7 ms·

I'm actually sad that any hint of honesty is so quickly and severely punished in the business world. This is why we get so used to hearing nothing but empty pl

I'm actually sad that any hint of honesty is so quickly and severely punished in the business world. This is why we get so used to hearing nothing but empty platitudes and bald faced lies from business executives and government officials alike. It does not make me hopeful.

fallingfrog 11y ago
A lot of people are pointing out that what this guy said was in various ways kind of awful. I wouldn't dispute that. It's just- he wasn't fired for doing awful things. He was fired for being honest about it in public. What kind of perverse incentives are we setting up here? I can guarantee that there isn't a single exec right now looking at this and thinking, maybe I shouldn't be such a bastard. They're thinking, boy I better not let anybody know what I really think!
- neurotech1 11y ago
  Its the "in public" part that got him fired. If it was private constructive criticism, I'd hope that would be accepted as such. IMO Most of what he said was widely thought by others, but not previously confirmed by ULA.
fallingfrog 11y ago
A lot of people are pointing out that what this guy said was in various ways kind of awful. I wouldn't dispute that. It's just- he wasn't fired for doing awful things. He was fired for being honest about it in public. What kind of perverse incentives are we setting up here? I can guarantee that there isn't a single exec right now looking at this and thinking, maybe I shouldn't be such a bastard. They're thinking, boy I better not let anybody know what I really think!
jinushaun 11y ago
It's not about honestly. He basically admitted that the procurement is broken and that ULA is part of the problem.
dwolfson 11y ago
I agree, but in this case, he was not just being honest but also weakening his company's business position. I think that is a fireable offense.
- AndyNemmity 11y ago
  Because it was recorded. If anything, this is a lesson of who you can be candid with, and you who can't. He was candid with the wrong audience, that's all.
draw_down 11y ago
Yes, it's too bad. But this is how business functions, this person sounds either naive or maybe just fed up. We all know it but don't want to think about it, or for those who are on the gravy train, don't want it discussed.
- AndyNemmity 11y ago
  This is how business functions, and perhaps I haven't realized how much insight I get into this. I just consider all of this normal, but the reaction of HackerNews commenters is making me think that people honestly don't realize this is standard operation procedure in all verticals. What I heard was a completely benign, candid analysis of the situation.
  - draw_down 11y ago
    It's candid, but not benign because the truth isn't benign. People in this person's position are not supposed to say the truth about the intersection of the government and his business. We're supposed to pretend it's all competitive or whatever.
    - AndyNemmity 11y ago
      Fundamentally I think we're in agreement here.
    - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
      It's candid, but not benign because the truth isn't benign. You're quite correct. not supposed to say the truth ... supposed to pretend But in the above you're missing a key word in two places: not supposed to publicly say the truth ... supposed to publicly pretend And that is the essence of the problem. Any business that wants to survive must have ongoing internal discussions based on reality. However, their public face should necessarily be quite different. This was explained in Bull Durham: Crash Davis: It's time to work on your interviews. Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: My interviews? What do I gotta do? Crash Davis: You're gonna have to learn your clichés. You're gonna have to study them, you're gonna have to know them. They're your friends. Write this down: "We gotta play it one day at a time." Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: Got to play... it's pretty boring. Crash Davis: 'Course it's boring, that's the point. Write it down.
cryptoz 11y ago
He called one business partner a "rich girl", he called another one a "poor girl" and seemed exasperated that his company has to keep buying gifts for its "brides". He continued with ridiculous and derisive statements that insult nearly everyone in the industry, especially key customers. This is not about "honesty" - it's about not being the most mean-spirited, bitter, vapid, hateful VP you could imagine.
- 123912831 11y ago
  Reading the neo-Puritan hypocrite comments here is entertaining.
- AndyNemmity 11y ago
  It is about honesty. This is the language that people use at the bar discussing this stuff. This happens in all verticals, and all fields. It just never gets recorded.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    yeah but, airing your dirty laundry in front of an audience? i and most non-sociopaths wouldn't even do that on an inter-personal level, i don't know why people here are lamenting that you shouldn't do it for business relationships.
  - zepto 11y ago
    Honestly displaying misogyny seems like it should be discouraged.
    - iswim 11y ago
      "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
    - AndyNemmity 11y ago
      I don't see the misogyny, and if I would have heard that at the bar I would have clearly understood what his analogy was meaning. I wouldn't have even noticed it. I'd never have used the terms he used, but I don't have any real issue with the way it was framed. I find it odd that would be the thing to pick out within the statements, but perhaps I'm not as sensitive to the language as I should be? Edit: I can't seem to reply to a level deep, so I will put some remarks here. Re: over - In my view it was just an analogy, and had no deep insight into the views of marriage. Just my impressions Re: th0ma5 - Boys doesn't have any negative connotation, but I understand the point you're making. I don't have much to add except that I didn't read it as anything other than an analogy. Re: zepto - I keep saying bar because that's often where you'll hear this sort of language, but it isn't limited there. I respect your views that it isn't appropriate, and again, I would never use that language to explain it. But I don't take offense to it. Again, perhaps I should. I may not be as enlightened as I should be.
ceejayoz 11y ago
A quick skim of the article shows more than just honesty. He's telling folks outside the company that a) ULA is courting Aerojet Rocketdyne with little intention of actually going with them, b) a prominent Senator is biased against them and and c) the Pentagon skewed a competition in their favor. As the article says: > This is not something Air Force procurement officers want to see quoted in the next SpaceX lawsuit. Nor is it something that McCain was happy to hear. At a hearing this morning, he called for an investigation into the contract.
- marincounty 11y ago
  He went too far, but it's most likely the truth. Do I fell sorry for his firing--no. Would I tape this speach, and put it online--no.
  - keithpeter 11y ago
    "Would I tape this [speech], and put it online--no." Anyone got anything on the motivation for the taping/putting on-line? Lutz? Angry at the language? Supporting one of the other stakeholders? Some concept of investigative journalism?
    - foota 11y ago
      My guess would be the students just didn't think of the ramifications.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        Why would this be on the students?
        foota 11y ago
        For both the students and the exec, sometimes you have to use common sense. This doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd post publicly.
mikeash 11y ago
Sometimes it's not the honesty that's punished, but what that honesty reveals. If these statements were honest, I don't think I'd want this guy to be part of the upper management of my rocket company. There's too much misunderstanding in there, and the views too polarized. It's a bit like Trump. A lot of people say they admire him because he speaks his mind. Well, that's not so great if the underlying mind is nuts!
- gotchange 11y ago
  There's a huge difference between being "honest" and "sincere". This buddy and Trump for the matter, they both sound sincere when they voice their opinions but that doesn't mean necessarily that they're being honest or speaking the truth. They're just being frank and open about the train thoughts in their head but this doesn't mean that these thoughts are valid, true or sound.
- AndyNemmity 11y ago
  This is not some individual scenario. This is the way people talk in business on the regular. You break it down into overly simplistic, but generally useful ways to explain the situations. I don't doubt his candid explanation was correct, and I don't see anything wrong with it really. It's the internal analysis of the situation at a given time. Those things change, and are not written in stone.
  - cryptoz 11y ago
    > I don't doubt his candid explanation was correct, and I don't see anything wrong with it really. Why wouldn't you doubt this? His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements about his competitors (SpaceX). If he was being "honest", then he was wrong. His "candid explanations" of things were fraught with error and also wildly offensive, not to mention dangerous for the business.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements Such as ... ?
kenshaw 11y ago
Aerospace is not the business world. It is the political world.

