291–300 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you be ineligible for rehire after a downsizing?
Maybe because when downsizing you pick the lowest performers that for whatever reason you haven't already fired
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respect is a bit too far for me. Accept, is more more style. When you play in someone else's sandbox, you're going to have to deal with their rules. No one is guaranteed an audience.
Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like. You can argue that Blizzard was well within their rights in punishing Blitzchung, but then Blizzard's audience is well within their rights to be upset with said punishment.
Actually, you don’t have to accept that. That’s what moderation is for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blizzard was never a privately held company or not in the sense that founders had real autonomy. I believe Michael Morhaime had a lot to do with why Blizzard could do what it did. I remember reading in interviews that he defended the soon(tm) mindset and steered the owners away from chasing quarterly reports. I also believe that Chris Metzen was a key figure in upholding a geeky and fun culture. I was genuinely impre…
> But something happened after the success of WoW the company grew quickly and with that came some bad people and after the merger, Bobby Kotick could exert his influence. I don't think this was the case, and that rather WoW's success forced the company to become more professional but the sexual harassment culture was so ingrained that the company couldn't shake it off. The name thrown around the most due to the laws…
With the kind of success that WoW had it goes to your head. Some people get corrupted by it. It can bring the worst out of some people. That probably happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blizzard was never a privately held company or not in the sense that founders had real autonomy. I believe Michael Morhaime had a lot to do with why Blizzard could do what it did. I remember reading in interviews that he defended the soon(tm) mindset and steered the owners away from chasing quarterly reports. I also believe that Chris Metzen was a key figure in upholding a geeky and fun culture. I was genuinely impre…
Metzen Knew about the toxic “bro-culture” while he was in one of the management positions directly above some of what turned out to be the worst sexual offenders, and did nothing about it, for which he apologised on his own Twitter post scandal. Michael Morhaime similarly was the head of Blizzard doing the worst of the sexual misconduct and people don’t things like “cube crawls”. I’ve worked in big enterprise, I know…
In a company with thousand's of employees how can you expect a few people to be responsible for everybody, that's just absurd.
You come to a point where you've said and done all you can and nobody is listing. At that point you will make yourself very unhappy staying. This is why I think these people, who are genuine geeks, ultimate just left Blizzard and hoped the people they left in charge could bring it into the next generation.
Company is doing well but the brand has take quite the blow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal references are protected, to the extent that liable and slander laws would apply. Any HR person / lawyer will tell you providing a negative review of an employee, let alone with amount of detail, opens you up to liabilities that aren't worth it. As an employer, I've been told that, if called, I should only provide the date a person started with the company, the date a person left, their starting and ending s…
> whether they'd be eligible to be re-hired "Bob isn't eligible for rehire. Wait, I think the line cut out a bit there, I said Bob isn't eligible for rehire. Just wanted to make sure you got that: Bob is not eligible for rehire, no way, no how, nosirree."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blizzard was never a privately held company or not in the sense that founders had real autonomy. I believe Michael Morhaime had a lot to do with why Blizzard could do what it did. I remember reading in interviews that he defended the soon(tm) mindset and steered the owners away from chasing quarterly reports. I also believe that Chris Metzen was a key figure in upholding a geeky and fun culture. I was genuinely impre…
Morhaime and the leadership definitely had autonomy. Blizzard was the goose that laid the gold egg. Also multiple former employees have stated that there's no way Morhaime didn't know what was going on. So I think you've got it backwards.
Why is it so hard to believe that when you're running a company from above you have virtually zero knowledge of what's going on in the trenches.
And the people around you act as layers to insulate you to some extent. The only way you change that is by building trust between your peers and even if you go out to dinner together the topic of discrimination and harassment probably won't come up. Most people won't just say out loud what they think needs improvement unless you ask them.
You can fault them for not being more proactive but they most probably believed that the people they did trust to be on top of these things actually did what they said they would do.
It's the hardest thing to build and maintain a delicate culture. It takes just a few rotten eggs to ruin everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Article says fired or pushed out" So I presume HR had a chat and offered them a pile of money to resign - or if they didn't accept, indicated there would be an investigation into their behaviour. Presuming they didn't choose option 2 and lose - when asked, nobody's going to say they left for sexual misconduct.
In my country, you can verbally tender your resignation in the meeting to fire you , and the company will almost always accept. It saves the company some paperwork, and weakens the employee's case for taking them to court for wrongful firing. In exchange, the employee can truthfully tell future employees they weren't fired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might be out of the loop, but what is indicating that, this is what actually happened?
Setting culture is a large part of leadership. Most likely one of two things happened: a) the leadership was complicit in the culture, b) the leadership was too weak to prevent a toxic culture from festering. In either case, the leadership is not fit for, ahem, leadership.
Otherwise every time you replace leadership you must immediately replace the new leadership, since they too have not instantly fixed the culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like. You can argue that Blizzard was well within their rights in punishing Blitzchung, but then Blizzard's audience is well within their rights to be upset with said punishment.
> Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like. Actually, you don’t have to accept that. That’s what moderation is for.