Slashdot Mirror
Facebook CIO Discusses Zuckerberg's "Will You Resign?" Email
CarlaRudder writes: When Mark Zuckerberg sends an email with the subject line, "Will you resign?" people remember it. In this case, the email went to the entire company after someone leaked damaging information, but CIO Tim Campos talks about his hesitation to open the email, thinking it was addressed to him personally. He goes on to share an insider's perspective on the power of culture at Facebook, the benefits of giving employees time and space to both fail and create, and why data is at the core of every decision made in the company.
There have been times in my life when I'd happily reply to that email.
Zuckerberg went on to write that the employee obviously didn’t share the same values of openness and transparency because they shared the confidential information in a way they were asked not to do.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You could say that IT & Finance were both wrong and that the data was right, or you could say that all of them were right and then you'd have an even better culture. The lessons to be learned from the article are trivial at best.
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
I asked that once of the Director. It was a blatent request.
He refused. "Nope."
Left me stuck with an impossible job. Fortunately, things worked themselves out.
Nowadays, he comes around and pesters me. I want to fire him, but can't, because he's retired. Maybe I should resign.
has some weird psychological warfare going on there.
Sorry. I RTFA and found it utterly useless corporate BS. The only "takeaway" I had was a reminder of my time spent in an organization that blathered on about platitudes like this and was completely, morally bankrupt at its core. Seems like Facebook and Zuckerberg are too.
because the first thing that popped into mind was Chief Idiot Officer
Openness means freedom to speak your mind, to share things that would otherwise be not shared, and to know things you don't specifically need to know.. This includes sharing information that is otherwise confidential, at least to people outside the company. But to do that, you need to be assured that people won't spread information with which they've been entrusted to people outside the circle of trust. It's not just social, either. Sometimes sharing things outside a company has financial or legal consequences to the company itself. So if he has someone who is giving confidential business strategy away to potential rivals, then he won't be able to share things he otherwise would.
Zuckerberg isn't being unreasonable here.
So, what information was leaked? Seems like a fairly relevant point, odd that it wasn't mentioned.
1) The Power of Culture: "At Facebook, culture is everything and it's an incredible timesaver," Campos said. Culture allows Facebook to cut through bureaucracy, he said. Among the ways Facebook emphasizes its culture is through its now well-known posters that say things like: "Fail harder;" "Move fast and break things;" and, "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"
Facebook also reinforces its culture through storytelling, like the "will you resign" email example he shared with the audience. "It was an incredibly powerful message," Campos explained. "Everybody at the company read this email and had the exact same takeaway and perspective that I did, they all thought it was immediately addressed to them. And it was striking as a result of that. And they never forgot it. And we keep talking about it - we talk about how do we handle confidential information in the company. The 'will you resign' email is quite famous." There are a ton of stories like this that Facebook uses to reinforce key culture points that prevent the creation of unnecessary steering committees and advisory boards, Campos said.
Posters he's describing are pure propaganda, all basically shouting "WORK HARDER AND MORE!", while those mass "Your job is insecure" emails are nothing but mobbing.
If that's culture, it's nothing but culture of fear.
Ah well... someone has to keep getting stress-related heart attacks, strokes and cancers I guess.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I ignore it, like I ignore things that don't matter.
Penny Arcade had a comic that is probably relevant to that topic: (in the first frame). GitHub's opinions on diversity and inclusiveness don't matter much. If GitHub service becomes lousy, then I'll stop using their services, that's about it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
if you are a cynic, and a slave, yes
to the extent that what you said is not true, is to the same extent the number of people with enough heart and enough backbone to believe and do otherwise
so grow a fucking backbone
the world is improving. progress is real. slowed down and held back not by those with malicious intent- those assholes always exist, but by people like you. the most amazing thing to me is people like you. people who willingly and openly bend over and accept their malice as your reality. fucking pathetic, weak, contemptible worms
that's all you and your words mean to me
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How is that quote relevant at all? No one is dying, no one is even coming for anyone. There are plenty of other places to host a git repository.
Seriously, you need to get perspective on history or something, because comparing the holocaust to Github is silly.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So why are Zuckerberg and Jobs the ones who get held up as model CEOs?
The answer to nearly every question of that form is: PAGE VIEWS.
When people actually care about becoming a better CEO (for example, at an MBA school), they do case studies of plenty of little-known CEOs, good and bad.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It'd be funny, if everyone did.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
> no one is even coming for anyone.
Tell that to Brendan Eich.
What controversy? It's not being forced onto people, so what's the issue?
Wait, you're equating a CEO resigning because he said something stupid and embarrassing to Genocide?
How can you afford an internet connection after you've spent all your money on really good drugs?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Brendan Eich has no relation to GitHub. The donation records should not have been made public (if you are unsure why, consider that the Supreme Court ruled they should not be public during the days of Jim Crow when some southerners were trying to discover the donors to the NAACP).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The takeaway from this story is that Facebook uses email for the important stuff, not Facebook messages.
