Paizo Expands Leadership Team

Do better Paizo.

Ive got no issues with Jim or Mike but a lot about this is pretty shady for a company going through the issues Paizo is currently going through.

No diversity, outside hires into newly created positions, no real indication that the executive team is listening at all. Exceptions to policies that have driven beloved developers and designers out of the company being made. Its just blah.

I know this isn't the welcome you were expecting Mike and Jim but it is where we are.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

Maybe someone will be able to honor National Native American month in the actual month now.

Hi Terevalis. Paizo has an Indigenous Persons Heritage Month blog scheduled for next week. We have a Developer in charge of Community blogs now, in part because they are directly in contact with the freelancer community. The last Community blog was posted late because of the transition in job duties. We recognize that was not good timing, but that was not her fault and it should be a one-time error. We are aiming to post the in the first half of any given Heritage month. Thanks for making sure we knew about the next opportunity.

We will have to wait and see if it happens.

Personal Note: I am Paizo's Marketing & Media Manager, I am eligible to be represented by United Paizo Workers, and I signed my union card prior to management's voluntary recognition. I am learning to thread this new needle. I see it as my job to find the authentic-yet-optimistic truth-that-can-be-said-publicly at Paizo, or any company I work for. I’ve always thought of enthusiasm and authenticity as my superpowers. Of course, we’ve all found our limits in recent times.

I understand why that positivity might aggravate both my coworkers and the gaming community, who have legitimate issues. I’m not blind to them. Sometimes silence is the best response.

You can send me feedback at aaron.shanks@paizo.com.

Adventures Ahead!

Thanks for the Union response. Shady shady shenanigans.

Ive got no issues with Jim or Mike but a lot about this is pretty shady for a company going through the issues Paizo is currently going through.

No diversity, outside hires into newly created positions, no real indication that the executive team is listening at all. Exceptions to policies that have driven beloved developers and designers out of the company being made. Its just blah.

I know this isn't the welcome you were expecting Mike and Jim but it is where we are.

To be fair, the actual hires into the VP positions were before the current issues exploded. Nor is the exception to the remote work policy new.

Which speaks to their known existing problems, but not to a poor reaction to what they're currently going through.

Edit: I guess I'm only assuming those are the only VP level positions Paizo had that weren't already on the executive team?

Except when they tell a Hispanic employee he did not need a promotion...

Except when they tell a Hispanic employee he did not need a promotion...

A problem certainly, but not directly related to expanding the executive team.

Did you read the Union response?

eddv wrote:

Ive got no issues with Jim or Mike but a lot about this is pretty shady for a company going through the issues Paizo is currently going through.

No diversity, outside hires into newly created positions, no real indication that the executive team is listening at all. Exceptions to policies that have driven beloved developers and designers out of the company being made. Its just blah.

I know this isn't the welcome you were expecting Mike and Jim but it is where we are.

To be fair, the actual hires into the VP positions were before the current issues exploded. Nor is the exception to the remote work policy new.

It's moving the two VP positions into the executive team that's the new change. I can't object too much about that. Unless they were going to fire VPs and hire new ones directly into the executive team for diversity's sake there's not much else they could do here. I think expanding the executive team is a good move, as much as I'd like to see more diversity there, I don't think they have anyone currently in place to do that with.

Which speaks to their known existing problems, but not to a poor reaction to what they're currently going through.

Edit: I guess I'm only assuming those are the only VP level positions Paizo had that weren't already on the executive team?

They are the only 2 VPs at Paizo and now they are on the Leadership Team, yes.

Did you read the Union response?

I did. Some of those questions would definitely be good to have answered.

Others don't really make much sense. I can see how it looks bad, but I'm not sure what else they could have done - other than simply not expanding the leadership team.

My main point was in response to the post I first responded to, that these weren't new hires after this all blew up, but a change in management structure.

Was Diego's post removed? WTF

UPW Response

Link to Full Response

While we bear the two individuals in question no ill will, it is incredibly difficult to see this move as anything other than a continuation of questionable practices, and antithetical to the stated concerns of the Paizo workers. In the public press release the UPW issued on October 14th, one area of concern referenced was “a pattern of inconsistent hiring practices”, and this sudden and unusual elevation of vice-presidents into increased leadership roles represents a continuation of that pattern. One of these vice-presidents is also exempt from the long-standing (and still active) rule that all U.S. employees must move to Washington without financial assistance from the company.

There is no such thing as reverse racism as it is just called racism, regardless of whom is in power or what their race religion or creed is.

What ever happened to don't split the party?

Was Diego's post removed? WTF

It's still there. Unless there was another Diego post I missed that got removed, I guess.

why not take strides to buck that trend, and actually hire some?

