Live data from Hacker News

Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

bloomberg.com

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#411

It's funny how we pigeonhole "things that actually matter" as "politics" and that those things are somehow taboo. I mean, what's MORE worth talking about than human rights, the environment, history, etc.?

Nothing and everything. What's more important to life than family and friends? Do you talk about them at length at work? Just because something is of monumental importance to the society/world, doesn't mean you need to talk about it all the time, especially at work.

Can you imagine how soulless work would be if you couldn't talk about your family and friends? These are the things that make us people. We can't just put them in a box at 9am and take them back out at 5.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#412

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

May I ask: how much did that environment contribute to you deciding to leave in 2013?

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#413

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking about money, politics, and religion. Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguab…

> Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguably an intellectually friendly environment, where more people than average understand how to talk in ways that get closer to truth, the inadvertent experiment conducted by Google over the past 15 years or so should hold a lot of weight.

But what conclusion should be drawn from this experiment?

During those years, Google grew into a large and profitable company, with enormous impact on the world and technical community. One could argue that the lack of a traditional corporate culture was important for attracting the employees who made this possible.

Perhaps Google eventually grew to the point where this was no longer a positive factor -- but even knowing that, should they have done things differently in the early days?

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#414
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.

It was not just a lit review. It drew conclusions from the synthesis of the citations and advocated for specific policy changes within Google. That was the part that pissed people off. Lots of people don't believe that the studies support the conclusions that he drew.

This was the reaction at my company (at the time of the memo) as well. The psychology claims were not as big a deal as much as the fact that the author alleged discriminatory hiring policies.

This led an exec to publicly state that our diversity policies "isn't code for favoring women over men" and that "being an equal opportunity employer is a commitment to following anti- discrimination laws and maintaining a workplace where everyone matters, everyone has a sense of belonging, and everyone is held to the same standards."

This was in stark contrast to our diversity hiring policies which include giving larger bonuses for hiring diverse (women and URM), giving diverse candidates two chances at passing the phone screen instead of one, setting "outcome-based goals" for hitting specific % of diverse tech employees, and even setting up a system of reservations for diverse tech workers (though this last one wasn't established until after the memo).

I guess the exec might not be lying if he is speaking from the point of view that anything less than 50/50 is discrimination and that balancing this out with discrimination in the other direction is how to create an equal hiring process.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#415

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. It sounds like the work culture at Google has rediscovered the emergent factors which gave rise to the traditional cultural strictures against talking about money, politics, and religion. Good science is repeatable. Given that Google is arguab…

My tenure overlapped ('06 - '10) and the discussions were lively. There were (and probably still are) interesting meta-terms like 'centathread' which was a topic that had received >= 100 replies (the gmail threading limit at the time).

That said, the change in policy (what is cited at least) reads a bit like "Let's create air cover for management actions to separate trouble makers from the company." Where trouble makers has enough vagueness in it to cover a wide swath of things. That allows for 'for cause' termination which is more financially advantageous to the company than simply laying someone off.

So to the extent that Google didn't want to be a 'traditional' company with all its rules and opaque policies and structures, it clearly is learning through experience the motivations that companies have for establishing those sorts of rules.

What I find disappointing is that after reproducing the experiment and getting the same results, they aren't able to come up with any other solution than the centuries old authoritarian one. I feel like they missed an opportunity here.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#416
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every place where groups of people participate in shared activities must become a forum for political battles.

To these people it must. They are aware they're disrupting the workplace but they do it because they have a sense of urgency and responsibility. They are willing to break ties with their fellow coworkers because they carry a larger social mission.

That's the problem when you think you're "on a mission from God." You give yourself permission to do anything because this is sufficiently important.

Maybe it is. I know know. That said, what I haven't heard is any good coming out of it.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#417
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their job is to create a forum for others to debate, and to try and maintain neutrality. Their own politics aren't necessarily relevant. Everyone wants to be able to have their political opinions, try and convince others, and not get fired. It's kind of a pick-2 situation. Feel free to bring politics in with ya so long as you embrace the philosophy that you can say anything you want on your last day.

>Everyone wants to be able to have their political opinions, try and convince others, and not get fired. In fact, many people do not want to try and have others convince them of their political leanings.

