Hacker News Reader

Comment by dopamean | Hacker News Reader

It seems employees of BGC have had issues with the Ms Bryant for years. Perhaps the board moved quickly without communicating much but I highly doubt She was completely unaware of the accusations against her and that the board might actually do something about it one day.

View on HN

The Glassdoor link fills in some of the details the article leaves out.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Black-Girls-CODE-Reviews-E...

Even the positive reviews there are rather damning...

Wow, you weren't kidding. That may take the cake as some of the worst reviews I've seen on GlassDoor.

Not to defend the CEO but nearly every one of the negative reviews bashing the CEO has the following characteristics at the top of the review:

* Does not recommend * Approves of CEO * Poor business outlook

I find it difficult to believe that dozens and dozens of people bashing the CEO on glassdoor all just happened to misunderstand and click "Approves of CEO". This looks like an automated and/or coordinated attack.

I see 10 reviews not dozens and dozens and the ones I think you're referring to all have neutral status for the question "approves of ceo."

I think this is poor UI on Glassdoor's fault. "CEO Approval" on the page is not a statement, it is a yes/no question, with the empty circle designating No. (That's how I read it, anyway) It's especially confusing because the options just above and below it (Recommend, Business Outlook) use red X's to express disagreement, while this question does not, leaving the reader unsure if the commenter skipped this question or actively answered No.

As of 10:15a, the page returns an error, so I assume that Glassdoor is auditing the reviews because I can still view reviews for other companies.

If that is the case then the board should state they removed her. And have a press release ready to go as soon as it's in effect. I've witnessed a few senior management removals in my lifetime. Rarely has it been unannounced. Even rarer has it been the founder.

Why would they do that? There is an ongoing investigation. It sounds like they essentially put her on paid leave during the investigation. Making a giant public statement about removing her before the investigation is concluded seems wildly inappropriate.

Why does the company have an obligation to satisfy a bunch of gossips on HN? I love a good tale of corporate intrigue and betrayal as much as anyone, but I can wait for the podcast.

Because they are a public facing non-profit who relies on donations from some of the same people who might be on HN. So if the narrative is "out of control board ousts founder" the next time they have a donation drive the donors thoughts might be "I don't know, your org seems kinda sketch".

You ignore social media at your own peril. That is the reality.

I give ten percent of my income to charity and spend a lot of time looking into them. While I personally don't engage with race or gender specific organizations as a matter of principal, looking at that Glassdoor this isn't a organization that deserves my money. Loudly correcting this behavior would go a long way to restoring trust for those who would donate. If given the choice between providing mosquito netting in Africa or allowing someone to show up late and bully her staff, I pick the former every time.

Read the article. They didn't remove her. They brought in an interim CEO while they investigate the allegations.

It's normal for a board to keep it quiet until you have the facts. You want the opportunity to make a good decision and, if the allegations are false, not slander the CEO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com