Thread by @amaliaefowler

Round two of dissecting "why this Basecamp situation is problematic" from an empathetic manager's perspective.

Today's message is David's response to the Verge article: world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all…

Again, I'm an outsider and a privileged person. My take is not the whole picture nor should it be considered as such.

I'm going to leave the part where they left out the communications that caused the shift in the first place. That was a choice - you could argue if it was poor or not, but that's not going to get solved here. They made a business choice to not disclose what caused it.

I'll be honest - I'm not a big fan of releasing the initial internal discussion for a variety of reasons. One, we don't get to see the initial message, so we're only getting the one side of the story. And two, I don't think it is painting him in the light he thinks it is.

Three - your employees have been through enough this week. This again paints it in a "we are framing ourselves as the good guys here" - instead of considering what their internal system needs right now which is... not this.

Without the comms before the response, and the big chunk missing in the middle, I can't really comment on the message itself. However, I do take issue with saying that because 6 of the names on the list were Asian, that it isn't appropriate to connect that to genocide.

There is a very real connection between using specific terms to describe groups, making fun of names, and discussions that have racial undertones to historical genocides. Ignoring that, or saying it is an inappropriate comparison to draw, makes it not okay to have that discussion

I understand the desire to not have these discussions publicly as a company or have those things shared in a group - but that has to be a pre-existing policy or there has to be ways to have the conversation. It can't be in reaction to valid feelings.

"I think it makes us less able to admit mistakes and accept embarrassment"

^This is problematic, because it places blame for the embarrassment and the mistake on the person who has drawn the reasonable conclusion. One name on that list where there are racial undertones...

Is too many. "I don't think we serve the cause of opposing colonial regimes or racist ideology by connecting their abusive acts around names to this incident."

When you aren't a member of the group in question you don't get to decide what does and does not feel threatening.

In that situation your job as a leader is listen and ask those individuals how the company can do better. Of course, if the discussion in a group is inappropriate - facilitate it elsewhere. But don't escalate the discussion in a group setting then.

The part of his message that says "well, you're wrong, look at all these names that ARE NOT that" feels like gaslighting to me. 7% of the names are in that category you described, that isn't enough and that interpretation doesn't matter...

Also says "We're okay with racist undertones as long as it is under a certain percentage."

" ...is exactly the kind of linkage I'd like us to avoid when we analyze our mistakes together at work."

Is back to the whole new policy of not talking about politics. Its saying when leadership does something that is a problem, we can't look to other examples of problems.

In my opinion this would have been a great moment to reflect on WHY nobody called out this list of names as problematic (also have to wonder if mine was ever on there as a basecamp customer with a unique name, which isn't a great feeling)

"After going through repeated, worsening incidents like this, we took a hard look at why we kept doing this, and kept getting the same unproductive, unhealthy results."

Except we didn't look at our role as leaders, the environment that led to this and changes that could...

improve communication.

From my understanding the two founders often debate politically on their own Twitter and within groups - which also sends the message its okay to do so to the team at large.

The paragraph on why it shouldn't be played out internally is a big red flag for me - you want to be comfortable, in the workspace you built. And these discussions make you uncomfortable.

Just say that's what it is.

"My belief is that the key to working with other people of different ideological persuasions is to find common cause in the work, in the relations with customers, in the good we can do in the industry."

This is a *VERY* power-holding person's view. Because your ideology is the

one being upheld, your comfort is also being upheld. What isn't considered here is that you're forcing those who hold different views and have different life perspectives and experiences to 'blend in' and to suppress their feelings amidst microaggressions because you don't like

having difficult conversations or working to find solutions. "Forget how you feel targeted, we've got customers to serve!" serves you - not those who are lower in the hierarchy in many different ways.

I'll give them props on the severance offers, although I still think that is the easy way out.

I would encourage leadership to look at who is enraged vs. who is more comfortable and happy now - and to ask yourself what those groups have in common. Are you really better off as a business having done the equivalent of sweeping things under the rug and paying people out?

Basecamp will suffer for this, not only due to the talent they will not get and will lose because of these decisions, but because they are essentially creating a work bubble that's isolated from everything that matters and makes us human.

Instead of finding a way to have these discussions and keep everyone safe - instead of choosing discomfort and learning and self-awareness, they've paid out those who disagree.

It's their choice, but its not an empathetic one.

One final thought.

All of these actions, including paying out, says to me as a customer and I'm sure to their employees - that they believe one specific viewpoint is valued above all else (their own).