4 ms·

I disagree that these activists constitute a tribe. They are really just spoiled kids who used to have power over their parents. Now they enter the big world an

I disagree that these activists constitute a tribe. They are really just spoiled kids who used to have power over their parents. Now they enter the big world and keep doing what they've been always doing: throwing tantrums and yelling silly demands at their parents. But other adults don't care, so the spoiled kids get ignored and then shown the door. Now they are stunned: they don't understand why the world doesn't work the way they thought it should work.

throwaway201606 6y ago
That idea that activists (in corp) don't constitute a tribe in an interesting opinion - one that I actually sorta-subscribe to. I frame it in terms of acculturation vs. assimilation. You have to decide what your corp. policy is and make it explicit, something that I think did not happen here. The conversation is something like 'if you join us, you do your thing BUT our way" or "if you join us, you do your thing YOUR way". Then folks coming in understand the ground rules. I would say most corps will prefer option 1 but some (most?) folks coming in for roles like "Ethics" expect option 2 - which is NOT unreasonable. I don't know that this conversation happened (explicitly enough) here. All of that aside, like I said in the parent comment, it is critical to consider that no one side gets to frame the position alone in situations like this where the job is literally, to come in and shake up status quo - everyone with a seat at the table has a say that should have equal-ish weight. Also, note, corp in this specific case thought that that they are enough of a "tribe" to bring them inside the fence with a 'unique' label that makes that 'tribe' explicit. Witness what is going on here. Labelling them as "spoiled kids" is "the missing part of the point" I was alluding to. These folks have a different way of doing things. In bringing them in, you don't get to force them to align to your vision of how to do things (not what to do which you get to define as the employer). This is because you brought them in specifically and explicitly because they were different and bringing something different to the table that you did not have before. If it was a set of skills, capabilities - whatever - that you could have grown in-house, you would have done so. If you think that a 'tribe' can contribute value, you have to be able to deal with the pieces of their being 'different' from you that rub you the wrong way without labelling them if it is a key component of their identity. More explicitly, don't blame ethicists for reacting in ways you don't expect to ethical issues.
- frongpik 6y ago
  The corporate's plan is simple: whitewash their ML business and score some diversity points (they're a federal contractor which imposes certain obligations). They tried to do both things at the same time. Whether the spoiled kids realise this is irrelevant: they don't become a tribe just because they are brought into the same kindergarten. Google will try to reshuffle the deck and if that doesn't work, they'll split the ethics and diversity components into separate orgs, where ethics will be given to more mature and competent people (perhaps unethical at the he same time - this is another dunder mifflin corp after all).
pron 6y ago
But Google's top executives are political activists themselves, spending over $20 million in 2018 on lobbying with demands that aren't any more prima facie silly than those of these employees. The main difference between them is that Google's top executives are far more politically active and with much deeper pockets.

throwaway201606 6y ago

That idea that activists (in corp) don't constitute a tribe in an interesting opinion - one that I actually sorta-subscribe to. I frame it in terms of acculturation vs. assimilation. You have to decide what your corp. policy is and make it explicit, something that I think did not happen here. The conversation is something like 'if you join us, you do your thing BUT our way" or "if you join us, you do your thing YOUR way". Then folks coming in understand the ground rules. I would say most corps will prefer option 1 but some (most?) folks coming in for roles like "Ethics" expect option 2 - which is NOT unreasonable. I don't know that this conversation happened (explicitly enough) here. All of that aside, like I said in the parent comment, it is critical to consider that no one side gets to frame the position alone in situations like this where the job is literally, to come in and shake up status quo - everyone with a seat at the table has a say that should have equal-ish weight. Also, note, corp in this specific case thought that that they are enough of a "tribe" to bring them inside the fence with a 'unique' label that makes that 'tribe' explicit. Witness what is going on here. Labelling them as "spoiled kids" is "the missing part of the point" I was alluding to. These folks have a different way of doing things. In bringing them in, you don't get to force them to align to your vision of how to do things (not what to do which you get to define as the employer). This is because you brought them in specifically and explicitly because they were different and bringing something different to the table that you did not have before. If it was a set of skills, capabilities - whatever - that you could have grown in-house, you would have done so. If you think that a 'tribe' can contribute value, you have to be able to deal with the pieces of their being 'different' from you that rub you the wrong way without labelling them if it is a key component of their identity. More explicitly, don't blame ethicists for reacting in ways you don't expect to ethical issues.

frongpik 6y ago
The corporate's plan is simple: whitewash their ML business and score some diversity points (they're a federal contractor which imposes certain obligations). They tried to do both things at the same time. Whether the spoiled kids realise this is irrelevant: they don't become a tribe just because they are brought into the same kindergarten. Google will try to reshuffle the deck and if that doesn't work, they'll split the ethics and diversity components into separate orgs, where ethics will be given to more mature and competent people (perhaps unethical at the he same time - this is another dunder mifflin corp after all).

pron 6y ago

But Google's top executives are political activists themselves, spending over $20 million in 2018 on lobbying with demands that aren't any more prima facie silly than those of these employees. The main difference between them is that Google's top executives are far more politically active and with much deeper pockets.