Her job was to preside over that mob. And apparently to monetize it. Pissing off that mob means she failed at her job.
In addition, not understanding that you are firing a key employee shows a dramatic level of ignorance. Reddit has so few employees that even an adequate CEO should know what every single employee is doing. This is just basic Management 101--"Know What Your People Do" or its corollary "Never Piss Off A Secretary" aka "Know Who Has The Real Power In Your Company".
Finally, from her attempt at PR positioning you get headlines like this: "It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit". Really? "Fighter of sexism". Um, she fired a woman, you know? And her behavior at Kleiner was far from exemplary. Her case for sexism would have been a whole lot stronger if she hadn't appeared to be sleeping her way up the corporate chain.
Overall, the problem seems to be the same tone-deafness as so many at this level of privilege: "The rules don't apply to me. How dare these plebeians attempt to make the rules apply to me!"
But this is not the company firing her --it's the internet firing her. I don't like this approach at all. management by popular opinion is not good. Imagine managing a professional sports team by popular vote --it'd be nuts.
[1]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-toyota-executiv...
So far as an example from the automotive industry, look at Rick Wagoner from General Motors. He lost the firm $82 billion and 90% of its market capitalization while he was CEO. And the board did nothing to correct this. With their capital gone, loss of confidence by the market, they were forced into bankruptcy.
That's a really bad example to cite because managers and coaches quite often do get fired when the fans start getting too angry.
Regarding "mob rule" this is a free country and people have a choice which website to read and to contribute to. If people want to go away from reddit that is their choice. The company that owns reddit does not need to follow reddit user wishes, but they have to face the distinct possibility that those users will leave and the consequences thereof.
You can call it mob rule, but other's can call it the matter of ordinary people exercising free choice.
It's almost like she just sucked at her job and the public backlash and getting fired were both predictable consequences of that fact.
As if officers need to walk on eggshells. What should matter ate results rather than dictated by the winds of public opinion.
I wish the board, management, etc. in these situations would who resolve and say, no, sorry, this is our choice, we stand by it. But no, we see them capitulate to public opinion.
Sometimes that opinion does coincide with"the right thing to do" but let the company execute the right thing. Don't let the mob become your upper management.
> “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -H. Ford
Users present solutions to their problems, when you listen you discover what their problem actually is. In the above case, faster more reliable transportation.
edit: Jobs was a cofounder of what is(or close to) the most profitable company in the world. He saved the company from bankruptcy and is arguably the best quality control engineer ever. Rules always have exceptions but thinking you are the exception often helps to prove the rule.
But we have seen this play out many many times. Someone is accused --accused, not proven.. and the slightest whiff the company drops the person like a bad contagion. And, so now people expect this from companies. Complain enough and have someone fired. Someone said something crass while drunk 'aha!' fire them, behavior unbecoming. As if these people, unlike us, are not human and can't err. We're scared to see our ugliness in others. Oh the terrible reminder of our frailties! OMG, they were caught in a sting operation and had a rendezvous in a bathroom with a stranger! [Do the private sex lives of executives really matter? Oh but public perception, gasp!]
I don't think companies and organizations should manage by popular opinion. No one will be willing to make bold choices for fear of upsetting some base of people.
If an officers' views are contrary to the official org position, or behavior was egregious or against the law, then sure. If the organizational action simply coincides with popular opinion, then fine --but don't take action _just_ because of popular opinion --that's, to me, not right and gives away control to the whims of the moment.
I think the line needs to be drawn more clearly than that, because we should have populist control over companies.
I'm more concerned about companies that really impact us, for example huge banks, energy conglomerates, people behind the TPP and TiSA.
But when the leader of a company who publishes the words of its' customers - a complex relationship, indeed - tries to curb some of the harmful speech of those customers, I don't think it's a reasonable populist standard to say that people supporting that speech can oppose it.
My big concern is this populist approach to firing people. Enough people don't like a company officer? Cobble a "movement" and generate enough controversy to force them to step down.
I think unless they egregiously violate company policy or violate the law or do something which would bring damage to a company it should be up to the company to direct the fate of an officer... Not popular sentiment.
Maybe she deserved to be fired, maybe she was a terrible officer. Let the company make that decision. I dont like tho mob rule aspect to her stepping down.