Tech companies normally rally behind social and political causes. Now one CEO is pushing back.

Will others follow Coinbase's lead?

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong

"We could use our workday debating what to do about various unrelated challenges in the world, but that would not be in service of the company or our own interests as employees and shareholders," writes Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.

Photo: Michael Short/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In 2017, Sergey Brin attended rallies at the San Francisco Airport to challenge Trump's immigration order. In 2018, Microsoft employees protested their company's work with ICE. In 2019, Google, Microsoft and Amazon employees all walked off the job to urge climate change action. It's fair to say that during a divisive presidency, the tech industry — and business leaders writ large — has become much more comfortable speaking out on societal and political issues.

But in 2020, Coinbase's CEO Brian Armstrong said enough is enough.

On Sunday, Armstrong laid out how his company was no longer going to take activist stances on anything outside a narrowly defined mission of advancing cryptocurrency. "We focus minimally on causes not directly related to the mission," he wrote. Societal issues unassociated with its mission are a no-go because "impact only comes with focus." Political issues are only worth weighing in on if they directly affect the business.

"We could use our workday debating what to do about various unrelated challenges in the world, but that would not be in service of the company or our own interests as employees and shareholders," Armstrong wrote.

But for a CEO whose stance was to make his company staunchly apolitical, he's done a surprisingly effective job of sparking what may be the next culture war to consume the tech industry.

Bring your true self

The technology industry has long prided itself on giving employees a voice. It's the spirit behind everyone getting equity, frequent town hall meetings and even the message boards that are still hugely popular inside large companies like Google and Facebook. Startup company culture only further compounds it, with co-workers spending long hours together, eating catered lunches and dinners at the office, and bonding over elaborate offsites from escape rooms to cooking classes. In return for long hours and proud allegiance, tech companies have encouraged staff to show up as their authentic selves to work and consider teammates as close friends or even like family.

Salesforce literally defines its company culture as Ohana, which means family in Hawaiian, and hasn't been afraid to stand up for it. When Indiana introduced an anti-LBTQ bill in 2015, Salesforce's, CEO Marc Benioff, was among the first to condemn it and threaten economic sanctions. He told Harvard Business Review that it was about standing up for his employees and the company's core value of equality.

"CEO activism is not a leadership choice, but a modern — and an evolving — expectation," Benioff said in 2018. "CEOs have to realize that millennials are coming into the organization and expecting the CEO to [publicly] represent the values of that organization."

Americans are also getting more comfortable with corporations speaking out on political issues — even if they are outside the realm of what directly affects their company. In Global Strategy Group's 2020 Business and Politics survey, 84% of Americans surveyed said they believed companies should take a stand on issues that directly affect their company. The majority (62%) also think it's OK for companies to take a stance in general.

Most employees also said they talk about politics at work and aren't afraid to put pressure on their companies to take action that represents them. 57% of people surveyed said they would sign a petition asking their employer to take action on an issue, and 41% said they would attend a boycott or rally with their colleagues to put pressure on their company to speak out.

One of the draws of working at these tech companies has been the idea of working at a "mission-driven" company. While the lofty platitudes may often be mocked, companies draw in employees with the allure of being focused on changing the world and whatever mission they stand for. More often than not, that empathy is viewed as a positive and even a competitive advantage.

And over the last four years, as the political climate in the U.S. has become more divisive than it has been in decades, many people in tech have had a realization: that tech companies don't operate in a silo. Companies no longer have the excuse to have their heads in the sand and not realize how their products are interacting in the real world. Facebook had to change its tune in the wake of the 2016 election from "we're just a platform, we didn't have much of a role" to understanding and strategizing the pitfalls of how its tech could be used in the upcoming elections.

At the same time, workers have found their own voice to push back and challenge their companies. As a result, tech worker action has soared exponentially in the last few years, with over 100 different worker actions in 2019 alone, according to Collective Action in Tech, which tracks events. In August alone, the site catalogued worker protests outside of Jeff Bezos' NYC home, a virtual walk out at Pinterest to protest racial and gender discrimination, two weeks of strikes at Deliveroo for better worker's rights, and a salary spreadsheet circulating inside Microsoft where over 300 employees shared their salary and pay bonus data.

