13 ms·

What every founder fears

160 points by mef 12y ago

colinbartlett 12y ago
I don't understand why people in these situations feel compelled respond. Why defend yourself? Why say anything publicly at all? Curious if any PR-knowledgable folks around here know if there is any benefit to such statements.
- eyuelt 12y ago
  Why wouldn't you? I think it's natural to want to defend yourself when you're being attacked. No one wants their name dragged through the mud. It's hard to stay silent, especially considering that many people will see your silence as a sign of guilt.
- hadoukenio 12y ago
  In the PR world, it's called "Damage Control". From http://smallbusiness.chron.com/public-relations-damage-control-18306.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/public-relations-damage-contr...: "While many duties of a public relations department involve building the reputation of the employer, with damage control it is primarily about minimizing the negative perception caused by a crisis-situation. A crisis is sometimes the result of an unexpected event. It might also be about something that the public relations department hoped to conceal from the public or hoped would not happen. Those involved in damage control are typically on call 24 hours a day, ready to minimize negative public perception."
- Bahamut 12y ago
  If the truth is on your side, you have a strong incentive to let out some significant details to change the conversation. It depends on your view. Many times it's not worth commenting on, and unless you can refute it completely, it devolves into a he-said/she-said argument.
- sosborn 12y ago
  Right or wrong, many people interpret "no comment" as a sign of guilt.
- kawliga 12y ago
  PR 101 - When something bad happens you do one of three things: 1. Don't talk about it. 2. Spin it. 3. Burn it. - Let the lesser known news sources get the scoop so the big news sources won't want it. I think they're trying to go with 2. "This is a good thing... Oculus Rift Technology... leaving for other, more important reasons... etc..." I would have gone with bullet 1.
  - cpeterso 12y ago
    > 3. Burn it. - Let the lesser known news sources get the scoop so the big news sources won't want it. That's any interesting tactic. Do you have a good example of a company "burning" bad PR?
    - chickenboot 12y ago
      There's a famous (in the UK) example of how prevalent it seems to be in politics: a Labour aide, Jo Moore[1] eventually had to resign after issuing a memo on 9/11 basically saying "today would be a good day to bury bad news" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore
- HillRat 12y ago
  Generally, it's best not to say anything more than the minimal amount necessary; if you want to get a particular angle on the story out, you float it through friendly media, of which SiV has a preponderance. ("Sources close to the story say that ...".) It appears that GitHub and the Preston-Werners aren't coordinating their messages (though no doubt all counsel involved have reviewed them): the GH release is appropriately terse, giving away the bare minimum of information in order to minimize both PR and legal exposure, while the P-Ws are working their angle to the story while still minimizing actual information. The P-Ws really don't have any legal exposure, so there's very little downside to their attempts to work the refs, while GH is operating under the continued threat of legal action (even if it's remote, their attorneys are obviously being appropriately cautious here, so kudos to them). Of the two statements, Tom Preston-Werner's statement is far more effective and well-crafted than his wife's; he comes across as -- at least for public consumption -- sincere, open and genuinely remorseful while affirming his dedication to Good Things and avoiding admitting to actual culpability. It's a very nicely-handled statement, and it's instructive to compare it to how MoCo and Eich handled their crisis du jour. (The OP statement by Theresa P-W, however, is less artful, more defensive, and personalizes the criticism. Understandable from a personal point of view; not good PR.) How much of this is true? Well, does it matter? Truth is for courtrooms and confessionals; what matters here is spin. Again, consider MoCo. In both cases, an executive was ousted but, in GH's case, the company looks stronger for it (investigation by outside counsel! No wrongdoing found! Action taken!) and the P-Ws don't look much worse (we support diversity! Created an open culture! Feel terrible that some people felt hurt!). The ouster of Eich, however, just made moCo look opportunistic and weak, and Eich personally came out looking pretty bad due to his inability to craft a solid message (he said the right things about diversity, but failed to connect it to his personal narrative, so it rang hollow). The lesson, I think, is either move quickly and aggressively (as GitHub did), or else buckle down and stay the course (as Mozilla should have -- though, as I've said previously, I have no issues whatsoever with the campaign to oust Eich). Anything else is going to make a problem into a crisis.