I think the direction of this conversation needs to be purged as it is clearly going into the realm of politics, but as long as Paizo allows it to remain, people should feel empowered to contribute.

An unfortunate side effect of a true meritocracy is that your rarely get equality of outcome especially in an industry that has a history of discrimination. Quotas or intentionally limiting candidates by an unrelated factor like gender, orientation, religion, etc. only serves to provide a short-term "feel-good" result. In the long run, it only serves to reverse the very practices that were being used in the past. The only way to truly move past these issues is to make hiring practices truly blind for as long as they can be. At some point, even if all things are equal, personal bias is inevitable.

We may/not like Paizo's hiring process, but they are a private company and can hire/not hire whomever they want and always have. It is no surprise that they created positions for people they wanted to hire. That's just the way Paizo has always operated. I dunno which is worse, they way they do business, or that so many people are surprised or unaware that these obvious things have been happening for years. There are plenty of examples of people calling Paizo out, and the general response is to attack the whistleblower and act like Paizo can do no wrong.

A couple of posts got removed, but not subsequent quotes. The quotes are now gone. Sorry for the delay. Staff are still coming online for today.

Exactly. Prejudice or Discrimination can be specific, but Racism/Sexism/etc are historical, structural and systemic. That is what makes them -isms.

In terms of making decisions such as hiring, college admittance, etc. this is semantics. If any metric other than merit is used to determine the "winner" it is biased. I can certainty appreciate the historical racism that exists in the US and that there is no such thing as white racism, at least not from am intellectual perspective. Regardless, IMO you do not fix the problem of bias, by simply changing the beneficiary of bias.

IIRC the difference between the executive team and the rest of the staff is ownership, or at least historically that was the case. If that is true, that means Mike and Jim are now actually invested in the company as part of the ownership team. If not, I apologize for my misunderstanding. Furthermore, if that is true, I fully support Lisa's choice to add whomever she wants to the ownership team regardless of what group they belong to. Ownership of a private company is not a meritocracy. OTOH, that is not the same as the management or staff, which IMO should be based solely (or as closely as possible) on merit.

If the executive team can live and work in another state, why can't the employees?

The simple answer that you are not going to like is, because the E-team (or is it X-team?) says so. They get to decide what the rules are for the company and they decided you have to live local and work in the building. We can not like that rule, in fact, I have been railing about how the CTO (ironically) seems to be anti-tech because of his pathological fear of wireless technology and VPNs. Paizo has a history of losing top-qualified candidates because of the requirement to move to Seattle.

There is no such thing as reverse racism as it is just called racism, regardless of whom is in power or what their race religion or creed is.

It depends if you are arguing from a philosophical perspective or an academic one. For the former, you are right. The difference between racism and prejudice and bias is semantics and not relevant. They all result in the same outcome. OTOH, from an academic perspective, we have defined metrics that lead to the definitions of words and their employ. Racism does require historical, systemic, etc. factors that differentiates it from simple bias or even prejudice. In that case white, middle-aged, hetero, men can essentially never be the victim of racism since they rest at the pinnacle of power, generally speaking. If you remove the "white" qualifier, the ability for the group to be subject to an -ism increases.

Trust. That's the problem, and it is broken. Maybe not with all of us, but at least enough to form a Union.

From Sara Marie's firing to Diego's stepping down to the incidents with Crystal, trust is not there.

Paizo needs more than ever now to be transparent. Beyond transparency, they need to engage more. Faster even. All respect to Tonya but with these kinds of headwinds, you need to be in here weekly, if not daily, engaging with the community. Or if not Tonya, you need to hire a Social Media person.

As I said last night before my post was removed, no disrespect to Jim or Mark. I mean, I am a longtime fan of Jim's work but come on. These promotions didn't delight the community, and they don't show a Paizo ready to win back what they lost.

Trust

Also, Keiftu, if you missed it, you were right all along.

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Exactly. Prejudice or Discrimination can be specific, but Racism/Sexism/etc are historical, structural and systemic. That is what makes them -isms.

In terms of making decisions such as hiring, college admittance, etc. this is semantics. If any metric other than merit is used to determine the "winner" it is biased. I can certainty appreciate the historical racism that exists in the US and that there is no such thing as white racism, at least not from am intellectual perspective. Regardless, IMO you do not fix the problem of bias, by simply changing the beneficiary of bias.

