10 ms·

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, m

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, most substantive source that I could find is quite thorough: https://archive.is/wqdkF https://archive.is/wqdkF > "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' [...] We had absolutely no work in Russia." I originally made a joke in a now-deleted comment, but then was slightly horrified to hear people excusing this behavior. So here’s a serious one: if you get locked into a prestigious institution under someone like this, run. EDIT: I should have known this would turn into a sub thread about whether it’s ok to demand an AI researcher brief an executive on Russian political history. Here’s another one: gossiping about firing someone across the entire office, before you fire them. This article says he did that. I recommend reading through it. I have to go move into our house now, so I can’t paste everything. Suffice to say, the behavior patterns were not productive. I think people want to recognize DeepMind’s eventual success. Having worked under some effective YC founders vs some Suleyman types, I’ve learned that sometimes a startup can succeed in spite of flaws. And remember, DeepMind was bought by Google. At that point they were the anointed child. Their success wasn’t guaranteed, but it wasn’t as tenuous as pre-billions Google investment.

temp8964 5y ago
Why is writing about Russia a personal thing? I think I will need more context to understand this.
- PhasmaFelis 5y ago
  It's personal because it's not work-related. He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance.
  - ptero 5y ago
    Demanding random, pointless tasks from subordinates is a bad sign, but the Russia example might not be one of those. If a boss needs information s/he can ask a subordinate to make a brief. Sometimes the reasoning behind the important request is not clear to the subordinate and it might seem pointless. A good boss would generally explain, but failing to do it is still very very far from bullying (plus, some important info is gathered piecemeal on purpose to avoid leaking things early). I am not claiming those are applicable here, just that much more context is needed to understand the situation.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. I won’t do it for the Elongated Muskrat himself.
      - ptero 5y ago
        That is perfectly reasonable. Someone else might gladly learn something interesting on the company dime, even if the topic seems unrelated to the job. For example, if my employers offers me a sailing, woodworking or machining class (neither of which has anything to do with what I work on) I will take it. Sausage making -- I will pass; not my kettle of fish.
      - serf 5y ago
        > Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. honestly I see that more as evidence of employment mobility and financial security. a friend of mine works as a fry-cook as a chain restaurant. He is paid a low wage, and has a dwindling savings account. He told me a story about having to re-caulk toilets at the restaurant during low-traffic hours, I replied with "I thought you were a fry-cook?, he replied with "I do whatever keeps the job." (i'd have serious misgivings about the history essay, too.. I just tend to think that our willingness to question the duty is just evidence that we're confident we could go elsewhere and write code instead. That confidence isn't intrinsic in the workplace across all professions.)
  - dmix 5y ago
    > He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance. Is this just speculation or do you know more examples where he did this? Given his background of bringing up his political activism during tech conferences he could have just been using it as background for his talks (which has included AI ethics). In that context I could see a connection to Russian politics. Still likely personal but not "random tasks to show dominance".
    - tobias__ 5y ago
      I feel if it was for a purpose like this it could be contextualized to the employee (which IMO is necessary if they're going to write anything that is useful for any purpose beyond personal interest)
      - lazide 5y ago
        It would if he wanted to, and it’s what we generally expect of good bosses. I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen.
        PhasmaFelis 5y ago
        > I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen. No one claimed there was. They said that not doing it makes him a bad boss. You seem to be in agreement.
        lazide 5y ago
        Ah, but the context of the thread is more than that! The context is around outrage that he got promoted. And being promoted is about a lot more than if someone is a good boss, as painful as that is for many folks working for such a bad boss. It’s possible to get an immense amount done and/or be remarkable effective despite being a bad boss - if the folks working for them put up with it. And it isn’t illegal to be a bad boss, as long as someone is bad in specific ways and not others.
    - magpi3 5y ago
  - ffhhj 5y ago
    Then subordinates must show their dominance not doing useless work. I've been in meetings in which I'm the one screaming to my boss in the face. When another boss tried to make me look bad with our superiors, I showed them their ineptitude and bully behavior. A few times had to quit a job due to the toxic environment, but always got more interesting and rewarding jobs. Never felt guilty about crushing a bully.
    - mLuby 5y ago
