New Relic employees report unrest over work culture, CEO’s donations
oregonlive.com
oregonlive.com
I think the longstanding questions in this area are:
- are the activist employees just a vocal minority
- who will care (or support) if those activists are ignored -> who just wants to get back to work and focus on whatever it is that Company X does for profit.
That presents a somewhat cynical view of corporate culture. But, I'm very incredulous of arguments stating this isn't considered by companies that are large enough for employee activism to matter-matter.
CB essentially tried the usually avoided approach. It said it wouldn't support this stuff by implication (would stay "only mission focused) and gave healthy severance packages to those who wanted to leave. 5% of employees left, and the makeup of the 5% reflected that of the overall workforce. I have to think other companies paid attention to this outcome, although I wonder what internal polling and the like led to CB doing it.
What's your read on this? Bad outcome or good?
Clearly we're starting to see firms separating into "we just get work done here" like Coinbase/New Relic and another other category, "all in on identity politics" like Kickstarter, Google. Firms that don't want to go in that direction but were previously unclear on what the damage might be from activist exits now have at least a ballpark figure - and of course that 5% number is exaggerated. Coinbase basically gave people a huge bonus for disagreeing with the new policy. If not paying people to leave, and in the middle of a lockdown recession, the number would surely be lower.
- To prevent someone from supporting the presidential candidate she believes in. It's event funnier of you consider that the person if not working at NewRelic.
- Control which charities the CEO should give money to with his private philantropy fund (which he has no obligation to setup).
> "It is clear that some of you are devoting more energy and attention inwards, than towards our customers."
Yep, sounds about right.
And before downvoting me, please note that I'm Jewish (ethnically speaking - I am more of a scientific pantheist in my actual views, but I digress) and bisexual. I do not support Cirne's charities or politics. I am merely calling into question the tactics that these employees are attempting to use to silence him.
(1) for his speech as a private citizen to not contradict the public values of the company he leads (i.e. for him to not donate to, say, exclusionary institutions), and,
(2) most likely, going beyond (1): for his speech as a private citizen to be "in alignment" with the public values of the company he leads (i.e., to compel speech).
You can agree or disagree that any of this is a reasonable or desirable or legal, but it's Orwellian doublespeak to claim it's "not silencing".
The only people being silenced here are the LGBTQ+ kids going to that abhorrent school he donated $250,000 to
Did we forget to disagree and discuss?
The CEO here should address the dissonance between his actions and the stated values of the company when questioned. One does not have to agree, but he should care enough to address it.
It's not some big mystery how someone can support a religious school or one of the two viable presidential candidates without necessarily supporting everything about those things.
Having a PR person write out a statement on behalf of the CEO that says that more eloquently seems like a waste of time and resources.
What do the employees want to happen? Cirne to divorce or publicly condemn his wife over political contributions?
He can't forbid someone else from making political contributions.
IMO this, along with a few other choice quotes from the article [0][1], indicate to me that he's neither an inspiring nor effective leader. He blames his employees rather than himself for the failings of the company, and he blames his employees for combative discourse rather than his own actions and donations. Yuck.
Sidenote, the rush to his defense in this comment section is nothing short of odd.
[0]: "It is clear that some of you are devoting more energy and attention inwards, than towards our customers.”
[1]: Two days later Cirne sent a scolding memo to the entire company, admonishing employees to work harder and warning that New Relic was trailing competitors.
It's unreasonable to expect somebody to publicly denounce their spouse like this. It's inappropriate for people to make a coworker's spouse a matter of contention in the first place.
And stop pretending that this is just any ordinary coworker. This is the public face and leader of the company that publicly advertises a certain set of values. This is also a person who has been made rich by the success of the company, and then is using that money to donate to very morally questionable causes (either directly himself or via his wife).
The guy literally donated an "ordinary coworker's" years salary to an organization that explicitly discriminates against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Do tell me exactly why it is inappropriate for employees of the company to complain about such dubious donations of their CEO, who they helped make mind-numbingly rich?
Would you say the degree to which a coworker's personal relationship with their spouse is 'your business' is proportional to their salary? Or how exactly do you figure this works?
His relationship with his spouse is his business, not yours. It's really that simple.
> His relationship with his spouse is his business, not yours. It's really that simple.
If his wife yelled racial slurs and he said nothing about it, should employees just shut up about that as well?
Presumably you're arguing they should stop advertising that set of values. But then that'd be used to condemn them as well.
why it is inappropriate for employees of the company to complain about such dubious donations of their CEO
Totally appropriate, just as long as those employees don't mind the CEO telling everyone that their political donations are dubious/questionable, demanding they publicly denounce their spouse, or controlling their private political and charitable donations.
But of course those employees would explode if the CEO even hinted at doing any of those things. One rule for them and another for the boss, likely justified with vague rhetoric about power. But, you can't have it both ways. If employees can demand control over the CEO's life but not vice-versa, then it's the employees who have the power, not the CEO. Yet we all know that's not how companies actually work. Eventually even tech CEOs will realise that, so expect them to get a lot more aggressive against this kind of employee activism in future. It's simply not fair on them, currently.
The bosses have the most power and money and therefore deserve the most scrutiny.
This wouldn't be the first case where donations were made through an illusory third-party for the sake of plausible deniability.
Not speculation, it's a pretty clear refutation of the hypothesis that channeling a donation through a third-party severs all links between the contribution and those who actually make the contribution.
(I jest but, in seriousness, always remember that Popper's paradox works as a justification for any side and any viewpoint, whether good or bad. That's why it's a weak argument.)
It's just about changing morals, with the idea of tolerance as the vehicle that smoothed the way. All the dichotomies dissolve when things are seen for what they are.
He mentioned his personal, religious charity at work and targeted it at all employees as part of a fundraising effort (admittedly for a good cause in this case). At that point, it's not just outside-of-work.
If you were gay, would you be comfortable with an overtly homophobic boss?
I’d have to work at a tiny PAC to avoid everyone who disagrees with me, or go full Tarn & Zach Adams.
I’m sorry for all those stuck, but you need the money. In a desperate situation like that, where your own principles are secondary to your very survivable, it’s proper to shut up and do your job.
If you are in a position where your principles are not secondary, then quit.