Mozilla CEO quits......
-
Similar to celebrity spokespersons. When you have someone represent your business, you tie your corporate image to theirs. If they tarnish theirs, they tarnish the business. That's why celebrities get fired so often when they decide that their opinions are more important to them than their jobs. Which is fine, that is their right, but customers of a business have just as much right to vote with their wallets or "likes" about what kind of people they want getting a portion of their money.
Mozilla's image was damaged by this guy. If you have customers, you have to take these things into account.
-
If you're a VP or C-Level, the line where you end and where the company begins really blurs. You become an extension of the company in a way. Sure, the pay's pretty sweet, but it comes with high non-monetary costs, like not having much of a life completely free from work.
Edited for spelling
-
If it were Mozilla's money (stockholders money) being given to an organization such as the one he donated to then I could understand. However, what someone does in their personal life should not ruin them on the corporate side of things If they keep work / life separated. It just seems a little hypocritical to me that you can have someone get fired and shamed for opposing something but as long as you are supporting the 'right' side you are viewed as a righteous champion of a cause.
-
@Nara said:
If you're a VP or C-Level, the line where you end and where the company beings really blurs. You become an extension of the company in a way. Sure, the pay's pretty sweet, but it comes with high non-monetary costs, like not having much of a life completely free from work.
Exactly. There are tons of jobs where you can have your own opinions and they are just yours. Being famous or in the public eye or the representative for someone else you give up that freedom, at least to some degree.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
It just seems a little hypocritical to me that you can have someone get fired and shamed for opposing something but as long as you are supporting the 'right' side you are viewed as a righteous champion of a cause.
I don't think it's a case of right or wrong. It's just a controversial cause. And when it's controversial you will get boycotts. And boycotts are bad for business, hence he goes. If Kim Jong-un created a really cool browser, I'd have a hard time using it.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
It just seems a little hypocritical to me that you can have someone get fired and shamed for opposing something but as long as you are supporting the 'right' side you are viewed as a righteous champion of a cause.
I don't think it's a case of right or wrong. It's just a controversial cause. And when it's controversial you will get boycotts. And boycotts are bad for business, hence he goes. If Kim Jong-un created a really cool browser, I'd have a hard time using it.
I think if any temperamental five year old made a browser it would be hard to use.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I think if any temperamental five year old made a browser it would be hard to use.
I'll get my daughter to make one this weekend, and report back.
-
Good - I saw a good comment on reddit about it: Would there be this much controversy if he'd contributed to the KKK or something similar?
-
@Nic said:
Good - I saw a good comment on reddit about it: Would there be this much controversy if he'd contributed to the KKK or something similar?
Who know's. I'm just leery of selective outrage.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
@Nic said:
Good - I saw a good comment on reddit about it: Would there be this much controversy if he'd contributed to the KKK or something similar?
Who know's. I'm just leery of selective outrage.
What outrage isn't selective?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
@Nic said:
Good - I saw a good comment on reddit about it: Would there be this much controversy if he'd contributed to the KKK or something similar?
Who know's. I'm just leery of selective outrage.
What outrage isn't selective?
I'm outraged at everything!
-
Fury is best served unbridled.
-
@Bill-Kindle
No it does not make them Mozillas. Mozilla is a business, it does not have any religion. No matter what. -
@scottalanmiller
He wasn't CEO when he donated the money. -
@Chad-K. said:
@scottalanmiller
He wasn't CEO when he donated the money.Does that matter? He chose to impact his career and the board opted to allow it to have happened.
Just like things you say online or tattoos you are making a permanent decision when you do these things. Honestly it makes him an idiot and a bad candidate for CEO - it shows a horrible understanding of actions and consequences. Not a failing one wants in a leader.
-
-
@Bill-Kindle
It's hypocritical to be against equality personally and work for an organization that promotes it. People will look at the situation and say "How long until he changes the organization in a way that pulls it away from where it is and toward those views that are in opposition to the companies history and stated ambitions". This isn't good for business. -
@Nic said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
@Nic said:
Good - I saw a good comment on reddit about it: Would there be this much controversy if he'd contributed to the KKK or something similar?
Who know's. I'm just leery of selective outrage.
What outrage isn't selective?
I'm outraged at everything!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Chad-K. said:
@scottalanmiller
He wasn't CEO when he donated the money.Does that matter? He chose to impact his career and the board opted to allow it to have happened.
Just like things you say online or tattoos you are making a permanent decision when you do these things. Honestly it makes him an idiot and a bad candidate for CEO - it shows a horrible understanding of actions and consequences. Not a failing one wants in a leader.
Only in that he didn't do it as CEO -
@Chad-K. said:
@Bill-Kindle
It's hypocritical to be against equality personally and work for an organization that promotes it. People will look at the situation and say "How long until he changes the organization in a way that pulls it away from where it is and toward those views that are in opposition to the companies history and stated ambitions". This isn't good for business.But at the same time doesn't it alienate the same people who may hold different beliefs? Isn't that the same thing? like role reversal?
