[flocciput]

Lots of people in this thread alluding to similar experiences "speaking truth to power" or "failing to read a room" or "not playing politics" and suffering the fallout from it. But as someone at the start of their career I'm kind of interested in the specifics--what kinds of ethical concerns? What forms of retaliation? Everyone's being pointedly vague and I guess that's necessary to an extent to preserve internet anonymity (or maintain a reputation, if your professional work is tied to your HN account) but it is frustrating as someone trying to figure out how to "read the room."

[xyzzy123]

Common patterns of behaviour are:

1. Generalised nepotism: heads-of favouring their buddies / installing crony networks, hiring/promoting only people of certain races or ethnic backgrounds, influencing supplier relationships for their own benefit (controlled by their family / friends / network), etc.

2. Toxic personality / power / ego and the political games, bullying and power plays that go along with that (to the detriment of the organisation).

3. Dangerous levels of incompetence (from the perspective of their reports), when people who shouldn't be allowed to operate a stapler are put in charge of major business units. Often everyone is fine with this if they don't touch anything, it only becomes a problem when they are influenced to make sweeping changes.

Sometimes you get the whole package in 1 person. Of course, one person's nepotistic incompetent bully is another person's charming and shrewd nephew. Usually they got into their position through the strength of their network(s) so if you go at them you're likely to have a bad day.

[salawat]

>Everyone's being pointedly vague and I guess that's necessary to an extent to preserve internet anonymity (or maintain a reputation, if your professional work is tied to your HN account) but it is frustrating as someone trying to figure out how to "read the room."

Allpw me to possibly explain a bit about why there is a degree of cagey-ness/intentional vagueness. A lot of the startup world focuses around exploiting opportunities where there are profits to be realized in areas of mercantile endeavor that can ne in a bit of a grey zone, as it were. Areas the big boys won't touch because it's too risky, but that can have a large payoff with just a relatively small infusion of capital. So when you're talking a lot of these places, there is certainly room for a bait-n-switch to occur. Circumstances may be wildly different from instance to instance; but in general the same threads and warning signs are there. Going into specific details, as you point out, is a great way to out yourself. Sometimes it's just enough to tell someone to look hard, and generally with the prompting they'll figure it out.

Now as far as reading the room goes... The sapd truth is this. If you didn't fund raise, you ultimately don't get to call the shots. Just how it works. Now it's best to listen to the folks you hire; don't get me wrong, but in most cases, an org does everything it can to make sure it is only steered from the top down by edict. It's not perfectly so, and there are ways to manage up (techniques no one who knows em is going to discuss in public), but at the end of the day, with power concentrated in the guy at the top, it comes down to how much trust you confer unto that person as a human being. If you're bringing up an ethics concern, and you're pretty sure it's not going to be taken well, or you've seen it ignored... Well... Adjust your trust levels accordingly.

[mu53]

Never criticize anything. Do your best to blend into walls. Let other speak up and support them.

"48 laws of power" is a book that everyone should read to understand politics. Its all ego and narcissism.