6 ms·

I think it's easy in situations like this to assume that one party must be right and the other wrong. Chances are for Caldbeck and for his accusers, many signa

I think it's easy in situations like this to assume that one party must be right and the other wrong. Chances are for Caldbeck and for his accusers, many signals got mixed up and misread. Yes it is possible Caldbeck is a cunning predator who knew exactly what he could get away with and used his clout as a VC to grope and harass many women, but it's far more likely that he is not. Far more likely he isn't all that smooth with women and ham-handedly attempted to woo his victims. He failed to realize how the power dynamic influenced things. This is important for anyone in a position of power to realize. My moment of realization was when I noticed that every single person on a team I led laughed at a joke I made. I realized something was off. The joke simply wasn't that funny. It's easy to see how simple flattery (which is quite normal when dealing with VCs) might have thrown off Caldbeck's compass. Yes I'd expect someone with his level of experience to be aware of it, but some people can go years without realizing they are being flattered. This is in no way meant to minimize the poor judgment Caldbeck used or to cast any blame at all on his victims. VC is a unique world that is fad-driven and reputation-driven and so the founder of a very hot company has tremendous power over investors, but all other founders are essentially beggars. I know Jonathan and he's an exceptionally gracious person whose behavior is completely reserved and respectful. I imagine he's quite disappointed about being lumped into all this and having his company's brand ruined by it and his name dragged through the mud for Caldbeck's poor judgment.

pyre 9y ago
But is it the fault of the "corrupt media" that bad publicity hit this company? Or is it the fault of Caldbeck? Lashing out and claiming that it's the media's fault seems like it's trying to just redirect blame.
- grandalf 9y ago
  I think the sentiment he's trying to capture with that description is the enthusiasm with which stories about the tech industry being hostile to women are written, and how those stories tend to cast a broad net with respect to who gets blamed. Increasingly, this is becoming national news. I read a story about the Binary Capital fiasco in the WSJ -- a few years go it would have been in Valleywag and probably not even made Techcrunch. The problem is the narrative that comes with these stories is overly general. Most startups hire based on merit and require hard work but have a supportive, kind-hearted culture. Yet stories run with headlines like "Why is Google still so white and male?" etc. Stories like these overlook the deeper social problems that make it less likely for women and minorities to get hooked on building technology at a young age, and focus on the idea that it's backward-thinking male managers who are causing this from the top down. In other words, the lay reader is nudged into thinking that there's some sort of boy's club and that women and minorities aren't welcome. The public is sensitized to this at present after some of the recordings of Donald Trump. We're all ready to send a mob after the next male villain. Teo himself has invested in many female founded companies and the female founders I know who have worked with him consider him one of their most valuable sources of insight and support.
  - x0x0 9y ago
    Binary is being sued by a former employee > Lai left Binary because of its “sexist and sexual environment,” including inappropriate conduct with female staff at company outings, a female-specific dress code and statements about the attractiveness of Lai and other women such as startup founders, according to the lawsuit. [1] I'm extraordinarily skeptical something like this went on right in front of Tai without his implicit consent. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/former-employee-sues-binary-for-post-resignation-harassment https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/former-em...
    - grandalf 9y ago
      I agree based on your link that skepticism is in order. I'm sympathetic to the idea that certain topics should be 100% forbidden in a work environment, but then I catch myself and realize that ultimately a lot of what is deemed appropriate vs inappropriate has to do with the tastes of the people involved. Even in cases where there isn't "org chart" status at play in a company, there are other forms of status, and so any kind of inappropriate talk could be abusive in some way. This is not to say we should accept these problems without trying to make the world better, just that work culture is a hard thing to understand. Maybe when a customer calls up angry, the team refers to the person as an asshole. To some this would be highly offensive, to others it would not. Maybe someone who worked there went along with it but did so resentfully and then they find another job and write a blog post outing the team for being vulgar. The point I'm trying articulate is that the bigger issue is that we (humans) are bad at understanding how status