Yeah, THIS.

Trying to convince other people of MY political leaning goes against one of the central political leaning that I have: Everyone should have freedom to believe in whatever they want to believe in. I also find it annoying when other people try to shove their believe down my throat.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#418
post #390
post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of this political fervor is simple grandstanding. If these people really, truly cared about the issues they advocate, they'd have abandoned their cushy jobs at Google and gone on to make a real difference. I fully agree that the American consumerist lifestyle has run its course, and has done tremendous damage to the planet. However, those who yell the most loudly about it should also be the ones to quit it first…

> should also be the ones to quit it first. I disagree, that's of the same vein of reductive arguments that try to shame rich people who want higher taxes into paying higher taxes voluntarily - for these big problems we actually need to act together or there will always be a more efficient way to pursue wealth by over-exploiting the resources other people are leaving on the table to preserve.

There's a huge difference between taxes (an aspect of societal behavior encoded in law) and personal lifestyle choices. We (supposedly, allegedly) exist in a political system that allows for some participation by citizens. One could choose to run for office, or campaign on behalf of a political candidate who might pursue progressive policies when elected. Over time this adds up to real change. I can see the point that perhaps slowly nudging a large political system towards real change is too little, too late for some issues. If this is indeed the case, then change must happen outside the bounds of normal political action. Take the tax issue you brought up: there is no law that would levy a tax on wealth. This law doesn't exist. If it existed, and if it were written without loopholes, it would achieve the goal of redistributing all this wealth. Unfortunately, this law isn't a reality, so until that changes we're stuck with other ways of making the rich pay. We can shame them, refuse to do business with them, and so on; but simply bitching about this at work won't move the needle even a little bit.

Personal lifestyle choices, on the other hand, are called that for a good reason: each person can make that choice for themselves. There's a liberal echo chamber in which the choice of one person, along with the right amount of advocacy and education, can be greatly amplified leading to a critical mass of people making a similar choice. Imagine an emergent group that is just like hipsters, but focused on environmentalism and sustainable living instead of rushing to tightly pack themselves into increasingly sparse and really expensive apartments in Brooklyn. Imagine communes springing up in agriculturally productive regions, helped along by technology and innovative thinking, operating fully on renewable energy, and doing brisk business selling food. Make this model repeatable by someone without extensive education, and you have yourself real change.

Google employs plenty of people who have the right ideology, drive, and technical skills to make this happen. Instead all they do is work for a giant advertising and surveillance firm.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The example given by the person you're replying to seems, to be understated about it, to be in a bit more complicated of an area than "just don't talk about it and things will be fine." If Bob and Alice have significant disagreements about health care policy and taxation, they can probably still get along by just not talking about it. If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman, that could…

> If Bob believes Alice should be put to death because she's a transwoman That’s clearly a straw man. Nobody is having that discussion at work. And death threats are not politics, they are matters which should be reported to the police.

I was responding to the exact argument made in the post above me. Since people are downvoting me, presumably because I used sarcastic humor and HN is populated by people who are just too darn logical for sarcasm,* let me make the point more explicit: no, Bob and Alice aren't literally going to have that conversation at work. I get that.

However, even if the work has a strict "no politics" policy, if Bob does have significant prejudice against transgender people, then having Bob in the workplace with Alice at all potentially puts her at risk. There doesn't need to be a conversation about trans rights for him to know that she is trans, and for that to translate into harassment and even violence.

I don't have a solution for that problem. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem. And it's not a problem that's solved by prohibiting employees from talking about controversial topics in the workplace -- which is the argument that was made by the poster I was actually responding to.

*Dammit, I did it again! Sorry.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public actions like the ones in the story linked below make me think different. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3020639/c...

The action in question involved 3 mainland students and one Hong Kong student. How many people live in mainland China? 1.3B. How many people live in Hong Kong? 7.4M. How many overseas Chinese are there? 50M. How many overseas Hongkongers? About 1.5M. You can bet that if there is any one such incident happening in the globe, the press will seize on it, because it fits the current media narrative and gets clicks. By th…

It may not represent the majority of overseas Chinese or even many but it is the view I get from media.
Post reply on HN