicion.
Getting it right is hard.
Getting it right is hard.
The irony is that github's original structure was meant to remove boundaries.
I don't see this as ironic but rather as just showing some consequences of the structure.
Stuff like this comes up in management training.
In the beginning of my career, certainly before I had the cash reserves to easily weather being laid off, I worked for a company that had a 4-month death march. The two nights before the work was due I literally didn't sleep. As an aside, I really can't recommend this; the code I produced was basically nonsensical. And I think I added far more bugs than I removed, but I did get the final blocking bug out (no matter how many every-so-slightly lower priority bugs I added in its stead.) The ceo came in the morning of the final due date and saw me -- wearing the same clothes for nearly 48 hours and utterly sleep deprived -- and made a crack about how I didn't look like I'm been working hard and I should get to work or he'd fire me. Joking about firing people may or may not ever be funny, but definitely stops being funny when the person has the ability to do it. And some managers fail to understand that - your relationships with employees change when you're their supervisor.
Similarly, it's really not hard to see how being too close or too friendly with people you supervise can cause all sorts of problems, ranging from letting them get away with things they shouldn't because of the friendship or them sharing things with you that force you, as a boss, to choose between your friendship or what your company requires.
I just don't think it's a good idea either way. It's a bummer that it makes workplaces a little more impersonal, but imo it's for the best. I bet it's the reason the military doesn't (from my perspective) seem to encourage enlisted and officers to co-socialize.
In the beginning of my career, certainly before I had the cash reserves to easily weather being laid off, I worked for a company that had a 4-month death march. The two nights before the work was due I literally didn't sleep. As an aside, I really can't recommend this; the code I produced was basically nonsensical. And I think I added far more bugs than I removed, but I did get the final blocking bug out (no matter how many every-so-slightly lower priority bugs I added in its stead.) The ceo came in the morning of the final due date and saw me -- wearing the same clothes for nearly 48 hours and utterly sleep deprived -- and made a crack about how I didn't look like I'm been working hard and I should get to work or he'd fire me. Joking about firing people may or may not ever be funny, but definitely stops being funny when the person has the ability to do it. And some managers fail to understand that - your relationships with employees change when you're their supervisor.
Similarly, it's really not hard to see how being too close or too friendly with people you supervise can cause all sorts of problems, ranging from letting them get away with things they shouldn't because of the friendship or them sharing things with you that force you, as a boss, to choose between your friendship or what your company requires.
I just don't think it's a good idea either way. It's a bummer that it makes workplaces a little more impersonal, but imo it's for the best. I bet it's the reason the military doesn't (from my perspective) seem to encourage enlisted and officers to co-socialize.
With this post, I also think that Tom's wife has inadvertently incriminated herself of meddling in company affairs. Given that she was not an employee at all, I do find it highly inappropriate that she would interact at all with GitHub employees regarding her business. Strangely enough, I think that most of this situation could have been mitigated if she had even a $1/year figurehead role in the company.
or, for a slightly more cynical take:
JAH is honest, and github's board decided Tom can't stay. Unfortunately, admitting that exposes them to massive legal liability (starting with the unaddressed allegation from JAH that she was penalized at work because she wouldn't fuck a coworker, and moving on to the options she was forced to give up when she left. Plus penalties. And a hostile work environment.) So this is an excuse from the board and/or ceo to get Tom + wife the hell away from github without admitting guilt.
I don't know what to believe, though I'm naturally a cynic.
JAH is honest, and github's board decided Tom can't stay. Unfortunately, admitting that exposes them to massive legal liability (starting with the unaddressed allegation from JAH that she was penalized at work because she wouldn't fuck a coworker, and moving on to the options she was forced to give up when she left. Plus penalties. And a hostile work environment.) So this is an excuse from the board and/or ceo to get Tom + wife the hell away from github without admitting guilt.
I don't know what to believe, though I'm naturally a cynic.
This is rampant speculation. If a board was trying to cynically minimize legal exposure they wouldn't admit guilt of any kind.
so, your claim is the board would have tpm leave while saying, "Our investigation found the allegations to be completely unfounded. On an unrelated note, Tom is leaving to spend more time with his family." That right there is basically an admission of guilt.
My (yes, speculation; was the first line not clear enough?) was that Tom + wife did something relatively close to the claim, and therefore Tom needed to leave. This is an excuse for him to leave -- maybe the only one around -- that doesn't open github to further liability.
