4 ms·

I think it would depend on how much I liked my job. My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss. Note the "changes" [1] are not just "no politics" but also "

I think it would depend on how much I liked my job. My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss. Note the "changes" [1] are not just "no politics" but also "no more committees" (of any kind at all; that is, no authority or responsibility except individually along line-of-report hieararchy), no more 360 degree reviews (no way to formally give feedback to your boss), and no more bringing up past decisions you disagreed with (!). Basically, no more employee input in anything, and a new focus on "insubordination" (they're not using this word, but these policy changes are like -- do your job, don't tell us what your opinion is about anything else in the company especially if you don't like something). They also introduced a 10% profit-sharing plan though, which could be real money? I don't think the people leaving -- some of whom had been there for years -- are doing it for money. I think that's not usually why people leave a place, especially when leaving without another job lined up. I don't think it's really about the "no politics at work" policy either. I think it's probably mostly about not trusting or respecting or feeling respected by the boss. [1] https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5 https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5

mrandish 6y ago
> My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss. Interesting. I've read everything posted officially about this by the two founders as it unfolded and I've been super impressed by how well-considered these new policies are. As someone with several decades of experience as an employee, manager and then founder in both large and smaller orgs, I felt these changes were in the best interests of all stakeholders. With the myriad potentially conflicting sensibilities in today's workplace the only fair and sustainable approach is to focus on the work and the customers. As an employee, these policies would make me feel more respected and safe. I guess the fact that you see it as a sign of a "terrible boss" and I see it as a sign of enlightened leadership is an indication how divided perspectives on workplace etiquette currently are.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  By saying "these changes" plural you don't only mean the "no talking about politics" policy I guess; are you also talking about "No more committees" (of any kind; only reporting-line authority), "No more 360 reviews", and "No more lingering or dwelling on past decisions" (sounds like a rule on questioning decision-making to me)?
  - mrandish 6y ago
    Primarily the "no politics" but I also see the wisdom in dropping 360 reviews. We did that several years ago and it was an amazingly positive change. As for no more dwelling on past decisions, that is the same thing as Intel's cultural value of "Disagree, but then commit." Basically, debate fiercely but then once a decision is made, commit to to it even if it didn't go your way and move on. This is a key part of being a team player. Things aren't going to always go your way and even leadership will sometimes make mistakes but it undermines everything if someone keeps harping on a prior decision. "See, I told it wouldn't work" is about the most immature and unhelpful attitude to have - no matter how correct it may be.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      The Intel motto you quote is a much better formulation of this concept, if in fact the recent noise from Basecamp is a sign that they agree with Intel on this. Communication is also an important skill for leaders, and that seems to be lacking.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      >As for no more dwelling on past decisions, that is the same thing as Intel's cultural value of "Disagree, but then commit." You mean the company who is flailing in the market, losing employees and generally considered a bad place to work? >"See, I told it wouldn't work" is about the most immature and unhelpful attitude to have - no matter how correct it may be. Blame free post mortems are vital for an organization to grow and improve with time. If you cannot review past bad decisions and learn from then then you will be forced to repeat the same mistakes while your competitors evolve. >but it undermines everything if someone keeps harping on a prior decision. If accepting a mistake was made and then publicly coming up with a plan to not have it happen again undermines your ability to lead then you are a horrible leader.
      - nthj 6y ago
        Oh please. Intel may not be the legend it once was but that hardly invalidates a value first forged some 40 years ago.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > I felt these changes were made with the best interests of all stakeholders. Then why where a significant portion of their employees - the only stakeholders (apart from literally Bezos) - extremely vocal in their disappointment the minute it went out?
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  I agree. There are lots of people who will never raise their voice but in quiet moments will tell you that political fights are very uncomfortable. Political flame wars are usually driven by a small animated group of loud voices. Another way to frame this policy is “let’s keep the workplace professional”.
  - hpcjoe 6y ago
    This. 1000x. If you've never experience a spittle-inflected rant disrupting a meeting, because some individual felt it their duty and privilege to engage with everyone on their particular viewpoint ... you simply don't know how disconcerting this can be. I have. I don't care much about my co-workers political views. I'm always happy to have a beer and discuss things after work (well, virtually these days). But making people uncomfortable because you feel entitled to push your world view at work, makes you more of a liability to the company than an asset. Which in the case of Basecamp, the owners may have addressed well for all concerned.