  - lobotryas 12y ago
    Excellent analysis. I'm also surprised why MoCo decided against staying the course and jettisoned Eich. The majority of the complaints would have blown over in several weeks as people got bored/distracted/found something else to be outraged about. The few remaining die-hard complainers could be safely ignored as all companies have some amount of detractors.
kohanz 12y ago
After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. This appears to be the real reason for Tom's resignation.
- jaredmck 12y ago
  Or it's possible that they want you to believe this? I find it strange that both of the Preston-Werners posted blog posts directly after the github post came out. Usually I'd think lawyers would not encourage this...
  - mtrimpe 12y ago
    You can bet your ass that Tom and Theresa negotiated the right to share these posts and that they were reviewed by all lawyers involved. The right to make public statements (or not) is always a heavily contested point as I personally both can and can't talk about. ;)
    - recoveringesq 12y ago
      I am a recovering employment law litigator. Most attorneys will advise clients not to make public statements until a matter has been resolved formally. Where appropriate, public statements are generally very direct and avoid detail. I am skeptical that an attorney blessed statements like "we were fully cleared of all accusations of harassment" and "we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations." These statements, particularly "found not guilty", would be appropriate following a favorable resolution of a civil or criminal matter. In my opinion they are absolutely not appropriate following the completion of a third party investigation initiated by a company. Such investigations are a standard part of the pre-litigation process; they do not eliminate the threat of litigation and they do not guarantee a successful defense. I am even more skeptical that this statement was coordinated with counsel because it contains information that could be used to support other claims against the company. The statement gives credence to the idea that some employees may have felt pressured by a superior's spouse. There are a variety of causes of actions under which such an admission could be beneficial to a plaintiff's claims and these statements could conceivably be useful to other employees if they are considering the pursuit of unrelated actions.
firstOrder 12y ago
> We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. We racked our brains trying to understand this new allegation...I am so very sorry if anyone felt that I was pressuring him or her for advice, labor, or to sign up. I truly never had that intention...my idealistic belief in the status-free community of GitHub, I failed to recognize that power structures cannot ever be obscured entirely. > employees view them as disconnected and only trying to build empires of gold. Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure...He wanted to invest heavily in employees and to create a space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things. In our home every night, he spoke passionately about how to build a company that gave employees freedom. Other than being a Github user and customer, I know nothing of the details of this case other than what I've read. She admits she was obtuse about "power structures" in the company, but this also is not a unique thing in Silicon Valley - she's not blind to these things in a unique way. That said - it's like someone believing their own press releases. "A space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things". To me that sounds like saying Platt from "Twelve Years a Slave" got an excellent bag to pick cotton from, and build up the glorious plantation he was working on. Preston-Warner can snap his fingers, and someone who was getting a check to put food on the table and a roof over their head is suddenly not going to have the rent check by the end of the month. Especially when the next employer is asking for references, why you left the last job, are there any gaps in employment etc. People on an H1-B visa are dependent upon the company so they can't be thrown out of the country, so their green card application can not be restarted etc. This is in the default structure of a corporation, and the laws, and all the default papers that super-angels and VC's put forward. Ownership and control of a corporation is 80-90% in the hands of the angels, VC's and founders. Of the scraps left over, executives and top-level experienced techs get the lion's share. This is the reality, and everyone knows it. People believing their own press releases about people building great things are delusional. It's like the Tuskeegee or Dr. Mengele subjects happy about how they are helping contribute to science. No one is fooled by this other than naive, new to the workplace, socially maladjusted programmers in their early 20's. This is why there is such a feeding frenzy over this small pool of naive young men.
