4 ms·

'I think it is fantastic that the developers stood up to Matti, and refused to give him the story he was looking for.' I agree completely. Nobody should put up

'I think it is fantastic that the developers stood up to Matti, and refused to give him the story he was looking for.' I agree completely. Nobody should put up with that sort of bullshit, and I'm glad the developers didn't. However, a comment from the linked account: 'But the people responsible for hiring those who ultimately destroyed it – they all contributed to a toxic environment, and they should be held accountable for that.' I must disagree with this. There is no such thing as precognition. How someone comes across in an interview is a weak predictor of how he performs on the job. With the best will in the world, sometimes an employer will make a mistake and hire the wrong person. And this mistake is already punished by law and custom more harshly than it should be. The result is that employers are incentivized to err strongly on the side of caution, to never give a candidate the benefit of any doubt, no matter how ill-founded. And this hurts everyone. It hurts good people who can't get a job because there's no absolute proof they'd be good hires. It hurts good people being abused by sociopathic bosses because they're afraid they wouldn't be able to get another job if they were fired. It hurts good people being paid below their worth because wages are bid down by the desperate. One way or another, it hurts you, and it hurts people you care about. The blame for the fiasco needs to be placed where it belongs: on Matti, not on the people who hired him without perfect foreknowledge of his future actions.

nl 13y ago
The blame for the fiasco needs to be placed where it belongs: on Matti, not on the people who hired him without perfect foreknowledge of his future actions. This is absolutely true, so far as blame goes. But the people who hired him were responsible for him. That's how business works: a business cannot just reject responsibility for the actions of people acting for them because they subsequently find out they did bad things. The business can (and should) try to correct those thing, but they are accountable for it. And this mistake is already punished by law and custom more harshly than it should be. The result is that employers are incentivized to err strongly on the side of caution, to never give a candidate the benefit of any doubt, no matter how ill-founded. And this hurts everyone. It hurts good people who can't get a job because there's no absolute proof they'd be good hires. It hurts good people being abused by sociopathic bosses because they're afraid they wouldn't be able to get another job if they were fired. It hurts good people being paid below their worth because wages are bid down by the desperate. One way or another, it hurts you, and it hurts people you care about. I disagree with this. Yes, employers should be able to take risks on people, but at the same time a business can bring powerful resources to bear on something, and in the wrong hands those resources can be dangerous. A business absolutely should consider this when they hire, and should be held accountable if they make a mistake in hiring.
watwut 13y ago
From the article: "He was also a huge liability ... pre-production meetings quickly turned towards one recurring fear: that someone external would say something offensive, trip an emotional switch, turn the environment toxic – and the devs would walk ... Matti and the members of the second team were a time bomb, but for some reason, no one did anything about it." This is not about someone unknown suddenly acting offensive. The guy was known and nobody tried to tone him down. I agree with you that generally we must allow companies to make hiring mistakes. I also thing that it is better for everybody if even biggest jerks can get job and earn living (instead of being unemployed on help). But known jerks should not be kept at positions where they can screw others big time.
- rwallace 13y ago
  'But known jerks should not be kept at positions where they can screw others big time.' I agree, they shouldn't. The impression I get from the article is that once it was brought to the attention of Matti's employers that he was screwing up in a big way, he was quickly given the boot, though I'm open to correction if this turns out not to be the case.
  - watwut 13y ago
    My impression was that they acted only after everything was screwed beyond repair. E.g., after "pretty face" question was asked to everybody with Adria offended and Zoe angry enough to swearingly walk away. He was pushing buttons trying to manufacture drama before that. That being said, I read down that he is a big animal, important for Pepsi and influential in shows making cycles. So, show produces might have been between rock and hard place. On the other hand, it is hard to excuse Pepsi, they seem to be happy with him. It even looks like they are "on his side" in follow up and complained about above article or something.

nl 13y ago

The blame for the fiasco needs to be placed where it belongs: on Matti, not on the people who hired him without perfect foreknowledge of his future actions. This is absolutely true, so far as blame goes. But the people who hired him were responsible for him. That's how business works: a business cannot just reject responsibility for the actions of people acting for them because they subsequently find out they did bad things. The business can (and should) try to correct those thing, but they are accountable for it. And this mistake is already punished by law and custom more harshly than it should be. The result is that employers are incentivized to err strongly on the side of caution, to never give a candidate the benefit of any doubt, no matter how ill-founded. And this hurts everyone. It hurts good people who can't get a job because there's no absolute proof they'd be good hires. It hurts good people being abused by sociopathic bosses because they're afraid they wouldn't be able to get another job if they were fired. It hurts good people being paid below their worth because wages are bid down by the desperate. One way or another, it hurts you, and it hurts people you care about. I disagree with this. Yes, employers should be able to take risks on people, but at the same time a business can bring powerful resources to bear on something, and in the wrong hands those resources can be dangerous. A business absolutely should consider this when they hire, and should be held accountable if they make a mistake in hiring.

watwut 13y ago

From the article: "He was also a huge liability ... pre-production meetings quickly turned towards one recurring fear: that someone external would say something offensive, trip an emotional switch, turn the environment toxic – and the devs would walk ... Matti and the members of the second team were a time bomb, but for some reason, no one did anything about it." This is not about someone unknown suddenly acting offensive. The guy was known and nobody tried to tone him down. I agree with you that generally we must allow companies to make hiring mistakes. I also thing that it is better for everybody if even biggest jerks can get job and earn living (instead of being unemployed on help). But known jerks should not be kept at positions where they can screw others big time.

rwallace 13y ago
'But known jerks should not be kept at positions where they can screw others big time.' I agree, they shouldn't. The impression I get from the article is that once it was brought to the attention of Matti's employers that he was screwing up in a big way, he was quickly given the boot, though I'm open to correction if this turns out not to be the case.
- watwut 13y ago
  My impression was that they acted only after everything was screwed beyond repair. E.g., after "pretty face" question was asked to everybody with Adria offended and Zoe angry enough to swearingly walk away. He was pushing buttons trying to manufacture drama before that. That being said, I read down that he is a big animal, important for Pepsi and influential in shows making cycles. So, show produces might have been between rock and hard place. On the other hand, it is hard to excuse Pepsi, they seem to be happy with him. It even looks like they are "on his side" in follow up and complained about above article or something.