Blue Origin: Toxic, dysfunctional ‘bro culture’, low morale and delays(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Blue Origin: Toxic, dysfunctional ‘bro culture’, low morale and delays
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/
40 comments
"bro culture" is often used because it immediately evokes for most people that very familiar casually sexist environment that is tolerant of sexual harassment and intolerant of those who report inappropriate behavior. A workplace where "the guys" are loose and relaxed around each other, but when a women comes around they either tighten up around the "outsider" or often eventually cross boundaries with the woman. I feel like everyone can relate to a period of their life where they worked at a place with "bro culture."
Other terms like "rape culture" and simply calling the atmosphere "sexist" often will be derided as extreme or hyperbolic. I think the accusation of "bro culture" is more palatable and harder to dismiss, if for no other reason than its instant familiarity.
Other terms like "rape culture" and simply calling the atmosphere "sexist" often will be derided as extreme or hyperbolic. I think the accusation of "bro culture" is more palatable and harder to dismiss, if for no other reason than its instant familiarity.
> A workplace where "the guys" are loose and relaxed around each other, but when a women comes around they either tighten up around the "outsider"
You're jumping to conclusions here (relaxed guys rape women?!). A simple reason why men do that, is to avoid accusations of "bro culture" that quickly escalate towards "rape" as you did here.
On the other hand, it's obvious that any tight-knit group of people (casual or workplace) will develop its own internal jokes and other cultural artefacts. No need to attack this process wholesale as "bro culture".
You're jumping to conclusions here (relaxed guys rape women?!). A simple reason why men do that, is to avoid accusations of "bro culture" that quickly escalate towards "rape" as you did here.
On the other hand, it's obvious that any tight-knit group of people (casual or workplace) will develop its own internal jokes and other cultural artefacts. No need to attack this process wholesale as "bro culture".
The commenter to whom you are replying did not seem to misunderstand the term, they called for the use of more meaningful terms that do not rely on slang which is potentially subject to regional or experiential biases. To that point, I highly doubt that "everyone" has the same view of the word "bro" that you do. That will only become more true the further you get from America and American slang.
The fact that you felt the need to explain the term even when the person seemed to already know what you meant is an excellent example of why this terminology is unhelpful.
The fact that you felt the need to explain the term even when the person seemed to already know what you meant is an excellent example of why this terminology is unhelpful.
The intention is to contrast the term with alternatives that men often find far more upsetting like "rape culture" or calling the culture openly misogynistic or sexist. Men often find these terms upsetting, as they feel it makes them out to be victimizers or predators. It's difficult to land on any language describing a misogynist, sexist work environment without needing to consider the emotions of those who's participation is most important in confronting the issue.
To my knowledge, the right language hasn't been found that men generally find palatable for describing a sexist work environment.
To my knowledge, the right language hasn't been found that men generally find palatable for describing a sexist work environment.
Can the journalist describe what happens there with actual descriptions of the behavior that occurs along with how often it may happen?
Taking a quote like bro culture is as lazy as saying hoodlum or hooligan culture, etc. What are they trying to say and have us imagine? Just tell us what the behavior is.
Taking a quote like bro culture is as lazy as saying hoodlum or hooligan culture, etc. What are they trying to say and have us imagine? Just tell us what the behavior is.
The article expanded on the headline.
I think the point of the original comment is to avoid the conundrum I now find myself in after reading your response.
To me, bro culture does not evoke the environment you described. As a average-as-you-get-cis-white-male, bro culture to me is a description of a culture in which individual accountability is lacking, and who you know matters more than what you can do.
My purpose here isn't to get into a debate of who's interpretation of "bro culture" is correct. The point is that 'bro culture' cannot be tied to a subjective interpretation of the author's intent without the reader supplanting their own preconcieved interpretations.
¯\_㋡_/¯
To me, bro culture does not evoke the environment you described. As a average-as-you-get-cis-white-male, bro culture to me is a description of a culture in which individual accountability is lacking, and who you know matters more than what you can do.
My purpose here isn't to get into a debate of who's interpretation of "bro culture" is correct. The point is that 'bro culture' cannot be tied to a subjective interpretation of the author's intent without the reader supplanting their own preconcieved interpretations.
¯\_㋡_/¯
Either of your augments make no sense in any other contexts of people, and is only "acceptable" because it's men.
>It's difficult to land on any language describing a misogynist, sexist work environment without needing to consider the emotions of those who's participation is most important in confronting the issue.