@abalone: one more time:
if the board where to say "found nothing" and tom 'quit', it's an admission of guilt. The board instead is saying "found nothing, but oh, here's some minor misconduct so now tom is leaving", ie not an admission of guilt with respect to Julie's allegations. Thus my guess is that Tom leaving over some charity incident is a way to (1) get tom + wife away from github without (2) either explicitly ("yup, Tom did just what she said") or implicitly ("Tom didn't do a damn thing but oh, he just up and left") admitting guilt
My (yes, speculation; was the first line not clear enough?) was that Tom + wife did something relatively close to the claim, and therefore Tom needed to leave. This is an excuse for him to leave -- maybe the only one around -- that doesn't open github to further liability.
@abalone: one more time:
if the board where to say "found nothing" and tom 'quit', it's an admission of guilt. The board instead is saying "found nothing, but oh, here's some minor misconduct so now tom is leaving", ie not an admission of guilt with respect to Julie's allegations. Thus my guess is that Tom leaving over some charity incident is a way to (1) get tom + wife away from github without (2) either explicitly ("yup, Tom did just what she said") or implicitly ("Tom didn't do a damn thing but oh, he just up and left") admitting guilt
Earlier you said "this is an excuse... to get Tom + wife the hell away from github without admitting guilt".
Now you are contradictorily saying their statement "is basically an admission of guilt".
So we agree on that. Therefore, I'm saying admitting guilt like that would not be the right move for a cynical board that just wants to minimize legal liability. Most likely the dismissal was due to other related issues that came up in the investigation concerning his handling of the situation. There's plenty potential scandal within that to be cynical about, it just doesn't support the notion that Horvath's charges about sexism necessarily have any merit.
Now you are contradictorily saying their statement "is basically an admission of guilt".
So we agree on that. Therefore, I'm saying admitting guilt like that would not be the right move for a cynical board that just wants to minimize legal liability. Most likely the dismissal was due to other related issues that came up in the investigation concerning his handling of the situation. There's plenty potential scandal within that to be cynical about, it just doesn't support the notion that Horvath's charges about sexism necessarily have any merit.
[deleted]
Or it's possible that they want you to believe this?
I find it strange that both of the Preston-Werners posted blog posts directly after the github post came out. Usually I'd think lawyers would not encourage this...
I find it strange that both of the Preston-Werners posted blog posts directly after the github post came out. Usually I'd think lawyers would not encourage this...
You can bet your ass that Tom and Theresa negotiated the right to share these posts and that they were reviewed by all lawyers involved.
The right to make public statements (or not) is always a heavily contested point as I personally both can and can't talk about. ;)
The right to make public statements (or not) is always a heavily contested point as I personally both can and can't talk about. ;)
I am a recovering employment law litigator.
Most attorneys will advise clients not to make public statements until a matter has been resolved formally. Where appropriate, public statements are generally very direct and avoid detail.
I am skeptical that an attorney blessed statements like "we were fully cleared of all accusations of harassment" and "we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations." These statements, particularly "found not guilty", would be appropriate following a favorable resolution of a civil or criminal matter. In my opinion they are absolutely not appropriate following the completion of a third party investigation initiated by a company. Such investigations are a standard part of the pre-litigation process; they do not eliminate the threat of litigation and they do not guarantee a successful defense.
I am even more skeptical that this statement was coordinated with counsel because it contains information that could be used to support other claims against the company. The statement gives credence to the idea that some employees may have felt pressured by a superior's spouse. There are a variety of causes of actions under which such an admission could be beneficial to a plaintiff's claims and these statements could conceivably be useful to other employees if they are considering the pursuit of unrelated actions.
Most attorneys will advise clients not to make public statements until a matter has been resolved formally. Where appropriate, public statements are generally very direct and avoid detail.
I am skeptical that an attorney blessed statements like "we were fully cleared of all accusations of harassment" and "we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations." These statements, particularly "found not guilty", would be appropriate following a favorable resolution of a civil or criminal matter. In my opinion they are absolutely not appropriate following the completion of a third party investigation initiated by a company. Such investigations are a standard part of the pre-litigation process; they do not eliminate the threat of litigation and they do not guarantee a successful defense.