- swombat 12y ago
ballard 12y ago
Richard Branson had/has critics that accused him of all sorts of things. His advice, which is similar to Napoleon Hill's, would be to demonstrate actions that are discordant to the accusations. (The bigger of a celeb / more successful you become, the bigger of a target you wear on your back for people to try to tear you down.)
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Reference on that?
  - pmh 12y ago
    It seems to correspond to #9 here: http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/my-illustrated-top-10-tips-for-success http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/my-illustrated-top-10-...
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      Thanks, appreciated.
    - ballard 12y ago
      Ah yes exactly. The "prove them wrong" part, it's important not to attack the accuser but demonstrate that their claims don't hold up. Also if there is something to claims, admit it quickly (kills the story) and show enacting preventative measures.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- jmtame 12y ago
  Contrast this to Elon Musk, who is very direct and open in responding to criticism. To each his own?
  - ballard 12y ago
    Denying something doesn't carry the same weight and it seems like a PR move, whereas "actions speak louder than words."
gruntmaster9000 12y ago
> I suspect that what founders really fear is being misunderstood in their motivations as their companies grow. They fear that employees view them as disconnected and only trying to build empires of gold. These are the fears of a bad founder. Their job is to set the vision of the company. If the founder fears the employees feel they are disconnected, the founder probably is disconnected. If a founder should fear anything, they should fear not creating a safe environment where the employees can feel comfortable bringing their concerns to superiors — about any aspect of the company — instead of that self-centered fear of being “misunderstood”.
tryp 12y ago
#
tryp 12y ago
x
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Theodores 12y ago
It could be worse: it is not as if Github has a Hans Reiser on the books! Yet the way this story has been gone over you would think that something of that magnitude of catastrophivity had gone on.
vajorie 12y ago
Hmm, so, not a single comment about how absolutely none of the issues raised by @nrrrdcore are addressed by neither github (whitewashing it all) nor these folk (one of which threatened everyone who questions him with a lawsuit). And none of the comments even mention @nrrrdcore or what she raised. We seem to be witnessing the convenient limits of discourse.
AznHisoka 12y ago
Yawns In a few months, nobody will remember. I'm a HUGE Github fan, but the world doesn't revolve around you, not even the tech world. We all live in a bubble here.
debt 12y ago
I'm sorry to offend but she is incredibly full of herself and quite immature. Like she's on some sort of pulpit, spouting things she thinks people give a shit about. I mean, she quotes herself numerous times in this post. She indirectly hints how her lifestyle is so similar to other rich CEOs. Also, from what everyone else says, she seems to be begging her "friends" to donate to her charity as to validate or eclipse her husband's success. Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people. I'm saying "for real" because it seems their social perspectives are heavily skewed inward and towards themselves. Also, it's super odd because towards the end of the post, the lines get blurred; she seems to be equating her husband's success with her own. She had literally zero to do with the success of Github.
- euphemize 12y ago
  I think you're right. I've worked and been close friends with both people like her, and with people who have had a rough ride at work like Julie Horvath - and although we'll probably never know what really happened in the end - I have a lot of trouble believing Ms. Werner's side of the story after a write up like this. She seems to vaguely admit fucking up, but that any sort of passionate founder eventually leaves to work on something new and exciting anyways, or that "even when their company was at the height of success [...] they try their hands at something different". I think that's total bs, and that it's certainly not necessary to plug the name of your charity 3 times in this post, because this whole situation has nothing to do with your charity.
- mwetzler 12y ago
  Part of me is nodding in agreement, but another part is wondering 1) am I (unfairly?) biased against the author due to the story from Horvath and 2) is this another example of a woman being criticised for having a voice? Are we unfairly expecting her to be polite, not powerful and proud? Her husband's post was very proud and he didn't get the same criticism, though I think he did a slightly better job apologizing and focusing his message. Not criticizing. Just sharing my own mixed feelings.
