This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Who’s the guy on here who said recently something to the effect of “woe to him who has the full backing of the board—he is a dead man walking.” I found it both hilarious and something I had never noticed before.
Yesterday I read that Cheatle had the “full confidence” of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and I knew. My hat’s off to that guy; I apologize I can’t remember your name.
There's a wonderful scene in the Australian mockumentary where John Clarke's character, an administrator of the 2000 Olympic Games, is in the back of a press conference where his boss, a minister, is addressing a scandal. Clarke hears the minister say that "Character X has my complete support" and immediately says into a cell phone, "do you know who's in line for X's parking space?"
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure I really understand this. Can you explain it?
It's the same principle behind GoT meme of any man who must say I am the king is no true king. Also in general in organizations the position/authority is the weakest form of leadership compared to other forms such as competence, charisma etc. Telling somebody to do something because manager said so is the weakest form of authority you can use as last resort after inspiring and explanation failed and it is a sign of weakness.
More options
Context Copy link
/u/fcfromssc is correct as usual but (as usual lol jk) too wordy, here's a cleaner explanation:
there is absolutely no reason for the board to publicly state that it "fully backs" you unless you're really in trouble
To press on this further, it just seems strange to me. But I am someone who (despite my years and success in big tech) considers himself to be organizationally illiterate. I get by without thinking deeply about organizational politics for the most part.
Some specific questions: Why would a board make such a statement, if they're just going to retract their support in a week? Do individuals lack foresight? Or are they pressured to do it by someone? If so, who? Are there times when boards make these statements and actually mean it?
Moving past the humble brag
People are not organizations and vice versa, but in general everything is motivated toward its' own perpetuation. I'd go on for 3 paragraphs if you're interested but really it's not a mystery why the board doesn't tank the stock on the off chance the principle survives
Hah, sorry. I guess it is a humble brag, but I think I meant it to be more self deprecating, like how could I have done as well as I have given I have no tolerance for or understanding of company politics. There's a lot of politics going on around me, and I mostly ignore it, somehow.
Definitely interested, I'd love to understand anything about this more than I do.
Doesn't the stock still tank one week later? And doesn't that make every person on the board (or at least the head of the board) unaccountable and stupid, that they said one thing and reversed so quickly? Couldn't they just say nothing in the meantime instead?
"Tank the stock now or (possibly) a week from now" is not a hard question for a board member
Everything exists to perpetuate itself. By definition. The first cell that became multiple set us on a course of forever wanting to do more, bigger, better. This is a measurable phenomenon. The people on the board might be 'unaccountable and stupid' but they're still acting on that maximization principle.
I'd apologize for promising 3 paragraphs but kinda proud of that summary, if you have more questions this is quite a fun exchange
Cool, I've got a few more questions.
I mean, to some extent. There are of course local maxima, and they may be maximizing over the next week. But what about beyond that? The head of that board that releases that statement looks unaccountable and stupid, which should, in theory, reduce others' ability to trust him in future years. Whereas by staying silent, he gets no such potential reputational damage.
If you told me that all boards don't really look beyond 1 week in the future, well, I don't have evidence to contradict you, because in my personal experience, the ones I've worked with have been very short-sighted. However, I would have hoped that there are at least some (hopefully more than just some) organizations that actually think about things on a longer-term scale.
Meanwhile, looking at it the other way, what would happen if a board made no such statement when there's a dead man walking? Does their statement do anything to actually help the situation? By keeping their mouths shut, would they get the best of both worlds, assuming the stock doesn't immediately tank just because they failed to make a statement that they don't actually believe anyway.
Also, talking about Cheatle, I don't think there's any stock involved, so what's at stake for the Secretary of Homeland Security to keep his mouth shut instead of endorsing her?
Sorry about the delayed response! Real life stuff
But our hypothetical member of the board gains reputational benefit from showing they are a team player who are willing to say the emperor has a great new outfit up until the very moment they say he doesn't.
The Catholic Church has existed for 2,000 years - I'd imagine they've been doing something right just based on that
It's a move that accrues the benefit of showing the next emperor they'll have 'full support' up until the moment they don't and a soft landing on the way out. Nobody wants to replace the guy who was just openly couped by the mayor of the palace
See above, the next head of the Secret Service is assured that they'll have everyone's 'full support' right up to and after the moment they're shown the door
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
An organization starts having serious problems. People start asking questions about the guy in charge, whether he's really doing a good job, whether he should keep his job. Typically, the guy in charge and the organization as a whole dismisses these questions out of hand. When they actually put out a statement that "the guy in charge has the full backing of the Board", what usually happens is that he's removed from his position within a week or two. The fact that they need to state that he has their backing is strong evidence that he probably shouldn't have their backing. I think the claim originally comes from observing head coaches in professional sports teams.
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! That makes sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's the same with starting quarterbacks. By the time a head coach has to answer questions about benching them, it's over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link