Paizo Expands Leadership Team

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

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.

My union gets a say in both principal and superintendent hiring, they are one voice but it is still at the table.

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

I appreciate this. My goal here is not to win arguments, but to try and keep us focused on the right things.

All power to the union as things continue to unfold.

These were not surprise lateral hires... (snip).

Thank you for fact-checking my post. This definitely feels less scummy in the context of it not being a direct response to the UPW's formation. I'm still not happy with it--as it reinforces the status quo of TTRPG publishing being an old boys' club at the expense of transparency and upward mobility--but I appreciate the clarification and feel slightly less mad.

This is so incredibly disappointing, but not surprising. It’s pretty clear now that Nepotism is a big part of Paizo exec culture.

Why would it shock people that with their continual growth into computer games, e-commerce, and the nexus and easier 3rd party publishing that the two people who are in charge of those things are given more leadership authority and voice? And at least one of the people given more leadership responsibilities was not a straight white male, how is that not furthering diversity?

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

That is incredibly rare with respect to executive teams and ownership

Yup, all for diversity as long as it brings them money but at the top, not so much.

Yup, all for diversity as long as it brings them money but at the top, not so much.

Again how is adding someone that isn't a straight white male at the top of the corporate ladder not furthering diversity?

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

Diversity itself, as a concept, can absolutely be a good thing. The issue is the methodology used to obtain the desired diversity. If diversity goals are given too much emphasis that result in lesser qualified representation it can have a negative impact. I have seen that happen first hand. Its no different than giving too much weight to any other factor.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

Yup, all for diversity as long as it brings them money but at the top, not so much.

Again how is adding someone that isn't a straight white male at the top of the corporate ladder not furthering diversity?

You might want to look up the meaning of the word diversity.

5/6 members of their leadership are white men, 1 is a white woman, and 1 of those men is gay. There are no POC in their leadership positions, that is not very diverse. I'm glad Jim is here now but the current leadership position does not seem to be reflecting paizo's values of diversity, and considering much of these decisions seem to have been made in secret, It doesn't exactly garner trust from those of us who still have yet to hear anything from paizo on allegations of transphobia amongst other things.

For me it’s not about hiring practises (they were both hired a while back).

It’s that Paizo has been told “there are problems” by staff, customers and community members and the response is so far “we’ll replace Vic with Mike and Jim”. I’m not clear that moving the Vice Presidents into the leadership team is a great way to convey that “we’re listening”.

In my opinion, the lack of a chief operations officer (no doubt due to Jeff moving from that role when becoming president) is a clear source of the executive dysfunction that led to Sara being fired with no succession plan in the week of GenCon.

The corporate governance in operations atm is a mess. If I’d been at Paizo, appointing a Chief Operations Officer (probably internally) would have been a priority a couple of years ago. I hope a COO is added to the team in the near future.

Again how is adding someone that isn't a straight white male at the top of the corporate ladder not furthering diversity?

I think some would say, given the current conditions, Paizo adding two more men, both (visually) white, middle-aged, does not give the impression that they are taking the demands of the community seriously. That Jim represents the LGBTQ+ community was not initially apparent so it was probably lost on a lot of the public. Not that it should be a factor in hiring in and of itself, but it at least shows that Paizo is not opposed to having representation on the executive team.

OTOH, Paizo has a history of "tokenism" at least from the perspective of a number of their employees, so its too soon to know if this is another example of that or a meaningful change in practice. Unfortunately, for Mike and Jim, Paizo's past behavior affords them little to no, benefit of the doubt.

EDIT--based on the descriptions of how Jim became a member of the team, it would seem it is a combination of merit and nepotism and that his orientation had nothing to do with it. So, from from any perspective, that should be a good thing. Diversity proponents get representation like they want, and merit proponents what they want. It can be perceived at least a move in the right direction.

di·ver·si·ty
/dəˈvərsədē,dīˈvərsədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the state of being diverse; variety.

2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

literally falls into the definition. So it must further the goal of diversity unless you hold the opinion that LGBT+ inclusion isn't warranted and a good step to prevent homophobia and transphobia?

