Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Businesses IT

Facebook CIO Discusses Zuckerberg's "Will You Resign?" Email 141

Posted by samzenpus from the like-this dept.
CarlaRudder writes: When Mark Zuckerberg sends an email with the subject line, "Will you resign?" people remember it. In this case, the email went to the entire company after someone leaked damaging information, but CIO Tim Campos talks about his hesitation to open the email, thinking it was addressed to him personally. He goes on to share an insider's perspective on the power of culture at Facebook, the benefits of giving employees time and space to both fail and create, and why data is at the core of every decision made in the company.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook CIO Discusses Zuckerberg's "Will You Resign?" Email More

Facebook CIO Discusses Zuckerberg's "Will You Resign?" Email

Comments Filter:

  • YES (Score:4, Interesting)

    by invictusvoyd ( 3546069 ) on Thursday August 13, 2015 @10:09PM (#50313627)
    There have been times in my life when I'd happily reply to that email.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zidium ( 2550286 )

      The answer should always be:

      NEVER!! But I will look kindly on any letter of layoff you provide me!

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        I was at a large telco that has a pattern of hire-layoff cycles. One layoff cycle, it was a big one, with changes and such, and they asked for volunteers. More people volunteered than they had reductions. They let all those go who wanted. The next layoff time, anyone who asked about volunteering wasn't laid off. The idea was that anyone who wanted to leave, shouldn't be eligible for the layoff package. If you want to go, quit. If you want to stay, we'll fire you.

        I got laid off a few rounds after tha

      • C-levels in public companies always resign. Never get laid off. Their compensation does not suffer from putting a spin-friendly name on it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Billly Gates ( 198444 )

      There have been times in my life when I'd happily reply to that email.

      Then leave. Seriously if you do not want to be there the company will not want you there either. Why force yourself something you and your employer do not want to do and for what purpose?

      If you made mistakes (I have in the past) where you have a question past or might be labeled a job hopper by HR than that is on you. Life is short

      Look at it this way. Work is a relationship if you ask a psychologist. Humans have relationships to groups too and not just individuals that meet each others needs. So like a bad

      • It's not always that easy. Unlike a gf / bf dumping a job that is putting food on the table without having another job lined up is not a very good idea. Nowadays most people don't save, so taking a month or two to find another job without a steady pay check would mean oodles of debt. Or you take the first one that is offered, only to find it's worse. The grass isn't always greener on the other side. Then there are also days when everything goes to shit, you're irritated, your team is under pressure, up

        • Well I never said walk out the door immediately. If you can't find other work that is better than you don't deserve it. Ask any SV Nosql programmer here? They get several calls a week for jobs.

          If you can't leave you're not a valuable employee. Probably because you have a bad attitude for not loving your job and wanting to quit. Ouch but it is true

          Life is short for the employer too. I refuse to stay chained to misery and encourage others. If risk is not your Forte then you need an attitude adjustment and be

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Raenex ( 947668 )

            I had a CEO who would always ask if you liked your job. Anything but a yes was grounds for termination.

            Sounds like a typical jackass CEO who uses lame litmus tests to make important decisions. Just about anybody will instinctively answer that question in the affirmative, regardless of how they feel, because they know it's a sensitive question being asked by a person in a position of power.

            Personally, work is work, and I can take something I enjoy, and when I'm forced to do it to make a living, it's not fun anymore. My guess is that's true for a lot of people.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Personally, work is work, and I can take something I enjoy, and when I'm forced to do it to make a living, it's not fun anymore. My guess is that's true for a lot of people.

              Never make your hobby into a job, it tends to result in you growing to hate your hobby.

      • It's money, isn't it. "Why do you want to work here?". Money. Slightly different problems elsewhere. I'll move when it gets bad enough here. Sometimes it's funny watching management fail, too. Hey, they're paid more than me, and they're fucking stupid as shit. Yes, back in the day I raised concerns but.. You know... Management knows best. I'm not passionate about whatever the company I'm currently paid by happens to produce. What would be the odds of that? It's just a job.

        • It's money, isn't it. "Why do you want to work here?". Money. Slightly different problems elsewhere.

          Company founders, generally, aren't in it for the money. They're in it because they think they have a cool widget and really want other people to value that widget. They want everyone they work with to share that passion.

          Workers want to trade time for money. They share the management belief that employees are faceless, fungible cogs that can be plugged into tasks without any real connection to the business or widget. Coding, digging coal, torturing puppies, whatever...it's just a job.

