Brendan Eich, Prop 8, Mozilla, and the "moral hazard" of his ouster

Pages

Context: Brendan Eich, the inventor of Javascript, was appointed as CEO of Mozilla by their board of directors. It was a contentious appointment from the get-go, with half the board resigning in protest.

Why? Because Brendan Eich had donated $1000 in support of Proposition 8, which attempted to block marriage equality by inserting the language from Proposition 22 (ruled unconstitutional in 2008), namely "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", into the California Consitution.

The information regarding Eich's donation had originally come to light back in March 2012, and had been controversial at the time.

Mozilla and Eich's comments on the situation:

Mozilla[/url]]Q: Was Brendan Eich fired?

A: No, Brendan Eich resigned. Brendan himself said:

“I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”

Q: Was Brendan asked to resign by the Board?

A: No. In fact, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another role. Brendan decided that it was better for himself and for Mozilla to sever all ties, at least for now.

Brendan Eich[/url]]I’ve resigned as CEO and I’m leaving Mozilla to take a rest, take some trips with my family, look at problems from other angles, and see if the “network problem” has a solution that doesn’t require scaling up to hundreds of millions of users and winning their trust while somehow covering costs. That’s a rare, hard thing, which I’m proud to have done with Firefox at Mozilla.

bandit0013 had raised concern that Eich's political views led to his dismissal, and NormanTheIntern seemed to want to make the argument that this was an instance of "mob justice" and that there was a clear moral hazard here (though his comparisons to the blacklisting of atheists and socialists did muddy the waters a bit).

It's derailing the Prop 8 / Gay Marriage thread, so I'm creating this one for that conversation to continue.

My take (forgive the cross-post):

What happened in this instance was that a board of directors appointed someone as CEO who was an exceptionally poor fit for the corporate culture they were ostensibly put in place to lead. When the magnitude of that disjunction became apparent, and it was clear that Eich was not going to be able to lead Mozilla effectively, he (to his credit) decided to step down.

Thank you.

His political views did lead to his removal (or resignation, whatever), but it wasn't the government or the gay community who did it. For the most part it was an internal revolt within the company combined with a PR disaster for a progressive tech company that were the catalysts for the change of leadership.

Nevin73 wrote:

His political views did lead to his removal (or resignation, whatever), but it wasn't the government or the gay community who did it. For the most part it was an internal revolt within the company combined with a PR disaster for a progressive tech company that were the catalysts for the change of leadership.

I actually blame the board for this whole mess.

If the vote was so acrimonious that half the board resigned immediately over his appointment (three of the six), it should have been a huge sign that he wasn't the right person to lead the organization - especially given the blowback from when Eich's donation was initially uncovered, back in 2012.

Appointing a leader whose personal values are strongly at odds with the existing corporate culture is a terrible idea, particularly for an organization like Mozilla, which is strongly dependent on volunteers and community goodwill.

Full marks to Eich for realizing his position was untenable and stepping down, but the board is the reason this whole mess happened in the first place.

Nevin73 wrote:

Thank you.

His political views did lead to his removal (or resignation, whatever), but it wasn't the government or the gay community who did it. For the most part it was an internal revolt within the company combined with a PR disaster for a progressive tech company that were the catalysts for the change of leadership.

Exactly.

Personally, if I could stop seeing arguments that invoke the shades of Orwell, Joe McCarthy, Salem, witches, Frankenstein's Monster, mob justice, the Gestapo, stakes and the burning of persons thereon, pitchforks and/or torches as equal to public criticism I could pass from this world slightly happier.

SocialChameleon wrote:

Personally, if I could stop seeing arguments that invoke the shades of Orwell, Joe McCarthy, Salem, witches, Frankenstein's Monster, mob justice, the Gestapo, stakes and the burning of persons thereon, pitchforks and/or torches as equal to public criticism I could pass from this world slightly happier.

Amen to that.

SocialChameleon wrote:

Personally, if I could stop seeing arguments that invoke the shades of Orwell, Joe McCarthy, Salem, witches, Frankenstein's Monster, mob justice, the Gestapo, stakes and the burning of persons thereon, pitchforks and/or torches as equal to public criticism I could pass from this world slightly happier.

Private entities should have lattitude to determine who works for them. There is a difference between having this happen in a public and private organization. In this case the dude left of his own accord, so it is a more muted point.

I wonder if he still gets his golden parachute.

