6 ms·

12-20 years ago, one of my largest life goals was to work for Google. (It's not anymore. I found other fun and rewarding jobs.) I don't get why the Google mana

12-20 years ago, one of my largest life goals was to work for Google. (It's not anymore. I found other fun and rewarding jobs.) I don't get why the Google management team allowed their team to get so... well, violently politicized. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but.. keeping politics out of the workplace worked very well for a very long time.

lallysingh 7y ago
The whole country is rather politicized (some of it actually violent). Google doesn't force employees to pretend that's not the case. Maybe a good idea, maybe bad.
- groundlogic 7y ago
  In hindsight.. it seems like it could become their downfall. It also seems so counter-productive for a company that basically controls large parts of the web traffic to become so politicized. What was Larry, Sergey and Eric thinking? Edit: Seems like I can't create new posts - I'm being rate limited. Editing this comment instead as a workaround. I think Google's stated mission ("to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful") relies on the staff being politically neutral.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    Perhaps they couldn't stop it, or felt that tamping down on employee discussion would cost more than it would benefit? Or maybe they've realized that Google cannot be neutral? That's the thing about values -- if you won't stand up for them when there's a cost, what good are they?
    - groundlogic 7y ago
      > Perhaps they couldn't stop it Pretty sure they could, at least early on. Come on, they had absolute power over company strategy. The most important people (their smartest developers, like Jeff Dean etc, by all accounts, didn't care much about stuff like this.) > or felt that tamping down on employee discussion would cost more than it would benefit? No-one apart from you is calling this tampering. > Or maybe they've realized that Google cannot be neutral Or maybe all of this bias is accidental because all they cared about was freedom, and while the two founders were away jetskiing, the company grew in a very particular political direction?
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        > Pretty sure they could, at least early on Maybe early on in Google. But to influence thousands of highly opinionated people, all with their own opinions, without negative side effects, is really difficult. Did you mean early on in the employees' efforts, or early in Google? > No-one apart from you is calling this tampering. Sorry for the confusion -- I mean "tamping" -- that any topdown attempt to force neutrality on employees when they are agitating for not-neutrality would have negative costs. (tampering is a different word, but it's an understandable mis-communication... darn English!) > Or maybe all of this bias is accidental... You could be 100% correct. I have no idea, it's a viable option. My point was to answer your original question of "what could they be thinking". My objective was just to propose a few ideas about what they could be thinking. I 100% don't know, but I think what I said could fit the limited information we have.
- wolco 7y ago
  Having politics free zones like work is a good idea.
  - ISL 7y ago
    If there are people, there are politics.
  - kupiakos 7y ago
    "Politics-free" inherently means "maintain the status quo". This does well to serve the majority, but tends to go poorly for people who are harmed by that status quo, such as historically underrepresented groups. If I'm a gay person asking to change the company policy to allow parental leave, is that political? Is an Asian person asking coworkers to not use harmful stereotypes political? Is a trans person asking to have their pronouns respected political? It will usually be the majority to decide it's whether it's political, even if they're not affected. And that's where the problem inherently lies. The majority of people want no-politics zones until there's something "political" that affects them. "Politics-free" also means "the ethical choice is what the higher-ups define", which would be difficult for me to stomach for its own set of reasons.