Value destruction

Armstrong has clearly been watching this situation with growing concern.

"It has become common for Silicon Valley companies to engage in a wide variety of social activism, even those unrelated to what the company does, and there are certainly employees who really want this in the company they work for," Armstrong wrote, adding emphasis. "While I think these efforts are well intentioned, they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division."

To some, it was a watershed moment for the industry and a path for other companies to follow. "I predict most successful companies will follow Coinbase's lead. If only because those who don't are less likely to succeed," Y Combinator founder Paul Graham said. "Coinbase appears to be taking the unpopular position of allowing (even encouraging) diversity of thought in the workplace. Good for them," investor Michael Arrington said. Craft Ventures' David Sacks viewed it as a way to build a movement: "Focusing and keeping the team united around why they wanted to join in the first place is how you build a movement and change the world."

But to many, the post seemed like an abdication of leadership and putting money-making capitalism first and foremost before fighting for employees' rights and building an inclusive environment. Sleeping Giants co-founder Nandini Jammi tweeted that Armstrong's post was essentially a commitment to being a white supremacist organization. "Really brave of @brian_armstrong to buck the growing trend towards 'inclusivity' & invest in a safe space for white tech bros," she added. Fellow crypto enthusiast Jack Dorsey, who serves as CEO of Square and Twitter, also criticized Coinbase for its decision not to acknowledge the connected social issues, saying it "leaves people behind."

Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo escalated it even higher in a since-deleted tweet. "Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution," he tweeted. "I'll happily provide video commentary."

One concern some people have with Coinbase's stance is that it could use it to shield itself from the hard work of building a more diverse and inclusive environment. "The Coinbase drama is showing us how many folks in tech believe that growing a business that is respectful & aligned with your diverse team members' well-being is a 'left vs. right' or 'libs vs conservative' issue rather than a business challenge," Jammi later added.

The company has reportedly had a few instances of division in its ranks. In an incident known as "bathroomgate," Business Insider reported that the company had hung up signs on gendered bathrooms saying that the company recognizes gender is not binary and people are welcome to use the bathroom most comfortable to them. Those were reportedly removed after some employees saw it as political.

Armstrong's blog post may have originated when the CEO reportedly did not immediately agree to making a public statement in support of Black Lives Matter, which many tech companies from Apple to Airbnb were quick to do. According to Axios, Armstrong was asked to make a public statement, but he wouldn't commit to it during an all-hands meeting. Several employees participated in a walkout as the result, and Armstrong ultimately tweeted in support of Black Lives Matter.

Coinbase declined to comment.

In his blog post, Armstrong argued that being an activist company outside of its core mission would "go against our principles of inclusion and belonging."

We have people with many different backgrounds and viewpoints at Coinbase, and even if we all agree that something is a problem, we may not agree on how to actually go solve it," Armstrong wrote (emphasis his own). "This is where there is a blurry line between moral statements and politics. We could use our work day debating what to do about various unrelated challenges in the world, but that would not be in service of the company or our own interests as employees and shareholders."

Angel investor Susan Kimberlin said there's nothing wrong with putting the business first, but what was missing was any clarity around what the company's values are and how that goes hand-in-hand with the mission. A former Salesforce employee, she said one reason the company has been so successful is that Salesforce has been able to clearly communicate and articulate what its mission and shared value system is, so employees join knowing what the company stands for. Articulated clearly, it shouldn't even be a question of whether a company will stand for a cause like Black Lives Matter, she said.

Instead, while Coinbase says it is mission-first, there's still a gray area and question on what that will mean in practice and what its values will be. And without that clarity, employees may feel stifled from talking about issues that are important to them personally.

"I believe it's really important to let people bring their whole selves to whatever they're doing," she said. "This clearly kind of discourages people from reacting to and living with what we all have to right now, which is this incredible amount of ambient stress, an enormous amount of social upheaval, and really concerning and upsetting events that are affecting large groups of people."

Being business-focused isn't an excuse. "Those things don't go away because you're working on something," she said.

The fear spreads?

