Toward the end, he gives the backstory of how the breakup was brewing for a long time, and it seems very possible the CEO may have already made up his mind to fire him before the Palo Alto dinner.
So maybe frankness wasn't the cause. It's even possible they were interested in his perspective and wanted to get his honest opinion before they lost the opportunity. Or maybe they had nearly made a final decision but not quite and wanted this conversation to see if what they learned made a difference either way.
On a separate(?) topic, a lot of tech organizations seem to be fond of saying they want to hear all ideas and judge the ideas on their merits, but when you actually say something that goes against popular opinion or conventional thinking within the organization, people aren't open to it or are even hostile or dismissive. In my opinion, it's not as easy for humans to be objective and open-minded as we think.
"a lot of tech organizations seem to be fond of saying they want to hear all ideas and judge the ideas on their merits..."
This is often true, but it is also sometimes perceived as true even if it isn't.
I'm very picky about where I'm willing to work, and sometimes that means there can be gaps between permanent positions for me to fill. I fill those gaps by taking contract gigs.
On one such gig, I was working on code that was dismally bad and, given a number of arbitrary constraints from management, couldn't be improved.
I decided that I would try honesty, and tell management my honest assessments of the issues. I figured that this was not a contract that I enjoyed and although I wasn't going to violate the terms by quitting without sufficient cause, it would be a perfectly acceptable outcome if they fired me because I was too outspoken.
So I did. And for the next few weeks, I had a steady stream of permanent engineers stopping me to say variations of "Thank you for speaking out. I've been wanting to say that stuff for years, but didn't want to lose my job".
Weirdly enough, rather than fire me, the company wanted to extend my contract when the original term was up. I declined.
Being open-minded with someone in a non-business context is doable with the development of intimacy, and more about personal factors. Being contradicted in front of others in a workplace setting, especially more than once, leads to a narrative -- and I think this situation is more governed by political factors.
I think this was another case of the truism that HR doesn't work for you, they work for the company. The pep talk from the HR VP was probably to try to get his honest feelings so they could determine if they really needed to let him go or not. Not so that the CEO could be affected by his feedback.
I also agree, everyone wants to believe they are the type of person who is open-minded and receptive to criticism, but that doesn't mean they actually are.
> people aren't open to it or are even hostile or dismissive.
Over the years I noticed that you have to keep repeating your idea. The first time everyone ignores it or is dismissive. But keep bringing it up. After some time, you might hear someone else bring up your idea, sometimes thinking they came up with it.
It seems you have to give the idea its own life. Maybe you can compare it to ads, where a person needs to have multiple contact points with it before getting ingrained.
I had multiple ideas like this, that were eventually accepted, without anyone knowing where it originally came from.
> On a separate(?) topic, a lot of tech organizations seem to be fond of saying they want to hear all ideas and judge the ideas on their merits, but when you actually say something that goes against popular opinion or conventional thinking within the organization, people aren't open to it or are even hostile or dismissive
Another one I often hear is some variation of "present solutions not problems", often from developers and not just management. Except problems are easy to spot and solutions often require a substantial time investment to solve and present, time that won't be allocated unless problems are identified. Even if you spend your own time on the solution it will often be dismissed by people that don't see the problem in the first place, it's just "how we've always done it". It's basically a long winded way of telling people to stop complaining.
Ha! Many years ago when I was in the military, in tech school in fact, one of the teachers (a sergeant, for what it's worth) flat out asked me to my face what I thought of him. Apparently I was telegraphing my feelings pretty well despite attempting to keep a completely neutral face. I asked, "off the record?" and he said "yep" and then I told him.
Whoops. There is no such thing as off the record. Lesson learned. Though in the end it worked out okay and I just got some mildly amused reprimands from my superiors about telling someone [whom everyone agreed was a jerk] that he was a jerk. I'm much better at keeping my flap shut now.
Been there, done that. In my case, it was a reply all, including the jerk! Was a high pressure, six figure sales scenario too. Jerk was on product approval team. Ugly.
Funny thing, the jerk owned it. Said basically, "truth", but was secure in being a jerk. The others were a lot more upset. Not only did I put it out there frank, raw, blunt, but they were sucked into what could be a real mess! The whole deal was at major risk.
