The Next Level Of Tech Activism: Google Employees Walk Out, Demand Changes From Management

from the time-for-some-changes dept

Over the summer we wrote about the increase in employees at big tech companies leading internal protests against business decisions made by those companies -- mostly around providing tools to the government or military that might be used in ways that many people find to be immoral. It was interesting to see this play out (and stay tuned for next week's podcast, where this will be discussed). More recently, there have been similar protests from within Google over its plans to reenter the Chinese market with a government-approved version of its search engine.

Yesterday, thousands of Google employees took this to another level. Following a recent (horrific) NY Times piece on massive failures by Google management in dealing with sexual misconduct at the company, Google employees all over the world participated in a walkout protest over management's activity. They also put together what appears to be a fairly modest list of demands, including an end to forced arbitration over harassment and discrimination claims, further commitments to fight pay and opportunity inequality at the company, transparency on sexual harassment at the company, a better way for reporting sexual misconduct, an elevated role for a "Chief Diversity Officer," and adding an "Employee Representative" to the Board of Directors.

I have a bunch of thoughts on this -- some of which I may explore more deeply in future posts, but at a first pass, I think this kind of activism by employees is a very good thing. Remember, Silicon Valley has long promoted the idea that its workforce is much more closely aligned with management than traditional companies, in part because of the free flowing nature of stock options and grants. As someone who spent years studying traditional labor/management malfunctions, the more mutually aligned approach that Silicon Valley claimed to have had in the past was a huge part of its strength and a key reason why the industry as a whole has been so innovative. Unfortunately, in the past few years, it does seem that this alignment has diverged, and in too many cases, management has been pursuing growth and opportunities in ways that go against the interests and beliefs of the employees. There may be reasons for this, but they're not good ones.

While Silicon Valley has long had an antagonistic view towards traditional labor organizing and unions (which I think is the right call for a whole host of structural reasons), it's fascinating to watch employees at these companies gravitate toward these kinds of protest behaviors to make their voices heard.

As we've discussed for many years, the power of innovation in Silicon Valley is driven by its employees and their ability to continue to innovate and create wonderful new things -- and to take their brainpower and move to other companies. Perhaps it's no surprise that, as we've had a few companies become bigger and bigger over the past few years, there's a center of gravity that has allowed management and an employee base to lose the alignment of interests. It's an unfortunate trend and one that hopefully these actions can help correct.

On a related note, the idea of an employee representative on the board is a fascinating one. Other countries (most notably Germany) have done this under law (and we discussed a proposed law to do this in the US just a few months ago on our podcast). I think companies would be much better served in doing so, if only (again) to better align the incentives of the employees and the overall company, which should lead to better long term results.

My one quibble with the list of demands is with the focus on the "Chief Diversity Officer." It is not that I'm opposed to companies focusing on diversity as a goal -- I think that's actually especially valuable in a company that seeks to serve nearly the entire globe with services. But, it reminds me of the rush a decade ago for companies to create Chief Digital Officers. As I said back then, a Chief Digital Officer made it look like you treated "thinking digitally" as just another silo, rather than something the entire company had to understand at a gut level. The same is true of diversity. Having it be a "role" in the company perhaps might make sense as a forcing function to make sure that someone is making sure that the company is moving in the right direction, but to achieve true diversity within a company, you need everyone to understand, deeply, the value of diversity in helping to push companies forward, to build truly innovative products, and to understand how those products and services could potentially impact millions or billions of people (in both good and bad ways). So nothing against placing an emphasis on diversity, but creating a Chief Diversity Officer feels a bit too limiting, and creates a situation where it's too easy for people to pass the buck and assume that diversity is an issue for that role to focus on, rather than for everyone to focus on.

Filed Under: activism, diversity, management, sexual misconduct, silicon valley, tech activism, walkout
Companies: google

DailyDirt: Minimizing Pointy-Haired Bosses

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Over the past century, there have been dozens of management philosophies that have been touted as "the way" to keep employees motivated and encourage excellence and productivity. But it's far from a solved problem. Stack ranking (aka vitality curve) has fallen out of favor a bit, and a trend of self-managing has appeared that could keep employees more satisfied with their bosses -- because if you're managing yourself, you only have yourself to blame. Some companies are trying to quantify various metrics for organizational behavior to make it more objective and fair. Maybe we'll know how it all works in a few more decades, but in the meantime, check out these HR experiments.

