I believe the snarky comments are targeted at Mozilla's last short-lived CEO.
However, what does the political background of a CEO matter? Can he do the job? Can he lead them to success? Those are the questions that should be asked about any new big business executive... not rather or not he supported issue X at some point in the past.
I'd argue that a CEO's past causes and political background affects their ability to lead towards success.
Not because of innate analytical/communicative capacity difference in the individual, but just public relations angle and the ability to rally teammates of diverse backgrounds under one banner. It's nothing personal in that case. Just business.
So the roadmap to a safe business executive career is to:
1) Don't speak about your political views, keep them to yourself
2) Don't contribute to any political funds, it may be used against you in the future.
3) Don't be controversial in any regard.
Seems like these are actually the opposite of what I would want in a CEO. I would want to know where my CEO stands on certain issues, what their level of political activism is; what do they view as important outside of the company?
This really isn't just about social issues, but any issues including bills like CISPA and PIPA (and reincarnates), since they are very important to my sector today... but if a CEO speaks out against them today, and in 10 years that view is unfavorable... will it be used against him/her?
if you plan to run a business revolving around shooting, better not donate to gun control
if you plan to run a business that is a mission oriented open source company, that therefore hires quite a few people who live their politics, and that draws heavily from a politically liberal city that has a long history of welcoming glbtq people, you need to avoid deliberately offending them and their friends
Which means that the less opinions you express the more likely is for you to be accepted by the community as CEO of a company. How ironic, freedom of speech tampered by those alleging being depraved of basic rights.
"freedom of speech" does not mean people will necessarily want to associate with you after they have heard what you have to say, nor that they have any obligation to do so
If my use of "freedom of speech" were to say "end apartheid" and it so happened that suddenly no one would give me a job, or rent me somewhere to live, is speech still free? What about if I was preaching the Gospel, or the Koran? What about being pro gay marriage?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is a line somewhere, and it matters. If it's illegal (in my country) to refuse to employ someone based on their sexuality, or race, or religion - can you justify the right to refuse the same thing for supporting the right to gay marriage? And if not, why does the opposite not hold?
claiming that "freedom of speech" means "no consequences for my speech" is just stupid. There is no line. The US has near complete freedom of speech and no control over consequences to that speech (outside of obviously illegality like assault, etc). And yes, you obviously can refuse to hire someone who supports gay marriage -- supporting gay marriage is not a protected class.
Yes, that is the only legal meaning of "freedom of speech" in America, but apparently a fair amount of people believe individuals should voluntarily grant the freedom to each other more often. Now, if you want to say "I will not be tolerant of intolerance" or "When they ask for that freedom, it's code for demanding they get what they want", fine, but at least it's now a conversation, instead of just shutting it down with this response every time.
Ok, but I'm talking about freedom in general. For example you can't discriminate doing things like hiring white people only, even if you are not in the government. So there is definitely some limits about what you can do and say between citizens; and those lines are blurry even if you are in the "right side" of the discussion. Is some sort of discrimination, even if it is a "correct" one.
A CEO should at least share the same fundamental beliefs and values with his company / organization. I don't imply that any of the Mozilla CEOs did not.
The political background of a CEO matters because the realm of a corporation is not just how much money it can make for its shareholders, but the manner in which it conducts its business as well. This is why people can be upset about companies using child labour, or sending jobs overseas, and so forth.
If a company promotes a bigot as a CEO, then people will question whether the company is being ethical in its business practices, or will be in the future. People will also think that it isn't fair for someone who is a bigot to be successful while trying to deny other people basic rights, and will be upset by that.
If you are referring to the previous Mozilla CEO, he was hardly a "bigot". He (I believe, going from memory here) donated $1,000 to an organization that was against same-sex marriage in CA many years back (the same election that had an overwhelming yes vote that year, more than 60%, -- a yes vote on the prop was to continue outlawing same-sex-marriage).
So, fast forward to today, and this CEO was chastised for a political contribution that sided with the majority at the time. Today, it would likely be a political minority that feel that way... but at the time it was a majority.
Is he not allowed to change his attitude/views about political topics? I know mine has changed in the past few years, and I expect it to change more as the future comes.
He paid for disgusting, dehumanizing ads. And his views have not changed -- if they had, he would have said so. He did not, nor did he disavow anything his money went toward. If he had, he would still be CEO.
No he didn't... he funded an organization (with a one-time $1,000 donation) that was against same-sex marriage. That's a far cry from directly funding adverts.
And, at the time, his view and contribution was in the significant majority here in California. Today, maybe not, but back then, his views were shared by a vast majority (almost 60% in the vote). That's not to say it's right... only to point out we are chastising an individual for past beliefs that were popular at the time, but have gown to be unpopular today.
More than 60% of voted to outlaw same-sex marriage after a blitz of awful, fearmongering homophobic ads that portrayed gays as pedophiles and gay marriage as leading to kids being raped - ads that Eich helped to fund, if only a little.
> voted to outlaw same-sex marriage after a blitz of awful, fearmongering homophobic ads that portrayed gays as pedophiles and gay marriage as leading to kids being raped
Horribly untrue and very off-base. I live in California and voted in that election, and remember it well. Let's not exaggerate history.
I find it repulsive how badly you are willing to distort the truth to make this man appear like a monster.
There were none of the advert campaigns you speak of.
The adverts that were run, mostly discussed "keeping the sanctity of marriage".
Please do some homework before stating atrocities that are this inaccurate.
The people of California did not sway their vote because of some advert campaign anyways. This subject has been put to a vote before, and since then, with the same outcome. This is not to say I believe it's right -- only stating the facts.
Regardless, open source has nothing to do with sexuality. Nothing. Who cares!? Do what you do, so long as you contribute something to the project.
However, what does the political background of a CEO matter? Can he do the job? Can he lead them to success? Those are the questions that should be asked about any new big business executive... not rather or not he supported issue X at some point in the past.