6 ms·

"Mozilla" isn't a man in a room smoking a cigar, it's a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco. If a leader does anything

"Mozilla" isn't a man in a room smoking a cigar, it's a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco. If a leader does anything to lose a consensus of respect from their workers (and ultimately authority over them) the long term productivity of the organization is imperiled. Firing everyone except the leader isn't going to be a good option. Politics is a contentious issue, no matter how much people wish it wasn't. Involvement in it makes you polarizing, whether you like it or not. Do I believe in marriage equality? Absolutely, yes. Am I personally outraged that Eich donated that money? Not at all. Is it reasonable for him to expect to maintain authority and influence over a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco, after publicly (though perhaps inadvertently so) working against marriage equality? Of course not. Morals aside, it's a low probability outcome.

flukus 9y ago
> If a leader does anything to lose a consensus of respect from their workers (and ultimately authority over them) the long term productivity of the organization is imperiled. So the leader has to go because employees can't separate work life from home life? Usually it's the other way around with companies being to over bearing of en employees private life. > Is it reasonable for him to expect to maintain authority over a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco, after publicly (though perhaps inadvertently so) working against marriage equality? Of course not. Morals aside, it's unrealistic proposition. Yes, because his opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant to his work as a CEO, just as my activities on the weekend should have no bearing on my job.
- jaredandrews 9y ago
  > work life from home life I have to imagine it would be hard to separate your work life from your home life when you know your boss doesn't believe that you have the right to your home life.
  - flukus 9y ago
    Most employees would have been oblivious unless some SJW hadn't gone digging and publicized it. They'd happily worked under the man for 6 years after the donation and before he was forced out. The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. If I wanted to donate to an anti-circumcision campaign am I unfit to be CEO because I might alienate circumcised people and religious people? If I want to donate to an atheist cause am I unfit because I will alienate religious people? If I donate to a feminist campaign am I unfit because I might alienate MRA's? How balkanized do work places have to become?
    - jaredandrews 9y ago
      > The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. This case is interesting because the unpopular opinion is "political" to some. I would contend that breathing is political. I can't answer any of the hypotheticals you present because they are exactly that: hypotheticals. It would require additional context for me to give a personal opinion on any of them. Even with that, your or my opinion on the situation would be irrelevant to the employees who are actually part of the organizations in question. They would be taking action to fix something within their organization that they found to be uncouth. Why shouldn't they be able to? I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it?
      - flukus 9y ago
        > We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. In most of the Western World that would be illegal and you'd have a clear cut wrongful termination case. > I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it? Most of it is incredibly clear, what I do at home or while I'm not representing the company is none of the companies business, what I do at work is the companies business, there are only a few places where the line is blurred. The first is posting from company property (like I'm doing now), I'd say this should be either completely prohibited or allowed, and if it's allowed they shouldn't be able to police what I say. The second is on social media, companies and governments have definitely pushed beyond what should be allowed here, anything I post on facebook is only relevant to the company if I'm representing them or divulging private information. The third is lunch room or water cooler chatter, I'd argue people should be allowed to share their opinions here, but it's blurry enough that most people just stay away from anything remotely controversial in these environments.
- jasonlotito 9y ago
  > So the leader has to go because employees can't separate work life from home life? Yeah, and bad companies. But a leader has to lead. And it wasn't just employees having issues. The CEO is the face of the company, and if they can't lead either employees nor can they effectively be the face of the company, they have to go. > Yes, because his opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant to his work as a CEO, just as my activities on the weekend should have no bearing on my job. Your activities don't involve being a leader or being the face of the company. If you can't do that, you can't do your job as CEO. This happens all the time. See Equifax as the latest example. The CEO wasn't personally responsible for the security issue. But he was the leader, and his priorities sets the companies priorities. He leads, and his failure in leadership is what fundamentally failed the company. If you think a CEO and a junior level employee have the same responsibilities and are graded on the same metrics, you are sorely mistaken.