• Zappos issued a kind of ultimatum to its employees -- accept its experimental new management system or take a severance package. Over 200 employees (about 14% of the workforce) chose to leave the company, which doesn't necessarily mean that all of these former employees didn't like "Holacracy" -- but it suggests that self-management policies aren't for everyone, either. [url]
• Google experimented with a flat organization circa 2002, but it ended after a few months when a flood of mundane managerial details overwhelmed the few people with obvious authority at the company. Since then, Google has continued with a data-driven culture to help develop its management techniques and policies -- finding that engineers hate technical micromanagement, but really like to be closely managed when it comes to career guidance. [url]
• If a company's org chart is flat, there's presumably no promotions for many employees, so how can flat organizations keep employees happy? Okay, a growing company can still offer expanded roles with more responsibilities, but a large, stable company may need to design stock option plans and bonuses to keep people around. But if money isn't a great motivator.... [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: careers, employment, holacracy, hr, human resources, jobs, management, motivation, organizational behavior, reviews, stack ranking, tony hsieh, work
Companies: google, zappos

DailyDirt: Herding Cats For Profit

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Organizational behavior can be a complex subject, and the fruits of research on the topic can range from curious phenomenon like the Hawthorne Effect to abolishing stack ranking (or instituting stack ranking). If you're interested in trying to avoid becoming a pointy-haired boss, you can brush up on some HR experiments and check out these links.

• What's it like working at a company where everyone's salary is known to everyone else at the company? Apparently, it can lead to some difficult discussions when employees change roles or take on new responsibilities, but it's not as crazy a policy as it might sound. [url]
• The annual performance review may not be as effective as encouraging managers to have more frequent "check-ins" for more informal coaching and feedback. Adobe seems to be experimenting with this strategy, but replacing a formal system with an informal system may simply hide the problems behind closed-door discussions. [url]
• There are lots of pitfalls to managing a new venture at a large company. Far more than six mistakes, but careless staffing and picking the wrong metrics to assess performance should definitely be on the short list of things to avoid. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: employment, hawthorne effect, human resources, jobs, management, organizational behavior, performance reviews, salary, stack ranking, work
Companies: adobe

Former DHS Watchdog, A Tyrant, Failure And Alleged Felon, 'Punished' With Transfer To Another Government Agency

from the ah,-the-famous-'lateral-demotion' dept

Good news, Americans! The former "top watchdog" for the Department of Homeland Security, Charles K. Edwards, was an incredibly perverse blend of crooked and spineless and yet we still managed to avoid being terrorized to death during his run as Inspector General (2011-2013). That's the resilience of the American public. Even while the agency was being bumblefucked into (even greater) uselessness, those who hate us for our way of life (which now includes drone strikes, neverending military 'interventions' and the constant watching of damn near everybody) were unable to find a way to maneuver around the "security" "provided" by the DHS.

How can you tell when an investigative report is especially damning? When you can't even make it through the table of contents without gasping out loud a few times. Get a load of this:

III. LACK OF INDEPENDENCE
A. Lack of Familiarity with OIG Work
B. Frequent Communications and Personal Relationships with Senior DHS Officials
C. Lack of Independent Legal Advice
D. Improper Alteration or Delay of Reports
1. “Secure Communities” Audit Report
2. “Advance Imaging Technology” Audit Report
3. “Acquisition Management” Audit Report
4. “Secret Service” Investigation and Inspection
5. “Ports of Entry” Audit Report
E. Tainted Audit Reports
F. Apparent Desire for a Permanent IG Position

IV. ABUSE OF AGENCY RESOURCES
A. Assistance with Pursuit of a Ph.D
B. Assistance with Employment at Capitol College
C. Assistance with Pursuit of a Permanent IG Position
D. Travel to Florida
E. Misuse of a Government Vehicle
F. Benefits for Ms. Edwards
1. Nepotism in Hiring
2. Telework from India
3. International Phone Calls
4. Staff Assistance for Ms. Edwards

V. OTHER ALLEGATIONS
A. Notice of Administrative Leave
B. Destruction of E-mails
C. Deletion or Closing of Hotline Complaints
D. Destruction of Phone Records
E. Retaliation
1. Administrative Leave
2. Poor Performance Review
F. Office Environment

Where do you even start? It's all terrible. Edwards apparently wined and dined with DHS leaders, giving them heads up on the findings of investigations. So, there's that, which undermines the oversight. From there, Edwards went to various administration higher-ups and allowed them to control the timing and wording of investigative reports, further subverting the oversight process he was tasked with.