I just hope Jim is telling the truth when he says "we won't shy away from making decisions that we feel are best for the company and the employees". Aside from recognizing the union, which paizo basically HAD to do considering how large it is, they really haven't done much to win my trust. I don't like being negative and distrusting of paizo but we really haven't gotten anything. Jeff mentioned the whole "changing the hotel room policy" and a few other things without properly addressing allegations but that's about it
I just hope the UPW can bargain with paizo properly and improve things in their workplace and strive to be the best it can be, but that can only be done if paizo is willing to cooperate

also just to clarify, as a gay man, I'm glad Jim is here and all but one white gay man and one woman in leadership isn't *that* diverse. Sure, its something, but I find it odd that there's 0 POC in leadership while they profit off of diverse voices in their products, It feels disingenuous

also just to clarify, as a gay man, I'm glad Jim is here and all but one white gay man and one woman in leadership isn't *that* diverse. Sure, its something, but I find it odd that there's 0 POC in leadership while they profit off of diverse voices in their products, It feels disingenuous

Well maybe they advertised the job and not enough quality PoC people applieooooh wait, they didn't advertise the job, they just hired a white dude from an industry that's 90% white dudes.

Why would it shock people that with their continual growth into computer games, e-commerce, and the nexus and easier 3rd party publishing that the two people who are in charge of those things are given more leadership authority and voice? And at least one of the people given more leadership responsibilities was not a straight white male, how is that not furthering diversity?

I think the issue isn't that the people in charge of the stuff that's expanding are being given fancy new titles and bigger paychecks, but that the new title/bigger paycheck thing isn't happening consistently for all individuals that qualify. Some past employees--Diego included--had their responsibilities expand over time, but did not see a similar promotion. In addition, nobody knew that this double promotion was coming, and no one else got to apply for it. There's a line between pragmatic restructuring and playing favorites, and a lot of people are nervous because whether or not that line was crossed is unclear.

As for diversity, it's important to remember that human beings come in more categories than just "straight white guy" and "diverse." Nor is it the case that the further away someone is from being a straight white guy, the more diversity points they're worth. Rather, the problem is that by keeping leadership positions fairly insular, a company locks itself out of seeing different perspectives. And that can suck because certain problems (or creative opportunities!) are only visible from certain angles.

To use a less politically heated example, imagine you were on a design team in charge of making a new traffic light. Now, imagine that nobody on the design team was colorblind, or knew how the various types of colorblindness worked. Without that perspective, the odds of you designing a traffic light whose signals are invisible to people with certain types of colorblindess go up significantly. So, if a colorblind person tries to drive through an intersection with your new traffic lights, they could very well get themselves or someone else killed in an accident, because they literally cannot see the difference between "stop" and "go."

Obviously, the stakes at Paizo are significantly lower than our life-and-death example, but the people who work for and buy stuff from the company come from lots of different backgrounds. That's a lot of potential invisible traffic lights that the executive team might not even know about.

EDIT: I'd like thejeff and TwilightKnight to read this, as I think it might help with the whole "home come gay man and woman not enough??" stumbling block. Assuming what I said made any sense whatsoever, lol.

Another thing to remember is that the company was founded and is owned primarily by a woman. That should not be lost in the diversity discussion. It doesn't excuse any of the offensive behavior, but there has to be at least a modicum of appreciation for that fact. You would think that given that situation more women would be on the executive team if any met Lisa's qualifications. Of course that doesn't address the lack of PoC, but it shouldn't be ignored.

I find it odd that there's 0 POC in leadership while they profit off of diverse voices in their products, It feels disingenuous

While it would be nice, a good look at the TTPRG community represented at conventions, book stores, FLGS, etc indicates an extreme white majority. It is certainly less as time goes by, but it took 50 years for gaming in general to get to a roughly 50/50 split between men and women*. I can only speak for the US, but it seems the representation of PoC gaming is much less than it is in the general population.

*Sorry to the rest of the community as I don't know what your representation is.

It's still a step forward and super relevant to the issues Paizo is in the middle of.

Gamerskum wrote:

Again how is adding someone that isn't a straight white male at the top of the corporate ladder not furthering diversity?

