3 ms·

This seems like a pretty big misstep for which any sensible person could've predicted the outcome. Companies should think twice before deciding to retroactively

This seems like a pretty big misstep for which any sensible person could've predicted the outcome. Companies should think twice before deciding to retroactively change their terms. Applying public pressure towards companies is good.

keepamovin 3y ago
Applying pressures to companies can cause them to confront uncomfortable realities and consider the impacts of their choices. Undoubtedly this is good. I'm not clear on the specifics of this case, but the idea that a mistake, however obvious it is to others, is intolerable and fatal, could be considered something toxic, because it seems to try to enforce an unrealistic standard of "no mistakes". The perspective that the CEO is not sensible, or didn't think twice, because they failed to predict a pretty big outcome, is challenging to uphold in face of the reality that they became CEO in the first place, likely making a series of thousands of carefully considered choices that helped them accomplish that success. It may be helpful to consider the internal calculus, both around the departure of the CEO, and also underpinning the justifications for the choice that upset the community, to gain a wider understanding of the situation. There seems to be an expectation that corporate roles these days can make no mistakes. This goes against the reality of human imperfection, and seems overly onerous for people to live up to. Although it seems an extreme comparison, one possible outcome is a revolving door of leaders filling high profile roles, akin to the revolving cabinet of ministers in an authoritarian dictatorship, where mistakes are fatal, and often blamed on a scapegoat who must be purged to restore purity, and the illusion of perfection. I'm not sure if that's quite what's going on here, but certainly seems like we're less tolerant of recoverable mistakes these days than in the past, where it seems as if leaders could survive multiple mistakes and scandals and still manage to find a way to right the ship. Throughout history it seems there have been periods where mistakes are more tolerated than others, and that less tolerance is associated with other undesirable outcomes, such as war and state failure. In a personal, and professional sense, an environment where mistakes are not tolerated is not one which is psychologically safe, and can not be said to encourage the best work of people involved.

keepamovin 3y ago

Applying pressures to companies can cause them to confront uncomfortable realities and consider the impacts of their choices. Undoubtedly this is good. I'm not clear on the specifics of this case, but the idea that a mistake, however obvious it is to others, is intolerable and fatal, could be considered something toxic, because it seems to try to enforce an unrealistic standard of "no mistakes". The perspective that the CEO is not sensible, or didn't think twice, because they failed to predict a pretty big outcome, is challenging to uphold in face of the reality that they became CEO in the first place, likely making a series of thousands of carefully considered choices that helped them accomplish that success. It may be helpful to consider the internal calculus, both around the departure of the CEO, and also underpinning the justifications for the choice that upset the community, to gain a wider understanding of the situation. There seems to be an expectation that corporate roles these days can make no mistakes. This goes against the reality of human imperfection, and seems overly onerous for people to live up to. Although it seems an extreme comparison, one possible outcome is a revolving door of leaders filling high profile roles, akin to the revolving cabinet of ministers in an authoritarian dictatorship, where mistakes are fatal, and often blamed on a scapegoat who must be purged to restore purity, and the illusion of perfection. I'm not sure if that's quite what's going on here, but certainly seems like we're less tolerant of recoverable mistakes these days than in the past, where it seems as if leaders could survive multiple mistakes and scandals and still manage to find a way to right the ship. Throughout history it seems there have been periods where mistakes are more tolerated than others, and that less tolerance is associated with other undesirable outcomes, such as war and state failure. In a personal, and professional sense, an environment where mistakes are not tolerated is not one which is psychologically safe, and can not be said to encourage the best work of people involved.