I am even more skeptical that this statement was coordinated with counsel because it contains information that could be used to support other claims against the company. The statement gives credence to the idea that some employees may have felt pressured by a superior's spouse. There are a variety of causes of actions under which such an admission could be beneficial to a plaintiff's claims and these statements could conceivably be useful to other employees if they are considering the pursuit of unrelated actions.
Might it be that defunkt said what lawyers would like him to say and that mojombo and his wife didn't? Did you see anything major that defunkt said in those two blog posts that a lawyer would find fault with?
It seems like defunkt may have watched mojombo and his wife do a few things that he'd rather they didn't do. Maybe he was frustrated and talked to their investor about it and they didn't like the situation either, and long story short, mojombo resigned. I imagine this might be hard for their friendship (which I hear is legendary despite their differences) but hopefully they'll overcome it.
It seems like defunkt may have watched mojombo and his wife do a few things that he'd rather they didn't do. Maybe he was frustrated and talked to their investor about it and they didn't like the situation either, and long story short, mojombo resigned. I imagine this might be hard for their friendship (which I hear is legendary despite their differences) but hopefully they'll overcome it.
Even though I'm no longer a practicing attorney I prefer not to speculate. I can only state that I have watched this situation with interest and am amazed at how poorly both sides have handled the matter. I do not see the fingerprints of competent counsel in the actions of either side.
out of curiosity -- by sides are you referring to {github, tom, tom's wife, julie, or ???}
Would you expect GitHub's legal counsel not to have signed off on these statements? I honestly didn't even consider that a possibility.
Edit: In case you're wondering with the (rather unexpected) downvotes and all; I'm still really curious about the answer.
Edit: In case you're wondering with the (rather unexpected) downvotes and all; I'm still really curious about the answer.
> I find it strange that both of the Preston-Werners posted blog posts directly after the github post came out.
Totally! I mean, it's almost like they've been waiting silently for the go ahead to speak out or something!
Totally! I mean, it's almost like they've been waiting silently for the go ahead to speak out or something!
I don't know the personalities of anyone involved in this ordeal and that makes the whole thing difficult to judge. If this is a case of the workplace sociopath, I pity all involved. In my own experiences working with manipulative people, they typically find a narrative to support their abusive behaviors and when these people are called on for those actions, they either act surprised or hurt and often both. This person is hurt by being called things like "naive" because it is reflective of their own incompetence. Certainly "optimistic" is a better way of putting it because it means all of the
"good intentions" were squandered by everyone else who just didn't get it. The manipulator shouldn't have to suffer the consequences, since it is his/her trust that has been betrayed. You see, all along, the manipulator was trying to be the good guy. The one making the office better, "more fun", it was always good intentions but the other people either misunderstood or just want to spoil it for the rest of us.
I sincerely hope no one has to work with this personality type but I am willing to bet most everyone has seen this bad faith behavior in action. You know the office bully who, when called out for pushing a person around says in some form, "come on, can't you take a joke?" Isn't it odd how this same person never calls the thing a joke when he or she gets what is wanted out of the same behavior?
"I was totally joking when I said I needed you to work over the weekend or else. Seesch. Lighten up." I can assure you, I have never heard of a single person getting a monday apology email for putting in that weekend work from this sort of office "practical joker."
So it is not too surprising to see HR departments and lawyers finding themselves implementing "PC" policies and "buzz kill" practices as a means of mitigating these sorts of power abusive strategies since the bully is ultimately going to act the victim of misunderstood intentions when asked in any form to stop.
Isn't it odd how the biggest tragedy for this personality type is having to admit how their actions might have hurt others?
I sincerely hope no one has to work with this personality type but I am willing to bet most everyone has seen this bad faith behavior in action. You know the office bully who, when called out for pushing a person around says in some form, "come on, can't you take a joke?" Isn't it odd how this same person never calls the thing a joke when he or she gets what is wanted out of the same behavior?
"I was totally joking when I said I needed you to work over the weekend or else. Seesch. Lighten up." I can assure you, I have never heard of a single person getting a monday apology email for putting in that weekend work from this sort of office "practical joker."
So it is not too surprising to see HR departments and lawyers finding themselves implementing "PC" policies and "buzz kill" practices as a means of mitigating these sorts of power abusive strategies since the bully is ultimately going to act the victim of misunderstood intentions when asked in any form to stop.
