5 ms·

Awesome response from GitHub. Professional response, apologises and thanks the complainant rather than being defensive ... I think their new HR hire in January

Awesome response from GitHub. Professional response, apologises and thanks the complainant rather than being defensive ... I think their new HR hire in January is already paying dividends ;)

MarkTee 13y ago
Not PR, HR (i.e Human Resources). In other words, someone who should have been working to clean up this mess months ago.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Indeed, but it takes time to clean up a culture (if it's at all possible). This response suggests that their HR hire is doing his or her job well, at least now.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    This response suggests that ... Disagree. The situtation is highly ambiguous. HR is a game of "the best victories are wars not fought". And so in some regards, its too late. On the other-hand, if HR was on the right...they were "over-ruled" by more than one of CEO/founders/sr execs. This surely means this person has diminished capacity to act. If not due to competence, than due to "lack of formiddableness". Because it shouldn't take a public PR nightmare to convince (ie, show some leadership) that following HR101 is a good idea. It is only the rare edge case that this person was in perfect pitch (and ignored) yesterday and will be held in higher regard tomorrow. So, this is why things are not clear cut here for anyone.
- fpgeek 13y ago
  Absent a time machine, how could a hire in January have been working to clean up this mess "months ago"? Blame the CEO and the rest of the management team for not hiring a good HR person sooner if you want, but I don't see how you fault the person who just walked into this mess. Unless you're blaming them for not seeing the mess or walking into it with their eyes open. To me, that seems counterproductive. Having people with the appropriate skills take on the difficult work of improving these cultures is part of how things get better.
  - MarkTee 13y ago
    Sorry, for some reason I was thinking that they were hired in January of 2013. I wasn't suggesting that HR bring forth radical change, either, merely recognize the problems and work towards finding a solution (even though that would have been extremely difficult in itself, considering how little the executives seemed to help).
hueving 13y ago
They didn't actually apologize for anything in specific. This is very carefully crafted and is being very defensive by not admitting to anything. The only real meat is clarifying that the wife had no hiring/firing power.
- madeofpalk 13y ago
  It sounds like a pretty good apoligy for something they (claim) to know nothing about. It's hard to apologise for something specific before you know what that actually is.
- socceroos 13y ago
  Explain to me why you would admit to anything if you haven't got to the bottom of it yourself? As they explained, they're investigating the issue currently. So...doesn't their response then make sense?

Awesome response from GitHub. Professional response, apologises and thanks the complainant rather than being defensive ... I think their new HR hire in January is already paying dividends ;)

MarkTee 13y ago

Not PR, HR (i.e Human Resources). In other words, someone who should have been working to clean up this mess months ago.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
Indeed, but it takes time to clean up a culture (if it's at all possible). This response suggests that their HR hire is doing his or her job well, at least now.
- 001sky 13y ago
  This response suggests that ... Disagree. The situtation is highly ambiguous. HR is a game of "the best victories are wars not fought". And so in some regards, its too late. On the other-hand, if HR was on the right...they were "over-ruled" by more than one of CEO/founders/sr execs. This surely means this person has diminished capacity to act. If not due to competence, than due to "lack of formiddableness". Because it shouldn't take a public PR nightmare to convince (ie, show some leadership) that following HR101 is a good idea. It is only the rare edge case that this person was in perfect pitch (and ignored) yesterday and will be held in higher regard tomorrow. So, this is why things are not clear cut here for anyone.
fpgeek 13y ago
Absent a time machine, how could a hire in January have been working to clean up this mess "months ago"? Blame the CEO and the rest of the management team for not hiring a good HR person sooner if you want, but I don't see how you fault the person who just walked into this mess. Unless you're blaming them for not seeing the mess or walking into it with their eyes open. To me, that seems counterproductive. Having people with the appropriate skills take on the difficult work of improving these cultures is part of how things get better.
- MarkTee 13y ago
  Sorry, for some reason I was thinking that they were hired in January of 2013. I wasn't suggesting that HR bring forth radical change, either, merely recognize the problems and work towards finding a solution (even though that would have been extremely difficult in itself, considering how little the executives seemed to help).

hueving 13y ago

They didn't actually apologize for anything in specific. This is very carefully crafted and is being very defensive by not admitting to anything. The only real meat is clarifying that the wife had no hiring/firing power.

madeofpalk 13y ago
It sounds like a pretty good apoligy for something they (claim) to know nothing about. It's hard to apologise for something specific before you know what that actually is.
socceroos 13y ago
Explain to me why you would admit to anything if you haven't got to the bottom of it yourself? As they explained, they're investigating the issue currently. So...doesn't their response then make sense?