You know it's bad when your phone rings 30 seconds after "send." You know it's worse when other calls come in rapid fire. Beep, beep, beep...
Before it went too far, I dropped an ice breaker to the effect of, "Hey Jerk I cannot take it back, but I can give you one free swing, let whatever it is really slide", in the figurative sense.
Jerk said, "cool, I will keep that in mind." And, "you are not wrong." Gave reasons.
Laughs all around from there, major event averted.
We (jerk and I) actually got along after that. Seeing how secure they were, and understanding their why really helped! I got it. Outside the workplace they were unlikely to be that jerk.
The deal went through. I ended up working with Jerk.
Moral: seek understanding of others. There may be more there than it may seem.
Very true! I've been around the block a few times and have come to the conclusion that it's good practice to never operate "off the record". I want just the opposite -- I want a record of everything I say or am told in the workplace.
> I recall the moment’s emotion: I felt I was performing a good deed, being helpfully clear and honest,
I know this emotion well - it has led me to any number of problems. Some cases where in retrospect I was being a self-indulgent jerk ("What did you think of my performance/presentation/etc?") and some cases where I still feel I was not being harsh but was pointing out valid and relevant concerns, but from both I've learned to distrust this emotion. Perhaps saying what I think is good, perhaps not, but it should never feel _good_ to criticize.
I think it's the other way around, it _should_ feel good to criticize _in good faith_, if you have the necessary qualifications and the person has asked for feedback. How else can the other person get better if not by absorbing the feedback? I don't know about you, but I've learned long ago that the way I perceive myself does not necessarily align with the way others perceive me.
The fact that the first reaction to any even remotely negative feedback is defensive is what's bad. I feel this is why some people don't like code reviews. What's also bad is that often feedback is given as a put-down rather than to help (i.e. not in good faith), or when negative feedback is given in front of others.
Early in my career, I figured that, the code speaks for itself. If it works, it works! Can't argue with that. That's one of the appealing things about working with machines. They're almost never "wrong", it's always something you can fix, do correctly, and ergo, win.
Later I learned, yes, a quick solution can be a good solution; but there can be more than one good solution, and in fact, others can be better. More maintainable, less verbose, so clear and simple there are obviously no errors. Abstractions in the right place and the right level. Modeling a business domain that stakeholders understand.
In the same way, just telling somebody "the truth" can get the message across. But it makes you the junior engineer of talking to people. As you grow in your career, you learn that there are many ways to communicate with the people around you. And different tones and patterns appeal to different people... or even to the same person at different times, based on mood or context.
You can learn (if you care) to work well with these complicated organic machines we call humans. And you can always get better and better at it, even when you already think you're doing the brave thing, the heroic thing, the right thing.
I feel like this is something I've always been aware of, but have not yet taken to heart.
I spend a lot of time thinking about how to make systems better (technical and non-technical systems), and when I reach some conclusions it feels obvious to me, making communication frustrating.
I need to learn how to take people through the same thought process as I went through; when to use other tools of persuasion; when to escalate; how to speak to a whole organization instead of an individual or single team.
Always keep in mind that HR is there to manage the company's "human resources"; they are not looking out for your best interest. They are acting on behalf of the company.
That was the the prime example of the better tech losing. I know most of us know about it but to actually use it was totally different. I couldn't get a low resolution video to play but on Be OS I could have 12 high resolution videos play at the same time move them around and if I unplug my computer I can boot up and the videos would all start back up right where they left off.
I was hoping Be OS would be the OS that Apple would pick when it failed at writing it's own new OS. But noooooo, they had to pick NeXT, and bring back Steve Jobs, and the rest is history. Apple is still about tech, to a degree. But not like the days when Apple was a great tech company. Now Apple seems to be more about fashion.
The article's title is facetious because the author was a high level manager at Apple, the boss was the CEO, and HR was the VP of HR acting in a capacity as a trusted advisor, and it's not really about HR. I thought it was a good read.