      > subordinates must show their dominance That's how to get fired. If the boss says "do it" and you say "no" and you each hold your ground, eventually it gets to "do it or you're fired." (In a few companies it might be "do it or you're fired" vs "stop asking or I'll transfer" but it's rarely "stop asking or boss is fired.") A good boss won't let it to that, but that power over another—to hire, promote, and terminate—is what fundamentally defines the hierarchy. Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to who was toxic at those jobs that ended badly, it still sounds like you're significantly more assertive than most workers. I do agree that people should stand up for themselves regardless of their position in the hierarchy. There's no excuse for mistreatment, and especially these days, consider how someone who's mistreating you may mistreat someone who's more vulnerable.
      - squarefoot 5y ago
        That's why when any boss asks for something completely irrelevant for the job, in my opinion the correct approach would be to ask for a documented request. i.e. "please, send me an official email with your request". If the boss then goes crazy, then reveals he had no good intentions from start, and yes, it's definitely hard to fight back without eventually get to that point of no return. If that's the case, you then better leave that place before getting fired, which has the side effect of showing that you're not that easy to manipulate. It's not just about self esteem and/or testosterone however: any time diverted from the job to other things could impact the project, and doing that during your time means there's your name stuck to the job at that time; if something goes wrong because of the time spent doing other stuff then it is your fault, so he better gives some good official explanation for demanding that extra work. (edit: moved under the right parent post)
- catillac 5y ago
  It sounds like it was a side task not related to the company or the company’s work, but rather the writing was at the whim of the person at issue. My framing is something like telling someone who reports to you to do your college homework.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Without full knowledge, I feel it’s difficult for an outsider to determine whether Russia is “work-related”.
  - ic4l 5y ago
    He was training AI models, and needed some test data sets... Of course he upset many people .
marcinzm 5y ago
>We had absolutely no work in Russia. Wouldn't the point of such a high level briefing be because they're tying to get work in Russia but don't already have any? It's rather common for employees to not know the details of the strategic plans of the executives until the execution starts.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Were these peopled hired for responsibilities including historical briefings? No? So why are they being asked to do them?
  - bradlys 5y ago
    End of the day, it's a job. Requirements change. You have to do things you don't want to do that might not even seem related. If you don't want to work under someone who does that stuff then leave. I yelled at a CEO because he asked me to do something that wasn't related to software engineering role. He stopped asking me and anyone else in eng due to that confrontation. But - guess what - he wanted to fired every single day I worked there after that incident. I only remained because I had a lot of people protecting me. So - you have to ask - are you willing to lose your job over it? If so - great - see ya! If not - then take your lumps and get it done.
    - geofft 5y ago
      The CEO has a job, too, and that job is set by the board and/or the company's owners. And the most important job of the CEO is to be a good leader. Was your CEO within his legal rights to ask you to do the job? Sure, assuming it was legal and not forbidden by your contract. Would it have been advisable for you to do it anyway, for the sake of your job? Probably. But that doesn't mean that the CEO was doing his job well by asking. And evidently he knew that, because he didn't actually fire you and the people protecting you. In the case of Google, a public company, it is simultaneously true that individual low-level employees should act strategically and optimize for their own benefit - which might include putting up with misbehaving management to remain employed under them - and that the public has a strong interest in knowing when management, especially senior management, is being bad at their jobs.
horrified 5y ago
The complaints in the article sound ridiculous. He wrote "the F* word" in an email? He fired people? He sometimes got angry? Maybe he just is a human being. People seem to feel entitled to godlike father figures as bosses now, who pamper them all the way in their comfy 9 to 5 jobs? Not saying you should scream at your employees, but humans can get angry and in general are not perfect. If it is too much for you, quit. I wonder how far Steve Jobs would have come if he only stared out today? I've heard he also made people cry.
- bobobob420 5y ago
  Toxic work environments are just a breeding ground for lawsuits and expose anyways
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Being excessively sensitive to carefully chosen four letter words used appropriately for emphasis is a form of toxicity.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  > The complaints in the article sound ridiculous Or maybe they are so far removed from the actual events that you can not tell the seriousness of them from just a random news article? Is it so hard to just trust the people who say his behaviour was awful?
  - horrified 5y ago
    I trust that the people felt his behaviour was awful. If they don't like working with him, they can switch jobs. Or even complain to higher ups and what not. What is not OK imo is this appeal to some imaginary "societal moral court" that should somehow punish the guy.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Why are you arguing that awful behaviour should have consequences for those it is direct at, rather than for the person who commits it?
