There is speculation in this article and elsewhere that the timing of this forced change of leadership so soon after an anonymously sourced article revealing Korey’s abrasive management is evidence of a larger PR proxy war between governance and the CEO. I’d be curious to learn about whether this is a common conspiracy and if anyone has other such examples.
This has to be the case. Think about it, why would the reading audience of the general public care about working conditions in such a random, relatively small company?
It’s a <500 employee company. The plight of tens of thousands of Amazon or Uber employees and contractors is much more relatable, more people are likely to know someone who has worked in those environments.
Some small startup company with a CEO with hubris isn’t exactly news.
Because Silicon Valley is seen as a utopia for innovation, and it massively shapes our world and our culture? It's important to report on how it works.
This was a prominent Instagram brand. It has all the trimmings of the Silicon Valley Startup: they make suitcases but talk about themselves as a "travel company" with lofty missions, they "value transparency" but not when employees actually use it.
This kind of story continually happens, at Uber, at WeWork, at Zenefits, at Riot Games, at Nest, and at startups I've worked at too. The more we bring these stories to light, the better working conditions will be at these places.
EDIT: Someone pointed out below that the company is actually in NYC, not Silicon Valley. Still, this style of startup culture exists all around the world.
> Because Silicon Valley is seen as a utopia for innovation
Is this really the generally held consensus with the public? I certainly don't believe this, but I work here so I'm biased.
I think most people think Silicon Valley is full of overpaid engineers churning out things nobody actually wants - there's a reason the show Silicon Valley was such a hit.
Also a fun fact - Mike Judge (creator of Silicon Valley) actually worked in the Valley for a bit after college. He felt like people here were just ridiculous - the basis for the show is largely rooted in his own experiences working here.
Silicon Valley's writers met with Google X's boss, Astro Teller [0]. He got so pissed they were making fun of him, he stormed out of the room, supposedly on rollerskates, and yet Google still pays him top dollar money.
There are a large enough number of people here who believe it that they continue to start startups and play startup-dressup, talk about changing the world, and elevate the world's consciousness or whatever. The number of applications to Y Combinator every year is growing, not shrinking.
I think it sounds like we agree - most of the people who want to "change the world" are really opportunists looking to get rich. That's not to say there really aren't some fantastic people trying to make a difference, but in my anecdotal experience they are drowned out by people who really only care about money. And ultimately it's investors who dictate what companies get funded, and they definitely care about the money.
Given the inevitable bad behavior by big tech companies -- remember Google's "don't be evil" slogan? -- it's amazing they have a track record of portraying SV in a good light?
The sociopaths showed up in the 90s and have been there since. At this point it's mostly Wall Street with pseudo-progressive window dressing.
"Silicon Valley" is a metonym for the tech industry generally, with interpretation dependant on context. It's often implied, but occasionally explicitly stated.
See for comparison, "Foggy Bottom" (US State Dept.), "Hollywood" (film industry), "Nashville" (country music), "White House" (US Office of the President, or United States), "Pentagon" (US Department of Defence), "10 Downing Street" (UK / UK Prime Minister), "Westminster" (British Monarchy), "Berlin" (Germany), "Moscow" (Russia), Rome ("The Vatican" / "Catholic Church" / "Pope"), "Vegas" (gambling industry), "Wall Street" (finance), "Madison Avenue" (advertising), "Fleet Street" (British press), "Detroit" (US, sometimes global, auto industry, also R&B music), "Kitchen" (cooking/food generally), "Danish" (pastry), "Napa" (California wine industry).
Cheddar, denim, burgundy, champagne, parmesan, dalmatian, italic, duffel, lyme (disease), chihauhua, torquois, jalapeno, paisley, sherry, port, chantilley, marathon, hamburger, pilsner, balaclava, varnish, limousine and lesbian are all words originating from place names, most with generally generic descriptions (attempts at appellation notwithstanding).
I think this is the critical point. I’m also well outside of the geographical place (US Midwest), and hear this term used to apply generically to the tech industry. I’ve had interactions with people from that geographical area who not only don’t do this, but also get a bit irritated and quickly correct anyone who does.
By this time, “Silicon Valley” had become shorthand for an entire industry that was concentrated in Santa Clara County but had outposts in cities like Seattle, where Amazon had set up shop. The “continuing irony,” O’Mara writes, lay in the fact that “some of those most enriched by the new-style military-industrial complex were also some of the tech industry’s most outspoken critics of big government.”
The notion that the only portion of the tech sector which requires regulation is that bounded within Santa Clara County, or Santa Clara - San Mateo, or the SF-OAK-SJ MSA, is clearly absurd.
Tim Harford at the BBC:
"Silicon Valley stands for cutting-edge technology, bold ideas that change the world."
> why would the reading audience of the general public care about working conditions in such a random, relatively small company?
I think from the most reader's POV, whether this is a 500 or 500K-people company makes no difference, it's just a number next to the word "employees". The actual amount doesn't register emotionally, so the story is the same regardless of size. And it's easier for reporters to find a small company with problems, especially now that public displays of hubris are a somewhat popular startup marketing strategy.
Away has raised $181m, and punches above their weight in visibility because they are a b2c business and have a b2c advertising strategy. Also, a rich entitled asshole of a ceo berating employees making $40k in nyc doesn't happen that often with a written record.
Same answer as why the real general public would care about the contestants on Judge Judy. Let's all enjoy a good story about miscreants and comeuppance. The Verge aims to tech and startup people anyway, not the general public, and this is a startup.
It “has to be the case” because the company has fewer than 500 employees? That’s very weak reasoning. Is no story about mismanagement at a company with fewer than 500 employees genuine? They’re all just manufactured PR stunts? Can you in any way justify this bizarre claim?
If you think people can't relate to an abusive boss more than Amazon working conditions then you haven't worked much.
Amazon and Uber are just sad, this is entertaining in the individual drama sort of way. Plus the abusive boss get kicked out in the which gives readers a happy ending.
I believe she’s awful just from a few of the slack messages. But I’d believe her cofounder is probably just as awful. That there was so much ammo lying around is the problem.
