All in all, it seems like they had grossly mismatched expectations. Lyons clearly thought HubSpot would magically twist itself to match his desires for a traditional workspace, while HubSpot apparently thought Lyons might be slightly adaptable. In a just world, they'd both chalk it up to an experiment gone wrong.
Of course, Lyons is a journalist with an ax to grind so he'll make hay off that failed experiment.
The parent said: "You seem to be unrelentingly "blaming the victims."
I'm pointing out that some degree of "blaming Dan Lyons" is in order. He's a sophisticated tech insider.
It's as if a professional investor lost all his/her money on a private company that claimed to be a great company in its press releases, after which the investor complains about getting screwed. Yes, the investment is partly to blame for being so shitty. But the professional investor is a "sophisticated investor" and is also partly to blame for his/her own loss.
I would be more sympathetic to someone getting screwed by HubSpot if they were a fresh college grad who got misled and didn't know better.
But does that in any way absolve employers of making realistic representations of what employees can expect? Does that absolve people in management positions from behaving with decency and fairness?
When two cars collide, sometimes both parties are at fault, "blame" is often a positive-sum game. It would be fair to hand out as much opprobrium and vituperation for the employers in these situations as the employees.