I think some would say, given the current conditions, Paizo adding two more men, both (visually) white, middle-aged, does not give the impression that they are taking the demands of the community seriously. That Jim represents the LGBTQ+ community was not initially apparent so it was probably lost on a lot of the public.

This blog does include "He lives in Redmond with his husband Matthew", so short of posting "We made a gay diversity hire", I'm not sure how much more apparent it should be.

di·ver·si·ty

/dəˈvərsədē,dīˈvərsədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the state of being diverse; variety.

2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

literally falls into the definition. So it must further the goal of diversity unless you hold the opinion that LGBT+ inclusion isn't warranted and a good step to prevent homophobia and transphobia?

All white men save one white female. 1 of those white men is gay. Yup, that is diverse.

Not everyone came by the information by reading the blog, and even those who did doesn't mean they read that far. Given the pictures looking like more of the same ol' same ol', I would assume that a lot of people skipped past it. I read the blog, though casually, so I admit I missed it until Jim mentioned it in his separate post. Just because something is public, does not mean it is apparent. I just don't generally pay much attention to the personal lives of public figures.

Gamerskum wrote:

Why would it shock people that with their continual growth into computer games, e-commerce, and the nexus and easier 3rd party publishing that the two people who are in charge of those things are given more leadership authority and voice? And at least one of the people given more leadership responsibilities was not a straight white male, how is that not furthering diversity?

I think the issue isn't that the people in charge of the stuff that's expanding are being given fancy new titles and bigger paychecks, but that the new title/bigger paycheck thing isn't happening consistently for all individuals that qualify. Some past employees--Diego included--had their responsibilities expand over time, but did not see a similar promotion. In addition, nobody knew that this double promotion was coming, and no one else got to apply for it. There's a line between pragmatic restructuring and playing favorites, and a lot of people are nervous because whether or not that line was crossed is unclear.

This wasn't really a promotion or the kind of thing it makes sense to advertise or apply for. It was changing the status of existing positions. As Jim posted here earlier, the actual job didn't really change - no more duties, responsibility or money, other than having a voice in executive level decisions. They're still doing the same VP jobs with the same VP responsibilities and pay.

There's may be criticism to be had for hiring them for those VP jobs in the first place, months and years ago respectively, but if there was going to be an expansion of the Leadership Team, these were the existing VPs and they were going to be the people on it.

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."

Leave it to the guy named after a slur to whine about other people's speech.

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

The hard truth about diversity is that it's not *going* to occur organically. That's the whole point - the systems are so entrenched, so thoroughly and completely stacked against marginalized communities that many times you have to make active, concerted effort to work against them.

Yes, that *absolutely* means that sometimes you are going to look at a white candidate and a person of color candidate and you are going to say "the person of color should get this job because we need the perspective that they're going to have *simply by merit of being a person of color.*"

They may be less experienced. They may have fewer qualifications. They *probably* have fewer qualifications by *definition,* because to get qualifications you need to be getting the jobs in the first place!

The fact of the matter is that this work is not going to be pleasant or comfortable for anybody, nor is it going to be gently "organic" in the way that many people hope.

It's going to involve consciously making decisions based on race or sexuality or gender, because those decisions were subconsciously (or consciously) made in the opposite direction for so very, very long. It's going to involve clawing back toward equity for the sake of equity and the wellbeing of the people who make up these workforces, rather than any immediate concrete benefit to the bottom line or profits.

In asking for "organic" diversity, what you're asking for - whether you mean to or not - is for a comfortable, easy process where nobody gets hurt or shunned or pushed aside. That's not possible with as deep as this has to go.

A breeze is not going to do the work of a hurricane.

Yup, that is diverse.

I think the point is, it is more diverse than it was, but less diverse than what some expect.

literally falls into the definition. So it must further the goal of diversity unless you hold the opinion that LGBT+ inclusion isn't warranted and a good step to prevent homophobia and transphobia?

Sadly, LGB inclusion doesn't always help with transphobia.

It's definitely warranted and a good thing, even if it doesn't help with all issues.

