4 ms·

Well, right then, let's all enjoy our Two Minutes Hate. The claims are hardly specific or verifiable, for what it's worth, and I don't think Anthony sees it as

by jfarmer 15y ago

Well, right then, let's all enjoy our Two Minutes Hate. The claims are hardly specific or verifiable, for what it's worth, and I don't think Anthony sees it as his job to determine what "actually happened." What "actually happened" is incredibly boring, most likely. Instead we get a Fox News style report where two sides say contradictory things and we cheer on the one we identify with the most. For example, does Anthony really know that there is an email address that goes to the three adults? Did he do anything to verify it? I think all he knows is that an anonymous employee said there is one. And even if there is, it's still lurid. "A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker." I mean, yes, by definition. "The group" has decided Andrew Hsu should be punished publicly for being a terrible manager -- allegedly. Before the internet, maybe a group of people would go over to his house, force him to put a sign around his neck, and march him around the town square for a while? (This is my last response in this part of the thread. I'll let you have the last word if you'd like.)

potatolicious 15y ago
Okay, I was hoping to keep this civil and dispassionate, but I'm really strongly taking issue with your words. "Two Minutes Hate", "Romans chanting for gladiatorial blood", "Vigilantism", what are you on about? You seem more interested in throwing as many weasel words and colorful, fear-mongering imagery into your comments than actual commentary. Are you writing "1984" or are we talking about the article? Let's dive into the article first, though, and list out some verifiable, specific claims being made: - Hsu's family is the actual senior management, despite not holding any officially recognized position. - The unofficial/family senior management sequestered themselves in an office inaccessible to other employees, and in fact acted so collectively that there was a single email address to reach all of them. - Employees were forced to commit to 9-6pm quiet hours. Promised breaks of this silent period were not honored. - Some employees were forced to give lengthy debriefings at the end of the day to senior management, keeping them at the office until 9-10pm. - The expectation from senior management is to work 6-7 day weeks. - Management actively discouraged documentation of complaints. - Management told employees to not speak to ex-employees. These are concrete claims that the founder and startup can refute definitively. These are also factual findings that one can discover interviewing past and current employees. This is a long way from making vague, non-specific accusations about a company. So much for your "the claims are neither specific nor verifiable". You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about myself and others who have commented in this thread. You accuse us all of "taking smug delight in the bruising... of another person", and likened people commenting on this article to Roman gladiatorial spectators. As an Asian I'd rather that these accusations not be true, since they inevitably raise stereotypes that I have to live with every day, and I certainly do not want people to check my office for my parents when I do business in the future. Far from taking schadenfreude in these accusations, these sadden me, and if they pan out to be true, will mean a genuine step back for Asian founders. And yet, if these accusations are true, they deserve to be aired. The bruising of one's reputation is entirely deserved if the claims being leveled are true. You have an incredibly wide definition of the word "vigilantism", and I suggest you look into its historical uses before trying to weasel that word into anything where any group takes any action against anyone.
jfarmer 15y ago
I lied. :) I'm not interested in the article's claims, so I'm not going through them point-by-point. I apologize for my metaphors. They aren't weasel words, though. I'm not equivocating about anything. They're direct, if non-literal, expressions of my opinion. I think the article is lurid and vulgar. I think it's designed to stoke a mob response (cf. earl's comment). I don't think the goal was to uncover "the facts" any more than Hannity and Colmes is designed to uncover the facts. I also think, even if the claims in the article were true, it's tantamount to an article about someone seeing Jack Nicholson yelling at a waitress and making her break down in tears. We like that article because it makes us feel righteous. It's still vulgar, though. (This is actually my last response. I hope the above was sufficiently civil and dispassionate. I'm not sure why being dispassionate is a virtue, though.)
- ptiaf 15y ago
  There's nothing to learn from the Jack Nicholson article. There's a lot to learn when looking at this situation. Andrew hired too many people for his level of funding, treated them poorly, attempted to ensure untraceable communication, and was dishonest to employees in many ways. And despite all those things, people worked for him because they bought the hype. This is a warning to think about what you're doing before you sign on. Learn what the conditions are really like, what the expectations really are, and what your future is actually likely to hold. Sure, some people might look at this and just think 'Andrew is immature, a lousy leader, and an incompetent manager', but that's not the lesson. I like this because it's a reminder that interviews are two-way conversations, and that employees should pay just as much attention to where they're going to work as employers pay to who they hire.

