4 ms·
People say this, but this 100% would have been leaked by people unhappy with the decision, and they would have had to address it anyway. I think you could make
by apple4ever 5y ago
People say this, but this 100% would have been leaked by people unhappy with the decision, and they would have had to address it anyway.
I think you could make the argument that it still is better not to post it publicly because even if it gets leaked it still is better for the company, but I do take the other side on that. Companies should be transparent about their values.
- ashtonkem 5y agoI disagree here. This list has been around for a decade and we never heard about it, surely if all it took was one disgruntled employee then we would’ve already had an expose on it. No, what makes this a real humdinger is the repeated reinforced narrative that something bad is happening at Basecamp. Starting this drumbeat of negative press was entirely optional and self inflicted. It also appears that they could’ve done more internally to defuse the situation and basically went in the opposite direction. > they would have had to address it anyway. The standard corporate denial would’ve been way more effective if they’d not just drawn a huge amount of attention to themselves. > Companies should be transparent about their values. Ah, but this wasn’t transparent, at all. It was really a form of subtweet, we now know. You don’t get transparency credit when you’re being passive aggressive towards unnamed workers.