  - 12y ago
troels 12y ago
"Sign in to continue" What is this, Quora? When did Medium start with that?
- asadlionpk 12y ago
  exactly, they will lose readers by doing that.
nppc 12y ago
This is so NOT what every founder fears !
btreesOfSpring 12y ago
I don't know the personalities of anyone involved in this ordeal and that makes the whole thing difficult to judge. If this is a case of the workplace sociopath, I pity all involved. In my own experiences working with manipulative people, they typically find a narrative to support their abusive behaviors and when these people are called on for those actions, they either act surprised or hurt and often both. This person is hurt by being called things like "naive" because it is reflective of their own incompetence. Certainly "optimistic" is a better way of putting it because it means all of the "good intentions" were squandered by everyone else who just didn't get it. The manipulator shouldn't have to suffer the consequences, since it is his/her trust that has been betrayed. You see, all along, the manipulator was trying to be the good guy. The one making the office better, "more fun", it was always good intentions but the other people either misunderstood or just want to spoil it for the rest of us. I sincerely hope no one has to work with this personality type but I am willing to bet most everyone has seen this bad faith behavior in action. You know the office bully who, when called out for pushing a person around says in some form, "come on, can't you take a joke?" Isn't it odd how this same person never calls the thing a joke when he or she gets what is wanted out of the same behavior? "I was totally joking when I said I needed you to work over the weekend or else. Seesch. Lighten up." I can assure you, I have never heard of a single person getting a monday apology email for putting in that weekend work from this sort of office "practical joker." So it is not too surprising to see HR departments and lawyers finding themselves implementing "PC" policies and "buzz kill" practices as a means of mitigating these sorts of power abusive strategies since the bully is ultimately going to act the victim of misunderstood intentions when asked in any form to stop. Isn't it odd how the biggest tragedy for this personality type is having to admit how their actions might have hurt others?
adnam 12y ago
This is quite some schmaltz
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
"Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely." Neither. Arrogant it the right word. Not maliciously so, but arrogance nevertheless. An arrogance that is far from unique in the start-up world, the arrogance to think that in spite of centuries of documented history you can create an organization that doesn't have clear formal structure and not have it end up as a cult-like snake pit. As companies, they fail to provide the kind of safety and security people who are not entrepreneurs need, and call it "freedom". And it may feel like freedom for a while, when it's still a small group of close friends, but after that it's just a Darwinian social experiment. And when the shit hits the fan, it doesn't matter who exactly did what. It's the arrogance and narcissism of the founders that is responsible. Founders who believe that everyone who works for them should be like them, and then everything will magically be good. "Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure. He wanted to create a company where he, himself, would have loved to have been an employee." This isn't visionary. This isn't naivety. This isn't optimism. It's narcissism.
- Jgrubb 12y ago
  I dunno. I think it could be any of those things, or all of those things, and ultimately depends on who you're talking about. Question though - isn't one of the points of starting your own business that you're having a hard time finding a perfect job working for someone else? Ergo, don't a lot of us "[want] to create a company where [we], [ourselves], would have loved to have been an employee."? edit - I totally agree with the rest of your comment about arrogance.
mathattack 12y ago
The naive nature of this note is almost incredulous. After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. We racked our brains trying to understand this new allegation. Ummm... Perhaps it's because you're the CEO's wife and you're asking them to do something. It comes with the power. I was the wife of the CEO, but that never entered my mind when I hung out with any GitHubbers. Ummmm.... ok.... I have never known anyone like Tom. When I was interviewed by the 3rd party investigator, she abruptly asked if I thought Tom was naive. I was dumbfounded, unable to answer until she offered a different word; “Perhaps, you would call him optimistic?” Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely. ok, so at least it's not her husband that was naive. Apparently there are still threats of legal suits around all this fun too. http://news.easybranches.com/news/1844059.html http://news.easybranches.com/news/1844059.html