    - 8note 6y ago
      I dunno, see people are white, and some people are political. Some people are straight, and some people are political Some people are men, and others are political. Having engagement people who's idwntity is political is valuable when you consider how much of the population is straight white men
      - digitaltrees 6y ago
        I am not sure I follow. Are you saying straight white men’s actions are not labeled political while other people’s actions are discounted as political and thus stifled?
        hnbad 6y ago
        No, they're talking about some people's entire existence being political. White/male/straight is the social default. Just consider movies and games: if a character is a woman, non-white, or non-straight, let alone trans, that's considered the director/developers making a political statement. And it only gets worse if they don't at least "behave" like white/male/straight characters. The same is true for workplaces. A woman in an otherwise all-male team is far more likely to be accepted if she masks her femininity and acts like "one of the guys". A Black person will be more accepted if they "act white". Queer folks better just not mention anything related to their sexuality even if it would be normal for straight/cis folks. And if they get any jabs targeted at their identity they better just laugh it off and not "cause a scene" and upset anyone.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  The changes do enforce a stratification in the organization, This may have been the intent in part. Another thought I had was that they wanted to slim the company down. In that case, you look at what you want to keep and what you want to lose. You make it easy for those who you want to leave to make that decision. If there was a faction that loved a hypothetical free breakfast, and these folks caused discontent and discomfort among others, elimination of that breakfast, and a way for them to bow out gracefully, thinking that they took the W, would be 4D chess for the stakeholders. You may lose some people you'd prefer to keep, that's always a risk. But if you have a way to cluster the people you are reasonably happy about parting with, by noting common behaviors (the hypothetical breakfast model above), lowering their interest level for staying (removing the thing they like), while providing an incentive to leave (a pretty good severance/buy out), this is a win for most people. I've seen various really bad takes on Twitter, that miss almost all the (fairly obvious) nuance of these moves. The bad takes seem to cluster about the "attack" on peoples "rights" to talk societal and political issues at work. And some sort of joy at seeing a company "suffer". I don't think these are even in the right ballpark. There's lots of missing information, and we can speculate about it, in a way that resembles blindfolded dart playing. However, the management response is pointed, and as they seem to be fairly specific, one could (likely far more accurately) speculate what caused them. And why they are being considered. The bans on political/societal talk likely originated from conversations that made some folks quite uncomfortable, or unhappy. They were likely sustained after being advised to stop. Rather than allow such talk to disrupt the organization, the owners had to make a decision. So they did, and provided a mechanism for the most vocal folks to ease their way out. Or at least it looks this way to me.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    What looks to me is that the people who were made uncomfortable were mostly the owners. So they would like to make it clear that no employees may ever make them uncomfortable again. Stratification in the organization indeed.
- predaking 6y ago
  I share a similar background to yours (employee, leader, founder, diverse org size) and would have agreed with you if it were not for the context of these changes. I too want to ensure people will safe and respected. However: * I don't believe any enlightened leadership posts publicly about wide-spread and company affected policy changes before informing and/or discussing with your staff. That's disrespectful to the people you serve. * no enlightened leadership leads to a situation where 1/3 of your staff leaves on contentious terms. If that leadership was that enlightened, they either wouldn't be leaving or would never have been hired. It's indicative of leadership problems, cultural problems, and possibly a hiring problem. * I don't believe at all that enlightened leadership discards its values the moment that they become difficult to uphold. * If the new policies weren't in reaction to the leader being called to be accountable to the people he served and the mission he told them they were on, I'd probably be more agreeable to your point. In a vaccuum a safe place for people of all politica and creeds (short of outright hate) to work together is what you want. What I don't want is an unsafe space where no one feels they can question the leadership or hold the company to its values. That being said, I totally respect your coming at this from a different angle and I agree that there's certainly more than one way to look at this (as the reactions in this thread indicate).
  - Veen 6y ago
    > That's disrespectful to the people you serve. Perhaps this is not an enlightened view, and I would not have used the word “serve,” but employees serve the leadership, not the other way around. This is a company, not the government. As a citizen, the government serves me. As an employee, I serve my employer.
