4 ms·

That'd be a clever attempt at damage control, but in today's world the truth would probably would get leaked. Then the company would have to deal with the fallo

That'd be a clever attempt at damage control, but in today's world the truth would probably would get leaked. Then the company would have to deal with the fallout from that. I'd rather have the people who run companies grow a spine and stand up to the mob. They should put out a message like "We will investigate this incident. We take the decision to fire people seriously and will make a decision that is best for this company." In essence, "We hear all you loud-mouths, but we get to decide whether to fire people, not you."

tablespoon 4y ago
> That'd be a clever attempt at damage control, but in today's world the truth would probably would get leaked. Then the company would have to deal with the fallout from that. The mob is loud, but it has a short attention span. The truth probably would get leaked, but (depending on the issue) the mob would likely have moved on to the next thing by then. > I'd rather have the people who run companies grow a spine and stand up to the mob. They should put out a message like "We will investigate this incident. We take the decision to fire people seriously and will make a decision that is best for this company." That's probably an all around better response, too. Just "investigate" and give no updates until the controversy is old news.
no-reply 4y ago
If the team in question is the police, "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."
- kodah 4y ago
  - laszlojamf 4y ago
    I don't know, it's pretty on topic, isn't it? This is the problem other big companies, e.g. banks and oil companies etc who get caught with the hand in the cookie jar. There's clearly a line where the company _shouldn't_ get to perform its own investigation. Maybe not for flipping some customers the bird, but I'm not sure whether or not it's legal cuts it either as a line. There are a lot of things you can do which are not illegal but which might warrant a mob. Obviously, again, not for some intern prank. I feel the police is the perfect example for when you don't want the "team" to decide if they did something wrong.
ajb 4y ago
in today's world the truth would probably would get leaked Today's world causes us to overestimate how much information is, or will become, public. Much is still confined to small groups. Only the people who worked with this intern would know the plan, other people at Microsoft could maybe check in version control to see who introduced the bug, but they'd have to be fairly obsessive to check if he got re-employed.
fsckboy 4y ago
eh, the names of computer programmers don't really leak. We know a lot of programmers because of open source, but who was on the team that released each version of the Microsoft Office Suite...? If they have a blog sure, but otherwise, who knows.
fleddr 4y ago
When a random internet citizen directly approaches your company with the explicit request to fire a named employee, this by definition is insane. The reporter is not interested in reporting a particular offense, instead they are already playing the executioner. They do not want a solution, they want punishment and retaliation. That behavior is both arrogant (not their call to make) and sadistic. The reporter is not interested in what is best for your company either, as the "request" typically comes with threats. Comply or else... The very nature of such requests means the reporter is the type of person to dig up personal information or old "offensive" posts, which is unhinged behavior. Likewise, the reporter was unable to come to a resolution with the "offender", so plays the snitch card instead. It's a pile of red flags. Normal and reasonable people do not go after a person's job, even less so collectively. I wouldn't do that to my biggest enemy. That doesn't mean employees can't screw up, perceived or real. When they do, mob justice does not satisfy the very basic principles of justice. There's no defense, and without defense, there is no justice. Most companies can safely ignore such requests. The mob has no patience nor are they typically a customer in the first place, so all economical threats are in vain. It's largely a temporary PR threat that is emotionally inflated versus the actual PR impact: close to zero. Of course, I know, there's exceptions to all of the above. I'd say it would be a good thing if there's legislation that protects against mob-triggered terminations. The reason I would opt for that is that mob justice goes beyond just the termination of a few. It has a larger societal impact in the sense that those few are to be seen as examples for other people to increasingly feel like they need to walk on egg shells: extreme political correctness, large silent majority, you get what I mean.
- kodah 4y ago
  > I'd say it would be a good thing if there's legislation that protects against mob-triggered terminations. You could also say freedom of speech has limits, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. If someone starts a mob, knowingly or unknowingly, encourages a mob, or information thereof is found to be incorrect it would make sense if there were consequences.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    I was looking at it from a different angle. I think making laws to stop a mob from forming would be very hard, complex, and have lots of hairy side effects. My idea instead is to look at it from an employer's side: one should not be able to fire somebody on the spot for fuzzy PR reasons. So the mob can still form, but the ultimate consequence, a termination, in most cases would be impossible. As to stopping mobs from forming or doing their damage, I strongly believe social networks can do quite a lot too.
Aeolun 4y ago
Why put out the meal mouthed message instead of the actual one?