I mean, Occam's razor says that they were already looking, and the article just pushed them to go with the best they'd found as soon as possible to avoid this becoming a long drawn-out mess.
I find this theory interesting, but a big question I have about the initial story is "How long did the Verge investigation take?" Reading the article, it's not clear to me. Two or three months? Tracking down 14 former workers/interviews, fact checking, compiling research.
I don't think it is farfetched to consider that, if the Verge had been working on the article since (let's call it) early October, it may have been just inconvenient but brutal timing. It sounds like they were making plans to replace Korey since the Spring of this year. I could easily see the Away board aiming to delay the leadership change until after the holiday season (Q1 2020). Bad press like the Verge article or a CEO shakeup in the middle of a shorter-than-usual holiday shopping season sucks for a B2C retail company. Moving up the start date of the new CEO they've already vetted and recruited earlier this year seems to me like Away's only opportunity to save their shopping season.
> Bad press like the Verge article or a CEO shakeup in the middle of a shorter-than-usual holiday shopping season sucks for a B2C retail company. Moving up the start date of the new CEO they've already vetted and recruited earlier this year seems to me like Away's only opportunity to save their shopping season.
Maybe? How concerned is the bulk of their potential customer base aware of any goings on in the leadership of the company? What is the latest developments at the C-level of the company who supplied your canned corn or bike tires?
Highly doubt it. All the employees who came forward were jr customer service agents. Would anyone actually believe that board members would even know who they were, track them individually down and know why they left the company?
Abrasive CEO fires a bunch of people and generally pisses underlings off; her bitter victims leak some genuinely salacious details of her behavior to the press; story picks up eyeballs and board that has grown tired with her affect on morale decides it's time to pull the trigger on getting rid of her now that the cat's out of the bag. I don't understand why a conspiracy is necessary here.
Looks like there are four board members: Korey, Rubio, and two VCs. If they held equal votes, it's possible the two VCs wanted to oust Korey but Rubio did not.
As a result, the VCs probably waged a backchannel PR war to pressure Rubio to support Korey's firing.
If in fact this was coordinated to distract from the firing of a woman CEO to be replaced by a man, it worked masterfully and whoever executed it should get a raise.
> If a waiter served a customer a half-eaten sandwich, I’d expect the manager to immediately berate him in front of the other staff in the kitchen — not take him aside and say “Hey, that isn’t cool.”
Gross.
Korey's own words, about teaching her direct reports "accountability" by asking them to work overtime, presumably unpaid, is gross.
Korey's own actions, by forcing all employees to talk publicly in Slack channels in "the interest of transparency", and then firing those who talk about problems at the company, is gross.
If this level of irresponsibility made its way to the board, PR disaster in stow, you sure imagine they'd try to get rid of her quick.
I've worked in serious NYC restaurants for years, and made a lot of big mistakes, including serving inch-worms to celebrities. I've almost always been treated with respect and kindness when I made a mistake (save for some gentle ribbing). When I first started I had a few sternly worded conversations, but they were always respectful and very clearly delivered with the intention of building me up, not putting me down.
The one and only time I was ever shouted at was in private and one-on-one, and was a motivating factor in my putting in my notice a few days later.
Toxic culture is never acceptable, not in restaurants, or tech companies.
That’s just wrong that you got gentle ribbing if it was your fault that a worm got served to a diner. I’d prefer to eat at restaurants where such an employee was fired or severely castigated for such a screwup, but in private, and not with glee.
Honestly, I hope the employees involved file a massive class action suit against the CEO, head of HR, and the board for creating a hostile environment. Burn the place to the ground.
Somewhere along the line in the past 20 years, HR and senior leadership decided they were not "managers" but "therapists". We don't discuss what happened from a process and policy compliance perspective (depersonalizing it). No - we have to turn it into a holier than thou judgement session about your values and personal beliefs.
The problem is... instead of the brief burst of discomfort produced by a policy compliance discussion (which is often very impersonal), the feedback discussion becomes a very personal judgement about you by a respected authority figure that you have been conditioned to listen to. Far more painful and damaging.
I went thought something similar at a former employer, a nasty web of pseudo-therapy "coaching" to help "align me with corporate values". I had an chance to leave and I took it. 30 days later, my family commented that Dad was finally smiling again....
From an ethical perspective, HR needs to RUN from anything resembling being a therapist. No mental health professional could ethically operate under the realities of their job: they have a massive conflict of interest and policy prohibitions against client confidentiality. You should never open up to HR. Period. They're not a mental health provider.
If you're in HR and want to work as a mental health professional, quit your corporate job, get licensed, and operate in accordance with industry ethics!
Sounds like racist stuff was being said in that #Hot-Topics channel. You'll notice one of the offending employees did not even try to refute that, but rather seemed to be using the ridiculous defense of "I can't be racist because I'm not white".
> “The stuff you said was hateful, even racist. You no longer have a job at this company.” Emily, who is a person of color, was shocked. “That was jarring — three white people telling me I was racist,” she says.
Given the things I've seen people post publicly on Twitter and elsewhere, I can 100% believe that racist things were being said and that the perpetrators felt they were immune to repercussions because the things being said were about white people.
I don't know why this article complicates the situation. She apologized for incidents that occurred last year, Verge reported on those incidents and those incidents prompted the board to find her replacement:
https://twitter.com/stephkorey/status/1203051598961954816
I wonder if they were bringing the Lululemon exec in for another c suite position, then the story leaked (or was leaked on purpose to depose her) and they already had the right person coming in already. I could see that fitting either narrative not that it really matters.
I love it how despite all that happened she still has “ want to transform travel alongside an unbelievably talented team? http://awaytravel.com/careers” in her Twitter bio.
Also, I wish they’d just shut up about “transforming” travel... chill out and get back to earth, you’re just a luggage company.
I find it really hard to feel sorry for the person who grew up in a 55,000 sq ft house and went to boarding school. It's highly likely that she and her family are so wealthy she never needs to work a day in her life, so she treats the whole thing like a game.