dynamics impact our own willingness to engage in certain topics of conversation, banter, humor, even flirtatious behavior. I've seen one sales guy who would go into the main office and kiss each of the secretaries on the cheek as part of a sort of greeting ceremony, full of high fives, etc. They all seemed like great friends who did that little ritual willingly, but it's possible one or more of the secretaries hated it and dreaded his arrival at the office. It was confusing to me at the time because I thought how I really wouldn't want to be touched by him, but I figured it wasn't really my place to judge since they all seemed to be enjoying it. Probably the best way to handle it is for firms to establish a code of conduct for workplace interaction that forbids certain problematic topic areas explicitly, but such things are hard to enforce and seem to me to be better handled by positive examples being set by leaders and clear, zero tolerance policy toward any form of abuse of power (regardless of whether it's harassing, sexual, etc.)
smirksirlot 9y ago
We are defined by how we act in trying moments. He might be disappointed, but how he is acting doesn't come off as reserved and respectful. He made a judgment to associate himself with Caldbeck, and instead of making proper reparations he's digging himself an even larger hole. He's not a victim in this. He helped put Caldbeck in a position of power.
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  They both could stand a refresher on character. Character is what we do when nobody is looking. Clearly, Jason Caldbeck's character is flawed especially when it comes to professional and respectful behavior towards women and at least initially in accepting responsibility for his action. Jonathon Teo could stand a refresher because men of character stand up for what is right, when it is right and required. Turning a blind eye to his partners behavior is a direct reflection of his own. And these letters, well they say I will stand up and speak out against specific behavior when I have to rather than when I needed to do so. Maybe he would not be working to further prevent the outcome (firestorm surrounding the news of bad behavior) had he been more diligent to prevent the action in the first place. It appears Jonathan was either inattentive to the point of being reckless or unconcerned to the point of being callous and or implicit. The truth of the matter is only he knows at this point. His letters do nothing but attempt to spin the situation further tarnishing his handling of this situation from occurance to discovery and thereafter.
zzalpha 9y ago
Yes it is possible Caldbeck is a cunning predator who knew exactly what he could get away with and used his clout as a VC to grope and harass many women, but it's far more likely that he is not. I'm curious, why is that "far more likely"? At this point I don't think anyone who isn't involved in these events knows enough to say one way or another. Yet you seem pretty certain. My first guess would be confirmation bias, given you purport to actually know Teo.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > I'm curious, why is that "far more likely"? Simply because most people fall within a fairly narrow band of behavioral and psychological norms. Religion creates the fictitious idea that there are "good" people and "bad" people. In reality most people are simply mediocre in the moral sense. Chances are Caldbeck is very much within the normal range, which, like it or not, the vast majority of people fall into. There are some people who are sociopaths and truly predatory, but such people are exceedingly rare.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    Caldbeck is already part of a rather exclusive sub-population: executives working at VCs. Based on my observations of the behaviours of people in C-suite positions, I don't think I'd be so willing to use general population statistics as a justification for a priori exonerating the man. As an aside, you've also posed a false dichotomy, here: Caldbeck is a calculating sociopath, or a bumbling idiot who stumbled into harrassment. The truth more likely lies somewhere in the middle.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      > exonerating My comment is not meant to exonerate Caldbeck. He went over the line and wound up having people speaking out about his inappropriate behavior. He's likely going to feel the embarrassment from his actions on an ongoing basis for years. My point was that many people, if put in a position of power such as Caldbeck was, might very well have found themselves misconstruing the level of enthusiasm that founders had for hanging out with him, etc.
mehwoot 9y ago
He failed to realize how the power dynamic influenced things. Yes, but I bet he realizes it now. That's the entire point of naming and shaming this behaviour. If you don't understand the negatives of your actions eventually people are going to tell you you're in the wrong. Hopefully you have enough good friends or colleagues who you respect that are able to tell you when you're in the wrong before it gets to this stage.
- grandalf 9y ago
  I agree with this.

