I know what you’re saying sounds perfectly rational to you and I do applaud you for holding the moral position separating someone’s private life from their contribution to the company. But, think about the number of people who were let go for far less controversial actions. At some point an officer of the company doing things in their personal life becomes a distraction to the company’s goals. My question is, would you act differently if this person were not a co-founder?
If Mullvad fired an ordinary employee for donating to an anti-immigration party or pressured them into not donating, I would absolutely find a new VPN provider that doesn't do this over it.
For sure, and I think most people would agree with this. However, I also think most people treat it differently when it is someone so high up because they have a lot of control and, more importantly, accumulate a large part of the profit.
I don't think you should not be allowed to have strong political opinions in such a position. I just think that in this case, it is very dangerous to express so much support for them in such a public way. I say this because (from my perspective at least) a large part of Mullvad's "competitive advantage" is their brand image, and it just feels that a link to controversial politics probably does more harm than good to this brand image.
> would you act differently if this person were not a co-founder?
I have several colleagues who I'm fairly certain are anarcho-syndicalists, meaning they want to abolish the state and capitalism. I don't know about my colleagues, but in general anarcho-syndicalists seek to bring about their vision through organising trade unions, and use that to seize control of the means of production and distribution. I on the other hand am clearly a capitalist pig seeking to oppress my workforce. Why else would I invite them to join me on the barricades against mass surveillance and censorship? Shared values around privacy? :P
I have no business questioning which demonstrations my colleagues participate in, or what they write on their blog. As long as they are not actively malicious against me, our workplace, or their fellow coworkers.
It's getting late, maybe I'm missing something in my description. I guess that's a rough approximation of how I feel about tolerating differences of opinion.
> Your employees are very far from achieving such ambitious goals.
Again, I have no idea if any of my colleagues actually subscribe to such ideals. I was simply commenting on tolerating differences of opinion. There's also a difference between empathy/understanding and sympathy/agreement.
> You don't seem to realize how much power you, and your co-founder do have vs them.
Perhaps. I've thought about that many times. I'm pretty sure I understand it well intellectually, but I have little experience actually being an employee myself. What experience I have was almost two decades ago. I'd love to hear more about what you mean. What did I say that suggests I don't understand? Was it the "capitalist pig" joke? I was trying to inject some tongue-in-cheek humour, but waking up this morning I regret writing it, as it has little to do with the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately by then it was too old to edit. If it's something else, please tell me.
What I try to do is imagine how I would want to be treated by someone who has hard power over me, in the way an employer ultimately does over their employees. I read books and research on the subject, watch videos, listen to podcasts, learn from mentors, and I've refined my leadership philosophy over the course of the past 17 years.
I aspire to give all of my colleagues a maximum of autonomy. My approach is something like this:
1. The right person, in the right role, with the right manager.
2. Establish and refine a mutual understanding of goals, strategies, and expectations.
3. Delegate to the greatest possible extent.
The right person is roughly someone who has integrity, drive, competence and is easy to communicate with. By integrity I mean someone who admits when they are wrong and tells me when I'm wrong. Drive comes in many shapes (tech nerd, building a team, "just" a good work ethic, or simply wanting to put food on the table) - all of which are perfectly fine drives. Basically I want colleagues that care about something, anything. Competence means being able to perform their job role.
The more you have 1 and 2, the easier it is to build a mutually high-trust relationship, and a long-term collaboration with increasing autonomy.
Ultimately trust is about willingly being vulnerable to someone or something. I think that is why some of my colleagues are upset right now. They see Daniel's donation as a breach of that trust. I get that, and I feel for them.
As we write in the article: """We started building this organization in the summer of 2008 for idealistic reasons, and we are still idealists who think privacy is fundamental to a civilized society.
The best strategy for achieving societal impact through entrepreneurship is consistent, long-term, and value-based ownership. For us, this disqualifies taking outside investment, either through venture capital or going public. Mullvad has instead been growing organically without outside investments. It takes longer but the results are better."""
If I understand correctly, Ries is arguing that the more valuable a company is, the more tempting it becomes to extract that value. Sure, that's why it is important to have principled and long-term shareholders. An organisation's long-term strategic behavior necessarily tries to converge on its goals, set by its shareholders. I recognize that most companies are owned by shareholders who seek to eventually increase their personal wealth. I also recognize that principles almost always get to take a back seat if they cost the shareholders too much money.