From the verge article:
"Korey, for her part, didn’t have to work hard to project an aspirational lifestyle. The CEO grew up in Ohio in a 55,000-square-foot historic mansion with an indoor swimming pool and three dining rooms. She’d gone to boarding school, then landed in Bloomingdale’s executive development program while at Brown University"
Go breed Arabian racehorses or something, lady, stop cracking the whip on $40k a year peons.
do you not think the reporter put that in the story to induce you as the reader to have this very reaction?
i think her actions were wrong, but i also think this setup at the beginning of the story has nothing to do with the actual issue at all and was meant to turn readers on the CEO from the get go before you had even read anything about what she had actually done.
The reality is that many successful high profile founders, including Gates/Zuckerberg/Spiegel came from wealthy backgrounds. It speaks more to the power of a strong social safety net when it comes to entrepreneurship than anything else, but shouldn’t by itself make you hate someone.
Given all the other reprehensible stuff in the article, the bit about her background seemed like an unnecessary potshot. The very next sentence is "But for all of her privilege, no one denied the executive’s fanatical work ethic." But, it's split from the paragraph about her upbringing and it looks like some readers didn't make it that far.
Personal attacks are not ok on HN. Maybe you don't owe "lady" better, but you owe this community better if you're posting here. This sort of comment is basically just the primate feces-hurling game—it's a mechanical response, and doesn't count as interesting in the sense that the site guidelines use that word.
There may well be a good comment to be made on behalf of the employees of the company, but this is not that.
Thanks for the feedback. It's probably best to have the comment deleted. I have a strong and visceral reaction to seeing somebody from a background of wealth and privilege force extremely low paid workers (in NYC, no less) into 80 hour work weeks. But that definitely came out the wrong way.
There is probably a more productive discussion to be had about labor laws, overtime pay and the disparity in net worth between CEOs and persons trying to live on 40k a year in New York, but that clearly wasn't it.
This is a disturbing comment to me, aside from the subtle (or not so subtle) sexism in the last line.
Inherently, racism, sexism, etc. is when we discriminate against or judge someone based on the "group" to which they belong, or worse, based on a stereotype of the group they belong to, whether that group is defined by race, sexuality, culture, or social economic class.
It would be a fair comment to say one doesn't feel sorry for Korey because her predicament was brought on by her unacceptable behavior. However, it's quite another thing to not feel sorry for her simply because of her perceived social economic class. It sounds like something you'd read in an Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn book, uttered by a proletariat after a "rich" farmer (i.e. bourgeoisie) was murdered and his farm taken.
There isn't any sexism in his statement and frankly the implication that something is 'sexist' because of a mere reference to gender is problematic.
Also - the comment is otherwise perfectly fair. These are public figures, their backgrounds are fair game for discussion - which is why it's covered. I don't think it's unfair to consider that someone's background growing up in hyper wealthy, entitled situation may affect their management outlook. Moreover, I disagree with the moderator that this amounts to ad-hominem or is a low value comment, any more than anything else.
> But read the memo. Away wasn’t “clamping down on employee speech” — they were dealing with a serious PR crisis. What company in the midst of a PR crisis would not tell employees not to talk about it?
I think they were pretty clearly cracking down on employee speech. Telling them what they are allowed to do on their personal accounts outside of work hours really rubs me the wrong way regardless of whether or not they are in crisis mode.
And no, I am not being hyperbolic. Did you read the article? Employees at Away are banned from using everything above. No private Slack channels. No email. Only public Slack. I challenge you to name a successful company where that is the policy.
"Employees were not allowed to email each other, and direct messages were supposed to be used rarely (never about work, and only for small requests, like asking if someone wanted to eat lunch)."
Human brains naturally look for patterns. Those patterns have a uniform distribution with respect to the probability of them actually explaining the data.
I remember pretty clearly when I first started seeing "the game", which is the politics that course through an organization like the wind through a mountain forest. It can be pretty heady at first, it is like wearing the special sunglasses in "They Live", but for me I also "saw" some things that weren't actually there at all. And acting on what I think I saw resulted in modest embarrassment and some awkwardness.
So with experience, I learned to take what I saw with a bit of skepticism and to figure out ways I could "test", without revealing what I suspected to be true, whether or not something was what was actually going on.
That test for Gruber was apparently the belief that you "cannot" hire a new CEO from another large company in the short amount of time that Away did it, so the "truth" (or what is "really" going on) is that the Verge story was cover for the swap and distracting from the distasteful element that a woman in technology was being forced out and a man coming in to replace her.
I don't think that would be enough for me. Over my career I have met with a number of executive search firms, both helping them to identify good candidates, and sometimes as the candidate they were vetting for a possible move. And that experience showed me that executives are just as trigger happy as employees are for the 'right' move. That is especially true near the top because the only way you move into the 'big' seat is for the person in it to be ejected, and that can be a slow process for an aggressive person. Watching Ed Zander give up on Scott ever stepping down so that he could take over Sun he bailed and went to Motorola. It's a common story. So for me, I can see that if you talked to the right executive search firm, they might have a couple of candidates that were already 'loose in the socket' as they say. But it also can't be a "hopeless" company, like Uber seemed to be when Kalanick was clearly on the way out. But 'start up founder can't grow into the role' is a common enough reason to slot in someone who has more experience, and if it moves an executive closer to their ultimate goal, not as hard to pull off as you might think. (I'll admit it is probably easier for CTO roles than CEO roles but still)
I am not saying that Gruber is wrong, I agree it is a plausible explanation. I just don't see the evidence as being as definitive as he does.
Yeah, there are only so many opportunities to lead a company with that type of funding and growth. Being offered a couple percent of a company where at your current employer you're tapped out until a ceo or founder gets around to quitting may shake someone loose fast.
Also, Gruber's general purpose is whitelabeled Apple PR. His "insights" here accord with his claim that he would never let an advertiser that paid him roughly a quarter million dollars affect his views! He's a man of principle (unmentioned, the principle being gettin' paid)!
To be clear, my take on his angle is "whatever keeps approximately $60k/year of advertising checks flowing his way. Because principles."
Fair enough, but the WSJ article states that "Away said the CEO search has been under way since this spring", so it is not simply Gruber's speculation that the CEO search was long.
Lululemon, Nike, and Away all sell aspiration, hope, and a lifestyle, which get them to valuations higher than shoe, yoga pants, and luggage companies do. There are of course variations on design and differentiation in technology in each of those, but the value is in the brand.
