| > Is it? Yes, from all accounts it's pretty clear that he condoned and even promoted an arsehole culture. > Were steps not taken to remove the harassers, once the incidents came to light? Basically, no. Now, years afterwards, a few heads have finally rolled -- but only after it snowballed into a major (international, not just US-national) media scandal. But not back when the incidents first came to light, no. > How can the CEO watch over every social interaction? 1) By delegating to a HR department with instructions to follow the law. Which instructions they might have had on paper, but obviously not in actual fact, given the real prevailing culture there. 2) So it comes back to, again: By making it clear, in words and example, what the working culture is supposed to be like. So that potential victims can be assured they won't get harrassed, potential harrassers can be assured they won't get away with shit like that, and the HR department can be assured they're supposed to go after the harassers and support the victims, not the other way around. I don't know, this all feels so obvious I am compelled to question your grounds for asking. Are you really claiming you didn't know this, or couldn't figure it out for yourself? Because even asking the question smells a bit fake; like concern-trolling in support of the culture Kalanick's fostered. |