CEOs are literally paid to deal with these emotions constructively. In this case, that would have looked like welcoming a competitor to the space and being ready to win on execution, because ideas are free.
I’m seeing people conclude a lot more about Plaid from the CEO’s outburst than from Stripe’s announcement. If a competitor throws into your ring and your first move is to call foul on technicalities, it suggests you don’t think you can win on merit alone.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/22/slack-accuses-microsoft-of-a...
IMO, their welcoming of competition, on an even playing field, only strengthens their request that Microsoft compete fairly.
"Waiters are literally paid..."
Or we could be humans?
Isn’t there a much more obvious NBA analogy here, which would actually make the CEO-empathy pleas appear even more ridiculous?
Were you attempting the move “X=Bad to me, Y=Bad to you, Bad=Bad, therefore X=Y”?
I'm gonna steal this.
There are all sorts of good ideas. Some are easy to communicate, some demonstrate, some both, some neither.
Ideas are worthless.
Once it was implemented in several crypto systems, including RSA, and people started using it, the value became clear.
Was the publication sold to anyone? Why did Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman decide to create a company using the concept rather than just sell the publication itself?
I think you just proved my point.
Making it personal I don't think helps anyone.
People only "want competition" in the manner of controlled opposition, where they know they can beat someone.
rchaud find this to be a platitude, but frankly, I don't give a shit what he thinks. If I'm a good CEO, I care much more about how my employees react to the new competition than to how this internet rando feels about my public response.
It’s very difficult to bring up this topic in a constructive, thoughtful, and impactful way. But I urge you to really sit down and think carefully about it, even for a few minutes.
His tone was the tone I used to use. I still do, sometimes. I have to catch myself, because old habits are hard to break.
The reason I decided to break the habit is because it discourages people like my wife from becoming engineers, let alone founders. She’s one of the most talented hackers I know. And you’d be reasonable to suspect that I’m exaggerating or being nice because she’s a woman, but you’d be mistaken. If you’re a react dev, there’s a very strong probability that if you went head to hews with her in a “who can ship a great looking website faster?” contest, you would lose badly. I didn’t believe it until I saw it more than once.
The world is worse without people like her as engineers. And — most importantly — it’s worth altering our behavior in the default case, not to be nice or to be more inclusive, but because it will make everyone’s lives better in the long run.
Just some food for thought. It didn’t sink in for me until I pointed out she could be paid a lot more if only she’d aggressively negotiate. She mentioned “yeah, I know it’s how men do it.” A little switch flipped in my head. It doesn’t need to be this way; we decide to be this way.
I agree with everything you said, and I'd add that this is not unique to women. There are many creators who don't want to operate in a bro culture.
Personally, I consider it a strength to be able to work with _all kinds of people_, and communicate in ways that are effective to each of them.
Edit to add: My default communication is more inclusive. But there are definitely situations where a leader needs to be aggressive (e.g. against an external threat), and failure to do so can jeopardize the well-being of your own employees who aren't prone to that communication style themselves.
You're probably right that there are some fence sitters who were put off by that aggressive follow up. I hope they can judge the initial comment on its own merits, and challenge or ask for clarification if it's helpful.