Personally I reject the U.S. 1970s corporate law doctrine that the only legitimate purpose of a company is maximizing returns to its shareholders. That's ridiculous. In the case of Mullvad its mission is related to privacy, mass surveillance and censorship, in large part because we believe privacy and the absence of mass surveillance and censorship are part of the foundation of a healthy and thriving society.
As for extracting value to benefit me personally, I don't intend to accrue more than I need. I think I've reached the point where I'm satisfied with my lifestyle and the buffer I have. I've stopped playing the stock market, and instead placed my savings in long-term investments which require a minimum of attention. I'd rather do other things with my time. Obviously I'm also confident in my future earning potential should I catastrophically lose both my company and a large portion of my savings. It is very freeing and I recognize how rare and useful it is to be able to act in line with your values without concern for economic impact. I think it allows me to make better long-term strategic decisions about our companies.
Mostly I just want to maximize my contribution to society. I've toyed with the idea of placing my shares in Mullvad and my other companies in a foundation with some kind of open-source mission. I've also reached out to various non-profits and talked to tax advisors about abstaining from dividends, and have them sent directly to those non-profits. We'll see.
I don't do this for the money anymore. I do it because it is important to me. I wonder if a lot of people commenting or trying to apply social pressure assume that we're worried about the company losing value. Of course I would be sad if colleagues or a lot of customers left us, as I care immensely about both. That doesn't mean I'm willing to betray my principles, or in this case betray Mullvad's mission.
I hope I've managed to answer most of your questions. Please tell me more about what I should do to better understand the power I have over my colleagues, as their employer. What am I missing? Thank you.
I don't mind some jokes, though, it made me think of Animal Farm, which does not fit here.
You seem to be doing a great job as an employer, already caring is better than most, which is a low bar.
I meant your political power, more than power in the employer - employee relationship. You have more political power than your employees, by a lot. You may not use it, much, until today. But the imbalance is big, as proven by recent events.
Do you have plans for what will happen with the company when you two are no longer around? The book is more about such things, rather than what you might be able to with any profit. What happens to the organisation when you personally is not around to steer it?
> You have more political power than your employees, by a lot.
For sure.
> Do you have plans for what will happen with the company when you two are no longer around? The book is more about such things, rather than what you might be able to with any profit.
Loss is a natural part of life. Nothing exists or remains relevant forever. Market needs, people, and the world at large change. Hopefully for the better. The best we can do is act based on how we understand the world, which is why empathy and curiosity are so immensely valuable. They nudge us to understand the world and other people better, which facilitates more collaboration. I believe the vast majority of people have good intentions, but we often don't understand their behavior because we are blinded by our biases. When someone you respect does something you don't understand, or disapprove of, the rational reaction is curiosity. The alternative is to live an intellectually poorer life, which in turn impedes your ability to practice strategy, which in turn makes you less able to make progress on your goals.
We've considered so called "limited company with special restriction on profit distribution" [1]. It is a one-way "poison pill" for Swedish corporations that wish to permanently limit their ability to pay dividends to shareholders. Ultimately we found it too restrictive. It would risk impeding our ability to fund various open-source software and hardware efforts, among other things. I don't think we would have done it anyway. The risk is too high that you misjudge some aspect of it.
We've also talked about the option of creating foundations and donating our shares to them. Both of us see major risks with that too. In any case I hope it won't be relevant for a long time.
> What happens to the organisation when you personally is not around to steer it?
Daniel is a bit older than me, but unfortunately I have a progressive illness for which I take low-grade chemo and biologics. Modern medicine is amazing, especially the newer biopharmaceuticals that have come out in recent years. I will likely have to scale down my involvement first though.
Daniel would lead our companies to the best of his ability, together with our amazing management teams. I trust him more or less completely with the corporation. I know he will represent my values where it matters the most. He's very good at that. Last time we talked about this the feeling was mutual.
You don’t consider supporting “remigration”, aka forced expulsion of non-white-skinned people, to be actively malicious? What if he was physically going door to door and assaulting immigrants? Would that also be out of scope for you?