    - mpweiher 6y ago
      Which is why, as an employee, the employer pays me, and not the other way around.
    - predaking 6y ago
      "but employees serve the leadership, not the other way around. " Leadership is all about serving the people you're shepherding. There is a responsibility and a stewardship that comes with wearing the crown, and it's not always for everyone. =)
- jollybean 6y ago
  I'll bet that people with material experience in management will have a similar take. Even if I kind of disagree with how it unfolded, I still sympathize with leadership if they've given people options, generous out-terms etc..
- PaulRobinson 6y ago
  The only way you can consider these policies as well-considered is if you are not threatened by them. If you have a group identity that does not match the founders, these policies will feel as if they are trying to silence you and your input when new policies arise that don't take your group identity into account. The only fair and sustainable approach is to see humans as entire beings and not robots on a production line. That doesn't mean the work and customers are forgotten, in fact it's exactly the opposite.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss Not all the people who left worked for DHH, who is the CTO. OTOH, if the CTO is a terrible boss, there’s a very good chance that the rest of the C-suite is suboptimal, since executives generally aren’t picked at random, so there is probably some correlation across the group. And, then, down the chain of management, for the same reasons.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  DHH is a co-founder. He's a boss of everyone, whether he's in the reporting line or not.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  The c-suite is DHH and Fried. Three of the people who left are department heads, who report directly to them. https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/orgchart.md https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/orgchart.md
  - sprkwd 6y ago
    What about Ryan Singer? He’s C suite, right? And he’s been very quiet about the whole thing.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      "Head of Product Strategy", apparently. Could be c-suite? Staying quiet is probably the best option available
digitaltrees 6y ago
Based on what. That is a very broad statement with lots of evidence to the contrary. They built an excellent business with employees that stayed for 10+ years and progressed from the most junior levels to profoundly accomplished senior roles. That is hard to create for any organization and the evidence is they did it well.
hpcjoe 6y ago
I left one company without such an incentive. The relationship between management and me had become toxic, and I needed to get out for my own sanity. After leaving, I did get the bonus I was previously due, which wound up being about 1.5 months salary. Didn't know about it before leaving. I was optimizing for sanity. I suspect that those who left Basecamp are performing a similar optimization, and the money helps lower the activation energy required for making that decision. Short version is that the 6 month salary, even the 3 month salary offer is quite nice. I can understand why so many took the offer up. Woke environments can, and often are toxic to those not interested in engaging in such discussions. I worked at one of those before, where one had to tread carefully, lest some "colleagues" be triggered into spittle-inflected rants about the president at the time ... thus wasting everyone's time and energy. That was actively frustrating and annoying.
bradleyjg 6y ago
> “no more committees" (of any kind at all; that is, no authority or responsibility except individually along line-of-report hierarchy) It sounds like there was a self appointed DE&I committee that had proposals for every area of the business. That doesn’t strike me as a healthy dynamic. There’s a reason successful employee co-ops are rare and kibbutzim don’t exist anymore in anything close to their original form.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  I'm not sure it was self-appointed, but either way, let's be clear, they decided there would be no more committees at all ever, right? Not just no more "self-appointed committees with unclear scope". To the extent that "A long-standing group of managers called "Small Council" will disband — when we need advice or counsel we'll ask individuals with direct relevant experience rather than a pre-defined group at large." To me this reads like a game-of-thrones-esque political maneuver, to make sure there are no loci of power that might challenge the bosses. The bosses will talk to you one-on-one if they think your opinion matters, you have no reason to be talking to your peers about anything, just keep your head down and do what you're told. How you distinguish between "a group of people getting together to collaborate on something of importance to the company" (which the owners said DE&I was!), vs "an unpermitted committee"... I don't know if "no collaborating across reporting lines" is an intended or an unintended thing here, unclear. If THAT strikes you as a healthy dynamic, I hope you get to experience it and find out sometime, and if it works for you, good on you. It didn't for 1/3rd of basecamp though -- I don't think it's about one specific policy, it's about this attitude toward employee involvement.
s-lambert 6y ago
>no more 360 degree reviews (no way to formally give feedback to your boss) The reason they gave for removing these was that peer reviews were overly positive to the point of pointlessness. You could still give feedback to your boss without 360 degree reviews.
- vidarh 6y ago
  Sounds like trust was already severely lacking in that case, if people felt uncomfortable raising issues in their reviews.