Isn't it odd how the biggest tragedy for this personality type is having to admit how their actions might have hurt others?
Richard Branson had/has critics that accused him of all sorts of things. His advice, which is similar to Napoleon Hill's, would be to demonstrate actions that are discordant to the accusations.
(The bigger of a celeb / more successful you become, the bigger of a target you wear on your back for people to try to tear you down.)
(The bigger of a celeb / more successful you become, the bigger of a target you wear on your back for people to try to tear you down.)
Reference on that?
It seems to correspond to #9 here: http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/my-illustrated-top-10-...
Ah yes exactly. The "prove them wrong" part, it's important not to attack the accuser but demonstrate that their claims don't hold up. Also if there is something to claims, admit it quickly (kills the story) and show enacting preventative measures.
Thanks, appreciated.
[deleted]
"Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely."
Neither. Arrogant it the right word. Not maliciously so, but arrogance nevertheless.
An arrogance that is far from unique in the start-up world, the arrogance to think that in spite of centuries of documented history you can create an organization that doesn't have clear formal structure and not have it end up as a cult-like snake pit.
As companies, they fail to provide the kind of safety and security people who are not entrepreneurs need, and call it "freedom". And it may feel like freedom for a while, when it's still a small group of close friends, but after that it's just a Darwinian social experiment.
And when the shit hits the fan, it doesn't matter who exactly did what. It's the arrogance and narcissism of the founders that is responsible. Founders who believe that everyone who works for them should be like them, and then everything will magically be good.
"Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure. He wanted to create a company where he, himself, would have loved to have been an employee."
This isn't visionary. This isn't naivety. This isn't optimism. It's narcissism.
Neither. Arrogant it the right word. Not maliciously so, but arrogance nevertheless.
An arrogance that is far from unique in the start-up world, the arrogance to think that in spite of centuries of documented history you can create an organization that doesn't have clear formal structure and not have it end up as a cult-like snake pit.
As companies, they fail to provide the kind of safety and security people who are not entrepreneurs need, and call it "freedom". And it may feel like freedom for a while, when it's still a small group of close friends, but after that it's just a Darwinian social experiment.
And when the shit hits the fan, it doesn't matter who exactly did what. It's the arrogance and narcissism of the founders that is responsible. Founders who believe that everyone who works for them should be like them, and then everything will magically be good.
"Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure. He wanted to create a company where he, himself, would have loved to have been an employee."
This isn't visionary. This isn't naivety. This isn't optimism. It's narcissism.
I dunno. I think it could be any of those things, or all of those things, and ultimately depends on who you're talking about.
Question though - isn't one of the points of starting your own business that you're having a hard time finding a perfect job working for someone else? Ergo, don't a lot of us "[want] to create a company where [we], [ourselves], would have loved to have been an employee."?
edit - I totally agree with the rest of your comment about arrogance.
Question though - isn't one of the points of starting your own business that you're having a hard time finding a perfect job working for someone else? Ergo, don't a lot of us "[want] to create a company where [we], [ourselves], would have loved to have been an employee."?
edit - I totally agree with the rest of your comment about arrogance.
> We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. We racked our brains trying to understand this new allegation...I am so very sorry if anyone felt that I was pressuring him or her for advice, labor, or to sign up. I truly never had that intention...my idealistic belief in the status-free community of GitHub, I failed to recognize that power structures cannot ever be obscured entirely.
> employees view them as disconnected and only trying to build empires of gold. Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure...He wanted to invest heavily in employees and to create a space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things. In our home every night, he spoke passionately about how to build a company that gave employees freedom.
Other than being a Github user and customer, I know nothing of the details of this case other than what I've read. She admits she was obtuse about "power structures" in the company, but this also is not a unique thing in Silicon Valley - she's not blind to these things in a unique way.
That said - it's like someone believing their own press releases. "A space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things". To me that sounds like saying Platt from "Twelve Years a Slave" got an excellent bag to pick cotton from, and build up the glorious plantation he was working on. Preston-Warner can snap his fingers, and someone who was getting a check to put food on the table and a roof over their head is suddenly not going to have the rent check by the end of the month. Especially when the next employer is asking for references, why you left the last job, are there any gaps in employment etc. People on an H1-B visa are dependent upon the company so they can't be thrown out of the country, so their green card application can not be restarted etc.