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      No. A politics free zone is a politics free zone. Talking about C++ is not political. Talking about cookie recipes is not political. Talking about skiing is not political. Anyone can see that. Don't try to tell me that what happens every day is in fact impossible. I regularly see elaborate arguments that non-political speech is impossible therefore employees must be allowed to talk politics at work. They're very tiresome, because ordinary people can see they're just not true. Non political workplaces are possible and desirable. Employees should ban political discussion, starting with this tedious everything-is-politics stuff.
- tenpies 7y ago
  But only Google is this outwardly politically aligned. You don't see these problems emerge at Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, or Netflix. Google's culture is uniquely subservient to politics. The organization's mission is very clearly secondary to the employee's personal activism.
lclarkmichalek 7y ago
The workplace was always politicized. It's just being politicized in different ways now.
- groundlogic 7y ago
  I.. disagree. At least here in Sweden, the workplace was and is a neutral place when it comes to politics (basically, it's considered extremely impolite to push your private political view at work.). Is it different in the US?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    No, it’s been like that for decades. Only recently, with the rise of social media and public identities, have we seen such blatant representation and direct exposure in the workplace. I don’t think it’s healthy or productive.
  - jacobsenscott 7y ago
    There's no such thing as a "neutral" place. What's happening is you tend to align with the predominate views at your company, and anyone who doesn't keeps their head down. From you point of view it looks neutral, but actually other views are being repressed.
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      I don't understand. Why do you feel it's required to take some stand (including whatever the majority default is) on free speech, gun rights, immigration quotas, abortion restrictions, tax laws, states' rights, welfare benefits, etc. in the workplace?
      - lazyasciiart 7y ago
        Should women be allowed to work? What if they're married and working in close contact with single men? What if they're pregnant? Should the company be allowed to give someone else their job while they are on maternity leave? Should the company even pay them while on maternity leave? All these questions are "politics"
paulddraper 7y ago
I agree. Religion and politics. Both super important. Both better discussed outside the workplace.
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  This is a glib answer from a position of security. “Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights, those of your colleagues, and the actions your employer takes in support or opposition of these.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    > This is a glib answer from a position of security. I'd love to know how you figured that one out. > “Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that all politics affects your rights. Again, like religion, super important. But for a variety of reasons, the workplace makes a poor forum.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      What do you suggest people do when workplace must intersect with politics. For example, you need access to a gender neutral restroom or shower facility? Should you not advocate for that internally? Let's say you are an ally for someone who needs an affordance like a gender neutral facility, should you not speak up on their behalf?
      - paulddraper 7y ago
        Company washrooms are not really politics. Put that in the idea box all you want.
        dsr_ 7y ago
        https://ballotpedia.org/Transgender_bathroom_access_laws_in_the_United_States https://ballotpedia.org/Transgender_bathroom_access_laws_in_... QED.