Relatedly, I remember that the Macintosh-oriented press hinted that there was trouble brewing at Apple for a long time but they didn't want to come out and say, "Apple's management is slowly killing the company." This story suggests that Sculley would have cut off those reporters if they had.
Edit: at the time of writing, the submission title was "My boss asks me what I really think of him. HR advises me to tell the truth. I’m fired."
> Sullivan puts his arm around my shoulder: “Jean-Louis, I’m proud of you…” After half a decade in Cupertino, I know what this means: What I have done is irreparable.
I don't follow his reasoning, here. What is it about Cupertino which immediately leads him to this conclusion?
Apple is in Cupertino, the author was an Apple executive, and was likely privy to enough firings to recognize what the prelude to his own sounded like.
> In 1985, after learning of Steve Jobs's plan to oust CEO John Sculley over Memorial Day weekend while Sculley was in China, Gassée preemptively informed the board of directors, which eventually led to Jobs's resignation from Apple. [0]
Did HR tell him to do that too? This guy is quite the politician - playing the victim, sincerity card really well. I had to google to piece it together.
Good on him, what a master storyteller of self serving narratives.
I joined the Newton team in 1988 as an intern (and stayed for 8 years). It's interesting to hear with 30 more years of perspective JLG's story of the Steve Sakoman situation that resulted in that team's existence. At the time I had no inkling of the drama that must have occurred that resulted in the creation of a totally isolated team in that totally isolated building on Bubb Road. I did realize how lucky I was to be working there, though. :)
I see this repeated often enough where it is presented like some nefarious plot. While I think it is nominally true, I think a better way to think about it is to think of what HR's incentives and motivations are, and to realize there are many areas where your interests do align with your employer's.
For example, a primary responsibility of HR is "keep the company from getting sued" when it comes to personnel matters. A really shitty HR department will interpret this as "sweep shit under the rug", but a good, competent HR department will handle things above board, according to established procedure. A good HR dept. does this not because they want to be nice, but they realize that the best long-term way to keep the company from being sued is to make sure complaints are handled above board.
In general, when evaluating how people will really act I think it's best to leave morality out of it, and instead realize where their incentives are coming from and try to align your goals with those incentives.
While I agree that's an important possibility that you should mull over, in this case, firing was absolutely the right thing for Apple, for Sculley, and in all likelihood, for Gassée as well.
He said it himself in the article: When the general and his lieutenant disagree too much, the lieutenant must go. Sculley has made the right decision.
There can be only one CEO; if I'm not on board with the mission and direction that CEO wants to take the company, I don't belong there. As level-headed adults, it's time to negotiate the terms of my leaving...
Something I've noticed recently is people that say things like the author did here
>Just for crossing the street, I’m rewarded with an even fancier President (of Apple Products) title
I'm not saying this is happening more often, I just have been noticing it recently.
Maybe I am misinterpreting the tone or misunderstanding the situation. But, this seems in contrast to actual humility where someone is grateful for a raise or promotion but possibly feels undeserving or lucky. The author comes across to me as pretty detached from the struggles that the lion's share of the world experiences. I get that this article is about some high level corporate politics but it still seems tone deaf to me.
Typically in organizations this large, trouble makers are "promoted out" so as to minimize the damage they can do to the organization while minimizing the risk of any legal blow back from an outright firing. I think the author here understands what is happening to him and seems to be describing these events with a sense of melancholy or sadness about being removed from a project or product that he cared deeply about.
It helps if you've read the rest of his series on his history in technology and at Apple, where he adds more context. But it also helps if you have management/political experience.
Essentially, he was being "promoted" from the top of the engineering organization to the bottom of the CEO's political organization. This meant that in practice he had much less control over his own future and was now mostly accountable for his perception amongst his fellow political peers, who (as other people have already discussed here) were already "Yes Men" for the CEO and not interested or even able to consider contrary positions.
>> Just for crossing the street, I’m rewarded with an even fancier President (of Apple Products) title
This could be humble bragging - I got a promotion, but I'm not gonna toot my own horn. It could also be a poke at the C-suites to gain support from the masses (they don't deserve what they get just because of where they sit) or out of resentment. It could also be a psychological defense attempting to frame it as though he didn't belong there in the first place, rather than being fired for screwing up. I'm sure there are plenty of other interpretations, but I can't think of a really positive reason for making such a statement.
