As he said, you don’t go to the media when you’re a VP at a company. You go through channels. Anything else -would- make you radioactive, because it means you can’t be trusted to work at fixing things that you carry some responsibility for as a senior leader.

Caveat: companies where everyone is a VP probably have another title that denotes senior leadership: Managing Director, Partner, etc.

He did go through the proper channels:

"At that point I snapped. VPs shouldn’t go publicly rogue, so I escalated through the proper channels and by the book. I’m not at liberty to disclose those discussions, but I made many of the arguments appearing in this essay. I think I made them to the appropriate people. ¶

That done, remaining an Amazon VP would have meant, in effect, signing off on actions I despised. So I resigned."

I think you're reading something I didn't say. I was responding to the comment that said he should have gone public while still an employee.

Ah, my mistake, I thought you were suggesting that he didn't go through proper channels when he went public.

While I see where you're coming from, "that's not how it's done" might not be the right answer when the things that are happening are already crossing ethical boundaries that are more serious than breaking with corporate traditions.

I think I would agree that making media rounds would be a crude move, but there are actions you can take along a continuum before that (like this blog post) that might help apply external pressure while still having access to the internal levers.

It reminds me a bit of Congresspeople who gain the courage to speak honestly after they've left their government roles. Yes, it's still courageous, and there are good reasons not to speak out while you're inside the system, but damn, you've just given up your best chance at making actual change.

Something I didn’t know before I became a VP at a middling tech co — as a senior leader, your actions are considered more reflective of the company in general and specifically legally. Obvious in hindsight, but an underling that gets fired is considered representative of not much. A VP, even if they get fired, opens the company to accusations that the behavior they were fired for is representative of the company, because of their role.

For roles where you are a voice of the company, you need people who will use channels, because the alternative is literally bad for the company in ways that are very concrete.

Put more viscerally, I would not want one of my peers going to the media before they talk to me and give me a chance to address their concerns.

That is something I'm aware of, which is why I think it should only be done in conjunction with communicating through proper channels. Perfect example is the Navy captain who was fired, and may be reinstated. He went through proper channels, plus a little more, because he recognized this needed solving. He could have also just resigned and then went public, but instead he stuck it out until he was removed. My opinion: more courageous.

I very much hesitate to say which is more or less courageous. Certainly it takes fortitude to sit through the shitstorm that would result when you go to the media while you're still an employee. However you're still being paid, and forcing them to fire you, so there's some offsetting benefits.