SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Spotify has been accused of turning a blind eye to sexism in its workplace. Former sales executive Hong Perez has sued the streaming service over allegations that male execs have perpetuated systemic gender discrimination. The global head of sales reportedly provided higher compensation (including equity) to men, while multiple male executives received little punishment (and in one case, a promotion) despite sexual harassment claims.
On top of this, Perez described an overall hostile work culture, particularly from US sales head (and her boss) Brian Berner. He allegedly chose only men for drug-addled "boys' trips" to the Sundance Film Festival in 2016 and 2017, excluding women who were better-qualified for the ostensibly work-oriented visits. He also purportedly scapegoated Perez after getting in trouble over a buyer deal and taking free Madison Square Garden tickets, getting her fired for conduct violations that were really his.
Pereze added that she'd raised concerns over the lack of anti-harassment action with Spotify's human resources team before she left.
In a statement, Spotify claimed it doesn't tolerate discrimination "at any level" but simultaneously insisted Perez's lawsuit was "without merit."
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/19/spotify-sued-over-gender-discrimination/
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 24 2018, @09:42PM (2 children)
You are making 2 potentially incorrect assumptions about the people above you in the management chain with your statement:
1. You are assuming management is smart enough and knowledgeable enough about the requirements of your job to recognize who has value and skills. In your career, you're almost definitely going to encounter someone with management authority who has absolutely no idea which of their subordinates is good at their job and instead will make their decisions based on who appears to be good at their job (which is not the same thing).
2. You are assuming managers want the people below them to be valuable and skilled. If you're a manager who is in over your head, the last thing you want is a direct report who is better at the job than you are and show no signs of being personally loyal to you. Managers can and do try to dumb down their department to reduce the risk that they'll be replaced.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday September 25 2018, @01:29AM (1 child)
Yep, I agree with your assessment of the reality of working in a large corporation. But being valuable and competent is still one valid way to break through. Even in entirely political and corrupt large corporations stand-out performance gets noticed and gets you on the track upward.
Also, you know, just because management doesn't want to hang out with you all the time doesn't mean they don't think you would be right for promotion. I've seen this happen, and I've also seen being the boss's favorite drinking buddy can work against you directly. A non-hostile work environment doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a "socially fair" environment. It doesn't mean people have to be robots.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 25 2018, @02:11PM
That sure is what your boss would like you to think, but it's often not the way things work.
Lawrence J Peter gets into this in The Peter Principle: Your performance is judged by the people above you in the hierarchy. Their primary concerns are (1) the preservation of the hierarchy and (2) their own position within it. Your actions are therefor measured not against whether it serves the ostensible purpose of your job's existence, but whether it serves those 2 ends. Doing well at your job can help with that, but doing really too well at your job can hurt those goals. For example, if you're so good at your job that you're worth a department of 10 average people, you're likely to make people around you angry at you: Your coworkers won't like that you're changing the curve they're judged by, and your bosses won't like that they're keeping their own headcount and thus their own pay grade down, and soon enough you'll see efforts to remove you from the organization. If you're less extremely good at your job, say only worth 2 average people, then what will most likely happen is that your boss will claim credit for your performance and be seen as a miracle worker who motivated you to accomplish great things, and the boss will get promotions and raises while you'll stay right where you are because you're too valuable as an "individual contributor" to consider promoting you.
I've been in large corporations at times, and it's very easy to see the difference between those whose careers are driven by patronage versus those whose careers are driven by performance. The performance-based folks typically started as a grunt-level person in their 20's, work their way up to senior pay grade over the course of their 20's and 30's, make team lead sometime in their 40's, and there they remain for the rest of their careers. The patronage-based folks, by contrast, often never worked as a grunt and often do nothing useful for the organization but keep on getting raises and fancier titles, and nobody dares say that they're bad at their job because their higher-up patron will ensure there are nasty consequences for doing so. Another place you can see the contrast is in what behavior is tolerated: I observed a patronage employee walk into a meeting, insult everybody in the room (many of whom she didn't even know), making it completely clear that she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, and that was considered just fine. Meanwhile, I saw a 40-year performance-promoted veteran was kicked out because he dared to suggest that a plan that someone had been pushing for wouldn't work - a few months later, the plan failed exactly as the now-fired person had predicted.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.