What's with the recent trend of people leaving companies and then airing their laundry list of grievances for all the world to see? First there was James Whittaker. On March 13th this former Googler posted a scathing blog about why he left and all the things that are wrong with Google. In it he makes the case that the direction of Google is all wrong and it's become a "half-assed" company.
The next day Greg Smith resigned his position as Executive Director at Goldman Sachs and penned an even more stinging rebuke of his former employer in the OpEd section of the NY Times. Smith goes as far as to call the people running Goldman "morally bankrupt" and driven to make money for the firm at the expense of its clients.
Most recently, on March 20th, former Nokia executive Tomi Ahonen took to the interwebs to decry his former employer's Microsoft partnership as "a certain road to death".
Now I'm not necessarily a fan of any of these companies, and I'd be the last person to defend their corporate strategies or their CEO's. But somehow it doesn't seem quite right for these high level folks to take vicious and very public parting shots at their former employers' leadership on the way out. We all have our opinions. Often they differ from those above us. And sometimes the difference is severe enough to make us leave. But you know what? That's life. Why can't we respectfully accept a difference of opinion and move on? I suppose I'm naive, but this kind of public and one-sided bashing of a firm and of those entrusted to run it seems needless and unproductive.
"Why can't we respectfully accept a difference of opinion and move on?"
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that is exactly what is going on. Those companies are constantly putting up their position. I don't see anything wrong with former employees sharing their thoughts. Why is what they say considered "bashing." They are expressing their opinion. People can chose to pay attention to that person or not.
Some people want followers that don't question authority. Leading high technology thinkers don't take kindly to the "follow authority" and don't question authority idea. Where this line is drawn varies, there is a certain amount of following that has to be done, and their is a point at which expressing a contrary opinion should be silenced.
In my experience the point at which contrary opinions are normally silenced is far too soon. I see nothing at all wrong with what these people said. I am very happy they did so. It is a very positive contribution to the discussion that should be taking place.
Finance people do see pretty comfortable with the model of shutting up, not ruffling feathers and cashing big checks. For that reason a Goldman Sachs former employee expressing their opinions that might make authority uncomfortable is a bit unusual.
I think silicon valley is perfectly comfortable with people expressing their opinions. And I think that is the right approach. If the person does take stupid parting shots they will damage their credibility. If they express sensible differences of opinion with the current practices of the company they left they will likely gain more respect than they lose.
John,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment and I certainly agree that contrary opinions are important and should never be silenced. But I do question the tenor and forum of the comments. I'm not sure such parting shots under the circumstances really advance the discussion. Thanks.
I can understand that.
ReplyDeleteHasn't there been more discussion of if Goldman Sachs is treating customers like fools to be fleeced? That discussion has been going on for several years but I can understand if I had been proud of the work I did for years and then saw my company treat customers unfairly year after year and after plenty of open discussion that GS was treating customers like fools to be fleeced and the situation didn't improve I might well want to say my peace. Then people can ignore me or give my comments more weight.
It seems like the CEO jumped and said they would look into it. So that opinion was known for years. One essay by him and the CEO decided he needed to again look into an issue that has been discussed for years. If the company had already done all it could to not treat customers as fools to be fleeced could the CEO's response have just been: he is obviously wrong. Then say that is the end of it or provide evidence if they thought their was a public relations issue.
We looked into this based on the huge amount of previous comments in this vein and if there is any evidence that we have not fixed this problem I should immediately be fired without a golden parachute because this is a known issue I have had plenty of warning to address.
As far as Google is concerned I would be amazed if they see any issue. I'm sure they wish no-one every thought anything they did was worth criticizing. But they support open and honest airing of opinions and I am sure want to hire people that feel comfortable airing their disagreements. Some companies don't want that.
Google I think knows that it wants those kind of people and one of the tradeoffs is you will be called on it if they think you have no cloths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes Companies like Google need those people. The way Google wants to protect itself from such comments is by being so awesome that people think that the criticism is inaccurate or unjust (the merits of what Google is doing are good). That is how Google wants to win, not be having people not speak their minds. Now almost no-one likes actual criticism (the theory of let the various ideas be aired and the best will win is wonderful but it is harder when it is your idea that is criticized). Still Google's culture (including the leadership team) is VERY MUCH let the ideas be shared and if my idea is lame people should attack it. Again this concept is easier than making it a reality (and people will in general like people that say all their ideas are wonderful more than people that point out how lame all their ideas are). But Google has no interest in reducing the expression of ideas, even those critical to those in power, at least they haven't before. I would be amazed if they really now would rather have people that were more conventional and were more concerned with not ruffling feathers than stating their opinions.
Knowing that there is often a great deal of pressure inside to ignore the failings of the emperors new cloths I would welcome any such comments on those leaving myself. I know I am in the minority. My guess is silicon valley shares my opinion at a rate maybe 20 times higher than the rest of the country. And Google even more so. They are definitely built (at the leadership level) on the fair battle of ideas that I grew up with in academia. They specifically made choices to strongly keep this culture and not adopt a more traditional MBA style culture. Though they are moving away from engineering, battle of the idea, mentality to a more traditional MBA led culture.
continue on Google+ this wouldn't take the whole comment
Hi Evan and readers of Kaizen Notebook
ReplyDeleteThank you for mentioning my blog article about Nokia. I was very critical of Nokia yes, but you may have misunderstood my role with Nokia. I left over 10 years ago, so this is not in any way a 'parting shot' at Nokia. I have published 12 books since I left Nokia, I have a widely read blog about the mobile industry. At my blog I have been VERY critical of other mobile industry players in the past from Motorola to SprintNextel to Vodafone. So it is not 'only' Nokia. And I have been critical of Nokia recently from before this current management, so it is not only about the new CEO Stephen Elop.
I have pointed out, that under the current management, Nokia has set a world record in destruction of market share by a global leader in one year - and that in my book means the current management at Nokia is literally the worst of all time. And I have called them out on it. I am not by any means alone in this criticism either - if you go from twice as big as your nearest rival globally, to half the size of that same rival, in less than a year. And simultaneously you exchange growing unit sales, growing revenues, growing profits for declining unit sales, declining revenues and the whole company plunged into loss-making - that is textbook bad management.
I call it as I see it. I think you would agree that Nokia is badly managed today. As I literally wrote the world's first business book for the mobile industry, and I lecture on those matters at Oxford University, and my blog is known for discussing the business of mobile - I think I owe it to my readers to give my honest viewpoint - even if it is about my former employer, which I have also often praised on my blog, including just a few weeks ago when they announced the Nokia 808 PureView smartphone.
Thank you
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Communities Dominate blog
tomiahonen.com
Tomi,
DeleteThanks very much for your comment and for adding some additional context to the discussion. I certainly would not presume to impugn the veracity of your statements, nor would I question your qualifications to make them. Rather, I pointed this out as part of what seems like a growing trend, an observation of the current state of our discourse in an world of exponentially increasing openness. I may have over-generalized, but I do think it's a point worth considering. I'm sure many decisions would be made differently given the gift of hindsight. Thanks.