  - kirillkh 9y ago
    > The CEO is the face of the company, and if they can't lead either employees nor can they effectively be the face of the company, they have to go. And yet no one has explained why a guy holding particular political views can not effectively be the face of the company. If one does believes in gay marriage rights, can they effectively be the face of the company? Clearly, many people oppose that view, so let's oust every CEO out there who donated to gay rights campaigns. What differentiates between these two CEOs with opposing views on gay rights in this respect is only how much public outrage there is about their biography. Somehow, people holding left views tend to be much louder than people holding right views. Which, without a doubt, has a lot to do with leftist bias in the mass media. So, taking your statement to its logical conclusion, what you are suggesting is we give up any sense of fairness and work ethic and bow to our mass media overlords because they have the microphone.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > And yet no one has explained why a guy holding particular political views can not effectively be the face of the company. I'm pretty sure they have, many times, but you presumably don't agree - which is perfectly fine but don't say it's not been explained! (To recap: someone with exclusionary views, donating money to promote and enforce those exclusionary views, cannot effectively be head of a company specifically promoting inclusionary views.)
hueving 9y ago
This line of thinking is that it's acceptable to fire a CEO of a company for not having the same political views of employees. Do you not see how rediculous that is?
- jasonlotito 9y ago
  You are misrepresenting what is being said. If you don't agree, it's because you are either 1) biased or 2) ignorant and you should investigate the matter more.
- confounded 9y ago
  It depends how much you want those employees (and possibly, customers / users).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bzbarsky 9y ago
I really don't want to rehash this discussion, but there is one important inaccuracy in your presentation of what happened that keeps being propagated. As far as I could tell at the time, the people who Brendan would have had "authority and influence" over by and large didn't seem to feel that he should go. Some of them were fairly conflicted about the whole thing, but in the end felt that the things Mozilla works on should be important across the "traditional" left/right spectrum. And please don't forget that pretty much everyone who worked with Brendan was already aware of the donation, since it had been gone over in the press in 2008. So it's not like there was important new information coming to light for the people who he would have "authority and influence" over. There were some comments on twitter calling on him to resign from some people at the Mozilla _Foundation_ (not to be confused with the _Corporation_), starting with one of the then-interns, iirc. The irony is that those particular people wouldn't have had any interaction with Brendan anyway... Of course the reporting on the whole thing blew everything completely out of proportion, like the media usually does. Oh, one other inaccuracy: I'd guess something like 1/3 of Mozilla's employees are in the SF bay area. Others are in other places, with a variety of cultural and political outlooks. So assuming that "Mozilla" is well-represented by "young, well-educated people in San Francisco" is not a great idea.
- confounded 9y ago
  I stand corrected (and you have my upvote)! I would say that a CEO’s authority and influence does need to extend well beyond the people they work with day-to-day (though I doubt this is a point of disagreement). Do you have any thoughts on the parent discussion?
  - bzbarsky 9y ago
    My main thought on the parent discussion is that it should be possible for two reasonable people to cooperate on achieving a goal, including a political goal, even if their politics otherwise do not align very well (or at all). If a "left-leaning" organization is organizing encrypted email, and you want to push for encrypted email, it may make sense to support them in that endeavor even if you disagree with their other goals. If the Koch brothers are pushing for an end to asset forfeiture and you think that needs to happen, feel free to push with them, even if you disagree with other things they do. Of course there may be other tradeoffs, and maybe there are other organizations that aim for the same goal that are more closely aligned with one's views, and then it may make sense to support those. But the important thing for me is not having everything decided by ideological litmus tests. Results matter more than affiliations, at least for me. I'm not sure that's true of everyone...