A lot of people travel and need luggage as well. I’m not suggesting Away would ever be worth anything close to Nike but is it realistic to think it could be worth several billion? Sure.
- Why consistent feedback builds trust
- How to embrace mistakes (and share your own with your team)
- Why you should let go of giving answers, and start asking questions
- How to treat you staff like shit
Wait. sorry I added the last one.. and only the last one :o) Okay #TrollingDone
The sheer hubris of this beggars belief. Maybe we can get a skillshare from Elizabeth Holmes on how to build a lasting company or Adam Neumann on how to con your way into making a billion dollars?
- wait, that last one might actually be interesting...
40k a year for what sounds like 65-80 hour works weeks, and a daily torrent of Slack abuse from the CEO just sounds like a new level of purgatory for the rank and file workers. 40k gross in NYC with both federal, state and city income taxes, and cost of living in NYC, is truly a pittance.
We changed the URL from https://daringfireball.net/2019/12/away_replaces_ceo to the article it points to, in keeping with the site guideline that asks for original sources. It might be best to look at both articles, though, since they cover different aspects.
Appreciated, Gruber is doing some real weird editorializing on this.
Edit: well I take it back. Gruber seems to taking his usual tack when covering anything outside the Apple beat, ie. pure speculation and opinion of the sort everyone posts on Twitter but at 500 words. And with a big "they are an active sponsor of my site but I am impervious to bias" disclaimer at the top.
Yeah, and he orients his argument around "well the boss is right to go nuts for sending a sandy, broken suitcase to a customer" and then fails to address the myriad other far-less-defensible awful behaviors the manager demonstrated. Basically just cherry-picked the least-worst thing.
The article spreads a conspiracy theory that serves as a strange defense of Korey's actions as CEO of Away (Daring Fireball's sponsor).
> What I think happened is that once Jen Rubio and the board — who were already plotting Korey’s ouster — became aware of the story, and the all-in-on-outrage-culture/startups-are-toxic angle it was taking, they simply let it happen without pushing back whatsoever. No vast conspiracy necessary — just let it happen.
I have worked in and known of environments where it became appropriate to yell. You would be right not to work there, but not for the reasons you are implying here.
Sure! I'll elaborate on a few aspects in the hopes of covering what you are asking for:
1. It is appropriate to yell at someone when the immediate safety of yourself or another person is threatened.
2. If you accept (1), then the presence of yelling is a much narrower filter than the presence of conditions under which yelling is appropriate. Due to your stated belief that yelling is never appropriate, you see those filters as equal.
3. With (1), I have given you conditions under which I think it is appropriate to yell at someone. Those conditions are never present at my current place of work. So if, based on only those facts, you were to disqualify my place of work as one where you would work, your filter would be too wide.
The Wall Street Journal article would have been a much better link, considering John Gruber/Daring Fireball's conflict of interest and highly dubious disavowal of bias.
> Disclosure: Away has sponsored 21 episodes of my podcast, The Talk Show, in the last three years, and they are on the schedule for an upcoming episode. The following is what I’d write if they never had and never would sponsor my show or website.
I don't think his argument is affected by that possible bias, though. Unless there's some important relevant information left out, anyone can just read what he wrote and decide for themselves. I think it was interesting enough to justify leaving the submitted URL up, though it's best to read the WSJ article as well.
Some of the Verge article is indeed hyperbolic. The writer may have needed to hit a word count. It seems silly to sound outraged about:
* leadership being a clique
* requesting that PR firestorms not be spread further
* leadership going apesh&t over bad products being received as the 2018 holiday season is arriving and teams not addressing quickly
But, IMHO some of the behavior definitely was worth termination over. Framing the CX access as accountability exercise they way she did, for example, was pretty bad, and some of the other sarcasms I read were also just toxic. That kind of toxic is so very counterproductive in any timeframe. You can communicate what you need, with utmost clarity and punch, in other ways.
"When a co-worker invited Avery to join a private Slack channel called #Hot-Topics filled with LGBTQ folks and people of color, she was relieved to find that she wasn’t the only one who felt uncomfortable with Away’s purported mission and company culture.
So when the executive’s name unexpectedly popped into #Hot-Topics the morning of May 16th, 2018, employees knew something was wrong. She’d found out about the channel from Erin Grau, the head of people... “I thought, Damn, she’s gonna see us talking about some stupid stuff, but whatever,” recalls a former marketing manager named Emily*. She hoped Korey would at least find the conversations funny.
That hope evaporated the next day when Korey began calling people into a room one by one. There, flanked by the company’s head of people and general counsel, she told six people they were being let go. “You’ve been discriminatory,” employees remember her saying. “... you no longer have a job at this company.” Emily, who is a person of color, was shocked. “That was jarring — three white people telling me I was racist,” she says.
No, that's bogus. The century of lynching black men that followed the USA civil war was definitely worse than the cab drivers who are rude to white people in Asia.
I haven't heard that since kindergarten. Here in the adult world, we care about justice. Justice is not served when ignorant white yuppies appropriate the struggles of others. Could "Emily" have better catered to the feelings of her managers? Probably! However, we wouldn't all be laughing at Korey if she had said "I'm firing you because you have been rude." She didn't have to pretend that she had suffered some sort of harm because one of her employees didn't worship her.
There's a reason they teach it in kindergarten: it's a pretty fundamental concept that people who want a functioning society should probably adhere to.
Here's another maxim for you: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you want people to be treated equal, stop singling out groups (e.g. "ignorant white yuppies") and playing identity politics.
This is adorable! It was Korey who fired people for, as she claimed, being "racist" and "discriminatory" to her, the lily-white CEO. I bet she wishes she had heard your advice about playing identity politics before she had played identity politics!
I encourage you to tell the legislatures about your wise "two wrongs" wisdom. I bet they'll empty out the prisons immediately!
Jesus left us a variety of maxims. I must admit, however, that we didn't study the Gospels in my kindergarten.
Wow, thats an incredible statement to not be backed up with any sources.
