
Google Sets Rules to Curtail Employee Debate - dcgudeman
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-sets-rules-to-curtail-employee-debates-1530115201
======
jfasi
In my personal estimation as someone who actually has actually read these new
rules and is currently working under them, these policy changes represent
little substantive change from the previous policy. I won't be quoting the
text directly because I don't think it's public, but most of what was changed
represents a codification of practices that were already floating around as
best-practices. They also added concrete examples of what constitutes
harassment, all of which strike me as things that any reasonable person would
actually consider harassment. Nowhere do I see anything that might be
construed as "curtailing employee debate."

All of which is to say how surprised and thrown off I am by this article: it
and previous ones [1] try to portray Google as a place that's roiled by
political fighting where the leaders are struggling to keep control over a
irresponsible and politically radical workforce. Under this narrative these
new policies are just the newest, desperate attempt to restore order to the
snowflake cagematch that is Google.

The reality, at least as far as I and practically everyone I've spoken to is
concerned, is the exact opposite: people share their views openly, a wide
range of opinions are respectfully shared, most people have the right to get
into and stay out of political discussions, and the institution does the best
it can to set the boundaries of what is appropriate at work while permitting a
otherwise anything-goes approach. If this reality is anywhere close to being
accurate, the picture this article paints is simply nonsensical.

[1]: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-vs-google-how-nonstop-
po...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-vs-google-how-nonstop-political-
arguments-rule-its-workplace-1525190574)

~~~
jtmcmc
because that doesn't sell.

I'm not at google but I'm at a bay area tech startup. I'm in slack channels
around things ranging from learning to speak japanese and korean, keto diets,
coffee discussions, lgbt issues, politics (aside from my groups on work
specific things).

I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like
and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they
aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of
conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would
expect - I imagine very much like google's

~~~
whatok
> I guess I don't see why I wouldn't talk to my coworkers about things I like
> and care about? Some coworkers don't like to talk about these things so they
> aren't in those discussions - that's also great. We also have a code of
> conduct but it doesn't curtail debate it's just pretty much what you would
> expect - I imagine very much like google's

I think part of the problem with the forced socialization at a lot of these
companies is that it creates cliques that in turn introduce a lot of bias into
the workplace. If I'm not interested in whatever you want to discuss but a
majority of others are, this can potentially have a negative effect on how I'm
perceived and also compensated/promoted while having zero to do with my actual
work product. After work socialization involving drinking is another example.
If my lifestyle for whatever reason does not accommodate that, I might be seen
as not a team player, no fun, etc.

------
repolfx
They could have solved the problem months ago by firing the people engaged in
that sort of behaviour. The leaked screenshots that came out around the time
they canned Damore were full of bad behaviour, but it appears none of those
people were fired. Instead they were allowed to continue calling their
coworkers nazis and fascists.

Almost without question this policy will be used to silence people objecting
to their "diversity" programmes, not the people actually attacking their
coworkers.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
I don't think the solution is to fire these people (or Damore), it's just to
say, "you can have whatever views you want outside of work, but unless it's
relevant to your job, leave you opinions at home." That's how most of the
corporate world operates.

~~~
repolfx
That would also have worked, except in Damore's case they did actually solicit
feedback (his memo was written after some training event where they said
employees could/should comment).

That said there's a difference between "I am talking about opinions and views
that are irrelevant or inappropriate for the workplace", which is a mistake
that is perhaps easy to make and can be trained out of people, vs "I am
literally calling my coworkers nazis and demanding they be fired for
expressing their views", which is not exactly a mistake and I see no real
reason to tolerate such behaviour in any company.

------
jeffreyrogers
Employees at most companies (including other large multinationals) deal with
this by only discussing political opinions among close colleagues or not at
all, but it seems this way or working is not common at SV tech firms.

~~~
ryanobjc
Google isn’t really that much different. It’s not a hotbed of political
discussions and arguments.

There are focused discussions on politically relevant topics: such as
immigration. It’s a given at google that immigration is a net benefit to the
country. If you disagree then well, your option isn’t going to be well
received. There is another option that diversity is good (based on both
research and the fact that google is trying to build for everyone so we need
representation to do so).

I find that all companies have some basic facts and truths, axioms if you
will. Arguing against them means you need to leave the company. You won’t be
successful. For example, would you try to advance the argument that the web
isn’t important and web search is pointless? Of course not.

This goes for every company on the planet. Smaller ones have less axioms, the
simplest being “boss is always right”.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
Opinions on immigration and diversity aren't really relevant to Google's
corporate mission as a whole. They are relevant to some degree to some of its
hiring and HR policies.

I have not worked anywhere where immigration policies were brought up at a
company wide level. Diversity does come up elsewhere, but mainly so management
can pay lip-service to the idea that they care about diversity.

By the way, I'm not placing all (or even the majority) of the blame on the
people bringing up immigration or diversity, though I would argue they aren't
appropriate topics in most workplaces. If you hold a controversial opinion on
those issues (and others) and it's not relevant to your job, maybe you should
keep your opinions private at work.

~~~
ryanobjc
Well your first statement is just your opinion!

A core mission of google is to foster innovation, at the big and small levels.
The company considers itself driven by innovation. So how do you grow the next
billion users, which is a business goal, has implications in who you hire etc.

Also, a lot of googlers are immigrants, very smart people who have moved to
the us. Basic human consideration about their fate is a dilemma. To blithely
say it’s “just” a hr problem, well that sort of seems to me like it’s actually
a non problem at all.

------
ilikehurdles
The fact that they even have to contend with this kind of toxic environment
makes me pretty glad to be at a smaller company where there's really not much
room for that behavior.