160 points by mef 12y ago

I don't understand why people in these situations feel compelled respond. Why defend yourself? Why say anything publicly at all? Curious if any PR-knowledgable folks around here know if there is any benefit to such statements.

eyuelt 12y ago
Why wouldn't you? I think it's natural to want to defend yourself when you're being attacked. No one wants their name dragged through the mud. It's hard to stay silent, especially considering that many people will see your silence as a sign of guilt.
hadoukenio 12y ago
In the PR world, it's called "Damage Control". From http://smallbusiness.chron.com/public-relations-damage-control-18306.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/public-relations-damage-contr...: "While many duties of a public relations department involve building the reputation of the employer, with damage control it is primarily about minimizing the negative perception caused by a crisis-situation. A crisis is sometimes the result of an unexpected event. It might also be about something that the public relations department hoped to conceal from the public or hoped would not happen. Those involved in damage control are typically on call 24 hours a day, ready to minimize negative public perception."
Bahamut 12y ago
If the truth is on your side, you have a strong incentive to let out some significant details to change the conversation. It depends on your view. Many times it's not worth commenting on, and unless you can refute it completely, it devolves into a he-said/she-said argument.
sosborn 12y ago
Right or wrong, many people interpret "no comment" as a sign of guilt.
kawliga 12y ago
PR 101 - When something bad happens you do one of three things: 1. Don't talk about it. 2. Spin it. 3. Burn it. - Let the lesser known news sources get the scoop so the big news sources won't want it. I think they're trying to go with 2. "This is a good thing... Oculus Rift Technology... leaving for other, more important reasons... etc..." I would have gone with bullet 1.
- cpeterso 12y ago
  > 3. Burn it. - Let the lesser known news sources get the scoop so the big news sources won't want it. That's any interesting tactic. Do you have a good example of a company "burning" bad PR?
  - chickenboot 12y ago
    There's a famous (in the UK) example of how prevalent it seems to be in politics: a Labour aide, Jo Moore[1] eventually had to resign after issuing a memo on 9/11 basically saying "today would be a good day to bury bad news" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore
HillRat 12y ago
Generally, it's best not to say anything more than the minimal amount necessary; if you want to get a particular angle on the story out, you float it through friendly media, of which SiV has a preponderance. ("Sources close to the story say that ...".) It appears that GitHub and the Preston-Werners aren't coordinating their messages (though no doubt all counsel involved have reviewed them): the GH release is appropriately terse, giving away the bare minimum of information in order to minimize both PR and legal exposure, while the P-Ws are working their angle to the story while still minimizing actual information. The P-Ws really don't have any legal exposure, so there's very little downside to their attempts to work the refs, while GH is operating under the continued threat of legal action (even if it's remote, their attorneys are obviously being appropriately cautious here, so kudos to them). Of the two statements, Tom Preston-Werner's statement is far more effective and well-crafted than his wife's; he comes across as -- at least for public consumption -- sincere, open and genuinely remorseful while affirming his dedication to Good Things and avoiding admitting to actual culpability. It's a very nicely-handled statement, and it's instructive to compare it to how MoCo and Eich handled their crisis du jour. (The OP statement by Theresa P-W, however, is less artful, more defensive, and personalizes the criticism. Understandable from a personal point of view; not good PR.) How much of this is true? Well, does it matter? Truth is for courtrooms and confessionals; what matters here is spin. Again, consider MoCo. In both cases, an executive was ousted but, in GH's case, the company looks stronger for it (investigation by outside counsel! No wrongdoing found! Action taken!) and the P-Ws don't look much worse (we support diversity! Created an open culture! Feel terrible that some people felt hurt!). The ouster of Eich, however, just made moCo look opportunistic and weak, and Eich personally came out looking pretty bad due to his inability to craft a solid message (he said the right things about diversity, but failed to connect it to his personal narrative, so it rang hollow). The lesson, I think, is either move quickly and aggressively (as GitHub did), or else buckle down and stay the course (as Mozilla should have -- though, as I've said previously, I have no issues whatsoever with the campaign to oust Eich). Anything else is going to make a problem into a crisis.
- lobotryas 12y ago
  Excellent analysis. I'm also surprised why MoCo decided against staying the course and jettisoned Eich. The majority of the complaints would have blown over in several weeks as people got bored/distracted/found something else to be outraged about. The few remaining die-hard complainers could be safely ignored as all companies have some amount of detractors.