I vehemently disagree; racism is at its worst when groups who are institutionally powerful use racism to oppress groups with relatively little institutional power. To assert otherwise is to be willfully blind to the lived experiences of people who are oppressed, at best. I won't go into what it suggests at worst.
Yes, the n-word is far worse than anything a black person can throw at me (I'm white), but it's still racist to 'call out groups'.
It seems the staffer had some trouble understanding that - I would have maybe just tried to explain it to them.
But it's really weird they don't get that.
Just like Trump I think is influencing people to maybe say nasty things about immigrants etc. I think Jezebel, the Guardian, the Daily Beast are making it seem completely normative to 'call out cis white men' for whatever. It's 'normative' in these publications to attack a specific group. I personally don't mind if there's thoughtfulness or nuance, but usually there isn't and it amounts to casual bigotry.
I am curious about this aspect of it, you can't join a private channel on Slack even if you're "told about it" as far as I know. Someone must have invited her to it.
> “That was jarring — three white people telling me I was racist,” she says.
Obviously it is only racist if a white person complains about three black people tell them something, never the other way around. Equality is a one way street!
Given that they got Lululemons’ COO, they probably already had a contract with him/her. After the article came out they probably sped up when they were going to announce it.
Also I feel like a lot of this type of stuff is coming out now towards the holiday season so that a lot of people would somewhat forget about everything thats going on now.
Putting the specifics of the Away memo aside, the laws regarding policing employee speech are actually more complicated than Gruber seems to understand. See this NLRB decision for a fuller understanding of the complexities:
I was an initial hire at a company with a very similar culture of (the alleged) publicly abusing employees on Slack, with all the hyperbolic cultish nonsense, with plenty of gaslighting and classless psychological manipulation ("if you're on this team it means we think you're the best, but if you can't handle it, maybe we were wrong"), and even the breathless idolization of (all the worst parts of) Amazon to boot.
If you think you're in this situation now -- please: leave. I've since learned that these things are a dime a dozen, and by and large they go up in flames. And in the rare cases when they don't, it's still not worth it. In the worst case at the end of it you'll be burned out, emotionally exhausted, struggling with aggravated anxiety/depression/PTSD, not to mention the damage done to your personal relationships.
This kind of shit is literally abuse, and as such can do actual and severe damage to your life. Don't put up with it. Life is too short, and there's a lot more at stake than your time and labor. There are plenty of companies to work for including startups that won't do this to you.
Whatever validation you get from it that you’re not providing yourself, at the very least find someone else to provide that validation but will give it kindly and help you find it yourself, rather than under threat of constantly taking it away.
Thank you for recognizing this as abuse, which it is. I can't believe that people are glossing over these as "harsh working conditions" – calling people "braindead", firing people about some private Slack channel, really? And then apologizing for it with the hypocritical "We want to maintain the highest standards, mistakes were made?"
Maybe I've just been in more normal, staid companies; but in my opinion all the higher-ups at this company need to be fired or the employees need to stage a mass walkout.
I hate to bring gender into this, but I do wonder if Gruber would raise such a stink if it was just a male CEO getting fired for this.
And as for his example of:
"If a waiter served a customer a half-eaten sandwich, I’d expect the manager to immediately berate him in front of the other staff in the kitchen — not take him aside and say “Hey, that isn’t cool.”
I would think it is highly inappropriate to berate a staff member in front of other staff. That doesn't inspire leadership. Instead you would take them aside and talk to them personally about what they had done, and talk to all staff as a whole about the need to do better and explain the importance of customer service and that a happy customer is likely to refer 2 other people, but a dissatisfied person is likely to tell 20, so we need to stop people from being dissatisfied (within reason).
In all of my roles, from retail, consulting, government, and everything else, it has never been appropriate to berate staff.
It might just be that the people in their target market are willing to pay that price. The price doesn't need to be tied very directly to production costs.
158 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 212 ms ] threadIt’s a <500 employee company. The plight of tens of thousands of Amazon or Uber employees and contractors is much more relatable, more people are likely to know someone who has worked in those environments.
Some small startup company with a CEO with hubris isn’t exactly news.
This was a prominent Instagram brand. It has all the trimmings of the Silicon Valley Startup: they make suitcases but talk about themselves as a "travel company" with lofty missions, they "value transparency" but not when employees actually use it.
This kind of story continually happens, at Uber, at WeWork, at Zenefits, at Riot Games, at Nest, and at startups I've worked at too. The more we bring these stories to light, the better working conditions will be at these places.
EDIT: Someone pointed out below that the company is actually in NYC, not Silicon Valley. Still, this style of startup culture exists all around the world.
Is this really the generally held consensus with the public? I certainly don't believe this, but I work here so I'm biased.
I think most people think Silicon Valley is full of overpaid engineers churning out things nobody actually wants - there's a reason the show Silicon Valley was such a hit.
Also a fun fact - Mike Judge (creator of Silicon Valley) actually worked in the Valley for a bit after college. He felt like people here were just ridiculous - the basis for the show is largely rooted in his own experiences working here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Judge#1985%E2%80%9397:_Ea...
There are a large enough number of people here who believe it that they continue to start startups and play startup-dressup, talk about changing the world, and elevate the world's consciousness or whatever. The number of applications to Y Combinator every year is growing, not shrinking.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-x-astro-teller-hbo-si...
TBH Hollywood / film /tv does not have a good track record in portraying us do they.
The sociopaths showed up in the 90s and have been there since. At this point it's mostly Wall Street with pseudo-progressive window dressing.
The Techlash, dating to about 2017 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_economy#Post_2017_bac..., I also consider Tim Bray's "You Might be Evil" blog post from September 2017 a watershed, https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2017/09/20/Tech-is-E...), is one of the occasional reversals in popular sentiment for technology and innovation.
These arise from time to time, and are not generally irrational. The Luddite movement, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist–Modernist_contr...), numerous examples in Bernhard J. Sterns' excellent "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations" (1937) (https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag..., retyped as Markdown: https://pastebin.com/raw/Bapu75is), various back-to-land movements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-the-land_movement), notably the 1960s-70s commune movement in the US, and others.
