9 ms·

>The letter asked SpaceX management to publicly separate the company from Mr. Musk’s personal brand, and to take steps to address what it said was a gap between

by daenz 4y ago

>The letter asked SpaceX management to publicly separate the company from Mr. Musk’s personal brand, and to take steps to address what it said was a gap between SpaceX’s stated values and its current systems and company culture. >“Blanketing thousands of people across the company with repeated unsolicited emails and asking them to sign letters and fill out unsponsored surveys during the work day is not acceptable,” So it was a mass internal email chain, using company resources? And it sounds like they were asking Musk to be gone, with plausibly deniability. Is it honestly any surprise that they got fired? Hijacking internal systems for a publicity stunt like this will always put a target on your back.

mcguire 4y ago
Surprised? No. There's no large company in the world where attacking top management won't lead to major consequences. Of course, SpaceX (and Google, along with a stack of other "tech" companies) wasn't supposed to be just another large company; they wanted to disrupt things, and wanted fanatical buy-in from their employees, customers, and fans. (Corporate fans? Really?) It'll take a while, because religions don't die easily, but eventually it will become clear to anyone except the die-hard that it's just another company.
- daenz 4y ago
  I'm not sure I fully understand your point. Are you saying that because they wanted to be "different", they should allow behavior like this?
  - piva00 4y ago
    Not from what I understand, I understood as they wanted to sell this image of being different and tolerant but are just the usual corporation.
  - taylodl 4y ago
    He's saying SpaceX is just another company. They demand full loyalty (fealty?) from their employees, effectively creating a religion. They shouldn't be surprised when their employees actually expect the company to be different. Now the whole world can see SpaceX is just like Every. Single. Other. Company. So much for "changing the world." You're not changing the corporate world, that's for sure!
    - gfosco 4y ago
      Not sure you can 'change the world', without a unified group of people with some shared faith or belief.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        You missed the point. They're not changing the world and they have a cult. The old way also benefits from cults. They are the old way. No change. All they did was make things (in their microenvironment) worse by adding the cult aspect.
        ganoushoreilly 4y ago
        So If it's a shared belief / mission and it's not your perspective it's a cult? Are you saying people should just work for the money and not the company? That doesn't seem to make sense. If your goal, is more capital, you want the firm you're a part of to succeed to take part in that. The reality of it is there are a lot of extremely well paid people across the US that wear the emotions on their sleeves and take everything as a slight these days. This is the course correction, you're going to see it more and more. Just as extremists have been saying about social media if you don't like it, go build your own.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        > So If it's a shared belief / mission and it's not your perspective it's a cult? Nope, the word cult has a definition.
        daenz 4y ago
        I think you may be surprised at how many regular everyday people would vote "no" if asked the question "are SpaceX employees members of a literal cult?" Either we're all in on the cult, or you're using hyperbole.
        4y ago
  - mcguire 4y ago
    Not quite. Say you work for General Motors. You can gripe about management all you want, but there's no expectation that you are going to be able to send out a company-wide memo saying the board should boot the CEO. Now say you work for Tesla, or one of the other companies that is desperately trying to hang on to their "startup culture" as they get bigger. For that, it's vital that you buy into the mission, believe that you personally are changing the world. The other half of that intellectual and emotional investment is the feeling that you have control and input. If the company makes a business deal that you don't agree with, you threaten to organize a walk-out; if the CEO is behaving like an idiot (and not like your own lovable idiot), you feel like you can get everyone together to tell the board to boot him. After all, you, personally, are changing the world. But that's not how it works in a company that won't fit entirely into a single conference room. You as an employee may have dedicated your life to the company, and you may think the company should be responsive to you. But that's not how it works (see example 1 above), you just haven't realized it yet.