I just feel compelled to note that there is no moral hazard in this situation, at all.

Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:

Personally, if I could stop seeing arguments that invoke the shades of Orwell, Joe McCarthy, Salem, witches, Frankenstein's Monster, mob justice, the Gestapo, stakes and the burning of persons thereon, pitchforks and/or torches as equal to public criticism I could pass from this world slightly happier.

Private entities should have lattitude to determine who works for them. There is a difference between having this happen in a public and private organization. In this case the dude left of his own accord, so it is a more muted point.

I wonder if he still gets his golden parachute.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. I would further say since this did not happen to Mozilla, the point is irrelevant.

Further, there is no difference whether the org is private or public. The public may, and should be able to criticize them.

Aetius wrote:

I just feel compelled to note that there is no moral hazard in this situation, at all. :)

To clarify: the quotes in the thread title are referencing this post. I'd be interested in hearing NormanTheIntern elaborate on the sense in which he felt it applied to Eich's brief tenure at Mozilla, as well.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Aetius wrote:

I just feel compelled to note that there is no moral hazard in this situation, at all. :)

To clarify: the quotes in the thread title are referencing this post. I'd be interested in hearing NormanTheIntern elaborate on the sense in which he felt it applied to Eich's brief tenure at Mozilla, as well.

I don't think Norman literally meant "Moral Hazard" in terms of the economic sense. I do get his point, though. We're already being googled for every job we apply for these days. Some companies are asking for access to your Facebook and Twitter accounts. It reminds me of the book "Super Sad True Love Story". In the book all this data is used to rate you and judge your viability as an employee, mate, friend, etc. It's one of the worst dystopias I've ever read. Mostly because it seems like we're actually headed there and that it's a dystopia where the momentum of the mob can completely ruin someone. I'm not sure we want to tread much further down that path. It may seem innocuous when the mob you agree with is in charge, but what happens when the mob you don't agree with is in charge?

DSGamer wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Aetius wrote:

I just feel compelled to note that there is no moral hazard in this situation, at all. :)

To clarify: the quotes in the thread title are referencing this post. I'd be interested in hearing NormanTheIntern elaborate on the sense in which he felt it applied to Eich's brief tenure at Mozilla, as well.

I don't think Norman literally meant "Moral Hazard" in terms of the economic sense. I do get his point, though. We're already being googled for every job we apply for these days. Some companies are asking for access to your Facebook and Twitter accounts. It reminds me of the book "Super Sad True Love Story". In the book all this data is used to rate you and judge your viability as an employee, mate, friend, etc. It's one of the worst dystopias I've ever read. Mostly because it seems like we're actually headed there and that it's a dystopia where the momentum of the mob can completely ruin someone. I'm not sure we want to tread much further down that path. It may seem innocuous when the mob you agree with is in charge, but what happens when the mob you don't agree with is in charge?

There's definitely something to be said for this, but I don't think something like donating to the Prop 8 campaign falls under that kind of thing.

Also there is/was no mob. There was simply public outcry and a business decision.

DSGamer wrote:

It may seem innocuous when the mob you agree with is in charge, but what happens when the mob you don't agree with is in charge?

With absolutely no snark, that's how we got the Tea Party, the Moral Majority and all the other rhetorical bomb-throwers in-between.

I still haven't seen anyone make the case that "the mob" played any meaningful role in this sequence of events, though there were plenty of posts in the Prop 8 thread that seemed to take it as a given.

CEO is appointed, is a terrible fit for existing corporate culture, appointment is broadly unpopular with existing staff, CEO resigns.

Yes, Eich was also criticized by people outside Mozilla, (and rightfully so - depriving your fellow citizens of equal treatment under the law is reprehensible and worthy of scorn) but there's no evidence (at least, that I've seen) that the opinions outside of Mozilla's staff and community of volunteers played any role in Eich's resignation. If there evidence that external pressure played a meaningful role in Eich deciding to resign, I'd be happy to see it.

Here's a question for everyone who thinks Eich got a raw deal. What actions would you rather the public/media have taken? Not criticize Eich? Not report on the criticism? Would you rather the Mozilla employees, volunteers, those who developed for Firefox have just kept quiet? Something else?

Right, but his job had nothing to do with his political stance. We're getting very close to the point where you have to meet a specific set of beliefs in order to be employable. I agree that this has less to do with the "mob" in so far as this seems to be mostly a decision internal to Mozilla. But we're at a point where companies are beginning to shape their internal policies based on pressure from without. In cases like anti-discrimination policies this makes perfect sense. But if we're saying that you can't even get in the door of a job without a certain belief system... do we really want to go there? Especially if/when the tables turn.

