yonder wrote on Feb 13, 2025, 09:39:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Feb 12, 2025, 10:36:
Definitely a different corporate culture back then. This was before greed induced Reaganomics and the meteoric rise in CEO salaries which probably is why we are where we are now with these gaming companies. It just happens that is when the video gaming industry really started to take off so they look synonymous with the trend.

Reaganomics didn't induce corporate greed. Corporate greed spawned Reaganomics. That level of sliminess has always been part of the videogames industry.

Activision was formed in 1979 (before Reagan) and EA in 1982 explicitly to fight against the big email corporate anti-employee company Atari.

Nothing new.

You're right, I should have said, "the greed". Reaganomics accelerated it in an unprecedented way was my point. Greed (corporate and/or in general) has indeed been a thing since 1776.

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Feb 12, 2025, 10:36:
Definitely a different corporate culture back then. This was before greed induced Reaganomics and the meteoric rise in CEO salaries which probably is why we are where we are now with these gaming companies. It just happens that is when the video gaming industry really started to take off so they look synonymous with the trend.

Reaganomics didn't induce corporate greed. Corporate greed spawned Reaganomics. That level of sliminess has always been part of the videogames industry.

Activision was formed in 1979 (before Reagan) and EA in 1982 explicitly to fight against the big email corporate anti-employee company Atari.

Nothing new.

When Kaiser-Permanete CEO Bernard Tyson passed away in his sleep in 2019 from a massive heart attack, it is true that the employees from the ground level up at Kaiser-Permanente were distraught. At least "overall". I am sure some didn't care one way or the other, and I am sure there were others that had some beef, but overall....his loss was something people were emotional about at all three locations I was visiting at the time. (school, clinic, hospital) There was a perception that he was not easily replaceable because he had come up within the company and had a lot of strong sentimental and industrial ties in the medical and health care industry as a whole. It was the worst possible time for KP to have it happen too as C19 came soon after and the new leaders had to take on the biggest health care challenge of their lifetimes without their fearless leader. My experience at KP as an employee/student left me feeling like the vacancy was not appropriately filled. Many of us at KP have horror stories that could have been easily prevented by even the smallest amount of common sense and critical thinking from the executive level. Unfortunately, they were still running around with their heads cut off largely.

Now, did Tyson deserve the near hero-status worship that he had at the time of death? Was he overpaid? Did he deserve as much credit for the good things that he got? I didn't work for KP before that really so I guess I am can't really say. I can say he was and is very much missed by the people that worked under him though. At the time of his death Kaiser Permanente was one of the largest health insurance companies and managed care organizations in the United States. It still is. It's a not-for-profit health plan that provides health care services in eight states and the District of Columbia. 

Per the glory of an AI search, he has a decent list of things to be known for:
Tyson was the first Black CEO of Kaiser Permanente after starting as an administrative intern all the way back in 1984.
He was a leader in the movement for affordable and accessible healthcare.
He was also a champion for racial justice and workplace diversity.
He served on the board of directors for the American Heart Association and Salesforce.com.
He helped guide the World Economic Forum's Global Challenge on the Future of Health.
He was named to Time Magazine's list of "100 Most Influential People" in 2017.
He became involved with the American Heart Association after joining the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Heart Walk team.
Tyson was remembered for leaving healthcare and the world better than he found it.
His wife, Denise Bradley-Tyson, received an AHA honor for leading the health equity mission.


Another well known health care CEO, on the other hand, is known for being promoted within his industry for cutting expenses everywhere he went. He even got sued by a firefighters fund along the way. I think it's fair to say he was not nearly as popular with employees or customers. So no, all CEOs are not the same and should not be compared as such based only on job title. I do however think it's fair...if not more on point...to ask if anyone, no matter how glorious their efforts may be, is worth the money CEOs are paid compared to the workers.