kohanz 12y ago

After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. This appears to be the real reason for Tom's resignation.

jaredmck 12y ago
Or it's possible that they want you to believe this? I find it strange that both of the Preston-Werners posted blog posts directly after the github post came out. Usually I'd think lawyers would not encourage this...
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  You can bet your ass that Tom and Theresa negotiated the right to share these posts and that they were reviewed by all lawyers involved. The right to make public statements (or not) is always a heavily contested point as I personally both can and can't talk about. ;)
  - recoveringesq 12y ago
    I am a recovering employment law litigator. Most attorneys will advise clients not to make public statements until a matter has been resolved formally. Where appropriate, public statements are generally very direct and avoid detail. I am skeptical that an attorney blessed statements like "we were fully cleared of all accusations of harassment" and "we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations." These statements, particularly "found not guilty", would be appropriate following a favorable resolution of a civil or criminal matter. In my opinion they are absolutely not appropriate following the completion of a third party investigation initiated by a company. Such investigations are a standard part of the pre-litigation process; they do not eliminate the threat of litigation and they do not guarantee a successful defense. I am even more skeptical that this statement was coordinated with counsel because it contains information that could be used to support other claims against the company. The statement gives credence to the idea that some employees may have felt pressured by a superior's spouse. There are a variety of causes of actions under which such an admission could be beneficial to a plaintiff's claims and these statements could conceivably be useful to other employees if they are considering the pursuit of unrelated actions.

firstOrder 12y ago

> We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. We racked our brains trying to understand this new allegation...I am so very sorry if anyone felt that I was pressuring him or her for advice, labor, or to sign up. I truly never had that intention...my idealistic belief in the status-free community of GitHub, I failed to recognize that power structures cannot ever be obscured entirely. > employees view them as disconnected and only trying to build empires of gold. Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure...He wanted to invest heavily in employees and to create a space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things. In our home every night, he spoke passionately about how to build a company that gave employees freedom. Other than being a Github user and customer, I know nothing of the details of this case other than what I've read. She admits she was obtuse about "power structures" in the company, but this also is not a unique thing in Silicon Valley - she's not blind to these things in a unique way. That said - it's like someone believing their own press releases. "A space that gave each employee the autonomy, tools, and support to build great things". To me that sounds like saying Platt from "Twelve Years a Slave" got an excellent bag to pick cotton from, and build up the glorious plantation he was working on. Preston-Warner can snap his fingers, and someone who was getting a check to put food on the table and a roof over their head is suddenly not going to have the rent check by the end of the month. Especially when the next employer is asking for references, why you left the last job, are there any gaps in employment etc. People on an H1-B visa are dependent upon the company so they can't be thrown out of the country, so their green card application can not be restarted etc. This is in the default structure of a corporation, and the laws, and all the default papers that super-angels and VC's put forward. Ownership and control of a corporation is 80-90% in the hands of the angels, VC's and founders. Of the scraps left over, executives and top-level experienced techs get the lion's share. This is the reality, and everyone knows it. People believing their own press releases about people building great things are delusional. It's like the Tuskeegee or Dr. Mengele subjects happy about how they are helping contribute to science. No one is fooled by this other than naive, new to the workplace, socially maladjusted programmers in their early 20's. This is why there is such a feeding frenzy over this small pool of naive young men.