mrandish 6y ago

> My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss. Interesting. I've read everything posted officially about this by the two founders as it unfolded and I've been super impressed by how well-considered these new policies are. As someone with several decades of experience as an employee, manager and then founder in both large and smaller orgs, I felt these changes were in the best interests of all stakeholders. With the myriad potentially conflicting sensibilities in today's workplace the only fair and sustainable approach is to focus on the work and the customers. As an employee, these policies would make me feel more respected and safe. I guess the fact that you see it as a sign of a "terrible boss" and I see it as a sign of enlightened leadership is an indication how divided perspectives on workplace etiquette currently are.

jrochkind1 6y ago
By saying "these changes" plural you don't only mean the "no talking about politics" policy I guess; are you also talking about "No more committees" (of any kind; only reporting-line authority), "No more 360 reviews", and "No more lingering or dwelling on past decisions" (sounds like a rule on questioning decision-making to me)?
- mrandish 6y ago
  Primarily the "no politics" but I also see the wisdom in dropping 360 reviews. We did that several years ago and it was an amazingly positive change. As for no more dwelling on past decisions, that is the same thing as Intel's cultural value of "Disagree, but then commit." Basically, debate fiercely but then once a decision is made, commit to to it even if it didn't go your way and move on. This is a key part of being a team player. Things aren't going to always go your way and even leadership will sometimes make mistakes but it undermines everything if someone keeps harping on a prior decision. "See, I told it wouldn't work" is about the most immature and unhelpful attitude to have - no matter how correct it may be.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    The Intel motto you quote is a much better formulation of this concept, if in fact the recent noise from Basecamp is a sign that they agree with Intel on this. Communication is also an important skill for leaders, and that seems to be lacking.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    >As for no more dwelling on past decisions, that is the same thing as Intel's cultural value of "Disagree, but then commit." You mean the company who is flailing in the market, losing employees and generally considered a bad place to work? >"See, I told it wouldn't work" is about the most immature and unhelpful attitude to have - no matter how correct it may be. Blame free post mortems are vital for an organization to grow and improve with time. If you cannot review past bad decisions and learn from then then you will be forced to repeat the same mistakes while your competitors evolve. >but it undermines everything if someone keeps harping on a prior decision. If accepting a mistake was made and then publicly coming up with a plan to not have it happen again undermines your ability to lead then you are a horrible leader.
    - nthj 6y ago
      Oh please. Intel may not be the legend it once was but that hardly invalidates a value first forged some 40 years ago.
madeofpalk 6y ago
> I felt these changes were made with the best interests of all stakeholders. Then why where a significant portion of their employees - the only stakeholders (apart from literally Bezos) - extremely vocal in their disappointment the minute it went out?
digitaltrees 6y ago
I agree. There are lots of people who will never raise their voice but in quiet moments will tell you that political fights are very uncomfortable. Political flame wars are usually driven by a small animated group of loud voices. Another way to frame this policy is “let’s keep the workplace professional”.
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  This. 1000x. If you've never experience a spittle-inflected rant disrupting a meeting, because some individual felt it their duty and privilege to engage with everyone on their particular viewpoint ... you simply don't know how disconcerting this can be. I have. I don't care much about my co-workers political views. I'm always happy to have a beer and discuss things after work (well, virtually these days). But making people uncomfortable because you feel entitled to push your world view at work, makes you more of a liability to the company than an asset. Which in the case of Basecamp, the owners may have addressed well for all concerned.
  - 8note 6y ago
    I dunno, see people are white, and some people are political. Some people are straight, and some people are political Some people are men, and others are political. Having engagement people who's idwntity is political is valuable when you consider how much of the population is straight white men
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      I am not sure I follow. Are you saying straight white men’s actions are not labeled political while other people’s actions are discounted as political and thus stifled?
      - hnbad 6y ago
        No, they're talking about some people's entire existence being political. White/male/straight is the social default. Just consider movies and games: if a character is a woman, non-white, or non-straight, let alone trans, that's considered the director/developers making a political statement. And it only gets worse if they don't at least "behave" like white/male/straight characters. The same is true for workplaces. A woman in an otherwise all-male team is far more likely to be accepted if she masks her femininity and acts like "one of the guys". A Black person will be more accepted if they "act white". Queer folks better just not mention anything related to their sexuality even if it would be normal for straight/cis folks. And if they get any jabs targeted at their identity they better just laugh it off and not "cause a scene" and upset anyone.
