From what has been put outside, don't you think Timnit's mail to employees as a manager was out of line for someone in her role.
Even to me who doesn't have intimate knowledge of the whole thing, that didn't look appropriate.
To resign at Google you tell your manager you're resigning and then fill out a form (that's the process that makes it an official resignation). What Megan did to Timnit was immediate termination, combined with an advanced exit date, which only happens if you're truly and deeply violating Google rules or your country's laws.
When I brought up the Timnit firing situation my VP literally said: "It takes me a year and a half to fire a bad employee, I don't know how Megan did it so fast".
What? I could understand 6 months, but how the hell do you add a year to that?
Also, managers/directors/etc often have to overcome the issue of reversing momentum on past praise or ratings given to these individuals.
In the Google perf (performance review) process, many individuals that probably should have gotten PIPs and/or counseled out also got high performance ratings in past reviews (for other reasons) from the very same managers and directors.
Generally to initiate a PIP, there needs to be a rating to justify the action (i.e. "Needs Improvement" - lowest rating). Giving a rating two levels or more above or below the last rating also requires justification in the rating process.
Google also cancelled/deferred its mid-year perf cycle during 2020 due to WFH/COVID challenges, which delayed opportunities for managers to give such ratings or feedback through the formal process. (for context: Google traditionally does "perf" twice per year, which are the formal opportunities for employees to receive performance ratings as well as nominations for promotion); this may or may not be correlated with interesting product launches or changes you might see as an end user during the year).
I really don't care. I've never wanted to work there anyway.
Even to my socialist EU mind this sounds untrue and pretty crazy.
i'm talking about employees who are in good standing, like Timnit was at the time. She had just been previously promoted. A person like this, even if they are annoying many coworkers through emails or papers, can't just be terminated because the manager doesn't like them (huge liability risk). Instead, Google (or IBM, or whomever) wants a paper record showing that somebody is unable to do their job, is put on a performance improvement program, cannot improve performance. At that point, Google can terminate the employee and if there is a lawsuit or mediation, Google has the paperwork required.
Instead, the problems of the to-be-fired employee needs to be abundantly clear to everyone nearby, so that when that person is fired, it doesn't have deep social impacts.
Combine that with desiring to fire someone when a replacement is trained up (often many months), and at the end of a big project (sometimes a year), and not just as management is reshuffling... And suddenly a firing takes 1.5 years.
There are other things you can do to make it clear they need to move on but it's usually way easier and more efficient to just directly negotiate a severance and have them resign.
1. Google wanted her gone, ranging from good reasons (she was too abrasive) to possibly suspect (in this instance she was being abrasive about a paper with ethical questions on Google's practices being stopped from publication with no explanation given)
2. Her ultimatum email can reasonably be construed as a resignation. It roughly said "Do this or I'm quiting", and Google responded with roughly "We're not doing that, thanks for telling us you quit, we accept".
3. This does not follow the typical resignation process used at Google, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid resignation. It's unreasonable to assume a lawyer didn't look this over before they went ahead with it. The lack of Timnit suing Google for wrongful termination (from what I've seen) agrees with this.
4. Googlers were angry about this situation, because they disagreed with leadership's actions.
5. The leadership's response is legally bound to stick strictly to saying she resigned. This only inflamed #4 more.
6. They were ethically bound to not disclose all details of a situation involving an employee (where as Timnit could paint whatever story she wanted). Even if Timnit gave a full go-head, there were others involved and doxing is a real threat when names are exposed.
7. They were bound by business interests (at its root legal and ethical obligation to the shareholders) to not expose all of the details of the paper, the objection to the paper, and the processes involved.
So was Google in the right here? The situation obviously wasn't handled well. There were clear problems with Timnit, and she did give an ultimatum. However there are reasonable concerns related to "our ethics person gave an ultimatum and we called them on it" - but without the details it's hard to form a nuanced opinion.
Other takes welcome.
I don't know if a lawyer didn't look at the firing, but Megan has a tight relationship with HR, and if she told HR to resignate the employee because they were damaging to the company, it would be done immediately as a special-case override. I'm 100% certain Megan has had to terminate employees for cause in the past (think: ads engineer who threatens to steal money from google) so I think she has an expedited path.
Timnit’s goal is likely closer to that of effecting reform. A lawsuit isn’t necessarily the best tool for that unless it’s so big it establishes new precedent. Even the Andy Rubin / breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit was largely ineffective.. While Timnit has a strong case here, it’s not really as strong as the evidence of the General Counsel of Google openly engaging in and protecting the sexual misconduct of himself and others.