[aazaa]

> Mission focus is the operational principle that your project’s social responsibility is the effective and focused execution of its mission. ...

This brings to mind what Snowden revealed to the world. Few inside the CIA new about domestic warrantless surveillance.

Had Snowden followed the "Mission Protocol," we might still not be aware of the laws being broken routinely in the name of security.

Following the Mission Protocol seems like a thinly-disguised attempt to get workers to subject themselves to someone else's agenda.

I mean, isn't this just a fancy way of saying that the ends justify the means? Every mission is political in one way or another.

[treyhuffine]

The way I read it, I don't think the Mission Protocol is about accomplishing the mission at all costs, even if it means sacrificing our morals or doing anything illegal.

It's very difficult to create meaningful and impactful change to improve society, and this advocates being laser-focused to give your mission the best chance be successful. If all (good) missions are given their full attention, they all have a higher chance of success instead of everyone trying to trying to do everything, and then not doing any mission well enough to be successful.

It is advocating for people to choose a company with a mission they believe in because they think it can make a positive contribution to society. For example, if you care about having a world-wide open financial system but take a job at Tesla, according to the Mission Protocol you would be doing a disservice to bringing clean energy to the world if you also asked Tesla to put effort into contributing to an open financial system.

[CryptoPunk]

Snowden found that these agencies were violating their mission, which is defined by the Constitution.

[noxer]

Pointing out or "whistle blow" legal or ethical wrongdoings by a single person has nothing to do with a group coming together and agreeing on not participating in political topics that aren't essential to the groups mission.

>...isn't this just a fancy way of saying that the ends justify the means?

No, It doesn't discourage anyone from questioning the groups action at all. It should stop companies from having to decorate their office according to the current pride month to make a political statement that is completely irrelevant to its mission.

[herbstein]

> Pointing out or "whistle blow" legal or ethical wrongdoings by a single person has nothing to do with a group coming together and agreeing on not participating in political topics that aren't essential to the groups mission.

Whether e.g. my colleagues that happen to be minorities feel comfortable in the working environment is super important for me as an employee, and should be important to the company too. Even as a purely profit-driven incentive, but hopefully also because empathy is a thing that exists.

My colleagues without citizenship, gender-minorities, and ethnic minorities in general are, for example impacted disproportionately by the policies of the current administration. If one of these colleagues talks about "politics" that aren't directly relevant to the mission, but impact them deeply as humans and emotional beings, they shouldn't be shut down. For them, it might instill a degree of confidence in the organization if the company, instead of ignoring their plight, chose to actively support them.

[noxer]

You exactly misunderstood it. Personal these topics may be relevant but for the groups mission they are not. It doesn't matter if the topic is relevant for a majority or minority at all. Even if the topic would be of interest for all people, if its not relevant to the mission it simply inst relevant in the scope of working and should not be handled at work.

If you are mistreated by others AT WORK for whatever reason including political reasons then you have (should have) a way to report that. The Mission Protocol isn't about looking away from wrongdoings its about focusing on the mission and avoiding mission non-critical stuff. Your views on whatever outside of that scope can be emotionally affected by current events but that can not and should not be in the way of the companies mission.

[herbstein]

Since the mission is only achieved as a function of the work performed by employees, the problems facing large groups of employees is surely in the interest of the employer. If 10% of your employees feel affected by e.g. a death by police hands, and the subsequent protests, then you _will_ notice that on your bottom line. Not to mention all of the non-black people that naturally are also affected by such events.

To take it out of racial lines, imagine how scared a member of the LGBT community must feel as the supreme court justice hearings, which could result in the reversal of crucial protections for that group, are playing out. My point here is that caring about the well-being of your colleagues and/or your employees should necessarily include the singular issues which negatively affect them to the degree that current events seem to have. Or, at least has for the people that I have spoken to.

I want to make it clear that the above argument isn't that "a group should speak out because they have a voice", even if I think such an argument could be made quite strongly. Rather, it's an argument focusing solely on context of keeping employees and/or colleagues somewhat happier, and less affected by events like we've seen. It's also a way to foster loyalty. If someone thinks their employer has their back, they're more likely to have the back of their employer too.

---

On the topic of "at work" problems relating to political issues. Recently there has been a some high-profile but, in my view, quite meaningless changes proposed. Like GitHub changing the default branch name. It's a trivial change, doesn't do anything meaningful about the real problems faced by minorities, and primarily is a way to score a few feel-good brownie points. However, it still had an effect on the people I've talked to about this. Because when 30% of your colleagues care so strongly about _not_ changing the default branch name - something that, again, is utterly trivial and well-supported - it makes them feel less welcome. A change so small and trivial, suggested by some in a well intentioned effort to be nice, turns into exclusionary act by the employee that so strongly feel making that change is preposterous.

You might say that the change shouldn't have been suggested in the first place, and thus the whole thing would be avoided. But the conversation about that change was happening everywhere online in every technology-related sphere. You'd be hard-pressed to follow any news in our industry and miss the conversation. Which brings us back to the crux. It's such a small change that doesn't really matter to most people, but to some it _is_ important. Why not?

Work doesn't happen in a bubble with no connection to the outside world. The work affects the real world, and the real world effects the work. It's a two-way street that you can't ignore.

[noxer]

You completely make up BS. The whole "death by police hands" is a made up non existing threat to law abiding citizen. And the whole LGBTASDFQWERTY once was about equal rights. Equal rights means you show up at work and do your job or you get fired regardless of you gender and political happenings. Imagine if the supreme court would be talking about the right to bear arms. No matter your views on that topic its in no way relevant for showing up at work and do you job. How you handle that in you free time is up to you but at work this would be completely irrelevant even if you work in a gun factory.

[not_a_moth]

Really cheapening Snowden here if you think he wasn't going to sacrifice his life to reveal these practices if a little mission protocol document had been there.

[iongoatb]

This protocol is meant for non-government agencies, i.e. tech companies. Don't obfuscate the intended purpose of this protocol. There are well-defined, existing whistleblower protocols in government for situations that Snowden encountered.

[Pils]

Did you mean to also exclude tech companies that work with the government (i.e. Palantir, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.)?

> Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (informally Booz Allen) is the parent of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an American management and information technology consulting firm, headquartered in McLean, Virginia, in Greater Washington, D.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

[iongoatb]

Gee, thanks for explaining what government contracting is.

I wasn't aware. /s

Contractors are also protected under existing whistleblower laws. There are clearly codified protocols for reporting and handling instances of governmental abuse. Any contractor that is dealing with sensitive information is working with either a Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret clearance. These projects and clearances are something you are specifically hired for, or voluntarily agree to participate in.

https://www.cncsoig.gov/contractor-whistleblower-protection-...

Again, stop obfuscating.

You're grasping at straws.

[jhardy54]

Welcome to HN!

Gentle nudge to take a look at the HN etiquette guide. Your comment sticks out in a very negative way, and hurts the culture we want to foster.