To the question as to whether there are any CEO'S of large corporations that are genuinely liked by their employees? I can't believe that this didn't occur to me before, but I've got one. FedEx. I worked there at the Memphis airport hub until my medical issues. Fred Smith was by and large respected by everyone I came across. It was a very large hub, with about 12000 to 15000 employees, so obviously I couldn't know everyone, but that guy was genuinely liked by every employee I met, from the part-time cart drivers (referred to as "tugs") to the VP of marketing that I worked for. (I had to rewire her office ). He was definitely way more down to earth than any multimillionaire I've ever known. His casual attitude seemed to trickle down through to the employees too. Best job I ever had by light years . I'm pretty sure that he has turned the reins over to his sons though, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's just as shitty as everywhere else by now.

Definitely a different corporate culture back then. This was before greed induced Reaganomics and the meteoric rise in CEO salaries which probably is why we are where we are now with these gaming companies. It just happens that is when the video gaming industry really started to take off so they look synonymous with the trend.

Cocaine and fucking in elevators sounds like a better company culture than most modern American megacorps.

They were the Activision/EA/Ubisoft of that time. It was such a vastly different industry then that it's the closest comparison that could possibly be made. Personally, it sounded like an incredibly wild place to work. They had "no fucking" signs in the elevators for chrissake! Ah the 70's...

And I didn't make that up. There have been some interesting accounts by people who were there...

Burrito of Peace wrote on Feb 12, 2025, 00:14:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Feb 11, 2025, 22:18:
Is there even a decent large game company CEO? Was there ever one at all?

Nolan Bushnell was highly regarded by his employees.

Not sure I'd qualify Atari as a large gaming company but comparatively I guess it could be. What I've heard from people who worked there at the time, cocaine was a big part of the reason though.

This is sort of like one terrorist group calling another terrorist group murderers, though thankfully the stakes are far lower. These are just spoiled rich man-babies having a little awkward slap fight.

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Feb 11, 2025, 22:18:
Is there even a decent large game company CEO? Was there ever one at all?

Nolan Bushnell was highly regarded by his employees.

Is there even a decent large game company CEO? Was there ever one at all?

Bobby Kot(d)ick accusing someone else to be "the worst CEO" is like one slime ball pissing goo at another slime ball in a pissing contest to see who can piss the most disgusting liquid. His interpretation of "worst CEO" is probably "didn't milk the players enough" and "could have pressed more money out of them".

They've been put in many "best place to work" lists over the years. That link is just 2024, but I've seen EA on lists like that for years. Criteria are things like salary, employee satisfaction, inclusivity, etc. How to square that with crunch and layoffs, don't know, but devs and QA aren't the only people working there and you'd think that would show up in satisfaction surveys. I see on Glassdoor they have an 81% positive rating.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 11, 2025, 20:42:

Jivaro wrote on Feb 11, 2025, 20:22:
I mean, EA was voted worst company to work for at the time...like 2 or 3 years in a row. So, plausible.

I don't think so? I think they were voted worst company twice by, you know, gamers. But as a workplace I've heard it's average to good. Decent benefits, but wide variance of work culture between teams and departments -- some good, some bad. Kotick's not talking about the perspective of the employees, though.

Ah, so you don't remember this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Hoffman#%22EA_Spouse%22_blog_post

Though, I had also heard that improvements were made in the way they treat workers based on this scandal.

edit: Ah, I guess that was right before Riccitiello... but it's definitely what comes to mind for me when EA and workplace/employees are mentioned.

Oh, I am sorry...did I mistake who they were considered the worst by?

My bad.

Jivaro wrote on Feb 11, 2025, 20:22:
I mean, EA was voted worst company to work for at the time...like 2 or 3 years in a row. So, plausible.

I don't think so? I think they were voted worst company twice by, you know, gamers. But as a workplace I've heard it's average to good. Decent benefits, but wide variance of work culture between teams and departments -- some good, some bad. Kotick's not talking about the perspective of the employees, though.

I mean, EA was voted worst company to work for at the time...like 2 or 3 years in a row. So, plausible.