fallingfrog 11y ago

A lot of people are pointing out that what this guy said was in various ways kind of awful. I wouldn't dispute that. It's just- he wasn't fired for doing awful things. He was fired for being honest about it in public. What kind of perverse incentives are we setting up here? I can guarantee that there isn't a single exec right now looking at this and thinking, maybe I shouldn't be such a bastard. They're thinking, boy I better not let anybody know what I really think!

neurotech1 11y ago
Its the "in public" part that got him fired. If it was private constructive criticism, I'd hope that would be accepted as such. IMO Most of what he said was widely thought by others, but not previously confirmed by ULA.

fallingfrog 11y ago

jinushaun 11y ago

It's not about honestly. He basically admitted that the procurement is broken and that ULA is part of the problem.

dwolfson 11y ago

I agree, but in this case, he was not just being honest but also weakening his company's business position. I think that is a fireable offense.

AndyNemmity 11y ago
Because it was recorded. If anything, this is a lesson of who you can be candid with, and you who can't. He was candid with the wrong audience, that's all.

draw_down 11y ago

Yes, it's too bad. But this is how business functions, this person sounds either naive or maybe just fed up. We all know it but don't want to think about it, or for those who are on the gravy train, don't want it discussed.

AndyNemmity 11y ago
This is how business functions, and perhaps I haven't realized how much insight I get into this. I just consider all of this normal, but the reaction of HackerNews commenters is making me think that people honestly don't realize this is standard operation procedure in all verticals. What I heard was a completely benign, candid analysis of the situation.
- draw_down 11y ago
  It's candid, but not benign because the truth isn't benign. People in this person's position are not supposed to say the truth about the intersection of the government and his business. We're supposed to pretend it's all competitive or whatever.
  - AndyNemmity 11y ago
    Fundamentally I think we're in agreement here.
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    It's candid, but not benign because the truth isn't benign. You're quite correct. not supposed to say the truth ... supposed to pretend But in the above you're missing a key word in two places: not supposed to publicly say the truth ... supposed to publicly pretend And that is the essence of the problem. Any business that wants to survive must have ongoing internal discussions based on reality. However, their public face should necessarily be quite different. This was explained in Bull Durham: Crash Davis: It's time to work on your interviews. Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: My interviews? What do I gotta do? Crash Davis: You're gonna have to learn your clichés. You're gonna have to study them, you're gonna have to know them. They're your friends. Write this down: "We gotta play it one day at a time." Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: Got to play... it's pretty boring. Crash Davis: 'Course it's boring, that's the point. Write it down.