swombat 12y ago

ballard 12y ago

Richard Branson had/has critics that accused him of all sorts of things. His advice, which is similar to Napoleon Hill's, would be to demonstrate actions that are discordant to the accusations. (The bigger of a celeb / more successful you become, the bigger of a target you wear on your back for people to try to tear you down.)

dredmorbius 12y ago
Reference on that?
- pmh 12y ago
  It seems to correspond to #9 here: http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/my-illustrated-top-10-tips-for-success http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/my-illustrated-top-10-...
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Thanks, appreciated.
  - ballard 12y ago
    Ah yes exactly. The "prove them wrong" part, it's important not to attack the accuser but demonstrate that their claims don't hold up. Also if there is something to claims, admit it quickly (kills the story) and show enacting preventative measures.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
jmtame 12y ago
Contrast this to Elon Musk, who is very direct and open in responding to criticism. To each his own?
- ballard 12y ago
  Denying something doesn't carry the same weight and it seems like a PR move, whereas "actions speak louder than words."

gruntmaster9000 12y ago

> I suspect that what founders really fear is being misunderstood in their motivations as their companies grow. They fear that employees view them as disconnected and only trying to build empires of gold. These are the fears of a bad founder. Their job is to set the vision of the company. If the founder fears the employees feel they are disconnected, the founder probably is disconnected. If a founder should fear anything, they should fear not creating a safe environment where the employees can feel comfortable bringing their concerns to superiors — about any aspect of the company — instead of that self-centered fear of being “misunderstood”.

tryp 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Theodores 12y ago

It could be worse: it is not as if Github has a Hans Reiser on the books! Yet the way this story has been gone over you would think that something of that magnitude of catastrophivity had gone on.

vajorie 12y ago

Hmm, so, not a single comment about how absolutely none of the issues raised by @nrrrdcore are addressed by neither github (whitewashing it all) nor these folk (one of which threatened everyone who questions him with a lawsuit). And none of the comments even mention @nrrrdcore or what she raised. We seem to be witnessing the convenient limits of discourse.

AznHisoka 12y ago

Yawns In a few months, nobody will remember. I'm a HUGE Github fan, but the world doesn't revolve around you, not even the tech world. We all live in a bubble here.

debt 12y ago

I'm sorry to offend but she is incredibly full of herself and quite immature. Like she's on some sort of pulpit, spouting things she thinks people give a shit about. I mean, she quotes herself numerous times in this post. She indirectly hints how her lifestyle is so similar to other rich CEOs. Also, from what everyone else says, she seems to be begging her "friends" to donate to her charity as to validate or eclipse her husband's success. Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people. I'm saying "for real" because it seems their social perspectives are heavily skewed inward and towards themselves. Also, it's super odd because towards the end of the post, the lines get blurred; she seems to be equating her husband's success with her own. She had literally zero to do with the success of Github.

euphemize 12y ago
I think you're right. I've worked and been close friends with both people like her, and with people who have had a rough ride at work like Julie Horvath - and although we'll probably never know what really happened in the end - I have a lot of trouble believing Ms. Werner's side of the story after a write up like this. She seems to vaguely admit fucking up, but that any sort of passionate founder eventually leaves to work on something new and exciting anyways, or that "even when their company was at the height of success [...] they try their hands at something different". I think that's total bs, and that it's certainly not necessary to plug the name of your charity 3 times in this post, because this whole situation has nothing to do with your charity.
mwetzler 12y ago
Part of me is nodding in agreement, but another part is wondering 1) am I (unfairly?) biased against the author due to the story from Horvath and 2) is this another example of a woman being criticised for having a voice? Are we unfairly expecting her to be polite, not powerful and proud? Her husband's post was very proud and he didn't get the same criticism, though I think he did a slightly better job apologizing and focusing his message. Not criticizing. Just sharing my own mixed feelings.
- 12y ago

troels 12y ago

"Sign in to continue" What is this, Quora? When did Medium start with that?

