The biggest takeaway here: surround yourself with the right people.
I find it hard to believe Holmes wanted to outright commit fraud with Theranos. Instead, some combination of startup “disruption” tactics and a crew of unqualified yes men led to a toxic company culture that cultivated lying and, eventually, criminal fraud.
On the first point: There’s a very real culture in Silicon Valley where it’s expected that everyone lies, at least a little bit. Startups will massage their numbers in VC pitch decks, or launch “Wizard of Oz” products that aren’t based on new tech. If you’re on a client-facing team, you’re expected to learn which white lies to tell. Most startups get away with this without a problem, and Theranos probably expected to as well when they came out of stealth mode and debuted their testing equipment. But this process doesn’t work in biotech when it affects real consumer health outcomes; there is a reason behind much FDA bureaucracy, and it’s to protect people’s health. The tech industry could use a better ethical backbone overall.
On surrounding yourself with the right people: The anecdote about the manager who lied about results, was given promotions and accolades, and then promptly quit when it became time to become accountable, was telling to me. First, there was a lack of checks and balances in place to prevent these lies—how was Holmes supposed to know the manager was lying? The board had little technical or scientific background, and it’s not clear that the company set up processes to ensure research was sound. And the most likely reason why? They probably just trusted people and didn’t expect that these problems could happen. The only way to ensure you’re not blindsided by issues like these is to make sure those around you are capable, experienced, and have been through this before.
Company culture is everything. As bad as Theranos is, the tech industry is rife with fraudulent practices and bad apples. I’d hope Holmes’ criminal charges make executives pause and think about setting up processes to allow for honesty and accountability. Unfortunately, though, the mainstream narrative has been to paint Holmes as an unsophisticated crook instead of looking at the systematic problems of the company as a whole, and that means people will keep on keeping on with the practices that led to Theranos’ downfall.
> there is a reason behind much FDA bureaucracy, and it’s to protect people’s health.
This is what people don't realize when they try and say the FDA is a bureaucratic nightmare. Every process in place is designed to make sure that the drugs that hit the US market work. Look at what happened with Thalidomide. The FDA didn't allow it to hit the US market due to strict requirements about what tests and processes the drug companies were required to follow. Europe had a massive problem, while the US didn't.
What most people don't realize or know, is that the FDA will readily expedite promising drugs and/or products if results are promising and the data is valid. Companies, if they have strong data from Phase I or II trials, can be bumped to the top of the review queue or be granted interim permission to sell their drugs before Phase III trials are complete.
I personally think the FDA is a great example of a well designed bureaucracy. The value it adds to the public is insurmountable, while not being unreasonable.
That actually works in meetings or other group situations when people seem ignore my points - deeper voice works better. Not sure why doing it would be shocking. It is tiring to do it all the time through. Men chage their voices based on social situations too.
It works also with students when you are teaching.
I am pretty sure she also carefully selected cloths and hair style to project the right image and thought in advance about what she is going to say. It is the same thing. That is what all charizmatic leaders, whether good or bad, do all the time.
Not any less authentic than Elon Musk’s hairline. Nobody seems to have a problem with men spraying on hair from a can. Why shouldn’t a woman alter her voice?
Pretty good writeup, as it sheds light on what it was like to work at and tolerate (for a few years) such a poisonous company. Even with all the shady things observed, and the fact that Holmes's ideas and goals were a big sham, the author seems to have been engaged enough in the science to think -- at the time -- that the goals were legit.
Actually it sounds like early one he decided it wasn't legit. He says he only stayed with Theranos because he literally couldn't find a position elsewhere.
[+] [-] amb23|7 years ago|reply
I find it hard to believe Holmes wanted to outright commit fraud with Theranos. Instead, some combination of startup “disruption” tactics and a crew of unqualified yes men led to a toxic company culture that cultivated lying and, eventually, criminal fraud.
On the first point: There’s a very real culture in Silicon Valley where it’s expected that everyone lies, at least a little bit. Startups will massage their numbers in VC pitch decks, or launch “Wizard of Oz” products that aren’t based on new tech. If you’re on a client-facing team, you’re expected to learn which white lies to tell. Most startups get away with this without a problem, and Theranos probably expected to as well when they came out of stealth mode and debuted their testing equipment. But this process doesn’t work in biotech when it affects real consumer health outcomes; there is a reason behind much FDA bureaucracy, and it’s to protect people’s health. The tech industry could use a better ethical backbone overall.
On surrounding yourself with the right people: The anecdote about the manager who lied about results, was given promotions and accolades, and then promptly quit when it became time to become accountable, was telling to me. First, there was a lack of checks and balances in place to prevent these lies—how was Holmes supposed to know the manager was lying? The board had little technical or scientific background, and it’s not clear that the company set up processes to ensure research was sound. And the most likely reason why? They probably just trusted people and didn’t expect that these problems could happen. The only way to ensure you’re not blindsided by issues like these is to make sure those around you are capable, experienced, and have been through this before.
Company culture is everything. As bad as Theranos is, the tech industry is rife with fraudulent practices and bad apples. I’d hope Holmes’ criminal charges make executives pause and think about setting up processes to allow for honesty and accountability. Unfortunately, though, the mainstream narrative has been to paint Holmes as an unsophisticated crook instead of looking at the systematic problems of the company as a whole, and that means people will keep on keeping on with the practices that led to Theranos’ downfall.
[+] [-] lykr0n|7 years ago|reply
This is what people don't realize when they try and say the FDA is a bureaucratic nightmare. Every process in place is designed to make sure that the drugs that hit the US market work. Look at what happened with Thalidomide. The FDA didn't allow it to hit the US market due to strict requirements about what tests and processes the drug companies were required to follow. Europe had a massive problem, while the US didn't.
What most people don't realize or know, is that the FDA will readily expedite promising drugs and/or products if results are promising and the data is valid. Companies, if they have strong data from Phase I or II trials, can be bumped to the top of the review queue or be granted interim permission to sell their drugs before Phase III trials are complete.
I personally think the FDA is a great example of a well designed bureaucracy. The value it adds to the public is insurmountable, while not being unreasonable.
[+] [-] mmt|7 years ago|reply
FTA:
> The scientists worked 12-16 hour days.
I have to wonder if it's really as simple as exhaustion/overwork causing a breakdown in reasoning to the point of removing ethical inhibition.
I would hope that scientists would know better than to allow themselves to be worked like that, but, well, I know better.
[+] [-] TaylorGood|7 years ago|reply
Q: I heard a rumor that Elizabeth Holmes’ deep voice is fake, as in a part of the performance, like not blinking, any truth to that?
A: Yep, true. Early on someone gave her advice that if she deepened her voice the male dominated business scene would take her more seriously.
[+] [-] watwut|7 years ago|reply
It works also with students when you are teaching.
I am pretty sure she also carefully selected cloths and hair style to project the right image and thought in advance about what she is going to say. It is the same thing. That is what all charizmatic leaders, whether good or bad, do all the time.
[+] [-] Angostura|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arto|7 years ago|reply
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180612-the-reasons-why-wo...
[+] [-] txsh|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jack000|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lookACamel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]