          Healthy people are

      • Re:YES (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LaurenCates ( 3410445 ) on Friday August 14, 2015 @08:29AM (#50315405)

        Work is a relationship if you ask a psychologist. Humans have relationships to groups too and not just individuals that meet each others needs. So like a bad gf dump.

        I tell people all the time - superiors, especially - that my job, in my perception, is just as much a relationship to me as it is to my husband.

        And as such, I've learned that if it isn't meeting my needs or making me happy, I should find something else to do.

        The ones who understand treat me with respect. The ones who don't have typically an unhappy set of employees under them, not just me.

        A small anecdote regarding the latter:

        The last job I left, my boss sat me down and begged me not to leave, even after letting go of two employees due to budget cuts (cutting the staff from 10 to 8; we were a satellite office of a much larger company). I told him that I was too young to be tied down to a job where I was clearly not allowed to branch out (he constantly hedged and made excuses, but I took the diplomatic tack of not blaming him in this conversation). He was willing to offer me something like 10% above my current salary to keep me on board, but couldn't guarantee that I'd be allowed to find work elsewhere within the company.

        So, I told him this, and I think he still didn't get what I was talking about:

        I once had a boyfriend who would tell me "maybe" all the time. All the things I wanted to do were "maybes". Maybe we'll go out tonight. Maybe we'll make plans for next weekend. Maybe we'll move in together. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

        I told said boyfriend that if those maybes didn't start turning into yeses, that I'd leave.

        He then went on to treat me like I was an ungrateful brat. Sure, I wanted things, but he was giving things. And even if they weren't the things I wanted, hell, he was contributing, and dammit, why wasn't I happy with that?

        Boyfriend, boss, same deal. If someone keeps telling you "maybe" you'll get the things you want someday, all you're going to get is a bunch of "maybes". And that's what I got from my boss. I told him I don't have the time to sit around waiting for "maybes" to turn into "yeses".

        My point here is: much as you spend time with a significant other, you're going to spend about as much with your job. I'm surprised that more people don't think that they need to set as many expectations for an employer as they do a spouse.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I once had a job that i was very underpaid for. i was promised a large raise. months and months passed nothing. i would ask and they would be like the paperwork is still going though, oh we will have it budgeted next quarter etc. nothing. So one day i schedule a half day and show up in a suit. when asked about the suit i said i had some personal business to take care of after work. damned if that paperwork didn't go though by the end of the week. unfortunately for them i had gotten the other job and after a

      • Then leave. Seriously if you do not want to be there the company will not want you there either.

        My last job I wanted to leave several times but there were hug stock and ownership promises on the table that I would be giving up. Eventually, they let me go after I had finished building their system for them without giving me any of the promised stock or ownership. So it turned out I could have left at any time and would have made more money in the long run if I had quit early on. But hindsight is 20/20. And I learned a valuable lesson. Don't trust employers. Especially ones who claim to be Christians.

        • Never trust anyone who talks about their religion. The louder the talk the less they can be trusted.

          Same applies to signs. See a christian fish on the sign, keep driving, guaranteed thieves.

  • Openness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday August 13, 2015 @10:10PM (#50313629) Journal
    There is nothing to say about this Zuckerberg quote. Someone doesn't understand 'openness.' I will never work at that company.

    Zuckerberg went on to write that the employee obviously didn’t share the same values of openness and transparency because they shared the confidential information in a way they were asked not to do.

    • Openness means freedom to speak your mind, to share things that would otherwise be not shared, and to know things you don't specifically need to know.. This includes sharing information that is otherwise confidential, at least to people outside the company. But to do that, you need to be assured that people won't spread information with which they've been entrusted to people outside the circle of trust. It's not just social, either. Sometimes sharing things outside a company has financial or legal consequen

      • Sometimes sharing things outside a company has financial or legal consequences to the company itself.

        Insider trading information can't be shared within the company, either (except to designated insiders).

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 )

          Unless the entire company is designated as insiders and restricted to trading windows. Which I've seen several times.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )

          Insider trading information can't be shared within the company, either (except to designated insiders).

          That's false. I'll agree many places operate that way, to keep liability lower, but that's a corporate policy, not law.