- bmitc 4y ago
  > There's no large company in the world where attacking top management won't lead to major consequences. What's interesting to me is that capitalists and usually conservatives and libertarians who worship capitalism are all too vocal when it comes to socialist and communist economic policies supposedly leading to fascism, although they don't, but yet, they are fully behind corporations literally acting as fascist dictatorships. And by interesting, I mean it boggles my mind and frustrates me. It shows these peoples' true colors: greed at all costs.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    I wouldn't phrase it the way you did but yes, it also surprises me, that most people are unable to see corporations as authoritarian dictatorships.
    - bmitc 4y ago
      Perhaps too harsh? If you have a more eloquent way or a different angle, I would love to hear it. (Seriously. Comments like these can come off catty or sarcastic in text only, but I'm genuinely asking. Haha.)
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    My politics are probably more aligned with yours than theirs, but if you're open to being unboggled: It's easy to draw a categorical divide between authorities who are (ostensibly) submitted to voluntarily or transactionally; and authorities whose power is asserted by sovereign monopoly of force. Many social organizations from families, to churches, to corporations are essentially authoritarian, but (conceptually if not always practically) you're able to remove yourself from them straightforwardly.
- doliveira 4y ago
  Yeah, populism is quite a constant throughout history. People love having a savior and a hero, as demagogue as they might be. I find it interesting how this populism takes shape in the tech industry. It manifests as companies pretending to be all about mission, community, changing the world, billionaires pretending to be pro-freedom, capitalists pretending to be anti-establishment...
  - achenet 4y ago
    That's one neat trick of capitalism - it's really good at selling you a critique of it as a luxury good. "Turning rebellion into money", as Joe Strummer sang.
    - doliveira 4y ago
      Yeah, and what this letter told us is that those people actually bought the PR speech.
enumjorge 4y ago
It would be unexpected for a company run by a free speech absolutist.
- daenz 4y ago
  I had to look up what a free speech absolutist was[0]. As far as the definition goes, which is about opposing any speech restrictions from the state, I don't see how the internal communications of a private company falls under that. 0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/44213 https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...
  - clankyclanker 4y ago
    The point I assume GP was trying to make is that Musk only applies that difference when it suits him. That attitude shows hypocrisy and is evidence that he’s using it to further personal power instead of actually caring about the moral philosophy of the matter. He seems to treat his own speech as if it is completely unfettered by any restraint, regardless of consequences for self or company (see the sheer number of times he’s upset the SEC via tweet compared to any other C-level in the world), while restraining the shit out of his subordinates’.
    - daenz 4y ago
      The SEC is a federal organization (government), so Musk thumbing his nose at them in the public sphere is not the same as Musk's employees thumbing their nose at him in a private setting using company resources. The former is clearly in the realm of free speech (gov vs citizen in public space), while the latter isn't (citizen vs citizen in private space)
      - 93po 4y ago
        daenz 4y ago
kick_in_thedoor 4y ago
kick_in_the_dor 4y ago
Lol @ "Using company email/internal message boards" == "Hijacking internal systems." Definitely not biased at all.
- blitzar 4y ago
  Never sending another "unsolicited" email or slack message at work ever again for fear of being accused of "Hijacking internal systems" to ask Johnson for an update on the sales report.