Beyond the major subversion, there's tons of minor issues. Nepotism, misuse of department resources, Edwards using the department to pursue a doctorate and a permanent position as an IG… about the only thing not noted in here is supply closet raids.

Furthermore, it appears Edwards wasn't even qualified to do the job he absolutely failed to do over a three-year period.

Unlike most IGs, Mr. Edwards does not have experience conducting audits, investigations, or inspections, the three main types of work conducted in an Office of Inspector General.

For example, when interviewed by Subcommittee staff, Edwards was unable to articulate guidelines that govern briefing details of an ongoing investigation to DHS. Edwards stated, “I don’t know that offhand here. You will have to talk to the office – to the Assistant IG for Investigations.”

Not only was he a lousy employee, he was a terrible boss. When not setting up his wife with travel, phones, laptops and a position within the department, he mistreated the rest of his staff -- the same staffers he tasked with working on his Ph.D dissertation and documents related to his pursuit of both a position with Capitol College and a permanent IG nomination.

During the Subcommittee’s investigation, current and former OIG employees repeatedly reported that Mr. Edwards had created a hostile work environment. One official characterized the office as a “toxic, totally dysfunctional and oppressive” work environment characterized by low morale, paranoia, and fear. Another official described the atmosphere of the OIG as one of “[c]omplete terror,” such that “there were times that [they] couldn’t even get up out of bed, [they were] so emotionally scared, drained.”

Many employees told the Subcommittee they wanted a change in leadership. According to one official, the OIG staff “want to have a legitimate Inspector General in place to get us back on track.” Another called the office “the worst agency” and said that it has been “run into the ground” under Mr. Edwards’ leadership. Reasons include Mr. Edwards’ reluctance to “seek out advice or guidance from anybody with experience” and that the “people … he surrounds himself with … do not have the background or the experience to be useful to him.”

When faced with low morale, Edwards apparently did what other wholly ineffective leaders do when faced with friction: he retaliated. Staffers claim Edwards routinely placed dissenters on administrative leave or used periodic employee reviews to "get back" at them for their failure to kowtow.

Allegations (some unsubstantiated) that Edwards broke federal law by destroying emails and documents are also included in the report. There are also allegations that Edwards spied on interoffice communications. A former senior OIG official noted that "nearly all" the communications he received about Edwards' actions originated from personal email accounts or phones.

So, what's to become of Edwards, who completely undercut any sort of independent oversight of the nation's foremost security agency, along with possibly breaking a handful of federal laws? A whole lot of nothing.

Edwards, a 20-year federal career employee with expertise in computer engineering, resigned his office in December, three days before he was scheduled to appear at a Senate hearing to answer questions. DHS granted his request to be transferred into its office of science and technology, and the hearing was canceled.

Wonderful. Way to send a message, Chief. That will let the government's Inspector Generals know they'd better be right on that oversight thing OR ELSE [they'll be transferred to another government agency, no questions asked].

The DHS is a joke with no punchline. I'd say DHS head Jeh Johnson has his hands full whipping this disgrace back into some semblance of a respectable government body, but let's face it, it has never been credible during its decade-plus existence. Johnson's not going to turn this around. The department's focus is almost entirely on maintaining a credible terrorist threat in order to justify its $39 billion budget and 225,000 employees. That leaves precious little time or resources to clean house.

People like Edwards who can fill the position while minimizing embarrassing investigative reports are welcomed at the DHS. No one wants to be the guy (or girl) who truly outs the agency as a bloated wreck that does little to nothing in the way of keeping the Homeland secure. Pursuing truly independent oversight just means working your way out of a job.

Filed Under: charles edwards, dhs, homeland security, inspector general, management

DailyDirt: About those TPS Reports...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's probably safe to say that most managers and employees look forward to annual performance reviews as much as they would a painful root canal. Some companies like Adobe have eliminated them altogether, in favor of less formal check-in conversations throughout the year that focus on ongoing feedback. Here are some other companies that are changing the way they evaluate their workers.