systemvoltage 5y ago
We have not heard the story from all sides with zero bias. So why are we making authoritative conclusions? Some of these threads feels like celebrity tabloid gossip. Edit: Absolutely baffled by the downvotes. Do we really, truly, factually know all sides of the story? What's the disagreement here?
dalbasal 5y ago
>> Behavior patterns were not productive. I agree with you on success often being in spite of, or regardless of negative traits. That said, there are quite a lot of arseholes at the top... or maybe being at the top allows arseholes to indulge. Jobs, by most accounts, was a real arsehole. Musk, by some reports, at least at time. Gates too, had a reputation for nastiness. Lots of professors are known for bullying and meanness. Film directors, rock stars.... In fact, most people have encountered areshole bosses at some point. I'm not saying that arseholery isn't a problem. There's just sense of willful ignorance here. No one wants to admit that they tolerate arseholes in positions of power, but most everyone has them. Creating an environment of no tolerance would be novel, probably hard.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pmorici 5y ago
  A lot of people confuse being direct and honest with being an asshole. To elaborate; To me, being an asshole means being mean spirited or verdictive without a purpose for the heck of it. On the other hand telling someone directly that their work isn't acceptable or that something needs to be fixed may feel harsh but it is absolutely necessary to cultivating a functional high performing organization. One of the biggest problems with large bureaucratic organizations is that no one is ever willing to say anything uncomfortable and thus none of the problems are ever dealt with effectively and they devolve into swamps of mediocrity.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    I suppose that statement is true in both directions. Directness and honesty are often missing, and I agree that this can be insulting and perceived as arseholery. Equally, people who are being arseholes at work also confuse their arseholery for directness and honesty.
oytis 5y ago
It's a total mystery to me why do people feel the urge to defend him. I kind of understand this in the case of technically brilliant but socially awkward people, but this guy seems to have done nothing but management in his life. And if this is how he's doing management then I don't understand why he's tolerated at all.
- ATsch 5y ago
  My unfortunate conclusion is that a large portion of people in this industry are either like this or wish they could get away with being like this. The amount of people who always reply about how they don't see any issues is enough proof of that.
  - truetraveller 5y ago
    Nah. These accusations are exaggerated and without proof. Put yourself in his shoes. Would you like random internet people to accuse you with dramatized statements and/or exaggerations?
    - krapp 5y ago
      If they're without proof, how do you know they're exaggerated and dramatized? Were you there? Do you have the proof to the contrary?
      - truetraveller 5y ago
        The burden of proof is on the claimant. And if your gonna post a sensationalist article about it to the public, you better provide proof to the public. Don't just do character assassination on another fellow human.
        krapp 5y ago
        You're the one claiming the story is exaggerated, dramatized, sensationalist and now character assassination. This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." And if there were, you're clearly not willing to carry it yourself.
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
The guy is certainly a terrible leader if these accusations are true. But if worst things he did are giving dumb assignments and being mean to people he's planning to fire, I'm pretty comfortable saying that's not a big deal in the scheme of things. I'm not excusing the behavior, I'd never work for someone who acted like this, but I don't know why it's important news either.
truetraveller 5y ago
It's absolutely fine for an exec to ask an employee to do "x" task, where there is value for the company, even if it is not in the employee's scope. This is a moot point, and I'm astonished we're even debating this. What has the world come to? So, imagine I ask my developer or even my accountant on a one-off, rare occasion: "write me a critique of this new UX design". He replies "How dare you ask me about UX design!". What a strange answer.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Did you just compare asking if something looks good to having them write up an assessment of Russian political history? Yeah I’ll go ahead and ask my dog walker to write me an analysis of the potential outcomes if Britain had joined against the US during the Trent affair. If they refuse I’ll fire them and write horrible reviews about them because obviously they don’t take their job seriously /s You’ve got to be kidding or seriously biased here.
  - truetraveller 5y ago
    I never said "asking". I meant a small report. And this, only a single time. Absolutely no problem in my book. Are you really comparing a "dog walker" to somebody who creates IP (nothing against dog walkers).
    - phatfish 5y ago
      If anyone asked me something so ridiculous at my job they would get a copy and paste from wikipedia.
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      > Are you really comparing a "dog walker" to somebody who creates IP Yes. Why wouldn’t I? These are examples of people who were hired from completely different fields than what is requested of them in the scenario. Why would an AI researcher be a better Russian political history analyst than a dog walker? Neither is a polsci major.
  - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