~~~
qubax
It's a pretty recent phenomenon. Having worked in a couple of fortune 100
companies, there was rarely any discussion of controversial topics. We talked
about our families, sports, movies, the weather, etc when we talked. We rarely
discussed politics. Maybe a remark here or there, but never a full out
discussion, argument, etc. I don't know what political party my co-workers
belonged to, if any. Never asked, nor was asked, about voting. But I've
noticed we've been getting more emails/notices from HR about supporting
causes, tax deductible charities ( many of which could be seen as
controversial depending on one's views on a lot of matters ), etc. And there
is a very small minority of highly vocal and politically active group. But
most of us just want to work and go home as quickly as possible.

Maybe it's because we have too many people employed who have nothing to do.
They sit in front of their computer all day reading the toxic news all day and
get radicalized. Idle hands mixed with overconsumption of news can make for a
toxic mindset.

Not sure why companies have gotten so politicized. I think a bit of it is the
types of people working in HR. The ubiquitous toxic news, especially on social
media. You would think shareholders, the board and the CEO would want people
to be as apolitical as possible since that makes the most sense to run a
profitable company composed of a diverse group of people.

------
JeremyBanks
Years too late. Employees have grown to feel entitled to abuse each other.
It's disgraceful.

------
joe_hills
It seems volunteer moderation may not scale well at a company this size.

When I consider that the logs of these intranet conversations are a legal
liability, and moderation actions may cause legal challenges as well, it
strikes me that perhaps google should hire professional moderators that report
up through their legal division.

I imagine a lot of employees might balk at this, but having developers losing
sleep over how to respond to intranet drama may be considered undesirable as
well.

~~~
Zyst
Doesn't moot still work at Google? If someone can setup a scale volunteer
basis moderation system, that's probably the guy you want.

------
patrickg_zill
I know that my view is far from the mainstream, but does anyone else get the
feeling that Google's effectiveness per-employee is lower?

I know that by the numbers, their per person revenue is off the charts, but
what if they just have a few awesomely automated money spigots and like half
of the employees are not really as wonderful as we've been told?

I mean, the Google images AI that classified black people as gorillas hasn't
actually been fixed yet, for example: they just removed the ability of the AI
to classify any images as "gorilla"... As one example.

If people are complaining about the busy message boards and there are a lot of
different boards that are used, how much work is really getting done?

------
sageabilly
".....oversee discussion groups about anything from animal rights to sexual
expression."

Why are there even discussions about this on a work forum? Why in the world
would anyone want to talk about this stuff with the people they work with? Is
it a side effect of the company being so large it's impossible to know
everyone?

I go out of my way to not discuss anything that comes within a whiff of a
controversial topic with the people I work with. I go to work to pull a
paycheck and because I enjoy the work that I do, I do not go to work to make
friends or to hang out with people. If I end up making friends with some of
the people I work with, great, however, we hang out as friends outside of work
and we don't discuss things as friends via any work channels. Is making your
co-workers your friend group a new thing? Is it a side effect of working so
many hours you don't have time to hang out with anyone else?

~~~
DannyBee
There is this trend in HR to try to get people to "bring their whole selves to
work".

Of course, most people are political, social, etc animals.

~~~
Apocryphon
This is also the consequence of corporations encouraging cultures that blur
the lines of work-life balance. People will bring life into work. Reap what
you sow.

------
lwhsiao
To use the facebook trick if you're getting paywalled:
[https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/google-sets-rules-to-
curtai...](https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/google-sets-rules-to-curtail-
employee-debates-1530115201)

~~~
seanperkins
I didn't know about this trick. Thanks!

------
greggarious
Does anyone have a non-paywalled article on this topic?

Opening in a private window does not allow me to read.

~~~
gnicholas
Install the Read Across the Aisle browser plugin. I’m the creator, it’s free
and doesn’t track you, and allows you a renewable 7-day pass to the WSJ,
thanks to a partnership we have with them.

[http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com](http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com)

------
throw2016
This is a cultural shift. First gen corporate workplaces 60-80's were much
more top down, arbitrary and controlled.

Second gen was already loosening up on individual freedom but there was a
strict border between the private and the work persona.

Now it seems this border is breaking down and there is one persona. Delicious
to find most commenters here on the wrong side of a generational divide. Soon
you will be dismissed as grey beards with out of date ideas.

~~~
lgleason
pretty ageist comment there....

~~~
throw2016
Given the routine use of 'grey beards' on most tech threads here to dismiss
others while pushing their favoured technologies so much so the term may as
well have been invented here it is rank hypocrisy to protest.

------
ryanobjc
This is a reaction to the rise of the trolls. Trolling your coworkers and
engaging in bad faith argumenting has no place at work. It represents a
profound disrespect of your colleagues, it is counterproductive, and is
distracting.

It’s not unreasonable to put these restrictions on - which btw are content
neutral - workplace tools/discussions. It’s not an attempt to quell dissent
but to focus it in a useful manner.

I believe, that damore was arguing in bad faith, attempting to trigger and
troll, and do so in “polite” language, which doesn’t excuse him at all. You
can’t write a meandering argument that isn’t well founded, filled with
incorrect suppositions, and bury that all your female coworkers are not as
qualified and expect that to end well.

~~~
plattegrond
No he wasn't arguing in bad faith. He's just a nerdy guy who took the claims
about wanting honest feedback at face value and told people what he thought
instead of reading between the lines and realizing he was in a high school
clique environment. If you can't even see that, the one with bad faith is you.

