9 ms·
From some point of view, this might be viewed as management taking a harsh line against employees who make demands on their employers to do something other than
by md_ 6y ago
From some point of view, this might be viewed as management taking a harsh line against employees who make demands on their employers to do something other than maximize shareholder returns.
One of the longstanding contradictions of Silicon Valley ethos is that we will simultaneously talk about "mission" and "impact"—and, implicitly, the social impact of our work—while applauding management efforts to stamp out employee activism as a principled stance.
At the same time, as American politics in particular become increasingly polarized, many of us may be forced to decide between being professionals—and the apoliticism that implies—and being engaged citizens.
Edit: Reading some other posts here, I'm struck by some other trends at play:
- The shifting of—or, more pointedly, fragmentation of the "Overton Window" of acceptable behavior.
- The longstanding tendency in tech companies to have porous boundaries between "work" and "social" spheres.
- The above-mentioned rhetoric in tech companies to promote an idea of "mission" that goes beyond mere profit.
Along with increasing political polarization and (worse) delegitimization, these are all trends that make it harder to keep politics out of the workplace, and harder to balance "activism" with "professional" conduct.
I don't think Coinbase's approach will prove to be a lasting one.
- 5thaccount 6y ago> many of us may be forced to decide Are you saying you spend so long at work you don't have time to do these things after work hours? If not, why are work hours required to be spent on "being engaged citizens"?
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoBeing proffeshional does not neccessarily imply neutrality when government policy contradicts science or even basic common sence. Proffeshional without stones to stand up to authority/management is what gave us Chernobyl and Challanger disasters, Boeing 737, massive famine in China, and, debatably, 2008.
- md_ 6y agoAgreed. My point was more that there seems to be broad and increasing disagreement on what professionalism entails—both in terms of an obligation to speak up, as you say, and in terms of politely avoiding certain topics in the workplace.
- thisisbrians 6y agoI'd argue that a lot of engineering disasters could/should have been avoided by adhering to standard safety practices and engineering ethics. This is very germane to the work/mission of the business and has little to do with the sorts of external political activism that Coinbase is trying to eschew.
- trimbo 6y agoThis is worth a read. I think it applies to Chernobyl, Challenger (where it was coined) and the 737 Max. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance All three had known issues (in the case of Chernobyl, for decades), but averting disaster gave people, specifically the engineers, confidence to continue.
- x3n0ph3n3 6y agoHow does policy "contradict" science? Science doesn't tell us what we _should_ do, it tells us what is and what may be the consequences of decisions we make. The policy you say "contradicts science" is just promoting values and ignoring consequences that you disagree with. I think Sabine Hossenfelder said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGVIJSW0Y3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGVIJSW0Y3k
- dalbasal 6y agoCounbase's approach here is fairly on-the-nose. That's unlikely to be the lasting/widespread one. OTOH, if the trend continues towards employees and/or management demanding more political positioning from their companies... some sort of "on board or out" dynamic is inevitable. Maybe "on board or shut up," in reality. No position, including neutrality, will be comfortable for everyone and no company wants political factioning in their ranks. Ultimately though, I think employee opinions are less operative than some of these reports would have us think.