> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave.
If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.
I get why there should be protection for people on paternity leave. At the same time, if you're using an 'expectations' system appropriately and honestly (as opposed to just a renaming of some other scale) it may be dishonest to not change his rating. If there is an expectation about performance and it wasn't exceeded (how could you exceed your typical performance while on paternity leave?) then the employee shouldn't be given an exceeds.
The big issues here (at least for me) are that a) there was a non-zero expectation for someone on paternity leave and b) someone was given a performance evaluation either while on or regarding work done during a paternity leave.
I'm curious if this signals a larger issue at Google where they have paternity leave 'in name only' - similar to 'unlimited' vacation policies and the like.
I'd agree that someone who is on leave, and doesn't work, indeed"meets" expectations. It would be a problem only if everybody is expected to exceed expectations, but then all the evaluation process becomes, almost by definition, nonsensical.
As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no?
I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
I'm not so sure. Wouldn't a person on paternity leave be expected to perform less, if not zero work? By doing that, didn't he "meet" expectations? That seems, technically speaking, the accurate description.
Of course, if paternity leave really means "we expect you to work at a similar rate", then it's quite obviously not a "paternity leave" in anything other than name.
I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized".
TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect.
The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working.
This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.
> I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.
While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise.
There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.
I'm also a Googler. Unlike you, I'm forced to comment anonymously, using a throwaway I just created using Tor. Why? Because I'm a member of one of the "privileged" groups that many think make up too great a portion of Google's employee base, and because some people (especially the ones graduating from college these days) think I'm an oppressor just because of my race and gender.
Nevertheless, I need to pipe up and express that g/yes-at-google makes me feel terrified. I'm not alone either. Some people have expressed that they plan on discontinuing all non-work communication. I've done the same, but not announced it. I've also started scrubbing all my technical communication. Anything I say might be interpreted in the worst possible light as taken as evidence of deep-seated bigotry and bias. I've never had to be this paranoid before in my life.
The scariest thing is that I've seen people "called out" for comments that would have passed even my paranoid-mode filter, even on purely technical subjects. At this point, I'm scared of making too much or too little eye contact. (Either one might be a micro-aggression.) I feel that no matter how careful I am about what I say and no matter how little bias is in my heart, it's only a matter of time before I land in front of HR for something I didn't intend to say.
Programs like YAG sensitize people to these sorts of uncharitable interpretations of others' speech. They encourage a kind of paranoid bunker mentality when it comes to social interaction. They teach people that their experiences are particular to their identity, not universal among their colleagues. They teach people to punish the wicked, not work together to solve problems.
Is this the kind of company we want to have? Is this the kind of culture that any organization should foster?
It doesn't matter that the complaints are anonymous. The ultimate end result of this produces anxiety, even if action is taken. It is passive violence on a mass scale instead of healing occurring in one place. People should not want every fracture or trespass humming in the background to remind us. We should be moving on, dedicating our focus on being better people, achieving new heights, real things that progress us forward, that deserves recognition, not pain, not being known as a victim of something. I feel that is the way of our society now, a mad obsession with pain and offense. Violence shifted into an abstract form...
It's concerning to me, but not for the reasons you listed. Naming names isn't the only way to out someone on such a list. Details about time, place, personalities, specific words said, etc, can unintentionally out someone.
And it's not just the accused that could be outed. The accuser faces the same issue.
I don't see why it's odd to have some concerns about this approach. It clearly requires a moderator with some skill, or a mistake could really hurt someone.
The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.
The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe.
I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege.
> why people might submit anonymously to such a list
> This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't.
Even if a rape accusation turns out to be false, the damage is done, and nobody will care about your "privileged white men" because they don't have enough victim creds.
Your comment contains a lot of appeals to emotion and very few facts, if any at all (for example, the claim that the "vast majority" of rape accusations is true definitely needs a source). This is the hallmark of someone who goes along with mainstream opinion without thinking for themselves. I urge you and everyone else to think deeply before reiterating what you have heard or read from others.
I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture, factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?
Why is confidential material for public consumption? All this is stuff that ought to go to the Ombudsman, HR or the police to be dealt with properly. What good does it do to hear "my supervisor is habitually oversharing and told me she smokes hashish and is worried about an upcoming drug test"?
Because you don't necessarily need to involve the police every time you're trying to set an interpersonal boundary. Most people are well adjusted enough to change their behavior when you ask them to, and you don't need the threat of firing or jail to convince these people. You just need to ask them, nicely but assertively, to stop.
- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers.
I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
It looks simple to me: that remark was not professional, it's something you'd say to a friend, ideally one with whom you share a relationship close enough to allow for remarks like that one. If you stick to professional interactions, you'll hardly create such a problem at a workplace.
The hardship begins when personal and professional relationships mix, but if a personal relationship is established it's reasonable to assume that both people should know how to deal with eachother and would have cleared this up between themselves. If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
Hmm. I'm actually struggling to think of a situation where it would be the done thing to call one of your colleagues "princess", be they male or female.
But yes, we all have to be really careful what we say. Not for fear of being shamed -- for fear of offending someone! Calling someone a "princess" for liking salads could easily be taken as an offense, gender aside.
It's the same reason you don't just go around talking politics in the officf. Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.
It's unprofessional. If the person who was called princess felt uncomfortable enough to write about it, it indicates they were not friends and this is not their common relationship.
It's can be a disrespectful joke. Besides, it's a gendered joke. If it was directed to a woman, it's very impolite, given the constant pressure on woman to keep thin in society and how that is a frequent bias towards woman. If it was a man, it sounds very transphobic/homophobic, as in "you're less because you act like a woman", besides man also deals with fat shaming. And a lot of people deal with eating disorders, so making fun of people eating choices at work is not a good idea.
Of course, if they were friends, I mean actual friends. It would be fine. If one person had felt offended, they would be able to say that to the other, instead of an anonymous mailing list. Or if they didn't felt offended, they could laugh together and each to it's own. But it's clearly not the case. So it's a good idea to avoid this sort of behavior to people that you don't know well, even you get along with them in a work environment.
If people feel they need a guideline to avoid this behavior and not feel like they need to be hard pushed to figure out what they did wrong, here it is: you can make this sort of joke to someone who is your friend (friend enough to regularly see each other outside of work, take care of each other kids, trust in each other in personal matters), if not, it's not work appropriate.
I wonder if the 'curation' might skew folks' view. E.g. if one believes Ted is a rotten guy, one might mention all the times Ted does rotten things, but if one believes Tod is a great guy then one might just not mention the rotten things he does.
Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).
This is what happens when people have lost faith in the formal process and instead institutionalized gossip as a necessary system for their own protection.
> "Subsequently informed by the engineer that she was expected to 'sleep with everyone' because that's the culture here."
I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But... If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"? What's the expected response?
Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset. Everyone sleeps around on this team."
I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended view, just a practical/social/etc. view.
I can see this getting out of hand quickly. Humans have a tendency to amplify anxiety of local, improbable events. This is essentially a weapon that can quickly impact morale and elevate disruptive conversations that will become far removed from the situation with too many participants. I'd have optin, in-person support groups where nothing leaves the room and it is limited in size. Sometimes spreading a problem across more people does not fix it, it only makes it worse.
Is this what got Amit Singhal in the first place, perhaps? (EDIT: I guess not, he left fifteen months ago, this list is eight months old.) It's briefly mentioned in this article, but I was shocked less people talked about what the Amit Singhal story meant for Google.
That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment.
It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their most valuable employees.
I've worked with my share of jerks and assholes. Rarely have I seen them dealt with. Mean people often know how to manipulate their messaging you avoid punative action. Few places have a zero tolerance policy, they'll just move them somewhere else.
None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.
So here's the rules of this brave new world: beyond your house you're a sexless, emotionless creature without family, life outside the office, without sense of humour, without personal interests and preferences.
Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company campus. And it's good for your resumé.
[+] [-] snomad|8 years ago|reply
If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.
[+] [-] nxc18|8 years ago|reply
The big issues here (at least for me) are that a) there was a non-zero expectation for someone on paternity leave and b) someone was given a performance evaluation either while on or regarding work done during a paternity leave.
I'm curious if this signals a larger issue at Google where they have paternity leave 'in name only' - similar to 'unlimited' vacation policies and the like.
[+] [-] occamrazor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|8 years ago|reply
As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no?
I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
[+] [-] diabeetusman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wcarron|8 years ago|reply
Of course, if paternity leave really means "we expect you to work at a similar rate", then it's quite obviously not a "paternity leave" in anything other than name.
[+] [-] dominotw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway-1209|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] umanwizard|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlebar|8 years ago|reply
TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect.
The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working.
This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.
[+] [-] humanrebar|8 years ago|reply
While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise.
There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.
