6 ms·

I agree that a leader should not single individuals out in a public way. That’s wrong. However, if DHH’s verbatim quote of his response is accurate, it sounds

I agree that a leader should not single individuals out in a public way. That’s wrong. However, if DHH’s verbatim quote of his response is accurate, it sounds like things had gotten out of hand with this company’s culture. If a leader says “this is unacceptable - we will do better going forward”, that should be enough in this kind of situation. But apparently it wasn’t for the employee that you allude to. A third of the company had joined some D&I committee and that committee apparently felt that its scope extended to the entire operations of the company. It sounds incredibly disruptive.

moduspol 5y ago
And I'm reading the company was ~60 employees, all remote. In a business that small, it's difficult to imagine how far the culture was off the rails to have 20 people focusing time and effort on something like a D&I committee.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  If you don't think DE&I is important, than of course you think it's "off the rails" to have 20 people spending time and effort on it. If you do think it's important, then there'd be nothing "off the rails" about having mass participation in it. Oddly, according to the coverage, the owners had previously said publicly and internally that they thought it was important. The owners had previously been very publicly and assertively taking very "liberal" and "progressive" positions. They have been on the "wrong" side of the "culture wars" for those who think it's "off the rails" to be spending signficant time and effort on DE&I. "Hansson had encouraged employees to read Between the World and Me, a memoir by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and The New Jim Crow... Both founders are also active — and occasionally hyperactive — on Twitter, where they regularly advocate for mainstream liberal and progressive views on social issues." I wonder how it will feel to them to become the darlings of people very opposed to those positions they had been taking, as seen in these threads. I wonder if the owners will become born-again to the right-wing side of the "culture wars".
  - moduspol 5y ago
    Nobody said it wasn't important, but 20 out of 60 people focusing on it in a remote company that builds unrelated software is absolutely off the rails. You're essentially paying 1/3 of your employees to come up with new ways to suggest the other 2/3 need to stop being so racist / sexist / bigoted. It's difficult to imagine a more self-destructive culture. > Oddly, according to the coverage, the owners had previously said publicly and internally that they thought it was important. No owners would publicly say D&I are not important. > I wonder how it will feel to them to become the darlings of people very opposed to those positions they had been taking, as seen in these threads. I'm sure these decisions only came about after some hard looks in the mirror.
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      Right, if you think DE&I consists of "new ways to suggest everyone else stop being so racist / sexist / bigoted", you're clearly not into it. You realize those who think it's important don't think that's what it is, right? If 20 employees were on the "social" committee planning a holiday party, would you consider that as "off the rails", because you are paying them (some here unspecified number of hours) to throw a damn party? I doubt anyone would get that up in arms about it. I get it, you think DE&I is a mistake, (unless you think coming up with new ways to tell people to stop being racist is not a mistake? But I think you were clear), so the more people involved in it, the bigger the mistake. But if someone thinks it's important, perhaps even more important than a holiday party, then the more people involved in it the better, and having a large portion of the company involved in it is not a mistake. That's it.
      - anon7725 5y ago
        > If 20 employees were on the "social" committee planning a holiday party, would you consider that as "off the rails" The party planning committee would presumably not try to dictate which vendors the company deals with and which speaker is at the next all-hands meeting.
        5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zacharycohn 5y ago
The committee had yet to even meet.

moduspol 5y ago

And I'm reading the company was ~60 employees, all remote. In a business that small, it's difficult to imagine how far the culture was off the rails to have 20 people focusing time and effort on something like a D&I committee.

jrochkind1 5y ago
If you don't think DE&I is important, than of course you think it's "off the rails" to have 20 people spending time and effort on it. If you do think it's important, then there'd be nothing "off the rails" about having mass participation in it. Oddly, according to the coverage, the owners had previously said publicly and internally that they thought it was important. The owners had previously been very publicly and assertively taking very "liberal" and "progressive" positions. They have been on the "wrong" side of the "culture wars" for those who think it's "off the rails" to be spending signficant time and effort on DE&I. "Hansson had encouraged employees to read Between the World and Me, a memoir by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and The New Jim Crow... Both founders are also active — and occasionally hyperactive — on Twitter, where they regularly advocate for mainstream liberal and progressive views on social issues." I wonder how it will feel to them to become the darlings of people very opposed to those positions they had been taking, as seen in these threads. I wonder if the owners will become born-again to the right-wing side of the "culture wars".
- moduspol 5y ago
  Nobody said it wasn't important, but 20 out of 60 people focusing on it in a remote company that builds unrelated software is absolutely off the rails. You're essentially paying 1/3 of your employees to come up with new ways to suggest the other 2/3 need to stop being so racist / sexist / bigoted. It's difficult to imagine a more self-destructive culture. > Oddly, according to the coverage, the owners had previously said publicly and internally that they thought it was important. No owners would publicly say D&I are not important. > I wonder how it will feel to them to become the darlings of people very opposed to those positions they had been taking, as seen in these threads. I'm sure these decisions only came about after some hard looks in the mirror.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    Right, if you think DE&I consists of "new ways to suggest everyone else stop being so racist / sexist / bigoted", you're clearly not into it. You realize those who think it's important don't think that's what it is, right? If 20 employees were on the "social" committee planning a holiday party, would you consider that as "off the rails", because you are paying them (some here unspecified number of hours) to throw a damn party? I doubt anyone would get that up in arms about it. I get it, you think DE&I is a mistake, (unless you think coming up with new ways to tell people to stop being racist is not a mistake? But I think you were clear), so the more people involved in it, the bigger the mistake. But if someone thinks it's important, perhaps even more important than a holiday party, then the more people involved in it the better, and having a large portion of the company involved in it is not a mistake. That's it.
    - anon7725 5y ago
      > If 20 employees were on the "social" committee planning a holiday party, would you consider that as "off the rails" The party planning committee would presumably not try to dictate which vendors the company deals with and which speaker is at the next all-hands meeting.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zacharycohn 5y ago

The committee had yet to even meet.