> On Monday, Kraken executive Christina Yee wrote in Slack to employees that the "C.E.O, company, and culture are not going to change in a meaningful way," urging workers to go "somewhere that doesn't disgust you," the Times reported.
Sounds like a healthy corporate environment run by professionals. /s
Sounds like individuals who have beliefs and are standing by them.
A company choosing not to submit to popular politics shouldn't immediately prompt doubt of organizational health or professionalism.
They've clearly articulated their actual core values, and are offering very generous severance to employees who disagree. This is a sign of vibrant health if I've ever seen one.
Highlights from the paywalled Times article which is the basis of the OP:
> In 2019, former Kraken employees posted scathing comments about the company on Glassdoor, a website where workers write anonymous reviews of their employers. [...] In response, Kraken’s parent company sued the anonymous reviewers and tried to force Glassdoor to reveal their identities. A court ordered Glassdoor to turn over some names. On Glassdoor, Mr. Powell has a 96 percent approval rating. The site adds, “This employer has taken legal action against reviewers.”
--
> That same day, he invited employees to join him in a Slack channel called “debate-pronouns” where he suggested that people use pronouns based not on their gender identity but their sex at birth, according to conversations seen by The Times. He shut down replies to the thread after it became contentious. Mr. Powell reopened discussion on Slack the next day to ask why people couldn’t choose their race or ethnicity. He later said the conversation was about who could use the N-word, which he noted wasn’t a slur when used affectionately.
It is absolutely childish, unprofessional behavior for a CEO to derail a whole company by creating Slack channels for sophomoric 'debates' about questions such as 'is it actually rude and shitty for white people to use racial slurs' and then just shut them down when the conversation doesn't sufficiently favor his view for his liking.
The BI piece is a bit less explicit about the CEO's ridiculous behavior.
I have to agree. The BI article really makes it seem as if Powell just wants to hasten the exit of agitators and malcontents. But the NYT article [0] makes it clear that Powell himself is the agitator.
Yeah these are topics entirely inappropriate in work place communications. This ceo isn't mature enough to understand that, therefore they are not fit to be residing over any sort of "debate".
It's also very good evidence for a Title IX violation, so, this CEO is an active liability for the company too.
If someone tells you you're horrible and you need to change, but you don't think you're horrible at all, and neither party can come to an agreement, then what is wrong with this? She's probably been told to her face or through a public forum by a disgruntled employee that she disgusts them so.... what's the issue?
Professionalism wasn't always wrapped up in bland, content-less corp-speak, and I'd be happy for more business communications to be more blunt and straight forward rather than more obscured.
But there may be a genuine idea here too. If you know you're going to downsize, letting people choose to leave will result in higher morale. It will also prevent some situations where the lay-offs caused those same people to quit anyway (but now the company is actually short some key employees).
But maybe Kraken managers are actually just assholes and the leadership is trying to pull off DHH.
The CEO gives off failed surfer dude vibes but the company is allegedly worth $11 billion? Laughable, and I (almost) feel bad for whoever funded that most recent round.
Unless they started in the last 3-4months it definitely makes sense to take this offer.
SW salaries have blown up this year and the last couple. Checking levels.fyi a lot of companies are increasing pay month over month. Plus stock packages based on tailing 30day ma means in a couple year those package could be real lucrative.
Plus you get 4 months of paid vacation to chill and toolup for the interview gauntlet.
It’s a no brainer. Always take the cash. The next round of layoffs might not be so generous.
Someone who leaves now will not likely get another job in crypto anytime soon, since the market is so bearish, there is a surplus of workers, and almost no-one is hiring.
In addition, many employers will pass over the employee who left their last workplace because of politics, no matter how it is framed.
As long as someone is fairly confident in their current job, to leave it for four months pay seems to me silly. (then again, I have a wife and kids, so I don't quite have the yo bro wing-it attitude)
I have a friend who is considered top talent in programming crypto. His salary is envious. His confidence in employment is low - he said there is no guarantees in crypto that any job will last another week, or what will replace it.
The tired old argument is that people should learn to seperate their work from their politics. Kraken have decided to be an overtly political company [1], who value egalitarianism. A bit ironic to say only the people in power can pick and choose who can discuss politics.
As an outsider, to me it seems like some Kraken employees are saying X,Y, and Z is wrong with the company. Kraken leaders say we don't actually have problems X, Y, and Z, and tell them to quit if they don't like it, because there will be no meaningful response to rectify X, Y, and Z, since the leaders don't believe those problems exist.
Sounds like a healthy corporate environment run by professionals. /s