lallysingh 7y ago

The whole country is rather politicized (some of it actually violent). Google doesn't force employees to pretend that's not the case. Maybe a good idea, maybe bad.

groundlogic 7y ago
In hindsight.. it seems like it could become their downfall. It also seems so counter-productive for a company that basically controls large parts of the web traffic to become so politicized. What was Larry, Sergey and Eric thinking? Edit: Seems like I can't create new posts - I'm being rate limited. Editing this comment instead as a workaround. I think Google's stated mission ("to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful") relies on the staff being politically neutral.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  Perhaps they couldn't stop it, or felt that tamping down on employee discussion would cost more than it would benefit? Or maybe they've realized that Google cannot be neutral? That's the thing about values -- if you won't stand up for them when there's a cost, what good are they?
  - groundlogic 7y ago
    > Perhaps they couldn't stop it Pretty sure they could, at least early on. Come on, they had absolute power over company strategy. The most important people (their smartest developers, like Jeff Dean etc, by all accounts, didn't care much about stuff like this.) > or felt that tamping down on employee discussion would cost more than it would benefit? No-one apart from you is calling this tampering. > Or maybe they've realized that Google cannot be neutral Or maybe all of this bias is accidental because all they cared about was freedom, and while the two founders were away jetskiing, the company grew in a very particular political direction?
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      > Pretty sure they could, at least early on Maybe early on in Google. But to influence thousands of highly opinionated people, all with their own opinions, without negative side effects, is really difficult. Did you mean early on in the employees' efforts, or early in Google? > No-one apart from you is calling this tampering. Sorry for the confusion -- I mean "tamping" -- that any topdown attempt to force neutrality on employees when they are agitating for not-neutrality would have negative costs. (tampering is a different word, but it's an understandable mis-communication... darn English!) > Or maybe all of this bias is accidental... You could be 100% correct. I have no idea, it's a viable option. My point was to answer your original question of "what could they be thinking". My objective was just to propose a few ideas about what they could be thinking. I 100% don't know, but I think what I said could fit the limited information we have.
wolco 7y ago
Having politics free zones like work is a good idea.
- ISL 7y ago
  If there are people, there are politics.
- kupiakos 7y ago
  "Politics-free" inherently means "maintain the status quo". This does well to serve the majority, but tends to go poorly for people who are harmed by that status quo, such as historically underrepresented groups. If I'm a gay person asking to change the company policy to allow parental leave, is that political? Is an Asian person asking coworkers to not use harmful stereotypes political? Is a trans person asking to have their pronouns respected political? It will usually be the majority to decide it's whether it's political, even if they're not affected. And that's where the problem inherently lies. The majority of people want no-politics zones until there's something "political" that affects them. "Politics-free" also means "the ethical choice is what the higher-ups define", which would be difficult for me to stomach for its own set of reasons.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    No. A politics free zone is a politics free zone. Talking about C++ is not political. Talking about cookie recipes is not political. Talking about skiing is not political. Anyone can see that. Don't try to tell me that what happens every day is in fact impossible. I regularly see elaborate arguments that non-political speech is impossible therefore employees must be allowed to talk politics at work. They're very tiresome, because ordinary people can see they're just not true. Non political workplaces are possible and desirable. Employees should ban political discussion, starting with this tedious everything-is-politics stuff.
tenpies 7y ago
But only Google is this outwardly politically aligned. You don't see these problems emerge at Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, or Netflix. Google's culture is uniquely subservient to politics. The organization's mission is very clearly secondary to the employee's personal activism.

lclarkmichalek 7y ago

The workplace was always politicized. It's just being politicized in different ways now.

groundlogic 7y ago
I.. disagree. At least here in Sweden, the workplace was and is a neutral place when it comes to politics (basically, it's considered extremely impolite to push your private political view at work.). Is it different in the US?
- manigandham 7y ago
  No, it’s been like that for decades. Only recently, with the rise of social media and public identities, have we seen such blatant representation and direct exposure in the workplace. I don’t think it’s healthy or productive.
- jacobsenscott 7y ago
  There's no such thing as a "neutral" place. What's happening is you tend to align with the predominate views at your company, and anyone who doesn't keeps their head down. From you point of view it looks neutral, but actually other views are being repressed.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    I don't understand. Why do you feel it's required to take some stand (including whatever the majority default is) on free speech, gun rights, immigration quotas, abortion restrictions, tax laws, states' rights, welfare benefits, etc. in the workplace?
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Should women be allowed to work? What if they're married and working in close contact with single men? What if they're pregnant? Should the company be allowed to give someone else their job while they are on maternity leave? Should the company even pay them while on maternity leave? All these questions are "politics"

paulddraper 7y ago

I agree. Religion and politics. Both super important. Both better discussed outside the workplace.

matthewmacleod 7y ago
This is a glib answer from a position of security. “Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights, those of your colleagues, and the actions your employer takes in support or opposition of these.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > This is a glib answer from a position of security. I'd love to know how you figured that one out. > “Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that all politics affects your rights. Again, like religion, super important. But for a variety of reasons, the workplace makes a poor forum.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    What do you suggest people do when workplace must intersect with politics. For example, you need access to a gender neutral restroom or shower facility? Should you not advocate for that internally? Let's say you are an ally for someone who needs an affordance like a gender neutral facility, should you not speak up on their behalf?
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      Company washrooms are not really politics. Put that in the idea box all you want.
      - dsr_ 7y ago
        https://ballotpedia.org/Transgender_bathroom_access_laws_in_the_United_States https://ballotpedia.org/Transgender_bathroom_access_laws_in_... QED.