Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by jessaustin »

mgleason_3 wrote: post #589
retbull wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional doesn't mean terrible. You can use cultural queues from previous versions without taking the toxic parts.

“Traditional doesn't mean terrible.“ 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 p…

Haha this prompted a flashback to an all-hands we had when purchased by Lucent, led by Fiorina and her minion Lance Boxer (you might think that's from a comic book, but literally that was his name... for when the pugilistic becomes pornographic). She talked about how we were all in for the long haul together, and was gone to HP within months...

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

#642

Post by freshhawk »

LordFast wrote: post #590
sarbaz wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let me clarify: - 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 limit…

> "Justice" is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over.

But since they do in reality, especially if they are profitable and thereby gain power, it seems like something that should be discussed.

It would be great if they actually didn't have influence or power over justice, definitely, but they do.

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

#643

Post by ivan_gammel »

methodover wrote: post #577
manigandham wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company becomes a "traditional" company because only traditional companies have survived. If alternative structures worked well then we would've seen them by now. Also I'm willing to be that a startup's lack of bureaucracy and momentum lets it experiment and move faster rather than just a carefree internal attitude. I've been in midsize companies on both sides of the free-culture spectrum and have never noticed…

> If alternative structures worked well then we would've seen them by now Well let’s not go this far. Human civilization has existed for a tiny portion of time, modern civilization even less so. There’s PLENTY of time for better structures to be discovered.

Within current historical and cultural context, legal and technology frameworks etc the dataset is big enough to give some confidence that better structures won’t be found tomorrow or in the next 5 years.

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

#644

Post by 0xffff2 »

magduf wrote: post #531

This is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places, including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a contractor who was extremely religious and c…

This matches my experience completely. My current and longest single job is as a US Federal contractor. You might get a political word or two over lunch off base around here, although the civil servants tend to be more tight lipped than us contractors for the aforementioned reasons. You would never in a million years see any kind of political discussion occurring via email, no matter if it was government or contractor email or people. As far as I know, it's not even an official policy (beyond standard government "for official use only" policies), there's just not sane reason to ever do it.

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

#645

Post by bduerst »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #627
jcranberry wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there may have been some of that. But supposedly (IIRC) he didn't just post it at work, he very diligently attempted to increase it's exposure through word of mouth, mailing lists, and speaking at internal events.

I think Damore's fatal flaw was naivety. He thought his opinions would lead to a better Google and he thought Google wanted to hear arguments that would lead to an improved Google. He clearly lacked the awareness to realize he was not speaking to a receptive audience to the ideas he had. And he wrote something that lacked the... emotional awareness... to understand where the opposing view came from or how his memo wo…

I had a weekly improv class with him and while I don't think that's enough to get a good read on who someone truly is, I think you may be projecting on the naivete bit. In the midst of the chaos he was generating, he had ample opportunity to redact, change, apologize, debate, or even acknowledge other viewpoints, but he chose to broadcast adamantly.

Even as he knew his opinion was generating controversy he didn't take any steps to admit, control, or deal with it, instead he reveled in it. He knew what he was doing.

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

#646

Post by freshhawk »

tunesmith wrote: post #528
oppositelock wrote: post #187

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…

Some people can handle civil discussion with people of differing values, and some people can't. I wonder what the difference is, I mean beyond just painting someone who can't as a jerk. I think it has to do with learned skills of emotional self-regulation... someone with those skills is better able to hold their perspective while allowing that of another. But how does one learn that? It might have to do with safety.…

There are deeply important and therefore difficult to talk about.

I totally agree that what it requires are those types of emotional skills, and getting them takes practice.

This tradition of avoiding ever getting practice seems absurd to me, and it also very much benefits those already in power (and they are not unaware of this fact).

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

#647

Post by jammygit »

stcredzero wrote: post #298
oppositelock wrote: post #187

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…

I've almost always found it completely beneficial when workplaces discourage talking about politics or religion. Everyone just gets along better, and that's a good thing for a work environment

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

#648

Post by jdm2212 »

einhverfr wrote: post #615
devy wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debating politics all you want outside of work.

Its worth noting my colleagues and I have very different political views when we talk over lunch but I find it very insightful to see different views and we are all on good terms over it all. And I think we do think about eachother's views and we do try to build common ground, so frankly I find it healthy.

The American political spectrum is way bigger than the political spectrum in most European countries. There's a lot more potential for deep disagreement in the US when people talk politics.

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

#649

Post by anoncake »

nullc wrote: post #542
anoncake wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is though, professional work environments (where there are typically norms around never discussing politics) are the way they are for a reason. The reason is the same as for not talking about salary at work: To prevent workers from developing class consciousness.

That's just a 'bonus'. We don't talk about politics or religion at work for the same reason that we use money instead of barter. If we only used barter we could only trade when we could find matching goods/services between trading partners, by using money instead we avoid the matching. If you discuss politics at work you risk a situation where some people cannot work together because of incompatible views which are e…

On the contrary: Politics have to be discussed at work because that's where "incompatible" people meet. Discussing politics with those who share your views isn't all that enlightning.

The work being performed is generally completely irrelevant compared to politics so it has to take a backseat. The capitalist will just have to deal with the fact that their workers are not mindless unpolitical drones.

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

#650

Post by jessaustin »

einhverfr wrote: post #610
tidepod12 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to say this as politely as possible, but... are you serious? If you seriously cannot have conversations at this level without them turning into political discussions, you really need to reflect on your conversational habits. It is absolutely not normal or healthy if you can't talk about drinking water without it turning political. My SO is a vegetarian. It comes up a lot , both with my friends (who are all…

Can you discuss with your SO why the vegetarianism without getting into political questions like: 1. What are our obligations to organisms we eat? 2. What are our obligations to each other? 3. Is vegetarianism an obligation? Why or why not? I don't see how those are not political issues.

There is a confusion here. These are certainly ethical issues, that may be discussed at the level of the particular personal ethics practiced by particular people. Immediately jumping to the political is a particular (and particularly unpleasant) way of answering these questions, but not the only way. I would never eat chimpanzee, but I would consider eating horse. My friend would never eat horse, but would consider eating veal. We can discuss this from an ethical perspective. We don't have to lower the discussion to politics.
Post reply on HN