tablespoon 4y ago

> That'd be a clever attempt at damage control, but in today's world the truth would probably would get leaked. Then the company would have to deal with the fallout from that. The mob is loud, but it has a short attention span. The truth probably would get leaked, but (depending on the issue) the mob would likely have moved on to the next thing by then. > I'd rather have the people who run companies grow a spine and stand up to the mob. They should put out a message like "We will investigate this incident. We take the decision to fire people seriously and will make a decision that is best for this company." That's probably an all around better response, too. Just "investigate" and give no updates until the controversy is old news.

no-reply 4y ago

If the team in question is the police, "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."

kodah 4y ago
- laszlojamf 4y ago
  I don't know, it's pretty on topic, isn't it? This is the problem other big companies, e.g. banks and oil companies etc who get caught with the hand in the cookie jar. There's clearly a line where the company _shouldn't_ get to perform its own investigation. Maybe not for flipping some customers the bird, but I'm not sure whether or not it's legal cuts it either as a line. There are a lot of things you can do which are not illegal but which might warrant a mob. Obviously, again, not for some intern prank. I feel the police is the perfect example for when you don't want the "team" to decide if they did something wrong.

ajb 4y ago

in today's world the truth would probably would get leaked Today's world causes us to overestimate how much information is, or will become, public. Much is still confined to small groups. Only the people who worked with this intern would know the plan, other people at Microsoft could maybe check in version control to see who introduced the bug, but they'd have to be fairly obsessive to check if he got re-employed.

fsckboy 4y ago

eh, the names of computer programmers don't really leak. We know a lot of programmers because of open source, but who was on the team that released each version of the Microsoft Office Suite...? If they have a blog sure, but otherwise, who knows.

fleddr 4y ago

When a random internet citizen directly approaches your company with the explicit request to fire a named employee, this by definition is insane. The reporter is not interested in reporting a particular offense, instead they are already playing the executioner. They do not want a solution, they want punishment and retaliation. That behavior is both arrogant (not their call to make) and sadistic. The reporter is not interested in what is best for your company either, as the "request" typically comes with threats. Comply or else... The very nature of such requests means the reporter is the type of person to dig up personal information or old "offensive" posts, which is unhinged behavior. Likewise, the reporter was unable to come to a resolution with the "offender", so plays the snitch card instead. It's a pile of red flags. Normal and reasonable people do not go after a person's job, even less so collectively. I wouldn't do that to my biggest enemy. That doesn't mean employees can't screw up, perceived or real. When they do, mob justice does not satisfy the very basic principles of justice. There's no defense, and without defense, there is no justice. Most companies can safely ignore such requests. The mob has no patience nor are they typically a customer in the first place, so all economical threats are in vain. It's largely a temporary PR threat that is emotionally inflated versus the actual PR impact: close to zero. Of course, I know, there's exceptions to all of the above. I'd say it would be a good thing if there's legislation that protects against mob-triggered terminations. The reason I would opt for that is that mob justice goes beyond just the termination of a few. It has a larger societal impact in the sense that those few are to be seen as examples for other people to increasingly feel like they need to walk on egg shells: extreme political correctness, large silent majority, you get what I mean.

kodah 4y ago
> I'd say it would be a good thing if there's legislation that protects against mob-triggered terminations. You could also say freedom of speech has limits, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. If someone starts a mob, knowingly or unknowingly, encourages a mob, or information thereof is found to be incorrect it would make sense if there were consequences.
- fleddr 4y ago
  I was looking at it from a different angle. I think making laws to stop a mob from forming would be very hard, complex, and have lots of hairy side effects. My idea instead is to look at it from an employer's side: one should not be able to fire somebody on the spot for fuzzy PR reasons. So the mob can still form, but the ultimate consequence, a termination, in most cases would be impossible. As to stopping mobs from forming or doing their damage, I strongly believe social networks can do quite a lot too.

Aeolun 4y ago

Why put out the meal mouthed message instead of the actual one?