See for comparison, "Foggy Bottom" (US State Dept.), "Hollywood" (film industry), "Nashville" (country music), "White House" (US Office of the President, or United States), "Pentagon" (US Department of Defence), "10 Downing Street" (UK / UK Prime Minister), "Westminster" (British Monarchy), "Berlin" (Germany), "Moscow" (Russia), Rome ("The Vatican" / "Catholic Church" / "Pope"), "Vegas" (gambling industry), "Wall Street" (finance), "Madison Avenue" (advertising), "Fleet Street" (British press), "Detroit" (US, sometimes global, auto industry, also R&B music), "Kitchen" (cooking/food generally), "Danish" (pastry), "Napa" (California wine industry).
Cheddar, denim, burgundy, champagne, parmesan, dalmatian, italic, duffel, lyme (disease), chihauhua, torquois, jalapeno, paisley, sherry, port, chantilley, marathon, hamburger, pilsner, balaclava, varnish, limousine and lesbian are all words originating from place names, most with generally generic descriptions (attempts at appellation notwithstanding).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
Also Synecdoche:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
I dispute that. I've never seen it used in that way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/books/review/the-code-mar...
Numerous other examples can be found. The meaning is often implicit, e.g.,
"Silicon Valley Needs Regulation"
This includes my own cohort of Silicon Valley professionals. A recent Stanford study involving nearly 700 “elite technology entrepreneurs”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/opinion/silicon-valley-re...
"Silicon Valley Learns Washington’s Language (and Vice Versa)"
Big Tech’s presence in the capital is unmistakable, and its interests intersect with more and more issues, says David McCabe, a tech policy reporter.
Discussion is of Google and Facebook (both in the geographical Silicon Valley), but also:
All eyes are on Amazon and, more specifically, on its second headquarters in Northern Virginia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/technology/personaltech/s... That is, "Silicon Valley" is "elite technology entrepreneurs".
The notion that the only portion of the tech sector which requires regulation is that bounded within Santa Clara County, or Santa Clara - San Mateo, or the SF-OAK-SJ MSA, is clearly absurd.
Tim Harford at the BBC:
"Silicon Valley stands for cutting-edge technology, bold ideas that change the world."
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49742270?intlink_from_url=...
etc., etc., etc.
Also I always thought Westminster referred to the parliament, not the crown which would more typically be referred to by Buckingham palace.
And again: the key is that the language usage is metaphorical, rather than literal.
I think from the most reader's POV, whether this is a 500 or 500K-people company makes no difference, it's just a number next to the word "employees". The actual amount doesn't register emotionally, so the story is the same regardless of size. And it's easier for reporters to find a small company with problems, especially now that public displays of hubris are a somewhat popular startup marketing strategy.
Amazon and Uber are just sad, this is entertaining in the individual drama sort of way. Plus the abusive boss get kicked out in the which gives readers a happy ending.
I don't think it is farfetched to consider that, if the Verge had been working on the article since (let's call it) early October, it may have been just inconvenient but brutal timing. It sounds like they were making plans to replace Korey since the Spring of this year. I could easily see the Away board aiming to delay the leadership change until after the holiday season (Q1 2020). Bad press like the Verge article or a CEO shakeup in the middle of a shorter-than-usual holiday shopping season sucks for a B2C retail company. Moving up the start date of the new CEO they've already vetted and recruited earlier this year seems to me like Away's only opportunity to save their shopping season.
Edit to add Tweet from Verge Staff:
> Away knew we were reporting on this for months
https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1204278032468307968
Maybe? How concerned is the bulk of their potential customer base aware of any goings on in the leadership of the company? What is the latest developments at the C-level of the company who supplied your canned corn or bike tires?
As a result, the VCs probably waged a backchannel PR war to pressure Rubio to support Korey's firing.
Gross.
Korey's own words, about teaching her direct reports "accountability" by asking them to work overtime, presumably unpaid, is gross.
Korey's own actions, by forcing all employees to talk publicly in Slack channels in "the interest of transparency", and then firing those who talk about problems at the company, is gross.
If this level of irresponsibility made its way to the board, PR disaster in stow, you sure imagine they'd try to get rid of her quick.
I've worked in serious NYC restaurants for years, and made a lot of big mistakes, including serving inch-worms to celebrities. I've almost always been treated with respect and kindness when I made a mistake (save for some gentle ribbing). When I first started I had a few sternly worded conversations, but they were always respectful and very clearly delivered with the intention of building me up, not putting me down.
The one and only time I was ever shouted at was in private and one-on-one, and was a motivating factor in my putting in my notice a few days later.
Toxic culture is never acceptable, not in restaurants, or tech companies.
Well it's a good thing that employers can at least see the value in their employees, even when they gasp act human and make a mistake!
Somewhere along the line in the past 20 years, HR and senior leadership decided they were not "managers" but "therapists". We don't discuss what happened from a process and policy compliance perspective (depersonalizing it). No - we have to turn it into a holier than thou judgement session about your values and personal beliefs.
The problem is... instead of the brief burst of discomfort produced by a policy compliance discussion (which is often very impersonal), the feedback discussion becomes a very personal judgement about you by a respected authority figure that you have been conditioned to listen to. Far more painful and damaging.
I went thought something similar at a former employer, a nasty web of pseudo-therapy "coaching" to help "align me with corporate values". I had an chance to leave and I took it. 30 days later, my family commented that Dad was finally smiling again....
From an ethical perspective, HR needs to RUN from anything resembling being a therapist. No mental health professional could ethically operate under the realities of their job: they have a massive conflict of interest and policy prohibitions against client confidentiality. You should never open up to HR. Period. They're not a mental health provider.
If you're in HR and want to work as a mental health professional, quit your corporate job, get licensed, and operate in accordance with industry ethics!
> “The stuff you said was hateful, even racist. You no longer have a job at this company.” Emily, who is a person of color, was shocked. “That was jarring — three white people telling me I was racist,” she says.
Given the things I've seen people post publicly on Twitter and elsewhere, I can 100% believe that racist things were being said and that the perpetrators felt they were immune to repercussions because the things being said were about white people.
As the OP says, the timing of the PR scandal coincides too conveniently with their internal plans to replace her.
Also, I wish they’d just shut up about “transforming” travel... chill out and get back to earth, you’re just a luggage company.