There's no "go there". It's been that way for CEOs for a hundred years.

DSGamer wrote:

Right, but his job had nothing to do with his political stance. We're getting very close to the point where you have to meet a specific set of beliefs in order to be employable.

Are we? What set of beliefs? Are racists/homophobes/social conservatives/tea partiers/the devoutly religious in danger of losing their jobs? If so, how are you coming to this conclusion?

DSGamer wrote:

I agree that this has less to do with the "mob" in so far as this seems to be mostly a decision internal to Mozilla. But we're at a point where companies are beginning to shape their internal policies based on pressure from without.

In other words, companies are responding to the demands of the market. Generally this is seen as a good thing and indicative of a functioning free market.

DSGamer wrote:

In cases like anti-discrimination policies this makes perfect sense. But if we're saying that you can't even get in the door of a job without a certain belief system... do we really want to go there? Especially if/when the tables turn.

I think you're going to need to provide some evidence that anyone is saying this. At the risk of repeating what's been said before, Eich was appointed CEO, where he serves as the face of his organization and has great influence over its direction and policy, not mailroom manager.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

It may seem innocuous when the mob you agree with is in charge, but what happens when the mob you don't agree with is in charge?

Life goes on? I got to hide in the closet for a couple of decades because the mob might have killed me so I'm finding it pretty hard to drum up sympathy for some guy that had to resign for trying to hold onto that status quo. You're talking about folks who know very well what it's like when the mob is not on their side. This is not a hypothetical thought experiment for us.

I get that. But do we really have to have the pendulum swing the other direction for their to be "justice" or "fairness". I'm on your side. The side in favor of making sure no one feels like they have to stay in the closet. The side in favor of gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws.

I hate to pull the "some of my best friends" card, but I feel like I'm about to be attacked so let me be as direct as possible. I know these issues as well as someone who is a straight guy can. I have gay and lesbian friends. My ex girlfriend is a lesbian and I keep in close contact with her. I was at her wedding two years ago. She works for an advocacy group that helps to make sure kids don't suffer because their parents try to put them on the streets. I have a decent amount of touch with this issue for someone who is straight. I just don't think any good can come from creating litmus tests for whether your beliefs are the "correct" ones for employment.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

There's no "go there". It's been that way for CEOs for a hundred years.

Hell, it's been that way for spokespeople for even longer. Your CEO just happens to be your ultimate spokesperson.

Oh for crying out loud nobody is claiming you should be barred from being employed for failing to implement Crimestop.

DSGamer wrote:

Right, but his job had nothing to do with his political stance.

He was appointed to be in charge of a group who was apparently unwilling to have him as a leader, at least in part because of his support for stripping the ability for gay Californians to be treated equally under the law. That makes it pretty relevant.

DSGamer wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

It may seem innocuous when the mob you agree with is in charge, but what happens when the mob you don't agree with is in charge?

Life goes on? I got to hide in the closet for a couple of decades because the mob might have killed me so I'm finding it pretty hard to drum up sympathy for some guy that had to resign for trying to hold onto that status quo. You're talking about folks who know very well what it's like when the mob is not on their side. This is not a hypothetical thought experiment for us.

I get that. But do we really have to have the pendulum swing the other direction for their to be "justice" or "fairness". I'm on your side. The side in favor of making sure no one feels like they have to stay in the closet. The side in favor of gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws.

I hate to pull the "some of my best friends" card, but I feel like I'm about to be attacked so let me be as direct as possible. I know these issues as well as someone who is a straight guy can. I have gay and lesbian friends. My ex girlfriend is a lesbian and I keep in close contact with her. I was at her wedding two years ago. She works for an advocacy group that helps to make sure kids don't suffer because their parents try to put them on the streets. I have a decent amount of touch with this issue for someone who is straight. I just don't think any good can come from creating litmus tests for whether your beliefs are the "correct" ones for employment.

I'm sorry to say that your lesbian friend will never be the CEO of the 700 Club.

LouZiffer wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

There's no "go there". It's been that way for CEOs for a hundred years.

Hell, it's been that way for spokespeople for even longer. Your CEO just happens to be your ultimate spokesperson.