He's not speaking to a crowd of people that are currently struggling with day-to-day necessities, he's talking to people that work in tech and some of whom work at very high levels, so it isn't really tone deaf.
From reading the article it is pretty clear that the decision to let him go was already made months before. So what's the point?
An exec that cannot deal with (polite) disagreement is probably on the way downwards already himself. Of course you might hit a sensible spot with honesty by chance but even then it is hard to justify an otherwise successful employee.
I've wondered if Sullivan set up the bomb on Sculley, basically daring him to fire Jean-Louis. Sculley is a lose cannon that fires anyone that gives him needed feedback. Jean-Louis is important enough that firing him will bring that into sharp relief.
Sculley fires Jean-Louis, the resulting blowback doesn't convince Sculley of anything and Sculley is too dumb to know he needs to leave. So two years later the board is forced to can him.
I guess the golden rule is true, when anyone from HR says "be honest" its basically a warning not a directive.
Apple management is concerned that some engineers might elect to follow me, wherever I may land.
I would suppose that they looked back at 1985 and realized that Jean-Louis Gassée was popular with a lot of engineers. I wonder if John Sculley was ever popular in the same way and resented it. I look back at the navigator video with the newspaper and realize that he really didn't get the effects of a technology on how things would work.
[+] [-] adrianmonk|7 years ago|reply
So maybe frankness wasn't the cause. It's even possible they were interested in his perspective and wanted to get his honest opinion before they lost the opportunity. Or maybe they had nearly made a final decision but not quite and wanted this conversation to see if what they learned made a difference either way.
On a separate(?) topic, a lot of tech organizations seem to be fond of saying they want to hear all ideas and judge the ideas on their merits, but when you actually say something that goes against popular opinion or conventional thinking within the organization, people aren't open to it or are even hostile or dismissive. In my opinion, it's not as easy for humans to be objective and open-minded as we think.
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
This is often true, but it is also sometimes perceived as true even if it isn't.
I'm very picky about where I'm willing to work, and sometimes that means there can be gaps between permanent positions for me to fill. I fill those gaps by taking contract gigs.
On one such gig, I was working on code that was dismally bad and, given a number of arbitrary constraints from management, couldn't be improved.
I decided that I would try honesty, and tell management my honest assessments of the issues. I figured that this was not a contract that I enjoyed and although I wasn't going to violate the terms by quitting without sufficient cause, it would be a perfectly acceptable outcome if they fired me because I was too outspoken.
So I did. And for the next few weeks, I had a steady stream of permanent engineers stopping me to say variations of "Thank you for speaking out. I've been wanting to say that stuff for years, but didn't want to lose my job".
Weirdly enough, rather than fire me, the company wanted to extend my contract when the original term was up. I declined.
[+] [-] threatofrain|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phyller|7 years ago|reply
I also agree, everyone wants to believe they are the type of person who is open-minded and receptive to criticism, but that doesn't mean they actually are.
[+] [-] koonsolo|7 years ago|reply
Over the years I noticed that you have to keep repeating your idea. The first time everyone ignores it or is dismissive. But keep bringing it up. After some time, you might hear someone else bring up your idea, sometimes thinking they came up with it.
It seems you have to give the idea its own life. Maybe you can compare it to ads, where a person needs to have multiple contact points with it before getting ingrained.
I had multiple ideas like this, that were eventually accepted, without anyone knowing where it originally came from.
[+] [-] flukus|7 years ago|reply
Another one I often hear is some variation of "present solutions not problems", often from developers and not just management. Except problems are easy to spot and solutions often require a substantial time investment to solve and present, time that won't be allocated unless problems are identified. Even if you spend your own time on the solution it will often be dismissed by people that don't see the problem in the first place, it's just "how we've always done it". It's basically a long winded way of telling people to stop complaining.
[+] [-] analog31|7 years ago|reply
So they got the exit interview that they were hoping for.
