This is backwards, and the crux of why it's backwards lies here:
> Or they're not rowing at all and just yelling at each other on Slack all day.
I have never seen an office where you will not be fired for turning politics (or anything really) into a flamewar. Period.
And that's because companies past a certain size know they always have multiple "5%ers" rowing in the wrong direction.
If it's not politics it will be pay, if it's not pay it'll be the tech stack, if it's not the tech stack it'll be an exec everyone hates, it's not an exec it'll be a client that sucks, if it's not a client it'll be the...
So a company needs to be resilient to those disjointed efforts anyways, and being "mission focused" will never let you escape that.
-
That's why even just pretending to care about these social issues puts you in a better place than a company like Coinbase.
Making statements for social causes costs nothing at all and those who don't agree with the statements generally have apathy towards them, while those agree are affirmed by the statements.
So it's a win-win vs alienating those who would have been affirmed by playing it off as a distraction from the mission.
Why would you not do it and just enforce the fact that people need to be civil?
A specialized forum where some subjects can simply be ruled off-topic will be easier to moderate than a forum where you can talk about anything. That’s not to say there are no controversies left, but it’s easier.
Agreeing on a mission is a form of specialization. In the case of Coinbase there are likely plenty of debates about cryptocurrencies, and that’s controversy enough.
I mean that's just a well-dressed tautology: reducing what you can say reduces what you can moderate.
The point is the fraction of things you rule off-topic by becoming "mission focused" is infinitesimal compared to the the topics that can disharmony can form around.
It's in people's nature to find things to discuss, and eventually some of those discussions become debates.
-
You might as well play both sides by allowing yourself to support causes, with the explicit understanding that doesn't give anyone free reign to shit on their coworkers for their beliefs.
That's just good business since beliefs don't have to be political...
> Or they're not rowing at all and just yelling at each other on Slack all day.
I have never seen an office where you will not be fired for turning politics (or anything really) into a flamewar. Period.
And that's because companies past a certain size know they always have multiple "5%ers" rowing in the wrong direction.
If it's not politics it will be pay, if it's not pay it'll be the tech stack, if it's not the tech stack it'll be an exec everyone hates, it's not an exec it'll be a client that sucks, if it's not a client it'll be the...
So a company needs to be resilient to those disjointed efforts anyways, and being "mission focused" will never let you escape that.
-
That's why even just pretending to care about these social issues puts you in a better place than a company like Coinbase.
Making statements for social causes costs nothing at all and those who don't agree with the statements generally have apathy towards them, while those agree are affirmed by the statements.
So it's a win-win vs alienating those who would have been affirmed by playing it off as a distraction from the mission.
Why would you not do it and just enforce the fact that people need to be civil?