|
|
|
|
|
|
by shriver
2849 days ago
|
|
|
I think if you look at the incentives in that situation it's very understandable to not speak out. If you're a good employee working at Riot and you have a problem with the culture you have two options: Speak out or leave. If you speak out it can be incredibly damaging, you'll almost certainly destroy your career at riot because you'll be actively attacking people you work with. You stand a good chance of getting a reputation in the industry. The likelihood of changing the culture is microscopic - especially if you find out it's the CEO providing the lead in this behaviour. And if you succeed? Your career at Riot is still probably damaged, Riot's culture will be like any of the many other companies you could work at. During the time you're fighting for that change it's likely to be incredibly emotionally draining and you're bound to lose some friends. If you leave, you have literally none of those downsides, you've still got a good career and you can go off to one of the many other companies that are just as successful without those downsides. So to speak up you need to be incredibly principled AND you have to have some very deep stake in making THIS particular multinational corporation better. I think it makes perfect sense not to speak out for the vast majority of people. |
|
|
While I think it's understandable when people don't speak out, I don't agree that those are the only two options. The small stuff Barry did is meaningful:
"My personal preference was to respond with clarifying language while addressing them by their first name, and convey 'can we just get through the conversation we need to have' non-verbally with my facial expressions and gestures..."
Not everyone has to be a leader like Barry, and not everyone feels the same degree of urgency about these issues. But to feel at peace with yourself, it's worth it to at least not actively participate and perhaps to push (however gently) in the right direction.