flukus 9y ago

> If a leader does anything to lose a consensus of respect from their workers (and ultimately authority over them) the long term productivity of the organization is imperiled. So the leader has to go because employees can't separate work life from home life? Usually it's the other way around with companies being to over bearing of en employees private life. > Is it reasonable for him to expect to maintain authority over a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco, after publicly (though perhaps inadvertently so) working against marriage equality? Of course not. Morals aside, it's unrealistic proposition. Yes, because his opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant to his work as a CEO, just as my activities on the weekend should have no bearing on my job.

jaredandrews 9y ago
> work life from home life I have to imagine it would be hard to separate your work life from your home life when you know your boss doesn't believe that you have the right to your home life.
- flukus 9y ago
  Most employees would have been oblivious unless some SJW hadn't gone digging and publicized it. They'd happily worked under the man for 6 years after the donation and before he was forced out. The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. If I wanted to donate to an anti-circumcision campaign am I unfit to be CEO because I might alienate circumcised people and religious people? If I want to donate to an atheist cause am I unfit because I will alienate religious people? If I donate to a feminist campaign am I unfit because I might alienate MRA's? How balkanized do work places have to become?
  - jaredandrews 9y ago
    > The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. This case is interesting because the unpopular opinion is "political" to some. I would contend that breathing is political. I can't answer any of the hypotheticals you present because they are exactly that: hypotheticals. It would require additional context for me to give a personal opinion on any of them. Even with that, your or my opinion on the situation would be irrelevant to the employees who are actually part of the organizations in question. They would be taking action to fix something within their organization that they found to be uncouth. Why shouldn't they be able to? I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it?
    - flukus 9y ago
      > We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. In most of the Western World that would be illegal and you'd have a clear cut wrongful termination case. > I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it? Most of it is incredibly clear, what I do at home or while I'm not representing the company is none of the companies business, what I do at work is the companies business, there are only a few places where the line is blurred. The first is posting from company property (like I'm doing now), I'd say this should be either completely prohibited or allowed, and if it's allowed they shouldn't be able to police what I say. The second is on social media, companies and governments have definitely pushed beyond what should be allowed here, anything I post on facebook is only relevant to the company if I'm representing them or divulging private information. The third is lunch room or water cooler chatter, I'd argue people should be allowed to share their opinions here, but it's blurry enough that most people just stay away from anything remotely controversial in these environments.
jasonlotito 9y ago
> So the leader has to go because employees can't separate work life from home life? Yeah, and bad companies. But a leader has to lead. And it wasn't just employees having issues. The CEO is the face of the company, and if they can't lead either employees nor can they effectively be the face of the company, they have to go. > Yes, because his opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant to his work as a CEO, just as my activities on the weekend should have no bearing on my job. Your activities don't involve being a leader or being the face of the company. If you can't do that, you can't do your job as CEO. This happens all the time. See Equifax as the latest example. The CEO wasn't personally responsible for the security issue. But he was the leader, and his priorities sets the companies priorities. He leads, and his failure in leadership is what fundamentally failed the company. If you think a CEO and a junior level employee have the same responsibilities and are graded on the same metrics, you are sorely mistaken.
- kirillkh 9y ago
  > The CEO is the face of the company, and if they can't lead either employees nor can they effectively be the face of the company, they have to go. And yet no one has explained why a guy holding particular political views can not effectively be the face of the company. If one does believes in gay marriage rights, can they effectively be the face of the company? Clearly, many people oppose that view, so let's oust every CEO out there who donated to gay rights campaigns. What differentiates between these two CEOs with opposing views on gay rights in this respect is only how much public outrage there is about their biography. Somehow, people holding left views tend to be much louder than people holding right views. Which, without a doubt, has a lot to do with leftist bias in the mass media. So, taking your statement to its logical conclusion, what you are suggesting is we give up any sense of fairness and work ethic and bow to our mass media overlords because they have the microphone.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > And yet no one has explained why a guy holding particular political views can not effectively be the face of the company. I'm pretty sure they have, many times, but you presumably don't agree - which is perfectly fine but don't say it's not been explained! (To recap: someone with exclusionary views, donating money to promote and enforce those exclusionary views, cannot effectively be head of a company specifically promoting inclusionary views.)

hueving 9y ago

This line of thinking is that it's acceptable to fire a CEO of a company for not having the same political views of employees. Do you not see how rediculous that is?

jasonlotito 9y ago
You are misrepresenting what is being said. If you don't agree, it's because you are either 1) biased or 2) ignorant and you should investigate the matter more.
confounded 9y ago
It depends how much you want those employees (and possibly, customers / users).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bzbarsky 9y ago

I really don't want to rehash this discussion, but there is one important inaccuracy in your presentation of what happened that keeps being propagated. As far as I could tell at the time, the people who Brendan would have had "authority and influence" over by and large didn't seem to feel that he should go. Some of them were fairly conflicted about the whole thing, but in the end felt that the things Mozilla works on should be important across the "traditional" left/right spectrum. And please don't forget that pretty much everyone who worked with Brendan was already aware of the donation, since it had been gone over in the press in 2008. So it's not like there was important new information coming to light for the people who he would have "authority and influence" over. There were some comments on twitter calling on him to resign from some people at the Mozilla _Foundation_ (not to be confused with the _Corporation_), starting with one of the then-interns, iirc. The irony is that those particular people wouldn't have had any interaction with Brendan anyway... Of course the reporting on the whole thing blew everything completely out of proportion, like the media usually does. Oh, one other inaccuracy: I'd guess something like 1/3 of Mozilla's employees are in the SF bay area. Others are in other places, with a variety of cultural and political outlooks. So assuming that "Mozilla" is well-represented by "young, well-educated people in San Francisco" is not a great idea.

confounded 9y ago
I stand corrected (and you have my upvote)! I would say that a CEO’s authority and influence does need to extend well beyond the people they work with day-to-day (though I doubt this is a point of disagreement). Do you have any thoughts on the parent discussion?
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  My main thought on the parent discussion is that it should be possible for two reasonable people to cooperate on achieving a goal, including a political goal, even if their politics otherwise do not align very well (or at all). If a "left-leaning" organization is organizing encrypted email, and you want to push for encrypted email, it may make sense to support them in that endeavor even if you disagree with their other goals. If the Koch brothers are pushing for an end to asset forfeiture and you think that needs to happen, feel free to push with them, even if you disagree with other things they do. Of course there may be other tradeoffs, and maybe there are other organizations that aim for the same goal that are more closely aligned with one's views, and then it may make sense to support those. But the important thing for me is not having everything decided by ideological litmus tests. Results matter more than affiliations, at least for me. I'm not sure that's true of everyone...