hpcjoe 6y ago
The changes do enforce a stratification in the organization, This may have been the intent in part. Another thought I had was that they wanted to slim the company down. In that case, you look at what you want to keep and what you want to lose. You make it easy for those who you want to leave to make that decision. If there was a faction that loved a hypothetical free breakfast, and these folks caused discontent and discomfort among others, elimination of that breakfast, and a way for them to bow out gracefully, thinking that they took the W, would be 4D chess for the stakeholders. You may lose some people you'd prefer to keep, that's always a risk. But if you have a way to cluster the people you are reasonably happy about parting with, by noting common behaviors (the hypothetical breakfast model above), lowering their interest level for staying (removing the thing they like), while providing an incentive to leave (a pretty good severance/buy out), this is a win for most people. I've seen various really bad takes on Twitter, that miss almost all the (fairly obvious) nuance of these moves. The bad takes seem to cluster about the "attack" on peoples "rights" to talk societal and political issues at work. And some sort of joy at seeing a company "suffer". I don't think these are even in the right ballpark. There's lots of missing information, and we can speculate about it, in a way that resembles blindfolded dart playing. However, the management response is pointed, and as they seem to be fairly specific, one could (likely far more accurately) speculate what caused them. And why they are being considered. The bans on political/societal talk likely originated from conversations that made some folks quite uncomfortable, or unhappy. They were likely sustained after being advised to stop. Rather than allow such talk to disrupt the organization, the owners had to make a decision. So they did, and provided a mechanism for the most vocal folks to ease their way out. Or at least it looks this way to me.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  What looks to me is that the people who were made uncomfortable were mostly the owners. So they would like to make it clear that no employees may ever make them uncomfortable again. Stratification in the organization indeed.
predaking 6y ago
I share a similar background to yours (employee, leader, founder, diverse org size) and would have agreed with you if it were not for the context of these changes. I too want to ensure people will safe and respected. However: * I don't believe any enlightened leadership posts publicly about wide-spread and company affected policy changes before informing and/or discussing with your staff. That's disrespectful to the people you serve. * no enlightened leadership leads to a situation where 1/3 of your staff leaves on contentious terms. If that leadership was that enlightened, they either wouldn't be leaving or would never have been hired. It's indicative of leadership problems, cultural problems, and possibly a hiring problem. * I don't believe at all that enlightened leadership discards its values the moment that they become difficult to uphold. * If the new policies weren't in reaction to the leader being called to be accountable to the people he served and the mission he told them they were on, I'd probably be more agreeable to your point. In a vaccuum a safe place for people of all politica and creeds (short of outright hate) to work together is what you want. What I don't want is an unsafe space where no one feels they can question the leadership or hold the company to its values. That being said, I totally respect your coming at this from a different angle and I agree that there's certainly more than one way to look at this (as the reactions in this thread indicate).
- Veen 6y ago
  > That's disrespectful to the people you serve. Perhaps this is not an enlightened view, and I would not have used the word “serve,” but employees serve the leadership, not the other way around. This is a company, not the government. As a citizen, the government serves me. As an employee, I serve my employer.
  - mpweiher 6y ago
    Which is why, as an employee, the employer pays me, and not the other way around.
  - predaking 6y ago
    "but employees serve the leadership, not the other way around. " Leadership is all about serving the people you're shepherding. There is a responsibility and a stewardship that comes with wearing the crown, and it's not always for everyone. =)
jollybean 6y ago
I'll bet that people with material experience in management will have a similar take. Even if I kind of disagree with how it unfolded, I still sympathize with leadership if they've given people options, generous out-terms etc..
PaulRobinson 6y ago
The only way you can consider these policies as well-considered is if you are not threatened by them. If you have a group identity that does not match the founders, these policies will feel as if they are trying to silence you and your input when new policies arise that don't take your group identity into account. The only fair and sustainable approach is to see humans as entire beings and not robots on a production line. That doesn't mean the work and customers are forgotten, in fact it's exactly the opposite.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> My sense is that DHH is just a terrible boss Not all the people who left worked for DHH, who is the CTO. OTOH, if the CTO is a terrible boss, there’s a very good chance that the rest of the C-suite is suboptimal, since executives generally aren’t picked at random, so there is probably some correlation across the group. And, then, down the chain of management, for the same reasons.

