[hobs]

For each reporter - how many people do you think did not report? Do you honestly think ALL people reported? If its not dozens unreported per one report (or more) I'd eat my hat.

In my history of corporations, almost all bad behavior goes unreported because those in power are doing the bad thing. It seems like Google is not different in this respect.

[falcolas]

> For each reporter - how many people do you think did not report?

For group discussions with no negative impact, there tends to be a 1-9-90 rule. 1% of the group is highly active, 9% are somewhat active, 90% are passive.

I believe it's safe to assume that similar ratios can be found in incidents like this - 1% or fewer will go public, 9% will go to their colleagues, and 90% will suffer in silence.

[rmc]

> For group discussions with no negative impact

And remember, we're talking about cases of negative impact.

[lfcc]

You could also question the validity/fairness of existing complaints.

Ultimately, I don't think taking the argument down this path of conjecture over allegations (or lack thereof) will help clear our view of what is or is not the reality at the company. That's what company wide satisfaction surveys or platforms like Glassdoor are for. And in both accounts I don't see many signs that Google is doing poorly.

Edit: and the results of investigations prompted by these accusations might shed some light as well.