2 ms·
Not subtweeting their entire workforce on their extremely popular blog would probably be a good start. Even if they decided to go with a “no politics” rule, do
by ashtonkem 6y ago
Not subtweeting their entire workforce on their extremely popular blog would probably be a good start.
Even if they decided to go with a “no politics” rule, doing it publicly was unbelievably shitty to their employees. Such policy changes really should’ve been done in private, especially since it was clear based on the phrasing that this was in response to a specific incident.
- fastball 6y agoBasecamp as a company has always been about building in public. If you don't want things to happen in public you shouldn't have joined Basecamp.
- ashtonkem 6y agoDisagree. There’s a difference between being transparent, and publicly implying that your workforce is problematic. Especially when there’s some issue that you’ve failed to deal with. That’s both inappropriate and unwise. This should’ve been an internal announcement, not an external one. Maybe in a year after things have calmed down they could do a “we banned politics at the office and it was great” post, but the timing was guaranteed to create a fiasco for them. As a metaphor, what they did is closer to disparaging someone’s work performance in an all hands. It might be “transparent”, but it’s also unprofessional.