I conceptually agree with you here, mostly, but I see a problem. When you have a society that was built to empower one group of people and shoulder another group of people, you're going to have a situation where people belonging to group A will by default usually have the most merit for positions of power, due to having had more opportunities and experience in that role, whereas people in group B will struggle a great deal to acquire the same. Even if you remove institutional laws that perpetuate this unfair system, the disparity in accumulated wealth, capital and influence is still going to strongly favor group A for a very long time.

That "group A" has had far more access and proximity to power means of course it is going to look more meritous. While this process is not itself racist, it does prolong the harmful effects racism has caused. Which is why many people propose "changing the beneficiary of bias" as a means to artificially restore some balance, giving people with potential — but not proximity — the boost they need to achieve their potential.

They can hire whoever they want. And we can tell them what we think of it. And we can decide how we spend our hard-earned money too.

Really, this reminds me of my previous employer who promoted whoever he liked and ignored the others. And demoted/ fired those who he felt were not enthusiastic enough about his megalomaniacal ideas, or even worse those who he felt betrayed him for trying to do some damage control to help the company progress in spite of him.

Let's just say the company is currently on a sad way down. But hey at least, he is still the boss.

It is almost as their "commitment" to diversity was spurred by ulterior motives, say 5e sales.

I conceptually agree with you here, mostly, but I see a problem.

That is a very valid point and one I think most people on both sides would agree with. The issue is how to deal with it. I happen to believe that we should do more to empower the groups that have been victims of the system at a fundamental level. I do not believe that the answer is to simply ignore merit and reverse the bias. I think that is counter-productive and only exacerbates the problem. However, I admit I do not have all the answers, nor do I have the inner knowledge and access that elected officials, especially national ones have to the potential solutions that I would support.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Exactly. Prejudice or Discrimination can be specific, but Racism/Sexism/etc are historical, structural and systemic. That is what makes them -isms.

In terms of making decisions such as hiring, college admittance, etc. this is semantics. If any metric other than merit is used to determine the "winner" it is biased. I can certainty appreciate the historical racism that exists in the US and that there is no such thing as white racism, at least not from am intellectual perspective. Regardless, IMO you do not fix the problem of bias, by simply changing the beneficiary of bias.

I conceptually agree with you here, mostly, but I see a problem. When you have a society that was built to empower one group of people and shoulder another group of people, you're going to have a situation where people belonging to group A will by default usually have the most merit for positions of power, due to having had more opportunities and experience in that role, whereas people in group B will struggle a great deal to acquire the same. Even if you remove institutional laws that perpetuate this unfair system, the disparity in accumulated wealth, capital and influence is still going to strongly favor group A for a very long time.

That "group A" has had far more access and proximity to power means of course it is going to look more meritous. While this process is not itself racist, it does prolong the harmful effects racism has caused. Which is why many people propose "changing the beneficiary of bias" as a means to artificially restore some balance, giving people with potential — but not proximity — the boost they need to achieve their potential.

And that's all assuming you actually have a merit based process entirely free of bias.

And that's all assuming you actually have a merit based process entirely free of bias.

Something that is impossible for most industries. You can reduce bias though some of the practices that Paizo used, but at some point, you will conduct an interview at which point the personal bias of the interviewer comes into play.

All I can add is that this thread makes me wish Paizo would invest in software with late 20th century innovations like "mute" and "block."

I believe people hide behind the academic reasoning as a means to hide or veil utterly evil actions or beliefs.

All I can add is that this thread makes me wish Paizo would invest in software with late 20th century innovations like "mute" and "block."

According to a lone twitter user with outside/inside/sideways information we are stuck on this setup because whoever created it is still getting royalties.

Mind you, it is one of the accusations I really don't personally believe. But I find it funny. Personally I think you hit the nail on the head and the investment and labor hasn't been deemed necessary.

United Paizo Workers official response is here.

I’m happy to provide some answers to everyone...

How do these executive leadership positions affect the individuals’ job descriptions and day-to-day responsibilities?

My day-to-day job duties remain as they have been, with the added bonus of being involved in the day-to-day decision making and offering my guidance and perspectives to the CEO as to the best ways to move the company forward.

Do these positions come with additional power to hire, fire, or discipline employees?

As VP, I've hired and disciplined employees since I came onboard. The decision to fire anyone at Paizo is not made in a vacuum, but I've done that in the past as well. So...no change there.

What additional compensation has been offered to these individuals?

I have not received additional compensation for joining the leadership team.

How were these individuals chosen for these positions, and what qualified them for this designation over other managerial employees within the company, not to mention outside of the staff?

As Lisa covered in her statement, she wanted leaders with industry and business experience to lead the business. I have more than 30 years of experience in the gaming industry, both tabletop and digital. Lisa and I worked together at Wizards on the D&D brand team, so she knew who I was and my work ethic.

