> In this case, questioning whether the company's driving mission was the universal good that leadership thought it was when it was adopted.
Except that, Bosworth's shabby recants aside, in the original post the driving mission was not questioned but reinforced to an extreme, cult-like degree by a high ranking Facebook official. He didn't minced words and sought no compromise: growth at any cost, using unethical methods and to the point of endangering people, if that is what it takes. Growth is a good by definition, regardless what your antiquated, pre-Facebook morals tell you.
This a wide extension of the field where debate is possible and a strong reinforcement for unethical behaviour, "Facebook and Boz have your back and anyone questioning growth is an enemy". What was previously unspeakable, is now under debate, we are debating the degree of acceptable unethical behavior and Boz's position seems to be "to any degree". This was merely 20 months ago, not in the distant past when Facebook was founded.
It's specious to call this an environment of open debate, it's a bold move to the organizational culture of a cult or criminal gang. It's not surprising at all then that the current debate centers on ways to root out the traitors and select employees for "integrity" (unflinching loyalty).
I've read it over a few times again, and think I know why it's so divisive. In the memo, he describes a state of affairs, with two possible subtexts:
1) This is the state of things today, and the uncomfortable truth of how we got here; what do we do about it?
2) This is how things both are and should be; either get in line or leave.
I, obviously, gravitated towards the first interpretation and you the second. Without further context, I'm not sure there's any way to really know which was intended.
It seemed more declarative to me. It seemed more about clearly delineating the ugly parts of a pre-existing ideology, not suggesting that there be any change, but that people should acknowledge the consequences of pushing the "connecting people" philosophy.
When viewed in the context of a conversation of whether “the company's driving mission was the universal good that leadership thought it was when it was adopted.” can you see how Boz’s post could move conversation in a positive direction?
I know this is hard to believe from the outside, but most Facebook employees believe that Facebook can have a positive influence on be world. It’s deeply ingrained in the company’s culture. An executive doesn’t just come out and say “it’s all business, fuck the consequences”.
This is why not leaking things is so important. The context and culture within a company change how a message is interpreted.
Except that, Bosworth's shabby recants aside, in the original post the driving mission was not questioned but reinforced to an extreme, cult-like degree by a high ranking Facebook official. He didn't minced words and sought no compromise: growth at any cost, using unethical methods and to the point of endangering people, if that is what it takes. Growth is a good by definition, regardless what your antiquated, pre-Facebook morals tell you.
This a wide extension of the field where debate is possible and a strong reinforcement for unethical behaviour, "Facebook and Boz have your back and anyone questioning growth is an enemy". What was previously unspeakable, is now under debate, we are debating the degree of acceptable unethical behavior and Boz's position seems to be "to any degree". This was merely 20 months ago, not in the distant past when Facebook was founded.
It's specious to call this an environment of open debate, it's a bold move to the organizational culture of a cult or criminal gang. It's not surprising at all then that the current debate centers on ways to root out the traitors and select employees for "integrity" (unflinching loyalty).