[+] [-] throwgoog452|8 years ago|reply
Nevertheless, I need to pipe up and express that g/yes-at-google makes me feel terrified. I'm not alone either. Some people have expressed that they plan on discontinuing all non-work communication. I've done the same, but not announced it. I've also started scrubbing all my technical communication. Anything I say might be interpreted in the worst possible light as taken as evidence of deep-seated bigotry and bias. I've never had to be this paranoid before in my life.
The scariest thing is that I've seen people "called out" for comments that would have passed even my paranoid-mode filter, even on purely technical subjects. At this point, I'm scared of making too much or too little eye contact. (Either one might be a micro-aggression.) I feel that no matter how careful I am about what I say and no matter how little bias is in my heart, it's only a matter of time before I land in front of HR for something I didn't intend to say.
Programs like YAG sensitize people to these sorts of uncharitable interpretations of others' speech. They encourage a kind of paranoid bunker mentality when it comes to social interaction. They teach people that their experiences are particular to their identity, not universal among their colleagues. They teach people to punish the wicked, not work together to solve problems.
Is this the kind of company we want to have? Is this the kind of culture that any organization should foster?
[+] [-] zghst|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
And it's not just the accused that could be outed. The accuser faces the same issue.
I don't see why it's odd to have some concerns about this approach. It clearly requires a moderator with some skill, or a mistake could really hurt someone.
[+] [-] anothercomment|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whitemale|8 years ago|reply
The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.
The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe.
I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege.
> why people might submit anonymously to such a list > This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't.
Even if a rape accusation turns out to be false, the damage is done, and nobody will care about your "privileged white men" because they don't have enough victim creds.
[+] [-] Kenji|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good at that sort of thing.
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jschwartzi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1ba9115454|8 years ago|reply
I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
[+] [-] jmngomes|8 years ago|reply
The hardship begins when personal and professional relationships mix, but if a personal relationship is established it's reasonable to assume that both people should know how to deal with eachother and would have cleared this up between themselves. If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
[+] [-] to3m|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|8 years ago|reply
But yes, we all have to be really careful what we say. Not for fear of being shamed -- for fear of offending someone! Calling someone a "princess" for liking salads could easily be taken as an offense, gender aside.
It's the same reason you don't just go around talking politics in the officf. Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.
[+] [-] auserperson|8 years ago|reply
It's can be a disrespectful joke. Besides, it's a gendered joke. If it was directed to a woman, it's very impolite, given the constant pressure on woman to keep thin in society and how that is a frequent bias towards woman. If it was a man, it sounds very transphobic/homophobic, as in "you're less because you act like a woman", besides man also deals with fat shaming. And a lot of people deal with eating disorders, so making fun of people eating choices at work is not a good idea.
Of course, if they were friends, I mean actual friends. It would be fine. If one person had felt offended, they would be able to say that to the other, instead of an anonymous mailing list. Or if they didn't felt offended, they could laugh together and each to it's own. But it's clearly not the case. So it's a good idea to avoid this sort of behavior to people that you don't know well, even you get along with them in a work environment.
If people feel they need a guideline to avoid this behavior and not feel like they need to be hard pushed to figure out what they did wrong, here it is: you can make this sort of joke to someone who is your friend (friend enough to regularly see each other outside of work, take care of each other kids, trust in each other in personal matters), if not, it's not work appropriate.
[+] [-] sacheendra|8 years ago|reply
This could be making fun of a friend. How is this harassment?
[+] [-] zeveb|8 years ago|reply
Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway-1209|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MichaelGG|8 years ago|reply
I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But... If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"? What's the expected response?
Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset. Everyone sleeps around on this team."
I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended view, just a practical/social/etc. view.
[+] [-] zghst|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gertef|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icc97|8 years ago|reply
Tangentially I wonder if a similar system could be used to report bullying in schools. Perhaps the anonymity only works at a certain scale.
[+] [-] anon45caurv51|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|8 years ago|reply
That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment.
It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their most valuable employees.
[+] [-] xyzzy_plugh|8 years ago|reply
None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.
[+] [-] hetspookjee|8 years ago|reply
I don't think he started suddenly, but rather has done it for a very long time. Being such an immensly valuable asset does buy you slack, I bet.
[+] [-] Danihan|8 years ago|reply
Why?
[+] [-] anothercomment|8 years ago|reply
I don't think these entities should have the power to exert pressure.
[+] [-] hagakure0c|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrrrr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuhong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ar15saveslives|8 years ago|reply
Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company campus. And it's good for your resumé.
[+] [-] ika_|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RoyTyrell|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]