Later thoughts on the subject:
- instigator was a non-ranking officer
- channels of communication were informal
- the event is analogous to watercooler talk between colleagues on whether star signs should determine hiring and training policies (if X program exists, asking for it to be reconsidered is equivalent to asking for Y program which doesn't exist to be considered for creation)
- The firing move was just offbeat. He should have been put on a leave of absence, they should have concluded the investigation/debate, delineated company policy then proceeded. Which is likely what will happen in retroactive course: if he doesn't struggle too much, there ought to be some reinstatement of his employment with regards to agreeable terms of engagement with his peers.
Massaging my ego with similar thoughts by better people.
Some examples of how debate can be facilitated. (1)
If they can't even do this, the claim to a mission of organising the world's information... is vacuous.
/
Town hall cancelled for participants' dox-risk? This is probably not the real reason for canceling the meeting. What probably happened is that top management decided to restrategise before deploying new tactics. There's so much left undone, why rush into it?
/
Economist attempts to channel Larry Page in a fictional response to Damore: So this is why Google doesn't need to hire people who can deal with it internally. Wait long enough, and some external party will pick up the slack and get them millions in free content views. :)
No comments :
Post a Comment