Looks like the other comments on here are anti-Yammer. I guess I'll write up why this doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
1. If you read the article, he was apparently talking about people with options and control (Executives, Lawyers, Engineers), rather than janitors or other people who might not have as much say in who they work for.
2. The CEO states that his reasoning is that who you work for and support indicates what kind of person you are ("the talent market in Silicon Valley is so hot right now, the only folks staying at Yahoo are the ones who have stopped caring"). Contrast this with the knee jerk reactions to the article indicating that this is purely about punishing Yahoo. He just doesn't want people who enable bad behavior. He wants Yammer employees who will stand up to him if things look immoral.
3. Yes the article / his announcement is sensational. But look at the general idea: expecting engineers to refuse support to business doing immoral things is taught in every university ethics class. Why not include ethics questions in the interview?
I have a lot of problems with this story, and with your arguments in favor of it.
> the talent market in Silicon Valley is so hot right now,
> the only folks staying at Yahoo are the ones who have
> stopped caring
I guarantee you that there are people working at Yahoo! solving difficult and interesting problems, which many of us would envy. Not only that, but there are also going to be people working there now who value stability and have a sense of loyalty to the company they work for. Not everyone is going to jump ship for the new hotness every 3 years, and software engineering is not a monoculture where we all share the same values. I think it's incredibly problematic to broadly assert that anyone working at a given company is not worthy of employing.
> 3. Yes the article / his announcement is sensational. But look at the
> general idea: expecting engineers to refuse support to business doing
> immoral things is taught in every university ethics class. Why not include
> ethics questions in the interview?
So Yammer should only allow a single interpretation of ethics? What about someone who doesn't believe this move is unethical? Yahoo is after all a business, and according to some, the ethical way for a business to behave is to maximize shareholder value [I do not agree with this, for the record, but some people have definitely said it here and elsewhere.] Apparently Yahoo believes this move will achieve that goal. [Remember, we're looking at ethics here, not whether this is a good business move.]
Additionally, if one can make a good case for his/her stance on this issue, does that mean that he/she will be considered as an exception to the no-hire rule? If the CEO of Yammer wants employees who will correct him on ethics issues, then certainly having strong critical thinking skills, and ability to present a compelling argument for an issue should be far more important than being able to "Patents are bad, mmkay?" And having a diversity of viewpoints on these issues would surely also be a benefit, would it not?
Dude, go read the article. His first public statement was a tweet. 160 characters. His statements in the article make it sound like he talked to his buddies before tweeting, had a nuanced position much like the one you are describing (ie working at Yahoo is okay if you have a really really good reason), and then tweeted something a bit sensational to get the idea some news coverage.
Sure, he could have phrased the tweet better. But that's arguably not the point of Twitter :p
On an unrelated note, I can't make heads or tails of your third paragraph. First you argue that the "ethical way for a business to behave is to maximize shareholder value", then you claim that "we are looking at ethics here, not whether this is a good business move". Those two sentences come back to back and appear self-contradictory -- maximizing shareholder value is done by good business moves.
Did you mean that if the Yahoo board believed the action was ethical, then the employees shouldn't care if they think it's ethical? (Or that Yammer's CEO shouldn't care if those employees thought it was ethical?) (Or perhaps that Yahoo employees who stay are better hires, since they won't get in the way of business ethics?)
As you can see I am a bit befuddled by your paragraph three.
As to the question of (good arguers) <> (people with similar ethics) you bring up at the end, I can not say. Personally, the most productive teams I have been on have had relatively heterogeneous beliefs and ethics. Perhaps your experience differs.
After some backlash, Sacks is considering modifying his proposal to only extend to executives and lawyers, but he still feels all employees should take some ownership.
No, no, it is. From the paragraph after the one you are quoting:
“People were telling me I need to think of the Yahoo rank and file, folks who have families, but the talent market in Silicon Valley is so hot right now, the only folks staying at Yahoo are the ones who have stopped caring,”
(Emphasis on were added. Unless janitors are in hot demand in the valley this confirms the statement as is)
In his original statement, the CEO clearly meant anyone at the company (we can assume he didn't mean janitors and such, but he certainly meant engineers.)
Later on, he decided to clarify it only to people with control: executives and lawyers. This would not seem to include engineers.
You're making the statement that you think this should include engineers.
1. If you read the article, he was apparently talking about people with options and control (Executives, Lawyers, Engineers), rather than janitors or other people who might not have as much say in who they work for.
2. The CEO states that his reasoning is that who you work for and support indicates what kind of person you are ("the talent market in Silicon Valley is so hot right now, the only folks staying at Yahoo are the ones who have stopped caring"). Contrast this with the knee jerk reactions to the article indicating that this is purely about punishing Yahoo. He just doesn't want people who enable bad behavior. He wants Yammer employees who will stand up to him if things look immoral.
3. Yes the article / his announcement is sensational. But look at the general idea: expecting engineers to refuse support to business doing immoral things is taught in every university ethics class. Why not include ethics questions in the interview?