> The wife, and the husband (founder), have displayed an incredible lack of professionalism here.
That assumes that the story, as told in the accusation, is completely accurate. One could envision a scenario where the founder felt his wife may be able to relate to the situation better and could actually assist the accuser. However, in spite of best intentions, its possible that the wife's actions were misinterpreted by the accuser. Until Github or the wife gives their side of the story, perhaps withholding judgement is the optimal strategy.
I don't pretend to have any info on what truly happened. But the story doesn't have to be 'completely accurate' for it to be disturbing. A company can't have family members browse around company offices and imposing themselves on employees with whom they have no professional or personal relationship. I find it very hard to understand how the wife's repeated presence can be favorably interpreted if it did indeed upset Horvath.
it could have been well intentioned. bringing in an pseudo-outsider may not be the smartest move but its also not necessarily evil at all. the founder may have felt that his wife could relate in some way. until more evidence is given, we should withhold judgement.
Things like this should be formalised though. Its very unusual for a spouse to prance around any organisation handing out directives/advice.
Maybe its a sign that the founder in question doesn't have the people skills to handle her possibly dominant personality.
In these types of situations, it's usually pretty difficult to come to solid conclusions about the chain of events this early. My initial take?
It's not uncommon for business owners to rely heavily on non-employees for advice, even in the day-to-day operations. Spouses are especially common. What confuses me is that the wife, as portrayed, seems a bit irrational--if not delusional. There's a big difference between even vocal trusted advisors, and the sort of power the wife described herself as having.
So much so that I think there's a third possible interpretation: the quotes are accurate, given by a wife that genuinely believes her statements even though they have no basis in reality. This sort of delusion, in varying degrees, is quite common across the population. We convince ourselves of something--in this case, the wife that she has power in the Github organization--and then attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance that arrises from the belief and the evidence to the contrary. As time goes on, we try harder and harder to justify those irrational beliefs.
It's entirely possible that there's no truth whatsoever to the wife's words, but that the wife genuinely believed them in spite of it. And that Julie Horvath is entirely accurate in detailing the conversation and the implied hostility she felt from the founder and his wife. So now, not only do you have to determine whether the conversation took place, but also whether the power the wife alleged existed in the first place. Unfortunately for Github, even if the wife never had that power, the wife was still able to contribute to a hostile work environment and that can have significant legal ramifications even though she wasn't an employee.
Friends you go out for drinks with to talk about life and work slowly transform into "spies" who keep you informed of what's happening in the office under the guise of gossip. Curiously taking a peek at an open chat tab on the husband's laptop becomes "access." Commenting on whether you liked a potential hire you met earlier becomes "responsibility over hires." Love for your husband and concern for his work becomes an overprotective desire to shield him from harm.
Given how rapidly Github has grown, the idea that any trusted non-employee, wife or not, would have that sort of power and influence described seems absurd. Hell, for a while it seemed as though they announced a new hire daily. Far too many for one non-employee, no matter how often she went into the office, to have that sort of power. Especially when most were technical positions.
Time will tell, but for now, more information is needed. Anyhow, I suppose I took issue with the phrase "undocumented employee" and ran off on a tangent :). The wife needn't have been an employee at all to have helped cause a shitstorm.
So common business owners need day-to-day advice from people outside the company to run their business? I somehow doubt that.
If someone was not on payroll and interacting with my employees on a personal level and on a daily or weekly basis I would have reasons to be concerned.
Being a "start-up" doesn't make you impervious to these problems. It simply means you haven't run into them... yet.
It may be arguable, but for me non-company member being somehow related to company business is not only acceptable, but actually very nice. Being family member of the founder is reason enough to care about company, and I'd prefer informal atmosphere where people can help with business just because they care to that formal bureaucratic atmosphere that is common in banks. That's were wives come to pretty boring holidays parties and politely chuckle about boring jokes. Ugh.
Of course that doesn't include "accessing private chats of company members", but for that reason the more I read about that story the less I believe "the victim".
Combining work and marriage structures is fraught with all sorts of problematic outcomes. Consider even the differing processes to enter each institution. Or the differing standards for being successful at each.
from reading the article, I got the vibe that the wife may have felt innately (territorially?) threatened by the thought of a (pretty) female in the company getting close with her founder husband in a more intimate, rather than professional, type of way. Thoughts?
That raising "threatened wife" motif is actually quite sexist. Its entirely possible that the founder may have felt that his wife could relate better to the accuser but that their meeting may not have went well and the wife felt that the accuser was behaving as inappropriately as the accuser felt about the wife. Furthermore, accusing someone of "sitting near me to intimidate me" is quite vague and bizarre.
That assumes that the story, as told in the accusation, is completely accurate. One could envision a scenario where the founder felt his wife may be able to relate to the situation better and could actually assist the accuser. However, in spite of best intentions, its possible that the wife's actions were misinterpreted by the accuser. Until Github or the wife gives their side of the story, perhaps withholding judgement is the optimal strategy.