This is a drastic change to the makeup of Paizo’s leadership, but nobody outside the team was told anything about it prior to the original internal announcement. How long had these plans been in the works? Is it your position that company staff should not be afforded the right to learn about such significant changes in company structure before they are made official?

I don't see this as a drastic change. Vic Wertz, the co-owner, stepped back some time ago. The addition of myself (marketing, promotions, licensing) and Mike (sales and distribution) were obvious holes to fill on the executive team, which makes decisions impacting these areas on a daily basis.

Given the concerns already raised regarding a lack of diverse points of view represented on the leadership (formerly “executive”) team at Paizo, what new perspectives do you believe these individuals bring to the table that were previously lacking?

I think LGBT+ representation at the executive level is important, and I'm happy that Lisa made the decision to add me to the executive team. My experiences growing up gay in Wyoming, coming out at TSR, and working my way up through the ranks in the gaming industry have certainly given me a view into how things work--and sometimes fail--at even the best-intentioned companies.

I’m proud of the scars I’ve earned over the years and hope that my experiences can make future generations lives’ a bit easier.

What other personnel changes are you currently considering making without first consulting with affected employees or posting opportunities publicly?

First and foremost, Paizo needs to keep the business running and make business decisions that lead to its continued success. We're not planning on any significant structural changes, especially as we wait for the UPW to begin bargaining negotiations, but we won't shy away from making decisions that we feel are best for the company and the employees.

-Jim

Why not accept they could be the best people? Do not be so biased against them just because they are white males, or assume racism decided this. Do you think biasing against hiring white males and employing a non white male is no less racist or biased?

Here's the thing: diversity is a good thing in itself.

I assume most people here are Pathfinder and/or Starfinder players. We should be familiar with the idea that a variety of skills and viewpoints make for a stronger group than one where everyone is the same. If the party already has a fighter, a rogue, and a wizard, a cleric is probably a better addition than one more wizard even if that wizard is slightly higher level. In the same way, having a variety of backgrounds and experiences represented at the top levels of a company is an asset in and of itself. That's how you avoid groupthink.

MurderHobo#6226 wrote:

All I can add is that this thread makes me wish Paizo would invest in software with late 20th century innovations like "mute" and "block."

According to a lone twitter user with outside/inside/sideways information we are stuck on this setup because whoever created it is still getting royalties.

The fact that there is a browser extension that allows the hiding of posts based on user and that Paizo's moderation tool just hides removed posts rather than completely removing them (based on hearsay from employees) kind of makes that fact irrelevant to the idea of block features. To my knowledge, it's a policy choice not a technical limitation.

So Paizo's response to transphobia and doxxing and non inclusivity is to maintain the status quo. Glad to hear this.

PAIZO, do better.

UPW more power to you!

We have investigated the long-running "there are secret royalties involved in the website" rumor, and there is absolutely no truth to it.

Not to discredit these two swell dudes or anything (loving the accolades, actually), but... c'mon. This is nepotism. I'd like the "leadership team" (nice corporate newspeak, guys) to recognize that Paizo is no longer a cute little zine a group of friends publish for fun, but a decently sized company upon which the livelihoods of dozens of people depend.

I understand wanting to spread the upper-level work around. Given the long list of issues the union brought forward, it was clear that Jeff, Erik, and Lisa couldn't juggle the needs of all those people alone. They needed help, and were right to seek it. But by forming a union, your employees were demonstrating that they wanted to help ease that burden by taking a more active role in managing themselves. Surprise lateral hires like this leave the impression that you don't trust your own workforce... or worse, that you'd rather give a friend a cushy title than recognize the efforts of the people who have been busting their butts on your behalf for years.

Also, this had better be a sign that *everyone* at non-warehouse positions gets to work remotely, and not just a special treat for one guy.

Apologies if any of this sounds hostile; I'm not trying to pick a fight or make anyone feel bad. I'm just sharing my thoughts on the optics, here. I know the situation is probably a lot more nuanced, and feel a little bad for Jim and Mike that their cool new jobs have been met with such outcry. But it's disheartening to see Paizo resort to the same behavior that made a union necessary in the first place. There was an opportunity to elevate fresh new voices here and show some goodwill towards the employees who desperately need it, and it has been lost.

Quote:

How were these individuals chosen for these positions, and what qualified them for this designation over other managerial employees within the company, not to mention outside of the staff?

As Lisa covered in her statement, she wanted leaders with industry and business experience to lead the business. I have more than 30 years of experience in the gaming industry, both tabletop and digital. Lisa and I worked together at Wizards on the D&D brand team, so she knew who I was and my work ethic.