This is in the default structure of a corporation, and the laws, and all the default papers that super-angels and VC's put forward. Ownership and control of a corporation is 80-90% in the hands of the angels, VC's and founders. Of the scraps left over, executives and top-level experienced techs get the lion's share. This is the reality, and everyone knows it. People believing their own press releases about people building great things are delusional. It's like the Tuskeegee or Dr. Mengele subjects happy about how they are helping contribute to science. No one is fooled by this other than naive, new to the workplace, socially maladjusted programmers in their early 20's. This is why there is such a feeding frenzy over this small pool of naive young men.
> employees view them as disconnected and only trying to build empires of gold. Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure...He wanted to invest heavily in employees and to create a space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things. In our home every night, he spoke passionately about how to build a company that gave employees freedom.
Other than being a Github user and customer, I know nothing of the details of this case other than what I've read. She admits she was obtuse about "power structures" in the company, but this also is not a unique thing in Silicon Valley - she's not blind to these things in a unique way.
That said - it's like someone believing their own press releases. "A space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things". To me that sounds like saying Platt from "Twelve Years a Slave" got an excellent bag to pick cotton from, and build up the glorious plantation he was working on. Preston-Warner can snap his fingers, and someone who was getting a check to put food on the table and a roof over their head is suddenly not going to have the rent check by the end of the month. Especially when the next employer is asking for references, why you left the last job, are there any gaps in employment etc. People on an H1-B visa are dependent upon the company so they can't be thrown out of the country, so their green card application can not be restarted etc.
This is in the default structure of a corporation, and the laws, and all the default papers that super-angels and VC's put forward. Ownership and control of a corporation is 80-90% in the hands of the angels, VC's and founders. Of the scraps left over, executives and top-level experienced techs get the lion's share. This is the reality, and everyone knows it. People believing their own press releases about people building great things are delusional. It's like the Tuskeegee or Dr. Mengele subjects happy about how they are helping contribute to science. No one is fooled by this other than naive, new to the workplace, socially maladjusted programmers in their early 20's. This is why there is such a feeding frenzy over this small pool of naive young men.
> Preston-Warner can snap his fingers, and someone who was getting a check to put food on the table and a roof over their head is suddenly not going to have the rent check by the end of the month.
Very, very unlikely. Even though employment laws are very employer-friendly in the US, from the sound of it, Tom built an inclusive, open company culture. One of the side effects of that is that if you abuse your power as a leader, you cause irreparable damage to the culture - which is not something you want to do at practically any cost after spending so much effort building the culture and getting it to stand up on its own feet.
Ricardo Semler, major shareholder and CEO of Semco, explained it like this: "I have a handgun in my desk drawer with a single bullet in it."
If he really had built the kind of culture where he could just fire people by snapping his fingers, surely the easiest thing would have been to fire the troublemaker at the first sign of trouble instead of waiting for her to resign and make a fuss.
Very, very unlikely. Even though employment laws are very employer-friendly in the US, from the sound of it, Tom built an inclusive, open company culture. One of the side effects of that is that if you abuse your power as a leader, you cause irreparable damage to the culture - which is not something you want to do at practically any cost after spending so much effort building the culture and getting it to stand up on its own feet.
Ricardo Semler, major shareholder and CEO of Semco, explained it like this: "I have a handgun in my desk drawer with a single bullet in it."
If he really had built the kind of culture where he could just fire people by snapping his fingers, surely the easiest thing would have been to fire the troublemaker at the first sign of trouble instead of waiting for her to resign and make a fuss.
How is that unlikely? Unless Github has a very, very atypical employment contract, all employees are at-will[1]. Sure, it might damage Tom or Github's reputation if he just randomly fired people[2], but he could. Saying that it would also bring down the rest of the company doesn't really help.
[1] Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself!
[2] I mean, unless he "randomly" fires all the people of race X, or something like that
[1] Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself!
[2] I mean, unless he "randomly" fires all the people of race X, or something like that
I explained how it's unlikely, but here we go again.
Tom has spent considerable time (as I have, in my own company) getting people to a point where they think for themselves, make decisions as a group, and generally behave as independent adults rather than the kind of infantile employees who just do what they're told by their boss. Since the latter is the way most businesses operate, it's no mean feat to get this done with a company of a dozen, let alone with one of hundreds.