Did they find the guy who leaked the information?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
What you see as "duplicitous and without integrity", I see as professionalism and putting company values before their own personal beliefs. Isn't that exactly how a CEO should act?
Also, the donation was in 2008; the Mozilla announcement was in 2014.
Similarly, in 2008 President Obama was decidedly against gay marriage being legal. By 2012 he was a strong advocate of the idea.
Are people not allowed to grow, change, and mature?
If you're exactly the same person you were four or six years ago, with the same beliefs, motivations, and priorities, then I pity you.
Tell that to Brendan Eich.
Not really seeing the problem there. First amendment and all that. Mr Eich is free to support whoever he likes. His employees are free to resign and make a fuss about working for someone they don't like. He had a choice: stick to his job or lose employees, and he chose the former. No one got arrested, no one got disappeared.
It seems odd to me that the so-called "free speech advocates" seem to actually only support "offensive" speech and appear to find quite normal free speech rather objectionable. The flip side of offensive speech is one gets to call the offenders out as wankers.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
nice
Cufarul Copiilor Magazin online pentru copii
If the CIO, a rather high ranking C-Suite officer, is afraid to open a mail from his CEO talking about resignation, something is amiss. If a C-Level pretty much expects to be laid off by email instead of a more personal way of communication something is VERY, VERY wrong in a company.
Don't get me wrong, being laid off by email is common for lower ranks in huge, "faceless" corporations. I never experienced it on this level, though. We're talking about a handful of people per company. It's not like there are a dozen CIOs littering the top floor. Even a company like Facebook will hardly employ hundreds of C-Levels. These people KNOW each other. Personally. They have meetings. They organize and coordinate strategies. Depending on the company they even know each other on a rather personal level, down to their family status and whether the kids have the flu.
If such a person expects to be fired by email, this does not speak kindly of the prevailing corporate culture.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
like this cross my desk, sure I'd quit.
Let FB plummit, it's nickle stock, completely overvalued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the workplace
Main article: Workplace bullying
British anti-bully researchers Andrea Adams and Tim Field have used the expression "workplace bullying" instead of what Leymann called "mobbing" in a workplace context. They identify mobbing as a particular type of bullying that is not as apparent as most, defining it as "an emotional assault. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly, participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace."[3]
Adams and Field believe that mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organised production or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication".[3]
Shallcross, Ramsay and Barker consider workplace "mobbing" to be a generally unfamiliar term in some English speaking countries. Some researchers claim that mobbing is simply another name for bullying. Workplace mobbing can be considered as a "virus" or a "cancer" that spreads throughout the workplace via gossip, rumour and unfounded accusations. It is a deliberate attempt to force a person out of their workplace by humiliation, general harassment, emotional abuse and/or terror. Mobbing can be described as being "ganged up on." Mobbing is executed by a leader (who can be a manager, a co-worker, or a subordinate). The leader then rallies others into a systematic and frequent "mob-like" behaviour toward the victim.[4]
Psychological and health effects
Victims of workplace mobbing frequently suffer from: adjustment disorders, somatic symptoms (e.g., headaches or irritable bowel syndrome), psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression.[5]
In mobbing targets with PTSD, Leymann notes that the "mental effects were fully comparable with PTSD from war or prison camp experiences. Some patients may develop alcoholism or other substance abuse disorders. Family relationships routinely suffer. Some targets may even develop brief psychotic episodes, generally with paranoid symptoms. Leymann estimated that 15% of suicides in Sweden could be directly attributed to workplace mobbing.[5]
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
He should have got a Nobler Prize just like that Kenyan guy who was also against giving LGBT people their constitutional rights.
Isn't that how decisions should be made? Why is that it seems to be such a big deal?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Only an asshole of a CEO would send out an email with that address line.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If you have a group of people, and one of them does something wrong, you address the issue with the person who did something wrong. If you send an e-mail out to the entire group, then the person who did something wrong will think it is directed at someone else, and everyone else will think it is directed at them. This is one of the very first things you learn as a manager. You absolutely do not reprimand by group. You reprimand individually. You praise publicly. If you can't understand that, or disagree, then you need to be removed from your position of authority.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The kids complaining about GitHub are the ones that are complaining about Reddit going down. Eh. There are other sites out there. Git was designed to be distributed.
This is the SJW/Brianna Wu/FreeBSD Girl twitter shit spilling onto Slashdot.
What was leaked? Does anyone have the full text of the e-mail?
You say all those nasty things about people, and then you turn around and vote them into high office and buy their products... How does that work? It certainly appears you are the one bending over and projecting that onto everyone else. In fact, that is exactly what is happening.
And my dear! What is up with all that swearing and talking down to everybody? Are you really such a superior being? Believe me, you're no Don Rickles! Not even close!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Always sandbag at least one raise for your own uses.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Corporates are giant ponzi/pyramid scams in globalization;
Casteism