8 ms·
> draw a line between mission-related politics and all other politics Agreed. I wonder if they will take some word smithing to the mission statement. Even with
by thelock85 6y ago
> draw a line between mission-related politics and all other politics
Agreed. I wonder if they will take some word smithing to the mission statement. Even with the clarification and interpretation presented in the blog post, "economic freedom" encompasses a lot of "other politics". It is a helluva juggling act to want a diverse, thriving team, and a singular shared definition of economic freedom across that team.
More practically, I wonder how it will be debated. Who within the organization has confidence to debate where the line is drawn beyond what the CEO has shared? Is it the board?
- hackerfromthefu 6y agoI always thought it's quite normal for people to work together despite not having all the same ideas and definitions. That those flowery words on a mission statement are not precise or exact, and will never stand up to all situations and expectations. Perhaps it's not really that important, and there's not even much point debating it for the organisation .. people at work could instead get on with the work they are doing and offering value to society through the outcome of their work. Of course they could do various activism in other ways, without inflicting it excessively on their colleagues just because they are earning a living across the hallway from them ..
- thelock85 6y agoYes, and our current socio-political state has this CEO bringing more precision to the flowery mission statement. > without inflicting it excessively on their colleagues This is the tricky part. In a transition from the old normal to the new normal, I believe it's important to recognize who may have always been excessively afflicted but didn't have the platform. Or conversely, who may have never felt excessively afflicted and had full discretion over their professional platform. It's the eternal theme of monoculture vs. multiculturalism. The Coinbase CEO is acknowledging both sides of the coin, and maintaining focus on one side (pun intended). I don't think that's right or wrong. It is what it is. There is more than enough willing talent to keep the line he has drawn in the sand, but will people look back years from now and question the veracity of the original mission despite evident success (e.g. Facebook making the world more open and connected)?