pyre 9y ago

But is it the fault of the "corrupt media" that bad publicity hit this company? Or is it the fault of Caldbeck? Lashing out and claiming that it's the media's fault seems like it's trying to just redirect blame.

grandalf 9y ago
I think the sentiment he's trying to capture with that description is the enthusiasm with which stories about the tech industry being hostile to women are written, and how those stories tend to cast a broad net with respect to who gets blamed. Increasingly, this is becoming national news. I read a story about the Binary Capital fiasco in the WSJ -- a few years go it would have been in Valleywag and probably not even made Techcrunch. The problem is the narrative that comes with these stories is overly general. Most startups hire based on merit and require hard work but have a supportive, kind-hearted culture. Yet stories run with headlines like "Why is Google still so white and male?" etc. Stories like these overlook the deeper social problems that make it less likely for women and minorities to get hooked on building technology at a young age, and focus on the idea that it's backward-thinking male managers who are causing this from the top down. In other words, the lay reader is nudged into thinking that there's some sort of boy's club and that women and minorities aren't welcome. The public is sensitized to this at present after some of the recordings of Donald Trump. We're all ready to send a mob after the next male villain. Teo himself has invested in many female founded companies and the female founders I know who have worked with him consider him one of their most valuable sources of insight and support.
- x0x0 9y ago
  Binary is being sued by a former employee > Lai left Binary because of its “sexist and sexual environment,” including inappropriate conduct with female staff at company outings, a female-specific dress code and statements about the attractiveness of Lai and other women such as startup founders, according to the lawsuit. [1] I'm extraordinarily skeptical something like this went on right in front of Tai without his implicit consent. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/former-employee-sues-binary-for-post-resignation-harassment https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/former-em...
  - grandalf 9y ago
    I agree based on your link that skepticism is in order. I'm sympathetic to the idea that certain topics should be 100% forbidden in a work environment, but then I catch myself and realize that ultimately a lot of what is deemed appropriate vs inappropriate has to do with the tastes of the people involved. Even in cases where there isn't "org chart" status at play in a company, there are other forms of status, and so any kind of inappropriate talk could be abusive in some way. This is not to say we should accept these problems without trying to make the world better, just that work culture is a hard thing to understand. Maybe when a customer calls up angry, the team refers to the person as an asshole. To some this would be highly offensive, to others it would not. Maybe someone who worked there went along with it but did so resentfully and then they find another job and write a blog post outing the team for being vulgar. The point I'm trying articulate is that the bigger issue is that we (humans) are bad at understanding how status dynamics impact our own willingness to engage in certain topics of conversation, banter, humor, even flirtatious behavior. I've seen one sales guy who would go into the main office and kiss each of the secretaries on the cheek as part of a sort of greeting ceremony, full of high fives, etc. They all seemed like great friends who did that little ritual willingly, but it's possible one or more of the secretaries hated it and dreaded his arrival at the office. It was confusing to me at the time because I thought how I really wouldn't want to be touched by him, but I figured it wasn't really my place to judge since they all seemed to be enjoying it. Probably the best way to handle it is for firms to establish a code of conduct for workplace interaction that forbids certain problematic topic areas explicitly, but such things are hard to enforce and seem to me to be better handled by positive examples being set by leaders and clear, zero tolerance policy toward any form of abuse of power (regardless of whether it's harassing, sexual, etc.)

smirksirlot 9y ago

We are defined by how we act in trying moments. He might be disappointed, but how he is acting doesn't come off as reserved and respectful. He made a judgment to associate himself with Caldbeck, and instead of making proper reparations he's digging himself an even larger hole. He's not a victim in this. He helped put Caldbeck in a position of power.

Powerofmene 9y ago
They both could stand a refresher on character. Character is what we do when nobody is looking. Clearly, Jason Caldbeck's character is flawed especially when it comes to professional and respectful behavior towards women and at least initially in accepting responsibility for his action. Jonathon Teo could stand a refresher because men of character stand up for what is right, when it is right and required. Turning a blind eye to his partners behavior is a direct reflection of his own. And these letters, well they say I will stand up and speak out against specific behavior when I have to rather than when I needed to do so. Maybe he would not be working to further prevent the outcome (firestorm surrounding the news of bad behavior) had he been more diligent to prevent the action in the first place. It appears Jonathan was either inattentive to the point of being reckless or unconcerned to the point of being callous and or implicit. The truth of the matter is only he knows at this point. His letters do nothing but attempt to spin the situation further tarnishing his handling of this situation from occurance to discovery and thereafter.

zzalpha 9y ago

Yes it is possible Caldbeck is a cunning predator who knew exactly what he could get away with and used his clout as a VC to grope and harass many women, but it's far more likely that he is not. I'm curious, why is that "far more likely"? At this point I don't think anyone who isn't involved in these events knows enough to say one way or another. Yet you seem pretty certain. My first guess would be confirmation bias, given you purport to actually know Teo.

grandalf 9y ago
> I'm curious, why is that "far more likely"? Simply because most people fall within a fairly narrow band of behavioral and psychological norms. Religion creates the fictitious idea that there are "good" people and "bad" people. In reality most people are simply mediocre in the moral sense. Chances are Caldbeck is very much within the normal range, which, like it or not, the vast majority of people fall into. There are some people who are sociopaths and truly predatory, but such people are exceedingly rare.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Caldbeck is already part of a rather exclusive sub-population: executives working at VCs. Based on my observations of the behaviours of people in C-suite positions, I don't think I'd be so willing to use general population statistics as a justification for a priori exonerating the man. As an aside, you've also posed a false dichotomy, here: Caldbeck is a calculating sociopath, or a bumbling idiot who stumbled into harrassment. The truth more likely lies somewhere in the middle.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    > exonerating My comment is not meant to exonerate Caldbeck. He went over the line and wound up having people speaking out about his inappropriate behavior. He's likely going to feel the embarrassment from his actions on an ongoing basis for years. My point was that many people, if put in a position of power such as Caldbeck was, might very well have found themselves misconstruing the level of enthusiasm that founders had for hanging out with him, etc.

mehwoot 9y ago

He failed to realize how the power dynamic influenced things. Yes, but I bet he realizes it now. That's the entire point of naming and shaming this behaviour. If you don't understand the negatives of your actions eventually people are going to tell you you're in the wrong. Hopefully you have enough good friends or colleagues who you respect that are able to tell you when you're in the wrong before it gets to this stage.

grandalf 9y ago
I agree with this.