Why should socially acceptable language be any different here? Do their emotions not deserve respect too? Where else can you say "well, there isn't a better word for it, so that's what we're calling them regardless of their feelings"
>It's difficult to land on any language describing a misogynist, sexist work environment without needing to consider the emotions of those who's participation is most important in confronting the issue.
Why should socially acceptable language be any different here? Do their emotions not deserve respect too? Where else can you say "well, there isn't a better word for it, so that's what we're calling them regardless of their feelings"
I read a criticism of one of my former employers that mentioned "bro culture" and honestly had no idea what it was referring to. It may have been legitimate, but like you say, without some kind of explanation it's a throwaway like "toxic" that could be a serious issue or could just be decisions you don't like.
I spent time trying to understand what that phrase specifically meant. Given the context of the article I think they're using the 'misogynist' definition. It sounds like you've gone with the 'straight white entitled male' definition. The ambiguity, which is probably intentional, makes the phrase even more problematic.
[deleted]
This is organizational rot in action.
The former CEO of Honeywell is not the right guy to be at the helm. To be fair, this problem predated him. But it's just exacerbated BO becoming just another Corporate America drone factory of useless management and no leadership.
Just like Corporate America in general, risk not only isn't rewarded, it's actively punished. Barney Stinson said it best, "doing things gets you fired" [1].
I honestly think BO needs to clean house and almost start over. The culture is just bad at this point and throwing money at the problem just makes it worse.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoGwD-Ik7R8
The former CEO of Honeywell is not the right guy to be at the helm. To be fair, this problem predated him. But it's just exacerbated BO becoming just another Corporate America drone factory of useless management and no leadership.
Just like Corporate America in general, risk not only isn't rewarded, it's actively punished. Barney Stinson said it best, "doing things gets you fired" [1].
I honestly think BO needs to clean house and almost start over. The culture is just bad at this point and throwing money at the problem just makes it worse.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoGwD-Ik7R8
> Bezos, who recently stepped down as chief executive of Amazon, also owns The Washington Post.
I like how they hide this statement several paragraphs into the article. Suddenly I have to ask if I am getting the entire story. Surely there is a better source for this story?
I like how they hide this statement several paragraphs into the article. Suddenly I have to ask if I am getting the entire story. Surely there is a better source for this story?
It's a pretty negative article. What do you think they might be hiding? That things are even worse than described? If they were trying to hide something, they would have never drawn attention to this matter by killing the article in the first place.
Bezos may be using articles like this as an alternative to paying high priced consultants.
Also, maybe, if you don't want your behavior published in the Post, maybe don't behave that way in the first place.
Also, maybe, if you don't want your behavior published in the Post, maybe don't behave that way in the first place.
Regardless of how impartial the journalism may be on the story, this does seem like something you'd put in a disclaimer at the top of the story.
It is at the top of the story. It isn't the very first sentence, but just eyeballing my scrollbar it's about 5% of the way in and before the meat of the reporting.
I'm not a journalist, by my understanding is that journalism uses an inverted pyramid rhetorical structure. You put the gist of the article first so people can quickly judge if they want to continue reading. Then you have the details. The disclaimer is after the condensed intro and immediately before this sentence, which begins their detailed reporting: "This account is based on interviews with more than 20 current and former Blue Origin employees and industry officials with close ties to the firm, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal."
I'm not a journalist, by my understanding is that journalism uses an inverted pyramid rhetorical structure. You put the gist of the article first so people can quickly judge if they want to continue reading. Then you have the details. The disclaimer is after the condensed intro and immediately before this sentence, which begins their detailed reporting: "This account is based on interviews with more than 20 current and former Blue Origin employees and industry officials with close ties to the firm, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal."
I’d venture to bet WaPo has a left-leaning subscriber base that is at least somewhat critical of Bezos. They’re limited in how much astroturfing they can do versus a free newspaper that only relies on ads.
"Suddenly I have to ask if I am getting the entire story. Surely there is a better source for this story?"
Generally it's in good taste to declare ones business and ownership ties. For respected journalism this is not an obvious problem.
This is pretty much the story that's been going around in space news circles. It's not "news" news, just rehash of more or less "well known" facts. Mainstream media has not kept up that much with BO so that makes this article more poignant.
Generally it's in good taste to declare ones business and ownership ties. For respected journalism this is not an obvious problem.