I'm begging you guys to let Aaron vet your replies. He's actually got the best interests of the company at heart and he's really good at conveying complex situations, as is his job. Stop making it harder.

Gamerskum wrote:

di·ver·si·ty

/dəˈvərsədē,dīˈvərsədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the state of being diverse; variety.

2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

literally falls into the definition. So it must further the goal of diversity unless you hold the opinion that LGBT+ inclusion isn't warranted and a good step to prevent homophobia and transphobia?

All white men save one white female. 1 of those white men is gay. Yup, that is diverse.

So what's the solution? Fire all the existing executives (including firing the VPs instead of adding them) and building an entire new diverse team from the ground up?

Short of that, they can't magically change the people they already had and they had these two in the wings as VPs. There really wasn't room right now for more VP level positions.

It's certainly fair to criticize the past decisions that got them to this point, but building diversity at this level is a long term problem and I don't see what they could have realistically done.

This wasn't really a promotion or the kind of thing it makes sense to advertise or apply for. It was changing the status of existing positions. As Jim posted here earlier, the actual job didn't really change - no more duties, responsibility or money, other than having a voice in executive level decisions. They're still doing the same VP jobs with the same VP responsibilities and pay.

There's may be criticism to be had for hiring them for those VP jobs in the first place, months and years ago respectively, but if there was going to be an expansion of the Leadership Team, these were the existing VPs and they were going to be the people on it.

I actually just got around to reading Jim's response to the UPW's questions, and really respect him for going out of his way to clarify the situation. Nonetheless, you're doing a great job keeping track of information as it comes out, and that's been helpful to me especially.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I think most of us would like to see the same end result, we just differ in how to get there.

simply by merit of being a person of color

I cannot express how opposed I am to the concept that the color of your skin should be considered a "merit," though I can also appreciate that I get to speak from a position of advantage and that for too many people, being born white amounts to exactly that.

So what's the solution?

For most, I think the solution is to wait and see if the UPW (and maybe the new members of the executive team) can affect change, but for some, nothing short of Jeff and maybe Tonya's resignation/termination, perhaps with the rehiring of Sara Marie and/or Diego is going to be accepted.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I think most of us would like to see the same end result, we just differ in how to get there.

ChezDispenser wrote:

simply by merit of being a person of color

I cannot express how opposed I am to the concept that the color of your skin should be considered a "merit," though I can also appreciate that I get to speak from a position of advantage and that for too many people, being born white amounts to exactly that.

A "merit", not in the sense that you're a better person, but that the experience of living as a person of color in our society is enough different from the experience of living as a white person that there is merit in having both available on a team.

Same of course for women and for LGBTQ folks and for other perspectives as well.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

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.

I know as someone who is Hispanic if I'm only hired based on diversity that I take that as a insult. People think that just cause I'm Hispanic I can't get the job on my own. Content of character not color of skin.

We have no idea if Diego or Sara Marie would even want to come back to Paizo.

The optic of the promotion is tacky to say the least.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I think most of us would like to see the same end result, we just differ in how to get there.

ChezDispenser wrote:

simply by merit of being a person of color

I cannot express how opposed I am to the concept that the color of your skin should be considered a "merit," though I can also appreciate that I get to speak from a position of advantage and that for too many people, being born white amounts to exactly that.

I mean I'm opposed to it on principle too, because the obvious implication is that someone is more or less valuable based on their race, which flies in the face of everything I believe - but the obvious implication is the easy answer, and as I said, the easy answer is not the correct one in this instance.

I don't mean "merit" as in "achievement" or "success" - I mean "merit" in that this particular instance as "this thing qualifies this person for this reason."

So what's the solution? Fire all the existing executives (including firing the VPs instead of adding them) and building an entire new diverse team from the ground up?

Fire all the *existing* executives? No. Heck, include the two new guys - but there ought to be people of color at the highest levels of management, and if there isn't a spot open, make one. Make two - because this:

other than having a voice in executive level decisions.

...is the point. People of color *should have a voice in executive level decisions.*

My opinion on these two gentlemen will rest entirely on if they bargain in good faith with UPW.

Part of that is going to be financial transparency with the UPW.

