[Spooky23]

So you think it’s a good idea for employees to go to the board with a position out of sync with management and bypass the management chain?

I’ve never seen any place in business, non-profit or government where that was a scenario that would benefit the employee unless the employee was very politically savvy, was in a very senior position and had special circumstances (past relationships, etc)

[csa]

> So you think it’s a good idea for employees to go to the board with a position out of sync with management and bypass the management chain?

The article says very specifically:

"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. Likewise, if the co-founder relationship is so bad that the company is being seriously harmed, the team should feel a responsibility to come to the Board with that information."

I stand by this.

[notyourday]

The article is written by a VC trying to protect his turf. Lying is rampant in startup world, up and down the chain of management. It is also routine in the world built around startups. VCs lie to execs. Execs lie to leadership. Leadership lies to management. Management lies to rank and file. In our politically correct culture it is just not called "lying" - it may be called "accelerating" or "explaining" or "moving the needle". This, in turn, creates a situation where everyone with an ounce of brain and common sense needs to figure out not just a real picture but a real picture as seen by every layer of organization or players.

I especially take issue with this:

"The team underneath the founders should feel like they have the right, and the responsibility, to talk to the Board and investor group when founder dysfunction gets really bad. In general the idea of the team going around the leaders to the Board is a big “no no” in startup land, but there are a few places where that needs to happen, like outing illegal or dishonest actions, or harassment. "

Had this been the case we would not have had scandals at Zenefits and Uber. The big no-no in a startup land is no stop looking like a cash cows for VCs.

[Spooky23]

I think that’s different, and the response to that sort of company, especially for a senior employee is to resign.

If the founders are behaving unethically or illegally, the board has already failed to fulfill its duty. “Don’t kill the messenger” is rarely reality.

[wolco]

If you are going to the board as an employee the company better be falling apart.

[20180201]

> So you think it’s a good idea for employees to go to the board with a position out of sync with management and bypass the management chain?

he just didn't like the language i used (it's blunt, and describes a social dynamic he's probably upset about). he forgot all about what's actually being discussed here, which is an IC-level employee vocalizing to the co-founders/executives and board about the direction/strategy/highlevel leadership of the company.

[warent]

It's ironic that you're championing blunt language and disregard for social dynamic under a throwaway account.

Your comment about tone, even if its regarding your own--or other's perception of it--brings no value to this discussion. Arguably it brings negative value.

Did you create this account to vent a fantasy personality that you're restraining in real life?

[20180201]

i don't have a real account, haven't had one for years, because eventually i say something the mods don't like.

cheers.