cryptoz 11y ago

He called one business partner a "rich girl", he called another one a "poor girl" and seemed exasperated that his company has to keep buying gifts for its "brides". He continued with ridiculous and derisive statements that insult nearly everyone in the industry, especially key customers. This is not about "honesty" - it's about not being the most mean-spirited, bitter, vapid, hateful VP you could imagine.

123912831 11y ago
Reading the neo-Puritan hypocrite comments here is entertaining.
AndyNemmity 11y ago
It is about honesty. This is the language that people use at the bar discussing this stuff. This happens in all verticals, and all fields. It just never gets recorded.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  yeah but, airing your dirty laundry in front of an audience? i and most non-sociopaths wouldn't even do that on an inter-personal level, i don't know why people here are lamenting that you shouldn't do it for business relationships.
- zepto 11y ago
  Honestly displaying misogyny seems like it should be discouraged.
  - iswim 11y ago
    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
  - AndyNemmity 11y ago
    I don't see the misogyny, and if I would have heard that at the bar I would have clearly understood what his analogy was meaning. I wouldn't have even noticed it. I'd never have used the terms he used, but I don't have any real issue with the way it was framed. I find it odd that would be the thing to pick out within the statements, but perhaps I'm not as sensitive to the language as I should be? Edit: I can't seem to reply to a level deep, so I will put some remarks here. Re: over - In my view it was just an analogy, and had no deep insight into the views of marriage. Just my impressions Re: th0ma5 - Boys doesn't have any negative connotation, but I understand the point you're making. I don't have much to add except that I didn't read it as anything other than an analogy. Re: zepto - I keep saying bar because that's often where you'll hear this sort of language, but it isn't limited there. I respect your views that it isn't appropriate, and again, I would never use that language to explain it. But I don't take offense to it. Again, perhaps I should. I may not be as enlightened as I should be.

ceejayoz 11y ago

A quick skim of the article shows more than just honesty. He's telling folks outside the company that a) ULA is courting Aerojet Rocketdyne with little intention of actually going with them, b) a prominent Senator is biased against them and and c) the Pentagon skewed a competition in their favor. As the article says: > This is not something Air Force procurement officers want to see quoted in the next SpaceX lawsuit. Nor is it something that McCain was happy to hear. At a hearing this morning, he called for an investigation into the contract.

marincounty 11y ago
He went too far, but it's most likely the truth. Do I fell sorry for his firing--no. Would I tape this speach, and put it online--no.
- keithpeter 11y ago
  "Would I tape this [speech], and put it online--no." Anyone got anything on the motivation for the taping/putting on-line? Lutz? Angry at the language? Supporting one of the other stakeholders? Some concept of investigative journalism?
  - foota 11y ago
    My guess would be the students just didn't think of the ramifications.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      Why would this be on the students?
      - foota 11y ago
        For both the students and the exec, sometimes you have to use common sense. This doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd post publicly.

mikeash 11y ago

Sometimes it's not the honesty that's punished, but what that honesty reveals. If these statements were honest, I don't think I'd want this guy to be part of the upper management of my rocket company. There's too much misunderstanding in there, and the views too polarized. It's a bit like Trump. A lot of people say they admire him because he speaks his mind. Well, that's not so great if the underlying mind is nuts!

gotchange 11y ago
There's a huge difference between being "honest" and "sincere". This buddy and Trump for the matter, they both sound sincere when they voice their opinions but that doesn't mean necessarily that they're being honest or speaking the truth. They're just being frank and open about the train thoughts in their head but this doesn't mean that these thoughts are valid, true or sound.
AndyNemmity 11y ago
This is not some individual scenario. This is the way people talk in business on the regular. You break it down into overly simplistic, but generally useful ways to explain the situations. I don't doubt his candid explanation was correct, and I don't see anything wrong with it really. It's the internal analysis of the situation at a given time. Those things change, and are not written in stone.
- cryptoz 11y ago
  > I don't doubt his candid explanation was correct, and I don't see anything wrong with it really. Why wouldn't you doubt this? His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements about his competitors (SpaceX). If he was being "honest", then he was wrong. His "candid explanations" of things were fraught with error and also wildly offensive, not to mention dangerous for the business.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements Such as ... ?

kenshaw 11y ago

Aerospace is not the business world. It is the political world.