I fully sympathize with the homophobia Jeff has experienced but it's a tone deaf start for him to not recognize he doesn't know the experience of being a person of color. Which was the point of the question.

Both management and the union want Paizo to survive and thrive. I really hope the new leaders, who did not face any public competition for their shiny new titles and new executive powers, don't hold the opinion the sentiment is exclusive to management.

2 things.

First, I appreciate Aaron coming in to comment. I do wonder why the new Director of Community isn't the one doing that though? It's kind of their job. It shouldn't fall to other staff to throw themselves under the bus when there is a person who's job it is to deal with this stuff.

The other is about the leadership team. There IS a PoC who is highly qualified and frankly deserves the promotion on staff. The person currently running the tech team is a woman of color and has done wonders for the tech team and the company. Vic, the CTO, stepped back in the first half of 2020 and since then she has run the tech team. She was the tech team manager before that but since then has stepped up in that void. At the time I left in September there was no CTO in place and the plan was to hire a new CFO and that person was going to double as CTO. It's mind boggling to me that they were choosing to double up those roles rather than offer it to someone immensely qualified and competent. That even in looking to expand the leadership team they still didn't consider her is pretty telling.

Maybe they can ask this guy about diversity.

We have no idea if Diego or Sara Marie would even want to come back to Paizo.

The optic of the promotion is tacky, to say the least.

The last time Sara surfaced, she was on the Bitter part of the spectrum over the whole bloody event.

new CFO, and that person was going to double as CTO.

I worked under a CIO who was more a CFO. Holy hell, was I a neurotic mess when I left that place? You bet

Seeing as the company is in the United States but there are Canadian freelancers so there ya go.

Oh and the Americas are North and South, so everyone who lives there is an American.

thejeff wrote:

So what's the solution? Fire all the existing executives (including firing the VPs instead of adding them) and building an entire new diverse team from the ground up?

Fire all the *existing* executives? No. Heck, include the two new guys - but there ought to be people of color at the highest levels of management, and if there isn't a spot open, make one. Make two - because this:

thejeff wrote:

other than having a voice in executive level decisions.

...is the point. People of color *should have a voice in executive level decisions.*

So who do they fire to hire (or promote) a new top level manager they can bring into the executive team? Or should they create a VP of tokenism?

I agree they should be there, but I don't see how to get there in the short term

Congratulations to the new hires. I wish you all the best in your new positions and look forward to seeing what new directions and products the future brings.

Looks like some well versed and varied careers !

The other is about the leadership team. There IS a PoC who is highly qualified and frankly deserves the promotion on staff. The person currently running the tech team is a woman of color and has done wonders for the tech team and the company. Vic, the CTO, stepped back in the first half of 2020 and since then she has run the tech team. She was the tech team manager before that but since then has stepped up in that void. At the time I left in September there was no CTO in place and the plan was to hire a new CFO and that person was going to double as CTO. It's mind boggling to me that they were choosing to double up those roles rather than offer it to someone immensely qualified and competent. That even in looking to expand the leadership team they still didn't consider her is pretty telling.

This. I've heard nothing but good things about the manager who took over the team after I left. I wish I had gotten to meet her before I left but the toxicness of my relationship with the then manager was... epically bad. Paizo, as a company, would probably cease to exist in a meaningful way without them.

ChezDispenser wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So what's the solution? Fire all the existing executives (including firing the VPs instead of adding them) and building an entire new diverse team from the ground up?

Fire all the *existing* executives? No. Heck, include the two new guys - but there ought to be people of color at the highest levels of management, and if there isn't a spot open, make one. Make two - because this:

thejeff wrote:

other than having a voice in executive level decisions.

...is the point. People of color *should have a voice in executive level decisions.*

So who do they fire to hire (or promote) a new top level manager they can bring into the executive team? Or should they create a VP of tokenism?

I agree they should be there, but I don't see how to get there in the short term

Well gosh, why don't we just look at the post Diego just made, and see that they currently don't have a Chief Technical Officer, but do have a woman of color currently doing that job as the Director of Technology. So why not promote Rei Ko to Chief Technical Officer rather than expect the Chief Financial Officer to juggle that role in addition to finances.