Yes, I think the larger your company the less effective this "bossware" is. If you imagine collecting this amount of data on every sales, design, eng, product manager, director, vp, exec at a place like Google or Facebook the sheer amount of legally precarious logs would probably tilt toward liability.
I worked at a medium-sized tech company, and one employee sent an e-mail to another employee about how one of our product logos looked very similar to another logo in a similar product space. It was similar enough, and the products closely related enough, that this concern would have kicked off a re-branding effort or something like that... but since it was an e-mail, it sent off red flags all the way up to executive level. Triggered overseas flights, high-level meetings, legal involvement. Everyone working on the project immediately put on white gloves.
Made me think that more often then not, it's just better off for management to "not know", or at least have what they call plausible deniability.
> I worked at a medium-sized tech company, and one employee sent an e-mail to another employee about how one of our product logos looked very similar to another logo in a similar product space. It was similar enough, and the products closely related enough, that this concern would have kicked off a re-branding effort or something like that... but since it was an e-mail, it sent off red flags all the way up to executive level. Triggered overseas flights, high-level meetings, legal involvement. Everyone working on the project immediately put on white gloves.
> Made me think that more often then not, it's just better off for management to "not know", or at least have what they call plausible deniability.
What, what? Can you clarify?
Here's my understanding:
* employee saw a problem and sent an email to notify others about it
* management reacted with "white gloves" ???
* therefore, management should have plausible deniability of problems
I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion but I'm also having trouble understanding how that conclusion was reached.
I don't think it's reasonable for management to have plausible deniability when red flags about products are raised by employees.
Email is trivally archived by everyone, and people say stupid things that can be data mined later to demonstrate intent.
Look at social media brigading when the mob decides someone is "bad". Some evidence that <target> hates kittens will be found in an email from 2005. That happens in the office too, except it's done by attorneys instead of internet randos.
I think they’re saying it could have been handled quickly by changing their logo but because it was pointed out a lot of people who didn’t need to be involved swooped in to “do it properly” which resulted in a lot more complexity.
Rather than what it sounds like which is employees should provide cover for executives by not informing them of legal issues in a manner that means there is a record. Which sounds ethically dubious as well as a terrible idea for the individual employee.
I worked at a medium-sized tech company, and one employee sent an e-mail to another employee about how one of our product logos looked very similar to another logo in a similar product space. It was similar enough, and the products closely related enough, that this concern would have kicked off a re-branding effort or something like that... but since it was an e-mail, it sent off red flags all the way up to executive level. Triggered overseas flights, high-level meetings, legal involvement. Everyone working on the project immediately put on white gloves.
Made me think that more often then not, it's just better off for management to "not know", or at least have what they call plausible deniability.
Of course, for the "big crimes", it's good to have some level of logs collected and stored. For instance, no company should tolerate something like this happening, naturally: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-insidertrading-expedi...