From the verge article:
"Korey, for her part, didn’t have to work hard to project an aspirational lifestyle. The CEO grew up in Ohio in a 55,000-square-foot historic mansion with an indoor swimming pool and three dining rooms. She’d gone to boarding school, then landed in Bloomingdale’s executive development program while at Brown University"
Go breed Arabian racehorses or something, lady, stop cracking the whip on $40k a year peons.
i think her actions were wrong, but i also think this setup at the beginning of the story has nothing to do with the actual issue at all and was meant to turn readers on the CEO from the get go before you had even read anything about what she had actually done.
The reality is that many successful high profile founders, including Gates/Zuckerberg/Spiegel came from wealthy backgrounds. It speaks more to the power of a strong social safety net when it comes to entrepreneurship than anything else, but shouldn’t by itself make you hate someone.
There may well be a good comment to be made on behalf of the employees of the company, but this is not that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is probably a more productive discussion to be had about labor laws, overtime pay and the disparity in net worth between CEOs and persons trying to live on 40k a year in New York, but that clearly wasn't it.
Inherently, racism, sexism, etc. is when we discriminate against or judge someone based on the "group" to which they belong, or worse, based on a stereotype of the group they belong to, whether that group is defined by race, sexuality, culture, or social economic class.
It would be a fair comment to say one doesn't feel sorry for Korey because her predicament was brought on by her unacceptable behavior. However, it's quite another thing to not feel sorry for her simply because of her perceived social economic class. It sounds like something you'd read in an Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn book, uttered by a proletariat after a "rich" farmer (i.e. bourgeoisie) was murdered and his farm taken.
Let's put away the pitchforks. *Edit: Missed word
Also - the comment is otherwise perfectly fair. These are public figures, their backgrounds are fair game for discussion - which is why it's covered. I don't think it's unfair to consider that someone's background growing up in hyper wealthy, entitled situation may affect their management outlook. Moreover, I disagree with the moderator that this amounts to ad-hominem or is a low value comment, any more than anything else.
I think they were pretty clearly cracking down on employee speech. Telling them what they are allowed to do on their personal accounts outside of work hours really rubs me the wrong way regardless of whether or not they are in crisis mode.
Sorry for the harsh words, but this demonstrates complete incompetence and zero business experience from Steph Korey all the way to the investors.
Away is clearly yet another terrible company that would have died long ago if not for VC life support.
Exception that makes the rule perhaps, but I think you might be being a bit hyperbolic.
And no, I am not being hyperbolic. Did you read the article? Employees at Away are banned from using everything above. No private Slack channels. No email. Only public Slack. I challenge you to name a successful company where that is the policy.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/20995453/away-luggage-ceo...
Youch. Sounds like a cult. All work conversations in a channel where the CEO can eavesdrop and bust in for spurts of berating and micromanagement.
Ideally you'd encourage supposedly "private" conversations then snoop on those.
I remember pretty clearly when I first started seeing "the game", which is the politics that course through an organization like the wind through a mountain forest. It can be pretty heady at first, it is like wearing the special sunglasses in "They Live", but for me I also "saw" some things that weren't actually there at all. And acting on what I think I saw resulted in modest embarrassment and some awkwardness.
So with experience, I learned to take what I saw with a bit of skepticism and to figure out ways I could "test", without revealing what I suspected to be true, whether or not something was what was actually going on.
That test for Gruber was apparently the belief that you "cannot" hire a new CEO from another large company in the short amount of time that Away did it, so the "truth" (or what is "really" going on) is that the Verge story was cover for the swap and distracting from the distasteful element that a woman in technology was being forced out and a man coming in to replace her.
I don't think that would be enough for me. Over my career I have met with a number of executive search firms, both helping them to identify good candidates, and sometimes as the candidate they were vetting for a possible move. And that experience showed me that executives are just as trigger happy as employees are for the 'right' move. That is especially true near the top because the only way you move into the 'big' seat is for the person in it to be ejected, and that can be a slow process for an aggressive person. Watching Ed Zander give up on Scott ever stepping down so that he could take over Sun he bailed and went to Motorola. It's a common story. So for me, I can see that if you talked to the right executive search firm, they might have a couple of candidates that were already 'loose in the socket' as they say. But it also can't be a "hopeless" company, like Uber seemed to be when Kalanick was clearly on the way out. But 'start up founder can't grow into the role' is a common enough reason to slot in someone who has more experience, and if it moves an executive closer to their ultimate goal, not as hard to pull off as you might think. (I'll admit it is probably easier for CTO roles than CEO roles but still)
I am not saying that Gruber is wrong, I agree it is a plausible explanation. I just don't see the evidence as being as definitive as he does.
Would have been cool for Gruber to talk to someone at the Verge before publishing his hit piece.
Also, Gruber's general purpose is whitelabeled Apple PR. His "insights" here accord with his claim that he would never let an advertiser that paid him roughly a quarter million dollars affect his views! He's a man of principle (unmentioned, the principle being gettin' paid)!
To be clear, my take on his angle is "whatever keeps approximately $60k/year of advertising checks flowing his way. Because principles."
And Nike makes shoes and has a valuation of $150B?
You don’t need to be a “tech” company to build something worth billions.
Most people use the same luggage for years, I use mine for atleast 10 years. Where is the logic in your reply?
Key Lessons:
- Why consistent feedback builds trust - How to embrace mistakes (and share your own with your team) - Why you should let go of giving answers, and start asking questions - How to treat you staff like shit
Wait. sorry I added the last one.. and only the last one :o) Okay #TrollingDone
- wait, that last one might actually be interesting...
I read the verge article. They put people through that kind of bullshit in NYC for 40 grand a year? Are you kidding me?
(yes, well aware that many people make less than that. But sheesh... it's the Devil wears Prada updated for 2019)
And I suspect the rise of "the apprentice" have given bullies a licence to behave badly as they saw it on the telly.
Edit: someone pointed out that the OP adds an additional perspective that isn't just copying what was said in the WSJ article, so we'll switch back to that from https://www.wsj.com/articles/online-luggage-startup-away-say.... Thanks!