This is pretty much the story that's been going around in space news circles. It's not "news" news, just rehash of more or less "well known" facts. Mainstream media has not kept up that much with BO so that makes this article more poignant.
The Washington Post has been running negative stories about Bezos and his companies for a long while. They always include the disclaimer because that's what a responsible company would do.
Sorry you felt mislead that they included it in a place you didn't appreciate, but so far it doesn't seem like they are treating him with gloves.
Sorry you felt mislead that they included it in a place you didn't appreciate, but so far it doesn't seem like they are treating him with gloves.
Very interesting considering both WP and BO are owned by the same boss ...
The main problem with Blue Origin is that it isn't SpaceX. And I think Bezos clearly knows that he has a very small window of chance to make it work. So I bet the top-down pressure is insane. Perfect condtions for a toxic culture.
So if you get a job at Blue Origin with the expectations that is going to feel like working for a cozy, cultural-heavy, trendy startup, you probably should re-caliber the way you set your expectations.
So if you get a job at Blue Origin with the expectations that is going to feel like working for a cozy, cultural-heavy, trendy startup, you probably should re-caliber the way you set your expectations.
> The main problem with Blue Origin is that it isn't SpaceX.
Really? I'd say the problem is more that they've not produced much in the way of progress despite being at it for years. Beyond the suborbital dong they've done nothing but static fires and not even full duration burns. To make rockets you need engines. Until Blue sorts our their orbital propulsion they're dead in the water. And SpaceX has nothing to do with that.
Really? I'd say the problem is more that they've not produced much in the way of progress despite being at it for years. Beyond the suborbital dong they've done nothing but static fires and not even full duration burns. To make rockets you need engines. Until Blue sorts our their orbital propulsion they're dead in the water. And SpaceX has nothing to do with that.
Amazon (especially AWS) is the pioneer and market leader in its segment and the work culture is still terrible. Blue Origin is playing catch up to SpaceX, so it's hardly surprising that as a Bezos-led company the culture is even worse.
I had a one hour phone interview one of their engineering managers a few years ago and I thought everything was going well but he said to my face that I'm not a suitable candidate for then. I don't know about their work culture.
Do you consider it a bad thing that he said that "to your face" rather then receiving a generic rejection letter (or being ghosted)?
Yeah, I'd prefer the immediate feedback, even if it stung in the moment, much better to know sooner rather than later.
I would never say this in an interview, but I’ve had several candidates ask how they did in an interview when I opened it up for questions. Some people want an immediate answer. But agreed, their behavior seems against professional norms.
doesn't sound like a place I'd want to work .. but i can't help notice the parallel to similar sentiments about Amazon's early days, and we all know how that turned out
> Another top executive was coached by human resources on appropriate workplace behavior after he repeatedly referred to a group of female employees as “mean girls,” which continued even after they complained about it to management
What's a logical reason why "mean girls" is egregious enough to require reeducation, but "bro culture" doesn't bat an eye?
What's a logical reason why "mean girls" is egregious enough to require reeducation, but "bro culture" doesn't bat an eye?
There is no logical reason. The emotional reason, of course, is that one targets men and the other targets women. Most activism these days is retalitory, not consolidatory. So you are allowed to attack white men, because they are always in a position of power.
But both outlets are owned by Bezos, so maybe both outlets are just toxic. The fish rots from the head.
But both outlets are owned by Bezos, so maybe both outlets are just toxic. The fish rots from the head.
The Post is quoting when it uses both phrases. They are reporting what people involved said. One person used the phrase "bro culture" and there was another incident where a manager referred to some female employees as "mean girls".
> What's a logical reason why "mean girls" is egregious enough to require reeducation, but "bro culture" doesn't bat an eye?
Maybe its not a difference between the words, but between describing a broad social trend in the latter case and “referred to a group of female employees” in the former.
Maybe its not a difference between the words, but between describing a broad social trend in the latter case and “referred to a group of female employees” in the former.
Isn't it possible, or even likely, that the "group of female employees" was referred to as "mean girls" specifically because they were being cliquey and exclusionary? I seriously doubt the phrase was used to describe a set of women simply working on a task together.
That said, can we get away from lazy shortcuts like 'bro culture' even if it's a juicy quote? Imagine someone said hick culture or urban culture, fem culture, whatever. It may be true in some way but try and use understandable adjectives rather then ones the reader has to fill and load with meaning.