asadlionpk 12y ago
exactly, they will lose readers by doing that.

nppc 12y ago

This is so NOT what every founder fears !

btreesOfSpring 12y ago

I don't know the personalities of anyone involved in this ordeal and that makes the whole thing difficult to judge. If this is a case of the workplace sociopath, I pity all involved. In my own experiences working with manipulative people, they typically find a narrative to support their abusive behaviors and when these people are called on for those actions, they either act surprised or hurt and often both. This person is hurt by being called things like "naive" because it is reflective of their own incompetence. Certainly "optimistic" is a better way of putting it because it means all of the "good intentions" were squandered by everyone else who just didn't get it. The manipulator shouldn't have to suffer the consequences, since it is his/her trust that has been betrayed. You see, all along, the manipulator was trying to be the good guy. The one making the office better, "more fun", it was always good intentions but the other people either misunderstood or just want to spoil it for the rest of us. I sincerely hope no one has to work with this personality type but I am willing to bet most everyone has seen this bad faith behavior in action. You know the office bully who, when called out for pushing a person around says in some form, "come on, can't you take a joke?" Isn't it odd how this same person never calls the thing a joke when he or she gets what is wanted out of the same behavior? "I was totally joking when I said I needed you to work over the weekend or else. Seesch. Lighten up." I can assure you, I have never heard of a single person getting a monday apology email for putting in that weekend work from this sort of office "practical joker." So it is not too surprising to see HR departments and lawyers finding themselves implementing "PC" policies and "buzz kill" practices as a means of mitigating these sorts of power abusive strategies since the bully is ultimately going to act the victim of misunderstood intentions when asked in any form to stop. Isn't it odd how the biggest tragedy for this personality type is having to admit how their actions might have hurt others?

adnam 12y ago

This is quite some schmaltz

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

"Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely." Neither. Arrogant it the right word. Not maliciously so, but arrogance nevertheless. An arrogance that is far from unique in the start-up world, the arrogance to think that in spite of centuries of documented history you can create an organization that doesn't have clear formal structure and not have it end up as a cult-like snake pit. As companies, they fail to provide the kind of safety and security people who are not entrepreneurs need, and call it "freedom". And it may feel like freedom for a while, when it's still a small group of close friends, but after that it's just a Darwinian social experiment. And when the shit hits the fan, it doesn't matter who exactly did what. It's the arrogance and narcissism of the founders that is responsible. Founders who believe that everyone who works for them should be like them, and then everything will magically be good. "Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure. He wanted to create a company where he, himself, would have loved to have been an employee." This isn't visionary. This isn't naivety. This isn't optimism. It's narcissism.

Jgrubb 12y ago
I dunno. I think it could be any of those things, or all of those things, and ultimately depends on who you're talking about. Question though - isn't one of the points of starting your own business that you're having a hard time finding a perfect job working for someone else? Ergo, don't a lot of us "[want] to create a company where [we], [ourselves], would have loved to have been an employee."? edit - I totally agree with the rest of your comment about arrogance.

mathattack 12y ago

The naive nature of this note is almost incredulous. After weeks of silence, we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations, questions popped up regarding Tom’s judgment in a separate area. We learned that unnamed employees felt pressured by Tom and me to work pro-bono for my nonprofit. We racked our brains trying to understand this new allegation. Ummm... Perhaps it's because you're the CEO's wife and you're asking them to do something. It comes with the power. I was the wife of the CEO, but that never entered my mind when I hung out with any GitHubbers. Ummmm.... ok.... I have never known anyone like Tom. When I was interviewed by the 3rd party investigator, she abruptly asked if I thought Tom was naive. I was dumbfounded, unable to answer until she offered a different word; “Perhaps, you would call him optimistic?” Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely. ok, so at least it's not her husband that was naive. Apparently there are still threats of legal suits around all this fun too. http://news.easybranches.com/news/1844059.html http://news.easybranches.com/news/1844059.html