by jfarmer 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago

Okay, I was hoping to keep this civil and dispassionate, but I'm really strongly taking issue with your words. "Two Minutes Hate", "Romans chanting for gladiatorial blood", "Vigilantism", what are you on about? You seem more interested in throwing as many weasel words and colorful, fear-mongering imagery into your comments than actual commentary. Are you writing "1984" or are we talking about the article? Let's dive into the article first, though, and list out some verifiable, specific claims being made: - Hsu's family is the actual senior management, despite not holding any officially recognized position. - The unofficial/family senior management sequestered themselves in an office inaccessible to other employees, and in fact acted so collectively that there was a single email address to reach all of them. - Employees were forced to commit to 9-6pm quiet hours. Promised breaks of this silent period were not honored. - Some employees were forced to give lengthy debriefings at the end of the day to senior management, keeping them at the office until 9-10pm. - The expectation from senior management is to work 6-7 day weeks. - Management actively discouraged documentation of complaints. - Management told employees to not speak to ex-employees. These are concrete claims that the founder and startup can refute definitively. These are also factual findings that one can discover interviewing past and current employees. This is a long way from making vague, non-specific accusations about a company. So much for your "the claims are neither specific nor verifiable". You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about myself and others who have commented in this thread. You accuse us all of "taking smug delight in the bruising... of another person", and likened people commenting on this article to Roman gladiatorial spectators. As an Asian I'd rather that these accusations not be true, since they inevitably raise stereotypes that I have to live with every day, and I certainly do not want people to check my office for my parents when I do business in the future. Far from taking schadenfreude in these accusations, these sadden me, and if they pan out to be true, will mean a genuine step back for Asian founders. And yet, if these accusations are true, they deserve to be aired. The bruising of one's reputation is entirely deserved if the claims being leveled are true. You have an incredibly wide definition of the word "vigilantism", and I suggest you look into its historical uses before trying to weasel that word into anything where any group takes any action against anyone.

jfarmer 15y ago

I lied. :) I'm not interested in the article's claims, so I'm not going through them point-by-point. I apologize for my metaphors. They aren't weasel words, though. I'm not equivocating about anything. They're direct, if non-literal, expressions of my opinion. I think the article is lurid and vulgar. I think it's designed to stoke a mob response (cf. earl's comment). I don't think the goal was to uncover "the facts" any more than Hannity and Colmes is designed to uncover the facts. I also think, even if the claims in the article were true, it's tantamount to an article about someone seeing Jack Nicholson yelling at a waitress and making her break down in tears. We like that article because it makes us feel righteous. It's still vulgar, though. (This is actually my last response. I hope the above was sufficiently civil and dispassionate. I'm not sure why being dispassionate is a virtue, though.)

ptiaf 15y ago
There's nothing to learn from the Jack Nicholson article. There's a lot to learn when looking at this situation. Andrew hired too many people for his level of funding, treated them poorly, attempted to ensure untraceable communication, and was dishonest to employees in many ways. And despite all those things, people worked for him because they bought the hype. This is a warning to think about what you're doing before you sign on. Learn what the conditions are really like, what the expectations really are, and what your future is actually likely to hold. Sure, some people might look at this and just think 'Andrew is immature, a lousy leader, and an incompetent manager', but that's not the lesson. I like this because it's a reminder that interviews are two-way conversations, and that employees should pay just as much attention to where they're going to work as employers pay to who they hire.