(Emphasis mine)

I fail to see how your statement addresses this bolded part of the question. There are others within the company who have just as many years of experience, if not more and they have been with the company longer. If there was no official open position offered then it is impossible to claim that you are the most qualified person for this position out of the entire company.

No one else's credentials were looked at officially. Lisa may know your "work ethic" but if she claims to be a good company leader she should know the "work ethic" of all her other employees as well and be able to compare them in a fair and open job position application process.

We have investigated the long-running "there are secret royalties involved in the website" rumor, and there is absolutely no truth to it.

Can you confirm that the long-running "Gorbacz gets a Paizo.com gift certificate every time he eviscerates some troll on the boards" rumor wasn't true while at it? Asking for a friend.

Alas, we can't find any evidence of that, either.

We have investigated the long-running "there are secret royalties involved in the website" rumor, and there is absolutely no truth to it.

Erik, I appreciate your short, clear and no nonsense statements.

When the pool is only one person for a job, do credentials really matter at that point or is it a matter of who ya know?

We have investigated the long-running "there are secret royalties involved in the website" rumor, and there is absolutely no truth to it.

...could we see a new site in the future then? Plz? :(

Not to discredit these two swell dudes or anything (loving the accolades, actually), but... c'mon. This is nepotism. I'd like the "leadership team" (nice corporate newspeak, guys) to recognize that Paizo is no longer a cute little zine a group of friends publish for fun, but a decently sized company upon which the livelihoods of dozens of people depend.

I understand wanting to spread the upper-level work around. Given the long list of issues the union brought forward, it was clear that Jeff, Erik, and Lisa couldn't juggle the needs of all those people alone. They needed help, and were right to seek it. But by forming a union, your employees were demonstrating that they wanted to help ease that burden by taking a more active role in managing themselves. Surprise lateral hires like this leave the impression that you don't trust your own workforce... or worse, that you'd rather give a friend a cushy title than recognize the efforts of the people who have been busting their butts on your behalf for years.

Also, this had better be a sign that *everyone* at non-warehouse positions gets to work remotely, and not just a special treat for one guy.

Apologies if any of this sounds hostile; I'm not trying to pick a fight or make anyone feel bad. I'm just sharing my thoughts on the optics, here. I know the situation is probably a lot more nuanced, and feel a little bad for Jim and Mike that their cool new jobs have been met with such outcry. But it's disheartening to see Paizo resort to the same behavior that made a union necessary in the first place. There was an opportunity to elevate fresh new voices here and show some goodwill towards the employees who desperately need it, and it has been lost.

These were not surprise lateral hires, just an expansion of the leadership team to include 2 existing VPs. There was no real chance that any company would put lower level people on the executive team.

Their hiring in the first place may well have been suspect, but that was before the unionization or the recent crisis, not in response to it. It may in fact have been (a small) part of the reasons for it - at least in the sense of lack of upward mobility. Similarly with the remote work - that's been an ongoing issue, since Mike's been working remotely for some months now.

diversity is a good thing

I would agree with the caveat that it occur organically. This really comes down to a very simple evaluation on a personal level—which do you prefer: equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. How you decide that goes to inform virtually all of your socio-political positions

Except there is no guarantee that it would happen organically with insular communities.

Keep in mind that the UPW is unlikely to have any impact on the executive team. They can certainly express their opinion, but they do not represent management. Their task, like all unions, is to get the best compensation for and ensure the safety of the non-mgmt members of Paizo's staff. In that I hope they prevail, and that the new members of the executive team will support that goal.

No, but in many unions they are represented at interviews and get a say.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

diversity is a good thing

I would agree with the caveat that it occur organically. This really comes down to a very simple evaluation on a personal level—which do you prefer: equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. How you decide that goes to inform virtually all of your socio-political positions

I think the point is that diversity is a good thing independent of equality considerations.

Especially when it comes to creative work, like RPG settings.

Like, even if you use strict objective merit standards to wind up with an all male team, you're still not going to have a woman's viewpoint on that team. Variety is a strength in itself.

No, but in many unions they are represented at interviews and get a say.

At interviews for executive level positions? Or for hiring staff who'd be represented by the union?

Mind you, there are countries where unions have legally mandated representation on company boards, but that's not a thing in the US.

Keep in mind that the UPW is unlikely to have any impact on the executive team. They can certainly express their opinion, but they do not represent management. Their task, like all unions, is to get the best compensation for and ensure the safety of the non-mgmt members of Paizo's staff. In that I hope they prevail, and that the new members of the executive team will support that goal.

Diego was flat out told that he did not need a promotion.

That is so organic right?