If Tom decides to arbitrarily fire someone, even just one person, without going through the group-oriented processes he's spent all this time building up, he immediately undermines all that, potentially fatally.
Since he clearly cares about the company's culture (enough to make it his priority for the last half-decade), it's very unlikely he would risk that to get rid of one person.
And finally, again, there's the evidence: if he really did want to get rid of this woman, and he could, why didn't he?
Tom has spent considerable time (as I have, in my own company) getting people to a point where they think for themselves, make decisions as a group, and generally behave as independent adults rather than the kind of infantile employees who just do what they're told by their boss. Since the latter is the way most businesses operate, it's no mean feat to get this done with a company of a dozen, let alone with one of hundreds.
If Tom decides to arbitrarily fire someone, even just one person, without going through the group-oriented processes he's spent all this time building up, he immediately undermines all that, potentially fatally.
Since he clearly cares about the company's culture (enough to make it his priority for the last half-decade), it's very unlikely he would risk that to get rid of one person.
And finally, again, there's the evidence: if he really did want to get rid of this woman, and he could, why didn't he?
> And finally, again, there's the evidence: if he really did want to get rid of this woman, and he could, why didn't he?
That's more speculation than evidence, surely?
That's more speculation than evidence, surely?
> Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself!
No, you don't.
No, you don't.
> Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself!
That's a professional courtesy; it's almost never legally required.
That's a professional courtesy; it's almost never legally required.
It's very, very unlikely that he would fire someone on a whim. He has the ability, but it's very unlikely that he would exercise that ability.
I don't understand why people in these situations feel compelled respond. Why defend yourself? Why say anything publicly at all? Curious if any PR-knowledgable folks around here know if there is any benefit to such statements.
Why wouldn't you? I think it's natural to want to defend yourself when you're being attacked. No one wants their name dragged through the mud. It's hard to stay silent, especially considering that many people will see your silence as a sign of guilt.
In the PR world, it's called "Damage Control". From http://smallbusiness.chron.com/public-relations-damage-contr...:
"While many duties of a public relations department involve building the reputation of the employer, with damage control it is primarily about minimizing the negative perception caused by a crisis-situation. A crisis is sometimes the result of an unexpected event. It might also be about something that the public relations department hoped to conceal from the public or hoped would not happen. Those involved in damage control are typically on call 24 hours a day, ready to minimize negative public perception."
"While many duties of a public relations department involve building the reputation of the employer, with damage control it is primarily about minimizing the negative perception caused by a crisis-situation. A crisis is sometimes the result of an unexpected event. It might also be about something that the public relations department hoped to conceal from the public or hoped would not happen. Those involved in damage control are typically on call 24 hours a day, ready to minimize negative public perception."
If the truth is on your side, you have a strong incentive to let out some significant details to change the conversation.
It depends on your view. Many times it's not worth commenting on, and unless you can refute it completely, it devolves into a he-said/she-said argument.
It depends on your view. Many times it's not worth commenting on, and unless you can refute it completely, it devolves into a he-said/she-said argument.
Right or wrong, many people interpret "no comment" as a sign of guilt.
PR 101 - When something bad happens you do one of three things:
1. Don't talk about it.
2. Spin it.
3. Burn it. - Let the lesser known news sources get the scoop so the big news sources won't want it.
I think they're trying to go with 2. "This is a good thing... Oculus Rift Technology... leaving for other, more important reasons... etc..."
I would have gone with bullet 1.
1. Don't talk about it.
2. Spin it.
3. Burn it. - Let the lesser known news sources get the scoop so the big news sources won't want it.
I think they're trying to go with 2. "This is a good thing... Oculus Rift Technology... leaving for other, more important reasons... etc..."
I would have gone with bullet 1.
> 3. Burn it. - Let the lesser known news sources get the scoop so the big news sources won't want it.
That's any interesting tactic. Do you have a good example of a company "burning" bad PR?
That's any interesting tactic. Do you have a good example of a company "burning" bad PR?
There's a famous (in the UK) example of how prevalent it seems to be in politics: a Labour aide, Jo Moore[1] eventually had to resign after issuing a memo on 9/11 basically saying "today would be a good day to bury bad news"
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore
Generally, it's best not to say anything more than the minimal amount necessary; if you want to get a particular angle on the story out, you float it through friendly media, of which SiV has a preponderance. ("Sources close to the story say that ...".)