      • there is no company ever that has been run on openness and transparency. anything that is "open and transparent" is inconsequential and shallow

        secrets and politics is absolutely essential to running a company. any hierarchical organization of humans. it is the only way to get anything done. a social structure that is formless and free is a confusing mess of overlapping chatter. the natural inclination is to squelch most of it. to get some fucking work done: "only let me know what i need to know so i can foc

    • yeah i was thinking the same thing

      all organizations have secrets. some of those secrets are necessary. divulging them of course is damaging to the company. it's a betrayal, a backstab. for any number of motivations: greed, revenge, etc

      meanwhile, openness and transparency are nice attitudes to have towards your clients and customers, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the internal workings of a corporation. this is plainly obvious to anyone in a professional organization. openness and transparency j

      • yeah, we all know the cynical line "if you don't pay for it, you are the product" and it's a funny laugh

        I can tell you, I've worked in ad tech, and it's not a "funny laugh." It is absolutely true.....the best ad tech companies try to respect their users, but they know where the money comes from, and the sales people get rewarded for bringing in more money. The company becomes naturally organized around the people who pay money.

        At the end of the day, that is why we have malware in ads.

    • Re:Openness (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lucm ( 889690 ) on Friday August 14, 2015 @12:52AM (#50314191)

      There is nothing to say about this Zuckerberg quote. Someone doesn't understand 'openness.' I will never work at that company.

      Zuckerberg went on to write that the employee obviously didn’t share the same values of openness and transparency because they shared the confidential information in a way they were asked not to do.

      That person released confidential information without telling anyone about it, and without coming out when it was leaked, so they were not doing it in a transparent manner. This is just like the dude at Wikileaks who operates in total secrecy but publishes the secrets of other people. Once you start doing cherry picking on what you "share", that's not being open and transparent.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by N1AK ( 864906 )
      And I doubt they'd want you if you fall for that kind of logical fallacy.

      A lot of firms keep almost everything secret from most employees because they don't trust them. If a company is open and transparent then they might share things like details of customer negotiations with more employees, that doesn't mean they are hypocritical for asking those employees not to post that sensitive information online or give it to competitors.

      You don't have to think encryption is wrong in all circumstances to be al

    • There is nothing to say about this Zuckerberg quote. Someone doesn't understand 'openness.' I will never work at that company.

      Zuckerberg went on to write that the employee obviously didn’t share the same values of openness and transparency because they shared the confidential information in a way they were asked not to do.

      The management and C-level folks know about massive layoffs and things that effect the employees months in advance. Are they totally open and transparent about these important things which affect the lives and families of their employees? Of course not. But they expect the employees to be totally open and transparent with them.

  • Meh (Score:3)

    by floodo1 ( 246910 ) <floodo1@garfCHEETAHias.org minus cat> on Thursday August 13, 2015 @10:23PM (#50313675) Journal
    You could say that IT & Finance were both wrong and that the data was right, or you could say that all of them were right and then you'd have an even better culture. The lessons to be learned from the article are trivial at best.

  • Will You Fire Me? (Score:5, Informative)

    by sk999 ( 846068 ) on Thursday August 13, 2015 @10:38PM (#50313725)

    I asked that once of the Director. It was a blatent request.

    He refused. "Nope."

    Left me stuck with an impossible job. Fortunately, things worked themselves out.

    Nowadays, he comes around and pesters me. I want to fire him, but can't, because he's retired. Maybe I should resign.

  • has some weird psychological warfare going on there.

  • Sorry. I RTFA and found it utterly useless corporate BS. The only "takeaway" I had was a reminder of my time spent in an organization that blathered on about platitudes like this and was completely, morally bankrupt at its core. Seems like Facebook and Zuckerberg are too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I only read the summary.

      My thought was that "but CIO Tim Campos talks about his hesitation to open the email, thinking it was addressed to him personally." is says a lot about the company culture.

      If I saw an e-mail from my boss with the subject line "Will you resign?" my first thought would be why he is worrying about that and that I'd have to reassure him that I'll keep working for a couple of more years.
      If the CIO looks at that subject with dread and feels that it is likely that he would be asked to leave

    • Yeah, TFA is a waste of bytes on it's own. I read it with a view to employers past and present, and adding in that knowledge it starts to be passingly interesting.

      TFA is missing: what did the email say? did the 'leaker' resign or were they found out? what was the nature of the leaked information?

      These things are important, because without them it's hard to make any real conclusions about any of it. If the email read "ha - fooled you - have a $1000 bonus for being great", then that says something very differ

  • because the first thing that popped into mind was Chief Idiot Officer

  • So, what information was leaked? Seems like a fairly relevant point, odd that it wasn't mentioned.