madeofpalk 6y ago
DHH is a co-founder. He's a boss of everyone, whether he's in the reporting line or not.
lazyasciiart 6y ago
The c-suite is DHH and Fried. Three of the people who left are department heads, who report directly to them. https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/orgchart.md https://github.com/basecamp/handbook/blob/master/orgchart.md
- sprkwd 6y ago
  What about Ryan Singer? He’s C suite, right? And he’s been very quiet about the whole thing.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    "Head of Product Strategy", apparently. Could be c-suite? Staying quiet is probably the best option available

digitaltrees 6y ago

Based on what. That is a very broad statement with lots of evidence to the contrary. They built an excellent business with employees that stayed for 10+ years and progressed from the most junior levels to profoundly accomplished senior roles. That is hard to create for any organization and the evidence is they did it well.

hpcjoe 6y ago

I left one company without such an incentive. The relationship between management and me had become toxic, and I needed to get out for my own sanity. After leaving, I did get the bonus I was previously due, which wound up being about 1.5 months salary. Didn't know about it before leaving. I was optimizing for sanity. I suspect that those who left Basecamp are performing a similar optimization, and the money helps lower the activation energy required for making that decision. Short version is that the 6 month salary, even the 3 month salary offer is quite nice. I can understand why so many took the offer up. Woke environments can, and often are toxic to those not interested in engaging in such discussions. I worked at one of those before, where one had to tread carefully, lest some "colleagues" be triggered into spittle-inflected rants about the president at the time ... thus wasting everyone's time and energy. That was actively frustrating and annoying.

bradleyjg 6y ago

> “no more committees" (of any kind at all; that is, no authority or responsibility except individually along line-of-report hierarchy) It sounds like there was a self appointed DE&I committee that had proposals for every area of the business. That doesn’t strike me as a healthy dynamic. There’s a reason successful employee co-ops are rare and kibbutzim don’t exist anymore in anything close to their original form.

jrochkind1 6y ago
I'm not sure it was self-appointed, but either way, let's be clear, they decided there would be no more committees at all ever, right? Not just no more "self-appointed committees with unclear scope". To the extent that "A long-standing group of managers called "Small Council" will disband — when we need advice or counsel we'll ask individuals with direct relevant experience rather than a pre-defined group at large." To me this reads like a game-of-thrones-esque political maneuver, to make sure there are no loci of power that might challenge the bosses. The bosses will talk to you one-on-one if they think your opinion matters, you have no reason to be talking to your peers about anything, just keep your head down and do what you're told. How you distinguish between "a group of people getting together to collaborate on something of importance to the company" (which the owners said DE&I was!), vs "an unpermitted committee"... I don't know if "no collaborating across reporting lines" is an intended or an unintended thing here, unclear. If THAT strikes you as a healthy dynamic, I hope you get to experience it and find out sometime, and if it works for you, good on you. It didn't for 1/3rd of basecamp though -- I don't think it's about one specific policy, it's about this attitude toward employee involvement.

s-lambert 6y ago

>no more 360 degree reviews (no way to formally give feedback to your boss) The reason they gave for removing these was that peer reviews were overly positive to the point of pointlessness. You could still give feedback to your boss without 360 degree reviews.

vidarh 6y ago
Sounds like trust was already severely lacking in that case, if people felt uncomfortable raising issues in their reviews.