I'm not being argumentative here, I want to sincerely ask this question so please take it as such. Has it always been this way? I would agree that there's a difference between a CEO and even the head of software development at Mozilla, to use this specific example. One of those is indeed a public job and in that respect is going to be scrutinized for a number of issues. Everything from political advocacy to their appearance to their temperament.

But has this always been the case? Or are there even cases today where being the CEO literally means you just run the company and otherwise you're not necessarily the face of the company? If this is too much of a derail into curiosity then feel free to ignore the question. I was just curious.

DSGamer wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

There's no "go there". It's been that way for CEOs for a hundred years.

Hell, it's been that way for spokespeople for even longer. Your CEO just happens to be your ultimate spokesperson.

I'm not being argumentative here, I want to sincerely ask this question so please take it as such. Has it always been this way? I would agree that there's a difference between a CEO and even the head of software development at Mozilla, to use this specific example. One of those is indeed a public job and in that respect is going to be scrutinized for a number of issues. Everything from political advocacy to their appearance to their temperament.

But has this always been the case? Or are there even cases today where being the CEO literally means you just run the company and otherwise you're not necessarily the face of the company? If this is too much of a derail into curiosity then feel free to ignore the question. I was just curious.

Yes. As long as the position has existed, that's what it has meant.

It's a CEO's job. You're where the buck stops, and your voice is literally the voice of the entire company. While (in a publicly held company) the board appoints you and can get rid of you, you are the one in power. The company is quite literally an extension of your will.

If the company has an activist or moral stance, its CEO should rightfully reflect that stance in who they are. If there's a mismatch that's a big problem.

DSGamer wrote:

But if we're saying that you can't even get in the door of a job without a certain belief system... do we really want to go there? Especially if/when the tables turn.

So we have a grand total of one out of the 400,000ish CEOs in the country who voluntarily resigned and somehow this is proof that all 156 million American workers now have to pass some sort of belief purity test before they can be employed.

There seems to be a supreme eagerness to conflate what happened with a single CEO with a vague threat impacting every while simultaneously ignoring all the ways that a CEO's job is vastly different and vastly more visible (both internally and externally) than an average worker's job.

OG_slinger wrote:

There seems to be a supreme eagerness to conflate what happened with a single CEO with a vague threat impacting every while simultaneously ignoring all the ways that a CEO's job is vastly different and vastly more visible (both internally and externally) than an average worker's job.

"Eagerness"? Come on. But let's go with that. CEO is a different beast. Does this still not worry anyone in a larger sense? At a time when religious organizations are trying to pick and choose what parts of health insurance they pay for it seems like playing with fire to me.

An interesting read on the wider implications, which is my concern.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/08/brendan_eich_donated_to_prop_8_but_supports_workplace_equality_is_that_too.html

Now that corporations can have belief systems it only seems appropriate that the CEO's of said companies follow the same belief systems. Mozilla, the company, has taken the position that it is a One Big Love style corporation and since the CEO of said company wasn't, they simply weren't compatible any longer. I don't expect someone who donates to pro-choice entities to take over the reigns of Hobby Lobby any time soon, so same thing here.

DSGamer wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

There seems to be a supreme eagerness to conflate what happened with a single CEO with a vague threat impacting every while simultaneously ignoring all the ways that a CEO's job is vastly different and vastly more visible (both internally and externally) than an average worker's job.

"Eagerness"? Come on. But let's go with that. CEO is a different beast. Does this still not worry anyone in a larger sense? At a time when religious organizations are trying to pick and choose what parts of health insurance they pay for it seems like playing with fire to me.

An interesting read on the wider implications, which is my concern.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/08/brendan_eich_donated_to_prop_8_but_supports_workplace_equality_is_that_too.html

Even if I accept this piece at face value, it still means Brendan Eich supported a cause that said gay people shouldn't be permitted the civil rights that straight people have in California, but as long as they're adding value to his company, he's happy to treat them equally in their dealings with Mozilla.

How magnanimous of him.

Kehama wrote:

Now that corporations can have belief systems it only seems appropriate that the CEO's of said companies follow the same belief systems.

I disagree pretty strenuously with this - Corporations don't have belief systems, people do.

And what happened here, by all accounts, is the people Brendan Eich was appointed to lead were unwilling to accept him as a leader. (There's probably an interesting discussion to be had about why Mozilla's employees had the clout to push back on an appointment like this, but it is pretty tangential to this thread).

Pages