temp8964 5y ago

Why is writing about Russia a personal thing? I think I will need more context to understand this.

PhasmaFelis 5y ago
It's personal because it's not work-related. He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance.
- ptero 5y ago
  Demanding random, pointless tasks from subordinates is a bad sign, but the Russia example might not be one of those. If a boss needs information s/he can ask a subordinate to make a brief. Sometimes the reasoning behind the important request is not clear to the subordinate and it might seem pointless. A good boss would generally explain, but failing to do it is still very very far from bullying (plus, some important info is gathered piecemeal on purpose to avoid leaking things early). I am not claiming those are applicable here, just that much more context is needed to understand the situation.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. I won’t do it for the Elongated Muskrat himself.
    - ptero 5y ago
      That is perfectly reasonable. Someone else might gladly learn something interesting on the company dime, even if the topic seems unrelated to the job. For example, if my employers offers me a sailing, woodworking or machining class (neither of which has anything to do with what I work on) I will take it. Sausage making -- I will pass; not my kettle of fish.
    - serf 5y ago
      > Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. honestly I see that more as evidence of employment mobility and financial security. a friend of mine works as a fry-cook as a chain restaurant. He is paid a low wage, and has a dwindling savings account. He told me a story about having to re-caulk toilets at the restaurant during low-traffic hours, I replied with "I thought you were a fry-cook?, he replied with "I do whatever keeps the job." (i'd have serious misgivings about the history essay, too.. I just tend to think that our willingness to question the duty is just evidence that we're confident we could go elsewhere and write code instead. That confidence isn't intrinsic in the workplace across all professions.)
- dmix 5y ago
  > He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance. Is this just speculation or do you know more examples where he did this? Given his background of bringing up his political activism during tech conferences he could have just been using it as background for his talks (which has included AI ethics). In that context I could see a connection to Russian politics. Still likely personal but not "random tasks to show dominance".
  - tobias__ 5y ago
    I feel if it was for a purpose like this it could be contextualized to the employee (which IMO is necessary if they're going to write anything that is useful for any purpose beyond personal interest)
    - lazide 5y ago
      It would if he wanted to, and it’s what we generally expect of good bosses. I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen.
      - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
        > I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen. No one claimed there was. They said that not doing it makes him a bad boss. You seem to be in agreement.
        lazide 5y ago
        Ah, but the context of the thread is more than that! The context is around outrage that he got promoted. And being promoted is about a lot more than if someone is a good boss, as painful as that is for many folks working for such a bad boss. It’s possible to get an immense amount done and/or be remarkable effective despite being a bad boss - if the folks working for them put up with it. And it isn’t illegal to be a bad boss, as long as someone is bad in specific ways and not others.
  - magpi3 5y ago
- ffhhj 5y ago
  Then subordinates must show their dominance not doing useless work. I've been in meetings in which I'm the one screaming to my boss in the face. When another boss tried to make me look bad with our superiors, I showed them their ineptitude and bully behavior. A few times had to quit a job due to the toxic environment, but always got more interesting and rewarding jobs. Never felt guilty about crushing a bully.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    > subordinates must show their dominance That's how to get fired. If the boss says "do it" and you say "no" and you each hold your ground, eventually it gets to "do it or you're fired." (In a few companies it might be "do it or you're fired" vs "stop asking or I'll transfer" but it's rarely "stop asking or boss is fired.") A good boss won't let it to that, but that power over another—to hire, promote, and terminate—is what fundamentally defines the hierarchy. Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to who was toxic at those jobs that ended badly, it still sounds like you're significantly more assertive than most workers. I do agree that people should stand up for themselves regardless of their position in the hierarchy. There's no excuse for mistreatment, and especially these days, consider how someone who's mistreating you may mistreat someone who's more vulnerable.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      That's why when any boss asks for something completely irrelevant for the job, in my opinion the correct approach would be to ask for a documented request. i.e. "please, send me an official email with your request". If the boss then goes crazy, then reveals he had no good intentions from start, and yes, it's definitely hard to fight back without eventually get to that point of no return. If that's the case, you then better leave that place before getting fired, which has the side effect of showing that you're not that easy to manipulate. It's not just about self esteem and/or testosterone however: any time diverted from the job to other things could impact the project, and doing that during your time means there's your name stuck to the job at that time; if something goes wrong because of the time spent doing other stuff then it is your fault, so he better gives some good official explanation for demanding that extra work. (edit: moved under the right parent post)
catillac 5y ago
It sounds like it was a side task not related to the company or the company’s work, but rather the writing was at the whim of the person at issue. My framing is something like telling someone who reports to you to do your college homework.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Without full knowledge, I feel it’s difficult for an outsider to determine whether Russia is “work-related”.
- ic4l 5y ago
  He was training AI models, and needed some test data sets... Of course he upset many people .

