3 ms·

Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scor

Is it? If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company and I choose to take those disagreements public in a scorched earth style, I fully expect that I'd get sacked for it. And I think I should be (presumably with the typical severance for a other-than-cause termination). I'm standing here thinking "yup, that's about right" and other posters are thinking this is "so not right as to be obviously corrupt".

geysersam 3y ago
Was this a professional disagreement about the strategy of the company? No, it was a disagreement about politics. Rich people shouldn't have the right to use their power to silence others, that's why I called it abuse and corruption.
cycomanic 3y ago
Since when is an internal letter public? Also what happened to the whole "I'm a free speech advocate" spiel? I guess free speech only applies to thinks Musk likes. Seriously, under which definition is firing employees for their criticism considered good leadership?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  There are productive and destructive ways to handle disagreements with the chain of leadership. If I choose a destructive way, I shouldn't be shocked that I find destruction at the end of that path.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Even if it's illegal to retaliate in the case of protected speech, however destructive?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    They chose a constructive way, yet received destruction in return. To be absolutely clear, politely communicating with fellow employees is absolutely the constructive way to handle work disagreements. The problem here obviously wasn't the constructiveness, but that there was any disagreement at all. That's toxic leadership, but no surprise given the leader of the company.
  - saghm 3y ago
    Circulating a letter internally is "destructive"?
    - shawndrost 3y ago
      A semi-open letter is an escalation. It's an admission that initial discussions have failed, and it is intended to prompt management to make a choice in a more concrete way. It's a powerful tool and it can be destructive or corrective.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  This whole sub-thread in general makes it pretty obvious to me that there are a bunch of people who love petty authoritarianism.
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
I would hardly consider this as “take those disagreements public”. It’s not like they talked to the press. This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels. Ironically, we would never have heard of it if they didn’t fire these employees in retaliation resulting in this lawsuit.
- chii 3y ago
  > This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels. if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long. Good leadership means being able to recognize criticism from your employees, but this can't come from grassroots effort within the company - it must come from the top. If the employee disagrees with the direction of the company, and the leadership doesn't want to change (e.g., after voicing the opinion thru sanctioned feedback channels), their only option is to quit, or acquire a controlling share and _become_ the leadership. Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator - and you know how that will go.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator This comment is so close to realizing why our current corporate structures are bullshit. Keep going, you're almost there.
    - chii 3y ago
      corporate structures _are_ dictatorships. The difference between that and a dictator country is that you can't change your country, if the dictator doesn't want you to leave.
  - ak217 3y ago
    > if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long. It is hilarious that you (and many other people in this thread, it seems) would consider this letter "undermining leadership's authority". If someone's authority is undermined by a letter like this, they are not much of a leader. I have worked at companies led by other zillionaires you may have heard of, and seen letters circulate and questions asked live in an all-hands meeting that went much farther than this letter. Those employees got good faith answers to their questions, and still work there. Now that's leadership.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 3y ago
> If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company That's like claiming bank-robbery is fine because "there's no law against holding money in your hands, everyone does it." For some reason you're leaving out all the most important details that make things different than normal. In this case, those details are that certain "disagreements"--an obvious case being "we're underpaid, let's unionize"--are disagreements which that CEO is not legally permitted to fire you for.

geysersam 3y ago

Was this a professional disagreement about the strategy of the company? No, it was a disagreement about politics. Rich people shouldn't have the right to use their power to silence others, that's why I called it abuse and corruption.

cycomanic 3y ago

Since when is an internal letter public? Also what happened to the whole "I'm a free speech advocate" spiel? I guess free speech only applies to thinks Musk likes. Seriously, under which definition is firing employees for their criticism considered good leadership?

sokoloff 3y ago
There are productive and destructive ways to handle disagreements with the chain of leadership. If I choose a destructive way, I shouldn't be shocked that I find destruction at the end of that path.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Even if it's illegal to retaliate in the case of protected speech, however destructive?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  They chose a constructive way, yet received destruction in return. To be absolutely clear, politely communicating with fellow employees is absolutely the constructive way to handle work disagreements. The problem here obviously wasn't the constructiveness, but that there was any disagreement at all. That's toxic leadership, but no surprise given the leader of the company.
- saghm 3y ago
  Circulating a letter internally is "destructive"?
  - shawndrost 3y ago
    A semi-open letter is an escalation. It's an admission that initial discussions have failed, and it is intended to prompt management to make a choice in a more concrete way. It's a powerful tool and it can be destructive or corrective.
meheleventyone 3y ago
This whole sub-thread in general makes it pretty obvious to me that there are a bunch of people who love petty authoritarianism.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago

I would hardly consider this as “take those disagreements public”. It’s not like they talked to the press. This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels. Ironically, we would never have heard of it if they didn’t fire these employees in retaliation resulting in this lawsuit.

chii 3y ago
> This letter was circulated internally using internal employee communications channels. if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long. Good leadership means being able to recognize criticism from your employees, but this can't come from grassroots effort within the company - it must come from the top. If the employee disagrees with the direction of the company, and the leadership doesn't want to change (e.g., after voicing the opinion thru sanctioned feedback channels), their only option is to quit, or acquire a controlling share and _become_ the leadership. Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator - and you know how that will go.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > Trying to undermine leadership through collective action via other employees is akin to a threat and an internal coup in a country ruled by a dictator This comment is so close to realizing why our current corporate structures are bullshit. Keep going, you're almost there.
  - chii 3y ago
    corporate structures _are_ dictatorships. The difference between that and a dictator country is that you can't change your country, if the dictator doesn't want you to leave.
- ak217 3y ago
  > if an employee undermined leadership's authority, it is likely that they won't last long. It is hilarious that you (and many other people in this thread, it seems) would consider this letter "undermining leadership's authority". If someone's authority is undermined by a letter like this, they are not much of a leader. I have worked at companies led by other zillionaires you may have heard of, and seen letters circulate and questions asked live in an all-hands meeting that went much farther than this letter. Those employees got good faith answers to their questions, and still work there. Now that's leadership.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Terr_ 3y ago

> If I have serious on-going disagreements with my CEO's strategy and tactics to lead the company That's like claiming bank-robbery is fine because "there's no law against holding money in your hands, everyone does it." For some reason you're leaving out all the most important details that make things different than normal. In this case, those details are that certain "disagreements"--an obvious case being "we're underpaid, let's unionize"--are disagreements which that CEO is not legally permitted to fire you for.