581–590 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely the latter - people trying to convince others that their views on war, or abortion, or taxes, or political party are the correct ones. These are also people who are intelligent, educated, and quite arrogant, so the fireworks were pretty spectacular.
I gotta admit I'd take a peek too to watch the fireworks. But also a bit shocked how many people feel that participating is a good idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely the latter - people trying to convince others that their views on war, or abortion, or taxes, or political party are the correct ones. These are also people who are intelligent, educated, and quite arrogant, so the fireworks were pretty spectacular.
And this was common workplace discussion!? This seems like a disaster waiting to happen. I don’t know why you’d want to introduce the divisiveness of politics to your workplace.
It must be US culture there: everywhere I've worked (in France) arguing about politics was always ok. Even fun when you get people of differing views who can explain how they came to those so you can debate. Things must be boring when you have to limit yourself to safe subjects.
- religion
- politics
- sex
still holds true, regardless of how progressive the workplace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give me a joke and I'll point out the politics inherent in it.
Why is 6 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because in theory, a debate is a thoughtful discussion where opponents are respectful to opinions of each other and have the common goal of finding the truth. In reality, political debating at workplace quickly becomes just ugly. And for companies like Google it's also costly, because media adore leaked scandals in big corporations.
> In reality, political debating at workplace quickly becomes just ugly. I don't think it really has to. I debate politics with people at work enough. I won't get into specifics too much but it's not uncommon to meet someone who has a controversial opinion. You talk with someone, find out why they believe what they believe, and then question a few things (mostly asking why they believe they believe - what lead them t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember the Founder's Letter included with Google's IPO in 2004 - "Google is not a traditional company. We do not intend to become one." It looks like they became one. The other interesting takeaway for me is how long-term equilibria can leave holes that may be exploited by short-term-focused actors . When Google was young, it's say-anything culture was a big competitive advantage: it let them hire people who were…
Google was also smaller, which both makes political discussions feel more personal and allows maintaining a political bias in recruiting/hiring because you don't need to fill headcount as urgently. I would absolutely believe that a company of 100 SJWs bringing their whole self to work contracting with a company of 100 MAGA hat wearers bringing their whole self to work would be more productive than putting all 200 of…
I had trouble parsing what you wrote but I think the question you're asking (growth with employees vs growth by contractors?) is answered by Coase's "The Nature of the Firm": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
EDIT to reply: I don't think it's about "diversity". OP specifically asked ", why did Google need to grow?"
Presumably, the question could be expanded as "why did Google need to grow to 100,000 _employees_?" instead of "only have ~1000 core employees on Google payroll and augment with 99,000 _contractors_". (The reason given by Coase is that activities mediated by too many unnecessary external vendors with contracts is less efficient than hiring people into the firm.)
I left it open for OP to clarify what he was asking but I don't think it's about diversity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you feel the need to talk about sex at work or guns?
This actually made me laugh - I couldn't agree more. Since when is sexuality an open topic at work?
It's only recently that people can talk about their non-heterosexual relationships at work. In 1995, mentioning your lesbian partner would've been overtly political and, in certain workplaces, is STILL called "political" and can get you fired [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/gay-teachers-wife-texa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You live long enough to become a terrible company, bought by one, or go bankrupt.
Traditional doesn't mean terrible. You can use cultural queues from previous versions without taking the toxic parts.
This. Worked at HP for years. It was a pretty great company for the most part.
Until Carly Fiorina joined. Amazing how one person can so transform a company - in a bad way. It started almost immediately. But buying Compaq really accelerated it. Companies like Compaq that have been in a slow death spiral throw off good employees.
That leaves low performing politically focused who protect their own. When they get purchased and “integrated” and they start filtering throughout the parent - like an infection, spreading their poison and killing it from the inside out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…
Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice? I don't see how you can call it "arrogant" for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don't have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power…
- A non-decision by Google management to not place limits on its internal culture is a decision in itself, and has consequences that we are currently experiencing.
- "Justice" is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over. This is my personal belief. I believe there are other channels that are better designed to address those issues.
- My belief on this subject is limited to the above.