by daenz 4y ago

mcguire 4y ago

Surprised? No. There's no large company in the world where attacking top management won't lead to major consequences. Of course, SpaceX (and Google, along with a stack of other "tech" companies) wasn't supposed to be just another large company; they wanted to disrupt things, and wanted fanatical buy-in from their employees, customers, and fans. (Corporate fans? Really?) It'll take a while, because religions don't die easily, but eventually it will become clear to anyone except the die-hard that it's just another company.

daenz 4y ago
I'm not sure I fully understand your point. Are you saying that because they wanted to be "different", they should allow behavior like this?
- piva00 4y ago
  Not from what I understand, I understood as they wanted to sell this image of being different and tolerant but are just the usual corporation.
- taylodl 4y ago
  He's saying SpaceX is just another company. They demand full loyalty (fealty?) from their employees, effectively creating a religion. They shouldn't be surprised when their employees actually expect the company to be different. Now the whole world can see SpaceX is just like Every. Single. Other. Company. So much for "changing the world." You're not changing the corporate world, that's for sure!
  - gfosco 4y ago
    Not sure you can 'change the world', without a unified group of people with some shared faith or belief.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      You missed the point. They're not changing the world and they have a cult. The old way also benefits from cults. They are the old way. No change. All they did was make things (in their microenvironment) worse by adding the cult aspect.
      - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
        So If it's a shared belief / mission and it's not your perspective it's a cult? Are you saying people should just work for the money and not the company? That doesn't seem to make sense. If your goal, is more capital, you want the firm you're a part of to succeed to take part in that. The reality of it is there are a lot of extremely well paid people across the US that wear the emotions on their sleeves and take everything as a slight these days. This is the course correction, you're going to see it more and more. Just as extremists have been saying about social media if you don't like it, go build your own.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        > So If it's a shared belief / mission and it's not your perspective it's a cult? Nope, the word cult has a definition.
        daenz 4y ago
        I think you may be surprised at how many regular everyday people would vote "no" if asked the question "are SpaceX employees members of a literal cult?" Either we're all in on the cult, or you're using hyperbole.
        4y ago
- mcguire 4y ago
  Not quite. Say you work for General Motors. You can gripe about management all you want, but there's no expectation that you are going to be able to send out a company-wide memo saying the board should boot the CEO. Now say you work for Tesla, or one of the other companies that is desperately trying to hang on to their "startup culture" as they get bigger. For that, it's vital that you buy into the mission, believe that you personally are changing the world. The other half of that intellectual and emotional investment is the feeling that you have control and input. If the company makes a business deal that you don't agree with, you threaten to organize a walk-out; if the CEO is behaving like an idiot (and not like your own lovable idiot), you feel like you can get everyone together to tell the board to boot him. After all, you, personally, are changing the world. But that's not how it works in a company that won't fit entirely into a single conference room. You as an employee may have dedicated your life to the company, and you may think the company should be responsive to you. But that's not how it works (see example 1 above), you just haven't realized it yet.
bmitc 4y ago
> There's no large company in the world where attacking top management won't lead to major consequences. What's interesting to me is that capitalists and usually conservatives and libertarians who worship capitalism are all too vocal when it comes to socialist and communist economic policies supposedly leading to fascism, although they don't, but yet, they are fully behind corporations literally acting as fascist dictatorships. And by interesting, I mean it boggles my mind and frustrates me. It shows these peoples' true colors: greed at all costs.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I wouldn't phrase it the way you did but yes, it also surprises me, that most people are unable to see corporations as authoritarian dictatorships.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Perhaps too harsh? If you have a more eloquent way or a different angle, I would love to hear it. (Seriously. Comments like these can come off catty or sarcastic in text only, but I'm genuinely asking. Haha.)
- swatcoder 4y ago
  My politics are probably more aligned with yours than theirs, but if you're open to being unboggled: It's easy to draw a categorical divide between authorities who are (ostensibly) submitted to voluntarily or transactionally; and authorities whose power is asserted by sovereign monopoly of force. Many social organizations from families, to churches, to corporations are essentially authoritarian, but (conceptually if not always practically) you're able to remove yourself from them straightforwardly.
doliveira 4y ago
Yeah, populism is quite a constant throughout history. People love having a savior and a hero, as demagogue as they might be. I find it interesting how this populism takes shape in the tech industry. It manifests as companies pretending to be all about mission, community, changing the world, billionaires pretending to be pro-freedom, capitalists pretending to be anti-establishment...
- achenet 4y ago
  That's one neat trick of capitalism - it's really good at selling you a critique of it as a luxury good. "Turning rebellion into money", as Joe Strummer sang.
  - doliveira 4y ago
    Yeah, and what this letter told us is that those people actually bought the PR speech.

enumjorge 4y ago

It would be unexpected for a company run by a free speech absolutist.

daenz 4y ago
I had to look up what a free speech absolutist was[0]. As far as the definition goes, which is about opposing any speech restrictions from the state, I don't see how the internal communications of a private company falls under that. 0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/44213 https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...
- clankyclanker 4y ago
  The point I assume GP was trying to make is that Musk only applies that difference when it suits him. That attitude shows hypocrisy and is evidence that he’s using it to further personal power instead of actually caring about the moral philosophy of the matter. He seems to treat his own speech as if it is completely unfettered by any restraint, regardless of consequences for self or company (see the sheer number of times he’s upset the SEC via tweet compared to any other C-level in the world), while restraining the shit out of his subordinates’.
  - daenz 4y ago
    The SEC is a federal organization (government), so Musk thumbing his nose at them in the public sphere is not the same as Musk's employees thumbing their nose at him in a private setting using company resources. The former is clearly in the realm of free speech (gov vs citizen in public space), while the latter isn't (citizen vs citizen in private space)
    - 93po 4y ago
      - daenz 4y ago

kick_in_thedoor 4y ago

kick_in_the_dor 4y ago

Lol @ "Using company email/internal message boards" == "Hijacking internal systems." Definitely not biased at all.

blitzar 4y ago
Never sending another "unsolicited" email or slack message at work ever again for fear of being accused of "Hijacking internal systems" to ask Johnson for an update on the sales report.