"Every day that week, T. beat me up in the bathroom. He told me if i didnt say nice things about the company, he'd force me to get an abortion and have me deported. I told him I would post on LinkedIn about how much I loved the company. He said that he would need approval on that post per the company social media policy.

The next day he had me in a meeting with HR where I had to admit that I attacked him in the bathroom and came on to him. That I would undergo counseling for my anger problems and that I would be on probation. I signed a letter thanking T. for his understanding of my mental problems.

If I ever told anyone, he said, he would blackball me from the industry. There is a private database accessed by people who went to certain frats in the Ivy League - just like they had private databases of old final exams to study over the years, they also have private databases of troublemakers in their industries. This is what they do. This is their particular set of skills, developed over a lifetime.

Then he told me he accepted my apology, and would only take a small amount out of my bonus for the clothes I damaged while I was attacking him.

He's not a bad guy. I'm not saying he's a bad guy at all. I just wish he wouldn't get so upset when people make mistakes or do things wrong "

Of course, from what I can tell, there's far more than one problem manager involved in all this.

I wanted to see if I can inject some perspective here overall and Her post covers both to a fair degree.

I think that it is hard for us all at times to remember that large orgs can have pretty varied cultures and that some bad experiences don't speak for the whole.

Hoping we can have a productive discussion about culture in this thread :)

My understanding is that Uber is relatively top-tier both in difficulties of interviewing and competitiveness of getting hired there - is this not the case? If it is, it seems kind of disingenuous to think they did her a favor when in reality she could probably pick and choose 80% of the companies in SV if Uber was looking to hire her.

The shilling gets old. Please stop.

I may be in marketing, but it is my choice to defend what I believe in regardless of my role.

I ask since your post seems to suggest you believe there isn't a problem, that you may feel the issue has been played up.

edit: <3

I, too, believe in Uber being less rape-y and ignoring less sexual assault. You definitely have work to do.

"it is my choice to defend us doing better than before and that we definitely have work to do."

which doesn't even parse. I certainly can't deduce any meaning from it other than it being something that could be said in any situation and mean equally nothing. And that's the problem with marketing speak right there, it kind of assumes the listener to not pay attention either to what the words are actually saying, or that they're not saying anything.

Also, if your post is not to be taken to discount the other experiences, what is it supposed to mean then? That in a big company with systematic issues not every single person necessarily comes into direct contact with them? Imagine if it came out that in just 1% of McDonald's restaurants people pee in the sauce regularly, with management covering up for them.. who cares about some random person working in some random branch who never witnessed that? You could find such stories about anything, there's people right now in North Korea who had nothing but a great life, I bet you. And you know, the person who tells you they are tired of something like that is being more your friend than the person who lets you put your foot in your mouth like that without any commentary, at least that's how I see it.

I stole and slightly changed this this from a game developer talk about a technical subject, but I think it fits so perfectly in so many situations: imagine you go to a doctor and tell him you have cancer, and he says "oh, while I don't want to diminish your experience, let me tell you about this other patient of mine who doesn't have cancer, as a matter of fact they just come in for routine checks, always in great shape. Great family, too!". And then when you freak out on them, they berate you about putting it into perspective and being "productive" when discussing health. And oh boy, don't you dare suggesting to damage their business by telling everyone on the planet to not go to that doctor. Why do we accept sleeping in the bed one made for individuals, but not companies?

Either we have a free market, where consumers and workers call the shots, or we have a constantly massaged shit show. And that's why we're still stuck with companies like Microsoft, instead of simply ending them, and then founding two more from the talent in their space, who without the crap the original company was punished for will achieve more. What it is it you believe in about Uber so much that it could not be possibly exist in another or a new company? If the leaders who are responsible can't do the right thing, why can't you do it for them?

Maybe you should wonder a bit more about why your experience at the company is "great" when all I hear seems to be about how completely poisonous the company is. Because it looks like you may be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Edit: I say that because you are using some woman's words out of context to further your agenda in a predominantly male discussion forum. This is suspicious behavior, at best. It fits completely with what I have read Susan Fowler say about how women got treated there while she was working there.