Edit: well I take it back. Gruber seems to taking his usual tack when covering anything outside the Apple beat, ie. pure speculation and opinion of the sort everyone posts on Twitter but at 500 words. And with a big "they are an active sponsor of my site but I am impervious to bias" disclaimer at the top.
> What I think happened is that once Jen Rubio and the board — who were already plotting Korey’s ouster — became aware of the story, and the all-in-on-outrage-culture/startups-are-toxic angle it was taking, they simply let it happen without pushing back whatsoever. No vast conspiracy necessary — just let it happen.
Tells you all you need to know IMO. It’s never OK to yell at someone at work.
Edit: If you're downvoting me, let me know when you think it's OK to yell at someone at work and where you work so I can never work there.
I've definitely caught a verbal beatdown from people that sounded perfectly calm and reasonably quiet the whole time.
1. It is appropriate to yell at someone when the immediate safety of yourself or another person is threatened.
2. If you accept (1), then the presence of yelling is a much narrower filter than the presence of conditions under which yelling is appropriate. Due to your stated belief that yelling is never appropriate, you see those filters as equal.
3. With (1), I have given you conditions under which I think it is appropriate to yell at someone. Those conditions are never present at my current place of work. So if, based on only those facts, you were to disqualify my place of work as one where you would work, your filter would be too wide.
> Disclosure: Away has sponsored 21 episodes of my podcast, The Talk Show, in the last three years, and they are on the schedule for an upcoming episode. The following is what I’d write if they never had and never would sponsor my show or website.
So when the executive’s name unexpectedly popped into #Hot-Topics the morning of May 16th, 2018, employees knew something was wrong. She’d found out about the channel from Erin Grau, the head of people... “I thought, Damn, she’s gonna see us talking about some stupid stuff, but whatever,” recalls a former marketing manager named Emily*. She hoped Korey would at least find the conversations funny.
That hope evaporated the next day when Korey began calling people into a room one by one. There, flanked by the company’s head of people and general counsel, she told six people they were being let go. “You’ve been discriminatory,” employees remember her saying. “... you no longer have a job at this company.” Emily, who is a person of color, was shocked. “That was jarring — three white people telling me I was racist,” she says.
"Emily, who is a person of color, was shocked. “That was jarring — three white people telling me I was racist,” she says."
So erm... only WHITE people can be racist?! Huh?
The articles specific wording is: " But employees say she pointed to two comments that called out “cis white men.” "
Calling out 'cis white men'? As though it's just a normal thing to do, because, you know, those terrible 'straight white men'?
Can you imagine if that statement read 'calling out those gay blacks'?
The lack of self awareness among those staffers at least on this issue is shocking.
It's definitely racist, and definitely a fireable offence.
Obviously, black->white/white->black racism is quite different, but it's still racism in the worst way.
Here's another maxim for you: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you want people to be treated equal, stop singling out groups (e.g. "ignorant white yuppies") and playing identity politics.
I encourage you to tell the legislatures about your wise "two wrongs" wisdom. I bet they'll empty out the prisons immediately!
Jesus left us a variety of maxims. I must admit, however, that we didn't study the Gospels in my kindergarten.
I vehemently disagree; racism is at its worst when groups who are institutionally powerful use racism to oppress groups with relatively little institutional power. To assert otherwise is to be willfully blind to the lived experiences of people who are oppressed, at best. I won't go into what it suggests at worst.
It seems the staffer had some trouble understanding that - I would have maybe just tried to explain it to them.
But it's really weird they don't get that.
Just like Trump I think is influencing people to maybe say nasty things about immigrants etc. I think Jezebel, the Guardian, the Daily Beast are making it seem completely normative to 'call out cis white men' for whatever. It's 'normative' in these publications to attack a specific group. I personally don't mind if there's thoughtfulness or nuance, but usually there isn't and it amounts to casual bigotry.
Obviously it is only racist if a white person complains about three black people tell them something, never the other way around. Equality is a one way street!
Also I feel like a lot of this type of stuff is coming out now towards the holiday season so that a lot of people would somewhat forget about everything thats going on now.
https://www.employerlawreport.com/2015/10/articles/labor-rel...
Of course, it's a different NLRB than it was when that decision was made.
If you think you're in this situation now -- please: leave. I've since learned that these things are a dime a dozen, and by and large they go up in flames. And in the rare cases when they don't, it's still not worth it. In the worst case at the end of it you'll be burned out, emotionally exhausted, struggling with aggravated anxiety/depression/PTSD, not to mention the damage done to your personal relationships.
This kind of shit is literally abuse, and as such can do actual and severe damage to your life. Don't put up with it. Life is too short, and there's a lot more at stake than your time and labor. There are plenty of companies to work for including startups that won't do this to you.
Maybe I've just been in more normal, staid companies; but in my opinion all the higher-ups at this company need to be fired or the employees need to stage a mass walkout.
And as for his example of:
"If a waiter served a customer a half-eaten sandwich, I’d expect the manager to immediately berate him in front of the other staff in the kitchen — not take him aside and say “Hey, that isn’t cool.”
I would think it is highly inappropriate to berate a staff member in front of other staff. That doesn't inspire leadership. Instead you would take them aside and talk to them personally about what they had done, and talk to all staff as a whole about the need to do better and explain the importance of customer service and that a happy customer is likely to refer 2 other people, but a dissatisfied person is likely to tell 20, so we need to stop people from being dissatisfied (within reason).
In all of my roles, from retail, consulting, government, and everything else, it has never been appropriate to berate staff.
In India Rupees, that about 15,000 Rs. In India, the costliest similar suitcase, from a well regarded brand, VIP is about 10,500 Rs. ( https://www.vipbags.com/product/fairway-graphite )
Are suitcases so costly to produce? Or is the cost the cumulative effect of overheads?
15,000 Rs. is the median monthly income for many jobs in India. Especially service jobs.
What is it about Away suitcases that demand such high prices?
Romowa, Arlo Sky, Tumi, Roam, to name a few, are all much more expensive.
It's mostly just in the marketing and the fact that it's an item you don't buy often so people are willing to shell out.
They definitely still break, but when they do you can walk into the store and they hand you a new one.