[+] [-] rs23296008n1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootusrootus|7 years ago|reply
Whoops. There is no such thing as off the record. Lesson learned. Though in the end it worked out okay and I just got some mildly amused reprimands from my superiors about telling someone [whom everyone agreed was a jerk] that he was a jerk. I'm much better at keeping my flap shut now.
[+] [-] ddingus|7 years ago|reply
Funny thing, the jerk owned it. Said basically, "truth", but was secure in being a jerk. The others were a lot more upset. Not only did I put it out there frank, raw, blunt, but they were sucked into what could be a real mess! The whole deal was at major risk.
You know it's bad when your phone rings 30 seconds after "send." You know it's worse when other calls come in rapid fire. Beep, beep, beep...
Before it went too far, I dropped an ice breaker to the effect of, "Hey Jerk I cannot take it back, but I can give you one free swing, let whatever it is really slide", in the figurative sense.
Jerk said, "cool, I will keep that in mind." And, "you are not wrong." Gave reasons.
Laughs all around from there, major event averted.
We (jerk and I) actually got along after that. Seeing how secure they were, and understanding their why really helped! I got it. Outside the workplace they were unlikely to be that jerk.
The deal went through. I ended up working with Jerk.
Moral: seek understanding of others. There may be more there than it may seem.
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
Very true! I've been around the block a few times and have come to the conclusion that it's good practice to never operate "off the record". I want just the opposite -- I want a record of everything I say or am told in the workplace.
[+] [-] quickthrower2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sys_64738|7 years ago|reply
Jack Nicholson: You want the truth? Tom Cruise: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
Caps intentional as Tom was shouting.
[+] [-] ergothus|7 years ago|reply
I know this emotion well - it has led me to any number of problems. Some cases where in retrospect I was being a self-indulgent jerk ("What did you think of my performance/presentation/etc?") and some cases where I still feel I was not being harsh but was pointing out valid and relevant concerns, but from both I've learned to distrust this emotion. Perhaps saying what I think is good, perhaps not, but it should never feel _good_ to criticize.
[+] [-] dwild|7 years ago|reply
Why not? I feel good when I help someone. I feel good when I have made a great project. I feel good when I made a good decision.
I feel good when I did something good.
Your sentence is true only if we consider a critic as a bad thing, which I certainly don't.
[+] [-] m0zg|7 years ago|reply
The fact that the first reaction to any even remotely negative feedback is defensive is what's bad. I feel this is why some people don't like code reviews. What's also bad is that often feedback is given as a put-down rather than to help (i.e. not in good faith), or when negative feedback is given in front of others.
[+] [-] darkerside|7 years ago|reply
Later I learned, yes, a quick solution can be a good solution; but there can be more than one good solution, and in fact, others can be better. More maintainable, less verbose, so clear and simple there are obviously no errors. Abstractions in the right place and the right level. Modeling a business domain that stakeholders understand.
In the same way, just telling somebody "the truth" can get the message across. But it makes you the junior engineer of talking to people. As you grow in your career, you learn that there are many ways to communicate with the people around you. And different tones and patterns appeal to different people... or even to the same person at different times, based on mood or context.
You can learn (if you care) to work well with these complicated organic machines we call humans. And you can always get better and better at it, even when you already think you're doing the brave thing, the heroic thing, the right thing.
[+] [-] phyller|7 years ago|reply
What a great explanation for HN, and for me. Thanks!
[+] [-] csours|7 years ago|reply
I spend a lot of time thinking about how to make systems better (technical and non-technical systems), and when I reach some conclusions it feels obvious to me, making communication frustrating.
I need to learn how to take people through the same thought process as I went through; when to use other tools of persuasion; when to escalate; how to speak to a whole organization instead of an individual or single team.
[+] [-] amdelamar|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acali|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aloha|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baldfat|7 years ago|reply
That was the the prime example of the better tech losing. I know most of us know about it but to actually use it was totally different. I couldn't get a low resolution video to play but on Be OS I could have 12 high resolution videos play at the same time move them around and if I unplug my computer I can boot up and the videos would all start back up right where they left off.
[+] [-] stcredzero|7 years ago|reply
You have to have marketing and market fit with tech that's good enough. That's the lesson of history, time and time again.
