4 ms·

From this and a few other random posts I've seen on Blind and Hacker News, the closed/secretive nature of Apple seems to allow it to happen more frequently than

From this and a few other random posts I've seen on Blind and Hacker News, the closed/secretive nature of Apple seems to allow it to happen more frequently than at other companies.

jfb 6y ago
Apple also varies, culturally, pretty widely between departments. It's not always the case that abusive behaviour under one VP -- or good treatment under a different one! -- is extrapolate-able to other organizations.
- the_local_host 6y ago
  > It's not always the case that abusive behaviour under one VP... is extrapolate-able to other organizations A company ought to be defined by the worst conditions it allows to persist, otherwise they have less incentive to clean up their organization.
  - jfb 6y ago
    Oh, no doubt. I just wanted to point out that someone can go through a whole career at Apple without encountering this sort of garbage.
daniel_reetz 6y ago
I have worked in several highly secretive companies, including this one, and this is correct. Secrecy enables abuse.
- zepto 6y ago
  This stuff happens in companies that aren’t secretive though. I don’t see how secrecy enables this.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Sunlight is a disinfectant. With transparency, even the largest most aloof company has to grapple to some degree with poor PR and public shaming. Amazon is well-known for having a toxic work culture even beyond its fulfillment centers, thanks to Amazon employees speaking out. And having a high-profile voice- a Tim Bray, a Susan Fowler, is also invaluable. As of yet, there isn't an equivalent to Apple, probably because its culture is so secretive that people readily self-censor themselves about what goes on in the company.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I think Tim Bray is going a great service, but I don’t see any ‘disinfecting’ going on. I would like to believe sunlight is a disinfectant, but I have yet to see that in the corporate world. I think the only real ‘disinfectant’ would be the CEO realizing that it’s worth making things better for its own sake, and not just because of bad press.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        You're not wrong; we've seen Amazon try to wriggle out of their bad press by simply hiring armies of posters to tweet and blog positive propaganda, rather than actually fixing issues. Sunlight isn't enough, but I still think at least it's one step in the right direction. Better that Amazon has a poor work reputation than no one know about its abuses.
    - opportune 6y ago
      I don't think it has to do purely with visibility outside the company. Visibility within the company is just as, if not more, important. A common theme I've noticed regarding this in stories from Apple is people covering up/scapegoating failing projects by lying to management, creating fake reports, fabricating data, etc. The con seems able to be kept up for a long time because there is only one person you need to fool or convince to not care. At the less secretive companies I've worked at, where there are many-to-many dependencies and interactions, you'd never be able to get away with something like that because people will freely talk/collaborate/associate with people without going through management. Or people would just look at your source code and see that it's all smoke and mirrors.

From this and a few other random posts I've seen on Blind and Hacker News, the closed/secretive nature of Apple seems to allow it to happen more frequently than at other companies.

jfb 6y ago

Apple also varies, culturally, pretty widely between departments. It's not always the case that abusive behaviour under one VP -- or good treatment under a different one! -- is extrapolate-able to other organizations.

the_local_host 6y ago
> It's not always the case that abusive behaviour under one VP... is extrapolate-able to other organizations A company ought to be defined by the worst conditions it allows to persist, otherwise they have less incentive to clean up their organization.
- jfb 6y ago
  Oh, no doubt. I just wanted to point out that someone can go through a whole career at Apple without encountering this sort of garbage.

daniel_reetz 6y ago

I have worked in several highly secretive companies, including this one, and this is correct. Secrecy enables abuse.

zepto 6y ago
This stuff happens in companies that aren’t secretive though. I don’t see how secrecy enables this.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Sunlight is a disinfectant. With transparency, even the largest most aloof company has to grapple to some degree with poor PR and public shaming. Amazon is well-known for having a toxic work culture even beyond its fulfillment centers, thanks to Amazon employees speaking out. And having a high-profile voice- a Tim Bray, a Susan Fowler, is also invaluable. As of yet, there isn't an equivalent to Apple, probably because its culture is so secretive that people readily self-censor themselves about what goes on in the company.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I think Tim Bray is going a great service, but I don’t see any ‘disinfecting’ going on. I would like to believe sunlight is a disinfectant, but I have yet to see that in the corporate world. I think the only real ‘disinfectant’ would be the CEO realizing that it’s worth making things better for its own sake, and not just because of bad press.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      You're not wrong; we've seen Amazon try to wriggle out of their bad press by simply hiring armies of posters to tweet and blog positive propaganda, rather than actually fixing issues. Sunlight isn't enough, but I still think at least it's one step in the right direction. Better that Amazon has a poor work reputation than no one know about its abuses.
  - opportune 6y ago
    I don't think it has to do purely with visibility outside the company. Visibility within the company is just as, if not more, important. A common theme I've noticed regarding this in stories from Apple is people covering up/scapegoating failing projects by lying to management, creating fake reports, fabricating data, etc. The con seems able to be kept up for a long time because there is only one person you need to fool or convince to not care. At the less secretive companies I've worked at, where there are many-to-many dependencies and interactions, you'd never be able to get away with something like that because people will freely talk/collaborate/associate with people without going through management. Or people would just look at your source code and see that it's all smoke and mirrors.