  • Mobbing and agitprop is "culture"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Thursday August 13, 2015 @10:57PM (#50313821) Journal

    1) The Power of Culture: "At Facebook, culture is everything and it's an incredible timesaver," Campos said. Culture allows Facebook to cut through bureaucracy, he said. Among the ways Facebook emphasizes its culture is through its now well-known posters that say things like: "Fail harder;" "Move fast and break things;" and, "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"

    Facebook also reinforces its culture through storytelling, like the "will you resign" email example he shared with the audience. "It was an incredibly powerful message," Campos explained. "Everybody at the company read this email and had the exact same takeaway and perspective that I did, they all thought it was immediately addressed to them. And it was striking as a result of that. And they never forgot it. And we keep talking about it - we talk about how do we handle confidential information in the company. The 'will you resign' email is quite famous." There are a ton of stories like this that Facebook uses to reinforce key culture points that prevent the creation of unnecessary steering committees and advisory boards, Campos said.

    Posters he's describing are pure propaganda, all basically shouting "WORK HARDER AND MORE!", while those mass "Your job is insecure" emails are nothing but mobbing.

    If that's culture, it's nothing but culture of fear.
    Ah well... someone has to keep getting stress-related heart attacks, strokes and cancers I guess.

    • "Your job is insecure" emails are nothing but mobbing.

      What does "mobbing" mean in this context?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        In norwegian, mobbing means bullying... Maybe GP is norwegian?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Also in Swedish, well technically it's only the kind of bullying that a group does (hence the mob part). But in everyday speak it's used for bullying.

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        In the workplace
        Main article: Workplace bullying

        British anti-bully researchers Andrea Adams and Tim Field have used the expression "workplace bullying" instead of what Leymann called "mobbing" in a workplace context. They identify mobbing as a particular type of bullying that is not as apparent as most, defining it as "an emotional assault. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly, participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace."[3]

        Adams and Field believe that mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organised production or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication".[3]

        Shallcross, Ramsay and Barker consider workplace "mobbing" to be a generally unfamiliar term in some English speaking countries. Some researchers claim that mobbing is simply another name for bullying. Workplace mobbing can be considered as a "virus" or a "cancer" that spreads throughout the workplace via gossip, rumour and unfounded accusations. It is a deliberate attempt to force a person out of their workplace by humiliation, general harassment, emotional abuse and/or terror. Mobbing can be described as being "ganged up on." Mobbing is executed by a leader (who can be a manager, a co-worker, or a subordinate). The leader then rallies others into a systematic and frequent "mob-like" behaviour toward the victim.[4]

        Psychological and health effects

        Victims of workplace mobbing frequently suffer from: adjustment disorders, somatic symptoms (e.g., headaches or irritable bowel syndrome), psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression.[5]

        In mobbing targets with PTSD, Leymann notes that the "mental effects were fully comparable with PTSD from war or prison camp experiences. Some patients may develop alcoholism or other substance abuse disorders. Family relationships routinely suffer. Some targets may even develop brief psychotic episodes, generally with paranoid symptoms. Leymann estimated that 15% of suicides in Sweden could be directly attributed to workplace mobbing.[5]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lucm ( 889690 )

      Posters he's describing are pure propaganda, all basically shouting "WORK HARDER AND MORE!"

      Work harder... doing what? Facebook has 10,000 employees. What are those people doing all day? The guy wrote the first version working part-time while he was at school. Of course they have improved it, I know they got all fancy with their php jvm and nosql database and whatnot. But still... 10,000 people?

      Tesla has about the same number of employees and they design, build, sell and service futuristic electric cars that accelerate faster than a Formula One racing car.

      Wtf.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I write firmware, and have an electrical engineering background. I appreciate the incredible job Musk has done with Tesla and recognize how great a car he's built. In earnest however, I'd have an easier time managing the design of something like that than the (presumably monumental) codebase that facebook has by now. People tend to forget how complicated software ends up being because there's nothing to show for it. There are years and years of work in the underlying systems of the world wide web. Face

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by radish ( 98371 )

        Tesla has about the same number of employees and they design, build, sell and service futuristic electric cars that accelerate faster than a Formula One racing car.

        First off, no they don't. The Tesla has a 0-60 of 2.8s, an F1 car does 2s or lower. You may be confusing "an F1 race car" with "the McLaren F1" which is a production road car and which Tesla stated they wanted to equal in performance.

        To your main point, organizations tend to grow non-linearly in my experience. As you add more of your "primary" em

  • It'd be funny, if everyone did.

  • Culture (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14, 2015 @03:11AM (#50314543)

    The takeaway from this story is that Facebook uses email for the important stuff, not Facebook messages.