It appears that GitHub and the Preston-Werners aren't coordinating their messages (though no doubt all counsel involved have reviewed them): the GH release is appropriately terse, giving away the bare minimum of information in order to minimize both PR and legal exposure, while the P-Ws are working their angle to the story while still minimizing actual information. The P-Ws really don't have any legal exposure, so there's very little downside to their attempts to work the refs, while GH is operating under the continued threat of legal action (even if it's remote, their attorneys are obviously being appropriately cautious here, so kudos to them).
Of the two statements, Tom Preston-Werner's statement is far more effective and well-crafted than his wife's; he comes across as -- at least for public consumption -- sincere, open and genuinely remorseful while affirming his dedication to Good Things and avoiding admitting to actual culpability. It's a very nicely-handled statement, and it's instructive to compare it to how MoCo and Eich handled their crisis du jour. (The OP statement by Theresa P-W, however, is less artful, more defensive, and personalizes the criticism. Understandable from a personal point of view; not good PR.)
How much of this is true? Well, does it matter? Truth is for courtrooms and confessionals; what matters here is spin. Again, consider MoCo. In both cases, an executive was ousted but, in GH's case, the company looks stronger for it (investigation by outside counsel! No wrongdoing found! Action taken!) and the P-Ws don't look much worse (we support diversity! Created an open culture! Feel terrible that some people felt hurt!).
The ouster of Eich, however, just made moCo look opportunistic and weak, and Eich personally came out looking pretty bad due to his inability to craft a solid message (he said the right things about diversity, but failed to connect it to his personal narrative, so it rang hollow). The lesson, I think, is either move quickly and aggressively (as GitHub did), or else buckle down and stay the course (as Mozilla should have -- though, as I've said previously, I have no issues whatsoever with the campaign to oust Eich). Anything else is going to make a problem into a crisis.
It appears that GitHub and the Preston-Werners aren't coordinating their messages (though no doubt all counsel involved have reviewed them): the GH release is appropriately terse, giving away the bare minimum of information in order to minimize both PR and legal exposure, while the P-Ws are working their angle to the story while still minimizing actual information. The P-Ws really don't have any legal exposure, so there's very little downside to their attempts to work the refs, while GH is operating under the continued threat of legal action (even if it's remote, their attorneys are obviously being appropriately cautious here, so kudos to them).
Of the two statements, Tom Preston-Werner's statement is far more effective and well-crafted than his wife's; he comes across as -- at least for public consumption -- sincere, open and genuinely remorseful while affirming his dedication to Good Things and avoiding admitting to actual culpability. It's a very nicely-handled statement, and it's instructive to compare it to how MoCo and Eich handled their crisis du jour. (The OP statement by Theresa P-W, however, is less artful, more defensive, and personalizes the criticism. Understandable from a personal point of view; not good PR.)
How much of this is true? Well, does it matter? Truth is for courtrooms and confessionals; what matters here is spin. Again, consider MoCo. In both cases, an executive was ousted but, in GH's case, the company looks stronger for it (investigation by outside counsel! No wrongdoing found! Action taken!) and the P-Ws don't look much worse (we support diversity! Created an open culture! Feel terrible that some people felt hurt!).
The ouster of Eich, however, just made moCo look opportunistic and weak, and Eich personally came out looking pretty bad due to his inability to craft a solid message (he said the right things about diversity, but failed to connect it to his personal narrative, so it rang hollow). The lesson, I think, is either move quickly and aggressively (as GitHub did), or else buckle down and stay the course (as Mozilla should have -- though, as I've said previously, I have no issues whatsoever with the campaign to oust Eich). Anything else is going to make a problem into a crisis.
Eich was not ousted by Mozilla, though I can understand why reasonable people might think that. Eich chose to resign because of the toll on him and his family (including your garden-variety internet death threats) and to draw fire from Mozilla. MoCo's board tried to convince him to stay the course as CEO or CTO. The board was unprepared for the media storm, thinking the Prop 8 issue had been settled back in 2012, and it never found its footing. I think this has been a heartbreaking experience for many Mozillians.
Here is Mozilla's updated FAQ: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Disclosure: I am a Mozilla employee.
Here is Mozilla's updated FAQ: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Disclosure: I am a Mozilla employee.