marcinzm 5y ago

>We had absolutely no work in Russia. Wouldn't the point of such a high level briefing be because they're tying to get work in Russia but don't already have any? It's rather common for employees to not know the details of the strategic plans of the executives until the execution starts.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Were these peopled hired for responsibilities including historical briefings? No? So why are they being asked to do them?
- bradlys 5y ago
  End of the day, it's a job. Requirements change. You have to do things you don't want to do that might not even seem related. If you don't want to work under someone who does that stuff then leave. I yelled at a CEO because he asked me to do something that wasn't related to software engineering role. He stopped asking me and anyone else in eng due to that confrontation. But - guess what - he wanted to fired every single day I worked there after that incident. I only remained because I had a lot of people protecting me. So - you have to ask - are you willing to lose your job over it? If so - great - see ya! If not - then take your lumps and get it done.
  - geofft 5y ago
    The CEO has a job, too, and that job is set by the board and/or the company's owners. And the most important job of the CEO is to be a good leader. Was your CEO within his legal rights to ask you to do the job? Sure, assuming it was legal and not forbidden by your contract. Would it have been advisable for you to do it anyway, for the sake of your job? Probably. But that doesn't mean that the CEO was doing his job well by asking. And evidently he knew that, because he didn't actually fire you and the people protecting you. In the case of Google, a public company, it is simultaneously true that individual low-level employees should act strategically and optimize for their own benefit - which might include putting up with misbehaving management to remain employed under them - and that the public has a strong interest in knowing when management, especially senior management, is being bad at their jobs.

horrified 5y ago

The complaints in the article sound ridiculous. He wrote "the F* word" in an email? He fired people? He sometimes got angry? Maybe he just is a human being. People seem to feel entitled to godlike father figures as bosses now, who pamper them all the way in their comfy 9 to 5 jobs? Not saying you should scream at your employees, but humans can get angry and in general are not perfect. If it is too much for you, quit. I wonder how far Steve Jobs would have come if he only stared out today? I've heard he also made people cry.

bobobob420 5y ago
Toxic work environments are just a breeding ground for lawsuits and expose anyways
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Being excessively sensitive to carefully chosen four letter words used appropriately for emphasis is a form of toxicity.
user-the-name 5y ago
> The complaints in the article sound ridiculous Or maybe they are so far removed from the actual events that you can not tell the seriousness of them from just a random news article? Is it so hard to just trust the people who say his behaviour was awful?
- horrified 5y ago
  I trust that the people felt his behaviour was awful. If they don't like working with him, they can switch jobs. Or even complain to higher ups and what not. What is not OK imo is this appeal to some imaginary "societal moral court" that should somehow punish the guy.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Why are you arguing that awful behaviour should have consequences for those it is direct at, rather than for the person who commits it?

systemvoltage 5y ago

We have not heard the story from all sides with zero bias. So why are we making authoritative conclusions? Some of these threads feels like celebrity tabloid gossip. Edit: Absolutely baffled by the downvotes. Do we really, truly, factually know all sides of the story? What's the disagreement here?