  • Did they find the guy who leaked the information?

  • Tells you something about the culture there (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday August 14, 2015 @05:27AM (#50314829)

    If the CIO, a rather high ranking C-Suite officer, is afraid to open a mail from his CEO talking about resignation, something is amiss. If a C-Level pretty much expects to be laid off by email instead of a more personal way of communication something is VERY, VERY wrong in a company.

    Don't get me wrong, being laid off by email is common for lower ranks in huge, "faceless" corporations. I never experienced it on this level, though. We're talking about a handful of people per company. It's not like there are a dozen CIOs littering the top floor. Even a company like Facebook will hardly employ hundreds of C-Levels. These people KNOW each other. Personally. They have meetings. They organize and coordinate strategies. Depending on the company they even know each other on a rather personal level, down to their family status and whether the kids have the flu.

    If such a person expects to be fired by email, this does not speak kindly of the prevailing corporate culture.

    • If such a person expects to be fired by email, this does not speak kindly of the prevailing corporate culture.

      Both Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Campos are millenials - their standards for such things are very different from anyone over 40.

      • If such a person expects to be fired by email, this does not speak kindly of the prevailing corporate culture.

        Both Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Campos are millenials - their standards for such things are very different from anyone over 40.

        Sorry are you saying they lack social skills completely? I'm not that much older than Zuck and I can tell you right now that I would not consider it acceptable to ask for someone to resign or to fire them by email. Have I resigned by email? Yes. Twice. But that is a little bit different. The resignation should be in writing so that all parties should clearly know and have something they can point back to during the termination process. Even the lowliest of employees should be told in person that they

        • Sorry are you saying they lack social skills completely?

          It may seem that way if you're judging them out of context, yes.

          I'm not that much older than Zuck and I can tell you right now that I would not consider it acceptable to ask for someone to resign or to fire them by email.

          I hate to break it to you, but you're one person - and trying to draw a curve through a point comprised of a single piece of anecdata is abysmally stupid. Millennials and digital natives have (as a group) somewhat different s

          • Sorry are you saying they lack social skills completely?

            It may seem that way if you're judging them out of context, yes.

            I'm not that much older than Zuck and I can tell you right now that I would not consider it acceptable to ask for someone to resign or to fire them by email.

            I hate to break it to you, but you're one person - and trying to draw a curve through a point comprised of a single piece of anecdata is abysmally stupid. Millennials and digital natives have (as a group) somewhat different social expectations and mores than the cohorts the preceded them, this is well known and widely established.

            Define digital native, if you please. The only difference their 'digital nativity' and mine is that I did not grow up with SMS and cell phones. That was not until my college years and their high school years. Claiming that they grew up nursing on the teat of technology does not change social norms, all of the sudden.

      • So the heads of the largest social media page lack any semblance of social skills?

    • If the CIO, a rather high ranking C-Suite officer, is afraid to open a mail from his CEO talking about resignation, something is amiss. If a C-Level pretty much expects to be laid off by email instead of a more personal way of communication something is VERY, VERY wrong in a company.

      I don't think it's evidence of that. The subject line was "Will You Resign?", I think anyone would be freaked out if they saw that email from their immediate superior, especially if they were in a position where resignations are the typical form of firing, all it really says is Zuckerberg is either oblivious or a bit of an asshole.

      Don't get me wrong, being laid off by email is common for lower ranks in huge, "faceless" corporations.

      Is it? That sounds pretty screwed up, everyone should have a manager whom they deal with personally, they should be able to convey the news in person (or phone call for a remote w

  • like this cross my desk, sure I'd quit.

    Let FB plummit, it's nickle stock, completely overvalued.

  • Isn't that how decisions should be made? Why is that it seems to be such a big deal?

  • Jerk (Score:2)

    by paiute ( 550198 )
    Only an asshole of a CEO would send out an email with that address line.

  • Management 101 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Friday August 14, 2015 @10:38AM (#50316163) Homepage Journal
    If you have a group of people, and one of them does something wrong, you address the issue with the person who did something wrong. If you send an e-mail out to the entire group, then the person who did something wrong will think it is directed at someone else, and everyone else will think it is directed at them. This is one of the very first things you learn as a manager. You absolutely do not reprimand by group. You reprimand individually. You praise publicly. If you can't understand that, or disagree, then you need to be removed from your position of authority.

  • What was leaked? Does anyone have the full text of the e-mail?

  • Corporates are giant ponzi/pyramid scams in globalization;

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close