Excellent analysis. I'm also surprised why MoCo decided against staying the course and jettisoned Eich. The majority of the complaints would have blown over in several weeks as people got bored/distracted/found something else to be outraged about. The few remaining die-hard complainers could be safely ignored as all companies have some amount of detractors.
jettisoned Eich
You probably want to read the reply above yours, or the FAQ it links. The announcement from Brendan was that he had chosen to resign. No evidence has been presented that he was fired or in any way pressured by the board to leave; in fact, everybody in the know who's commented publicly says it was the other way around (and always was -- it really looks like he never wanted to be CEO but was talked into it, then wanted to resign and others tried to talk him into staying).
You probably want to read the reply above yours, or the FAQ it links. The announcement from Brendan was that he had chosen to resign. No evidence has been presented that he was fired or in any way pressured by the board to leave; in fact, everybody in the know who's commented publicly says it was the other way around (and always was -- it really looks like he never wanted to be CEO but was talked into it, then wanted to resign and others tried to talk him into staying).
It seems that the SEC has been pushing for admission of wrongdoing in lawsuits. I wish it was the standard practice too.
[deleted]
> I suspect that what founders really fear is being misunderstood in their motivations as their companies grow. They fear that employees view them as disconnected and only trying to build empires of gold.
These are the fears of a bad founder. Their job is to set the vision of the company. If the founder fears the employees feel they are disconnected, the founder probably is disconnected. If a founder should fear anything, they should fear not creating a safe environment where the employees can feel comfortable bringing their concerns to superiors — about any aspect of the company — instead of that self-centered fear of being “misunderstood”.
These are the fears of a bad founder. Their job is to set the vision of the company. If the founder fears the employees feel they are disconnected, the founder probably is disconnected. If a founder should fear anything, they should fear not creating a safe environment where the employees can feel comfortable bringing their concerns to superiors — about any aspect of the company — instead of that self-centered fear of being “misunderstood”.
The naive nature of this note is almost incredulous.
After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. We racked our brains trying to understand this new allegation.
Ummm... Perhaps it's because you're the CEO's wife and you're asking them to do something. It comes with the power.
I was the wife of the CEO, but that never entered my mind when I hung out with any GitHubbers.
Ummmm.... ok....
I have never known anyone like Tom. When I was interviewed by the 3rd party investigator, she abruptly asked if I thought Tom was naive. I was dumbfounded, unable to answer until she offered a different word; “Perhaps, you would call him optimistic?” Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely.
ok, so at least it's not her husband that was naive.
Apparently there are still threats of legal suits around all this fun too. http://news.easybranches.com/news/1844059.html
After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. We racked our brains trying to understand this new allegation.
Ummm... Perhaps it's because you're the CEO's wife and you're asking them to do something. It comes with the power.
I was the wife of the CEO, but that never entered my mind when I hung out with any GitHubbers.
Ummmm.... ok....
I have never known anyone like Tom. When I was interviewed by the 3rd party investigator, she abruptly asked if I thought Tom was naive. I was dumbfounded, unable to answer until she offered a different word; “Perhaps, you would call him optimistic?” Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely.
ok, so at least it's not her husband that was naive.
Apparently there are still threats of legal suits around all this fun too. http://news.easybranches.com/news/1844059.html
Yawns In a few months, nobody will remember. I'm a HUGE Github fan, but the world doesn't revolve around you, not even the tech world. We all live in a bubble here.
"Sign in to continue"
What is this, Quora? When did Medium start with that?
What is this, Quora? When did Medium start with that?
exactly, they will lose readers by doing that.
This is so NOT what every founder fears !
[deleted]
This is quite some schmaltz
Hmm, so, not a single comment about how absolutely none of the issues raised by @nrrrdcore are addressed by neither github (whitewashing it all) nor these folk (one of which threatened everyone who questions him with a lawsuit). And none of the comments even mention @nrrrdcore or what she raised.
We seem to be witnessing the convenient limits of discourse.
We seem to be witnessing the convenient limits of discourse.
It could be worse: it is not as if Github has a Hans Reiser on the books! Yet the way this story has been gone over you would think that something of that magnitude of catastrophivity had gone on.
x
#
Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people. I'm saying "for real" because it seems their social perspectives are heavily skewed inward and towards themselves.
Also, it's super odd because towards the end of the post, the lines get blurred; she seems to be equating her husband's success with her own. She had literally zero to do with the success of Github.