• Microsoft has gotten rid of its "stack ranking" employee evaluation process. Many former and current Microsoft employees consider stack ranking -- reviewing on a curve -- to be detrimental to both career and morale. From now on, Microsoft will be evaluating employees based more on teamwork and collaboration. [url]
• "People analytics" -- a big-data-driven approach to evaluating employees -- is changing the way companies hire, fire, and promote. There are plenty of big companies that have dedicated analytics teams in their HR departments -- Google, HP, Intel, General Motors, Procter & Gamble -- but even smaller companies are getting into the game. So, beware that no matter where you work, they're watching you. [url]
• Yahoo's new employee evaluation process may finally be yielding its first results. The new approach attempts to mimic the more data-driven process used at Google, where CEO Marissa Mayer spent her entire career before becoming Yahoo's latest leader. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: employment, hr, jobs, management, organizational behavior

DailyDirt: Giving Back To Employees

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Income inequality is a topic that has been circulating recently (partially from Robert Reich's movie "Inequality for All"), and as stats about income growth/stagnation are thrown around, there have been a few examples of corporate leaders trying to recognize their employees' hard work. Here are just some of the rare CEOs/founders who have taken a small stab at wealth redistribution from their own personal pockets.

• Lenovo's CEO Yang Yuanqing has distributed $3.25 million (of his own $4.23 million bonus) to thousands of hourly workers -- roughly giving them $335 per person. This is the second year in a row that Yang has done this, and it's slightly more than last year's bonus. It's a nice gesture, but how long will it continue? [url]
• The family-run firm Nominit in Sweden is paying out about $16.3 million (114 million kronor) to current and former employees -- because the company's two founders and owners have no heirs. The company manufactures rivets, and its ownership will be transferred to a foundation dedicated to the well-being of former and current employees. [url]
• Next CEO Simon Wolfson shared all of his $3.6 million cash bonus with employees, and he's the first CEO in the UK to make such a generous gift to employees of a public company. CEOs sometimes donate their bonuses to charity, but distributing money back to employees (of public companies) hasn't caught on the UK (or the US). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: bonus, ceo, charity, generosity, inequality, management, robert reich, wealth distribution

DailyDirt: Improving Productivity

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are only so many hours in a day. It'd be great to be able to get more done in less time, and people are always looking for easy (or any!) solutions that might boost their productivity. Some folks try polyphasic sleep schedules to try to get more waking hours, but that's cheating. (Sleeping less is probably not healthy, either.) Here are just a few other stories about changes that you can try to get more things done.

• Coffitivity claims that ambient noise (like the kind from a local coffee shop) can increase creativity with "enough noise to work." Rooms that are too quiet can be distracting, and obviously, rooms that are too loud can impair mental focus and concentration -- and there's some research to back it up. [url]
• Pixar's headquarters is designed with all the bathrooms in the atrium -- so that employees from different departments might have more opportunities to mingle. Hopefully, though, people aren't discussing their work projects while taking care of other business.... [url]
• The Hawthorne Effect was named after a set of studies at the Hawthorne plant in the 1920s -- where increased productivity was observed when the factory lights were brightened OR darkened. Basically, the workers were more productive, not because of the lighting changes, but because they realized their bosses were checking on them. (The dramatic effect of changing the lighting was apparently fictional, but the Hawthorne Effect is still a phenomenon that researchers try to account for when designing psychological studies.) [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: creativity, design, distractions, employees, hawthorne effect, management, noise, productivity, work
Companies: coffitivity, pixar

Musical Chairs At The Major Record Labels

from the down-with-the-ship dept

The one thing that the major record labels could really use at this point is an injection of new blood from folks who actually understand technology and where the market is headed. There are a few such folks out there, but they seem few and far between. Instead, it appears that the major labels are simply playing musical chairs at the top. Hypebot has this rather ridiculous report of some ongoing shifts among major label management:

At the same time, Doug Morris, out as Universal Music's CEO, but still its figurehead chairman until the end of 2011, is negotiating an early release so that he can run Sony when CEO Rolf Schmidt-Holtz's tenure ends in April. Along with Morris some of his top lieutenants could reportedly jump ship as well.

If that weren't change enough, Barry Weiss, recent chief of Sony’s RCA/Jive, is talking to Universal Music where he would oversee Universal Motown Republic Group and Island Def Jam. Who is being tapped to replace Weiss at Sony? Strong rumors have the job going to Tom Whalley, who was recently forced out at Warners.

Doug Morris, of course, is the guy who publicly announced to the world that he was too clueless to understand modern technology or business models. Actually, he admitted he was so clueless he didn't even know enough to hire people who could help him. And he still kept his job after that. I still can't quite fathom how any board of directors allows such a CEO to remain in place. And I'm curious as to what Sony is thinking in now hiring someone who has publicly said that he's completely unprepared to deal with the modern challenges of the market. But, of course, since all of these execs are simply swapping seats, it's just an insider's club where they pat each other on the back as the companies they lead continue to fail to adapt.

Filed Under: management, musical chairs, record labels
Companies: sony music, universal music, warner music