I wish more people readily recognized the pattern and how very ugly it is.

Whenever I see women's problems, I want to understand, but most highly educated women argue in the same tone as your statement: highly condescending and cold.

I won't bring politics in or specifically state what's wrong with your statement (because I fear for my ability to post within a reasonable amount of time), all I'll say is that people are not sympathetic to groups that are violent (in argument or action).

Having said that, I will note (in case you are not aware of it) that I appear to be the highest ranked openly female member of hn. I didn't get there by randomly being a bitch to #allmen. I have, in fact, gone to great lengths to put people at ease while continuing to participate anyway, in spite of being a woman.

I did get permission and chose not to post her name for privacy' sake. I hope that allays your concerns somewhat :)

I'd love input on how to manage cultures and performance in a massive global org, purely because I want to learn how this sort of thing can be avoided for all of us, not just Uber.

How do you allow a fast, push-the-envelope culture without it getting out of hand? How can orgs that grow extremely rapidly handle these situations and work to not have them happen in the first place?

So many questions, really. Trying to find a good place to start.

Any thoughts?

Leadership sets an example of what behavior is acceptable and what isn't and management enforces it.

You also look out for culture fit when hiring - you don't just hire on technical competency, you also actively check that someone isn't an asshole, no matter how well they perform.

Edit: The question is, what will you do with the above advice? Will you take action and make improvements? Because otherwise this discussion was for nothing.

Your initial comment doesn't even hint at that. It's just a random anecdote of someone who has a good time at Uber. So to me it seems like you're kind of making it up as you go along, and

> I'd love input on

I kind of read as "I want to change the subject away from my initial post, what it means and just how tone deaf that is", but I'll humour you anyway.

> How do you allow a fast, push-the-envelope culture without it getting out of hand?

Here's a radical thought: You can't, and healthy societies made up of healthy individuals wouldn't have a need for them either, since time is infinite, there is no need to hustle and rush. This is only required for grabbing bigger pieces of a limited pie for yourself, for man waging war on man - not for expanding the size of the pie for all, for competition with more sportsmanship and integrity.

Empathy plays a big role here, people trapped in their own bodies and lifetimes consider this view childish and irrational - but that is mutual, I see many people as junkies who keep claiming they would be content if they just had some more, but really, it's just the monkey on their back talking, which seeks approval and materials from the outside, as a substitute for what they can't grow from the inside.

You might have noticed by now, I don't even accept any of your premises. From where I'm sitting, you're asking how to rationalize bugs into features, and how to make more of them.

> How can orgs that grow extremely rapidly handle these situations

By caring less about money and more about personality and craftsmanship. That is, more about life than survival, and more about what to use resources for than how to grab them the fastest in the shortest amount of time. Then these "orgs" wouldn't need to blame the environment for not accommodating their defects.

> Trying to find a good place to start.

I can recommend Erich Fromm's "The Sane Society".

This is the reason I criticized your comment. Women get shunned, silenced, disrespected, etc in ways that are career killers, that happen solely because they are female and which most men would never put up with. When men are called on this uneven pattern of behavior -- especially by a woman -- the person calling them on it gets attacked, often viciously so, for disrespecting the man.

Real respect is a two way street. When one group or person is supposed to get respect and another is supposed to give it, it isn't respect at all. It is kowtowing.

Stories about how everything at $COMPANY is just hunky-dory, with the employees sitting around holding hands and singing kumbaya by the campfire, etc. don't get reported. As the old saying goes "if it bleeds, it leads". Or to rephrase a bit "If it's negative, it leads". So of course you're going to hear more negative stories, and the news media is going to amplify whatever negative stories exist, because that generates more clicks.

Note that I'm not defending Uber here... I don't know or much care about what's going on at Uber in general. I just wanted to make note of how little it may mean that we only hear negative stories about $X.

https://stallman.org/uber.html