"We have zero tolerance for any action that makes a sufficient number of people on Twitter mad." — de facto policy of most organizations
-
how much $ should a business be expected to lose to subsidize the statements or actions of its employees?
That is the hard question. You should be willing to lose a lot. But my guess is that you won't lose as much as you think by being upstanding. Among other things, you'll increase trust, and attract great people to work for you.
-
-
sure, i think you can make that argument, though i think it's undeniable that we've built an economy that rewards short-term thinking over long-term brand building. i'd ask this, though - would you have fired blake neff?
-
COVID and the stock market seems to be rejecting that narrative. The entirety of Silicon Valley VC also seems to reject it. The corporate world seems to have a suprisingly *long* time horizon overall.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It’s a rather cheap fix to fire people compared to the structural reorganization which would be necessary to prevent actions which ultimately lead to shit storms on Twitter.
-
The idea that a company could just ignore these shit storms by “upstanding” is a bit naive, because they spontaneously emerge and will not stop until action is taking. Best example are the climate protests.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That could happen! You might also end up with the libertarian party problem If bigots perceive that you will provide cover for them, even if you are not bigotted, even if you are providing cover for everyone on moral principle, you eventually find yourselves outnumbered
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.