[+] [-] DannyB2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] projektfu|7 years ago|reply
Relatedly, I remember that the Macintosh-oriented press hinted that there was trouble brewing at Apple for a long time but they didn't want to come out and say, "Apple's management is slowly killing the company." This story suggests that Sculley would have cut off those reporters if they had.
Edit: at the time of writing, the submission title was "My boss asks me what I really think of him. HR advises me to tell the truth. I’m fired."
[+] [-] AlexCoventry|7 years ago|reply
I don't follow his reasoning, here. What is it about Cupertino which immediately leads him to this conclusion?
[+] [-] ereyes01|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexashka|7 years ago|reply
Did HR tell him to do that too? This guy is quite the politician - playing the victim, sincerity card really well. I had to google to piece it together.
Good on him, what a master storyteller of self serving narratives.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e
[+] [-] wrs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nisuni|7 years ago|reply
HR represents your employer interests. Period.
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|7 years ago|reply
For example, a primary responsibility of HR is "keep the company from getting sued" when it comes to personnel matters. A really shitty HR department will interpret this as "sweep shit under the rug", but a good, competent HR department will handle things above board, according to established procedure. A good HR dept. does this not because they want to be nice, but they realize that the best long-term way to keep the company from being sued is to make sure complaints are handled above board.
In general, when evaluating how people will really act I think it's best to leave morality out of it, and instead realize where their incentives are coming from and try to align your goals with those incentives.
[+] [-] sokoloff|7 years ago|reply
He said it himself in the article: When the general and his lieutenant disagree too much, the lieutenant must go. Sculley has made the right decision.
There can be only one CEO; if I'm not on board with the mission and direction that CEO wants to take the company, I don't belong there. As level-headed adults, it's time to negotiate the terms of my leaving...
[+] [-] EpicEng|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wuliwong|7 years ago|reply
>Just for crossing the street, I’m rewarded with an even fancier President (of Apple Products) title
I'm not saying this is happening more often, I just have been noticing it recently.
Maybe I am misinterpreting the tone or misunderstanding the situation. But, this seems in contrast to actual humility where someone is grateful for a raise or promotion but possibly feels undeserving or lucky. The author comes across to me as pretty detached from the struggles that the lion's share of the world experiences. I get that this article is about some high level corporate politics but it still seems tone deaf to me.
[+] [-] zebrafish|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbt00|7 years ago|reply
Essentially, he was being "promoted" from the top of the engineering organization to the bottom of the CEO's political organization. This meant that in practice he had much less control over his own future and was now mostly accountable for his perception amongst his fellow political peers, who (as other people have already discussed here) were already "Yes Men" for the CEO and not interested or even able to consider contrary positions.
[+] [-] phkahler|7 years ago|reply
This could be humble bragging - I got a promotion, but I'm not gonna toot my own horn. It could also be a poke at the C-suites to gain support from the masses (they don't deserve what they get just because of where they sit) or out of resentment. It could also be a psychological defense attempting to frame it as though he didn't belong there in the first place, rather than being fired for screwing up. I'm sure there are plenty of other interpretations, but I can't think of a really positive reason for making such a statement.
[+] [-] ameister14|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notJim|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srmatto|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baq|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] choeger|7 years ago|reply
An exec that cannot deal with (polite) disagreement is probably on the way downwards already himself. Of course you might hit a sensible spot with honesty by chance but even then it is hard to justify an otherwise successful employee.
[+] [-] Gibbon1|7 years ago|reply
Sculley fires Jean-Louis, the resulting blowback doesn't convince Sculley of anything and Sculley is too dumb to know he needs to leave. So two years later the board is forced to can him.
[+] [-] anjc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] protomyth|7 years ago|reply
Apple management is concerned that some engineers might elect to follow me, wherever I may land.
I would suppose that they looked back at 1985 and realized that Jean-Louis Gassée was popular with a lot of engineers. I wonder if John Sculley was ever popular in the same way and resented it. I look back at the navigator video with the newspaper and realize that he really didn't get the effects of a technology on how things would work.
[+] [-] devy|7 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-BS-Fixing-Workplaces-Caree...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFXcqSUi3EI