dalbasal 5y ago

>> Behavior patterns were not productive. I agree with you on success often being in spite of, or regardless of negative traits. That said, there are quite a lot of arseholes at the top... or maybe being at the top allows arseholes to indulge. Jobs, by most accounts, was a real arsehole. Musk, by some reports, at least at time. Gates too, had a reputation for nastiness. Lots of professors are known for bullying and meanness. Film directors, rock stars.... In fact, most people have encountered areshole bosses at some point. I'm not saying that arseholery isn't a problem. There's just sense of willful ignorance here. No one wants to admit that they tolerate arseholes in positions of power, but most everyone has them. Creating an environment of no tolerance would be novel, probably hard.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pmorici 5y ago
A lot of people confuse being direct and honest with being an asshole. To elaborate; To me, being an asshole means being mean spirited or verdictive without a purpose for the heck of it. On the other hand telling someone directly that their work isn't acceptable or that something needs to be fixed may feel harsh but it is absolutely necessary to cultivating a functional high performing organization. One of the biggest problems with large bureaucratic organizations is that no one is ever willing to say anything uncomfortable and thus none of the problems are ever dealt with effectively and they devolve into swamps of mediocrity.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  I suppose that statement is true in both directions. Directness and honesty are often missing, and I agree that this can be insulting and perceived as arseholery. Equally, people who are being arseholes at work also confuse their arseholery for directness and honesty.

oytis 5y ago

It's a total mystery to me why do people feel the urge to defend him. I kind of understand this in the case of technically brilliant but socially awkward people, but this guy seems to have done nothing but management in his life. And if this is how he's doing management then I don't understand why he's tolerated at all.

ATsch 5y ago
My unfortunate conclusion is that a large portion of people in this industry are either like this or wish they could get away with being like this. The amount of people who always reply about how they don't see any issues is enough proof of that.
- truetraveller 5y ago
  Nah. These accusations are exaggerated and without proof. Put yourself in his shoes. Would you like random internet people to accuse you with dramatized statements and/or exaggerations?
  - krapp 5y ago
    If they're without proof, how do you know they're exaggerated and dramatized? Were you there? Do you have the proof to the contrary?
    - truetraveller 5y ago
      The burden of proof is on the claimant. And if your gonna post a sensationalist article about it to the public, you better provide proof to the public. Don't just do character assassination on another fellow human.
      - krapp 5y ago
        You're the one claiming the story is exaggerated, dramatized, sensationalist and now character assassination. This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." And if there were, you're clearly not willing to carry it yourself.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

The guy is certainly a terrible leader if these accusations are true. But if worst things he did are giving dumb assignments and being mean to people he's planning to fire, I'm pretty comfortable saying that's not a big deal in the scheme of things. I'm not excusing the behavior, I'd never work for someone who acted like this, but I don't know why it's important news either.

truetraveller 5y ago

It's absolutely fine for an exec to ask an employee to do "x" task, where there is value for the company, even if it is not in the employee's scope. This is a moot point, and I'm astonished we're even debating this. What has the world come to? So, imagine I ask my developer or even my accountant on a one-off, rare occasion: "write me a critique of this new UX design". He replies "How dare you ask me about UX design!". What a strange answer.

edgyquant 5y ago
Did you just compare asking if something looks good to having them write up an assessment of Russian political history? Yeah I’ll go ahead and ask my dog walker to write me an analysis of the potential outcomes if Britain had joined against the US during the Trent affair. If they refuse I’ll fire them and write horrible reviews about them because obviously they don’t take their job seriously /s You’ve got to be kidding or seriously biased here.
- truetraveller 5y ago
  I never said "asking". I meant a small report. And this, only a single time. Absolutely no problem in my book. Are you really comparing a "dog walker" to somebody who creates IP (nothing against dog walkers).
  - phatfish 5y ago
    If anyone asked me something so ridiculous at my job they would get a copy and paste from wikipedia.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    > Are you really comparing a "dog walker" to somebody who creates IP Yes. Why wouldn’t I? These are examples of people who were hired from completely different fields than what is requested of them in the scenario. Why would an AI researcher be a better Russian political history analyst than a dog walker? Neither is a polsci major.
- 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]