But despite the fierce criticism, there have been other signs that tech might be starting to feel uncomfortable about how loudly and openly employees are discussing and protesting political and societal issues. In 2019, Wayfair's CEO said he preferred "non-political" employees just a few months after employees had walked out to protest the sale of furniture to migrant detention camps. Google even curtailed its famous weekly TGIF company meetings last year after CEO Sundar Pichai said they were "not working" in their current form.

One prime example: The internal message boards that have historically been such a big part of Big Tech culture, allowing people to share everything from code and snack tips to political opinions and thoughts about the future of their company. But recently, both Google and Facebook are said to have increased their moderation of internal content, cracking down on conversations about politics, race and more.

Facebook, for instance, is doing more to keep contentious subjects out of people's Workplace feeds. Per Facebook spokesperson Joe Osborne speaking to Fox Business: "What we've heard from our employees is that they want the option to join debates on social and political issues rather than see them unexpectedly in their work feed. We're updating our employee policies and work tools to ensure our culture remains respectful and inclusive."

And CNBC reported that something similar was happening at Google, citing the following message allegedly posted on an internal company blog: "Our world is going to get more complicated as the year continues. Tensions continue specifically for our Black+ community with Black Lives Matter, and our Asian Googlers with coronavirus and China/Hong Kong. All of this is compounded by the additional stress of working from home, social isolation, and caregiver responsibilities — to name a few. This new world creates urgency to keep work a welcoming place."

In other words, there's evidence that Armstrong might not be alone in his view: Maybe other CEOs also think that workplace activism might be too big a distraction to leave totally unfettered. And now, there's a real possibility that, despite trying to not wade into a political fight, Coinbase has only inflamed one.

For its part, Coinbase has doubled down on its approach: It's now offering between four and six months of severance to employees who want to leave the company. Some predict there will be an exodus, others argue that it will make Coinbase all that more attractive to potential recruits.

Over the coming weeks, any CEOs who have had similar thoughts to Armstrong's but have chosen to remain silent so far will be watching that staffing situation play out. Depending on what happens, workplace activism in Silicon Valley could be in for a reboot.

Hybrid work has some distinct advantages when it comes to onboarding.

Photo: LogMeIn

Jo Deal is the chief human resources officer at LogMeIn. She is responsible for leading global people strategy with a focus on attracting, developing and engaging talent.

The desire for change that sprung up during the pandemic resulted in the highest attrition levels in decades and a fierce war for talent playing out in the market. The Great Resignation forced managers to suddenly make hiring their top priority, and recruitment partners became everyone’s best friend as leaders scrambled to replace key roles within their teams.

Keep Reading Show less
Jo Deal
Jo Deal serves as LogMeIn’s Chief Human Resources Officer. She is responsible for leading global people strategy with a focus on attracting, developing and engaging world class talent by expanding LogMeIn’s reputation as one of tech’s most desirable career destinations, and by providing a collaborative learning environment where employees can grow their careers.
Sponsored Content

A CCO’s viewpoint on top enterprise priorities in 2022

The 2022 non-predictions guide to what your enterprise is working on starting this week

As Honeywell’s global chief commercial officer, I am privileged to have the vantage point of seeing the demands, challenges and dynamics that customers across the many sectors we cater to are experiencing and sharing.

This past year has brought upon all businesses and enterprises an unparalleled change and challenge. This was the case at Honeywell, for example, a company with a legacy in innovation and technology for over a century. When I joined the company just months before the pandemic hit we were already in the midst of an intense transformation under the leadership of CEO Darius Adamczyk. This transformation spanned our portfolio and business units. We were already actively working on products and solutions in advanced phases of rollouts that the world has shown a need and demand for pre-pandemic. Those included solutions in edge intelligence, remote operations, quantum computing, warehouse automation, building technologies, safety and health monitoring and of course ESG and climate tech which was based on our exceptional success over the previous decade.

Keep Reading Show less
Jeff Kimbell
Jeff Kimbell is Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at Honeywell. In this role, he has broad responsibilities to drive organic growth by enhancing global sales and marketing capabilities. Jeff has nearly three decades of leadership experience. Prior to joining Honeywell in 2019, Jeff served as a Partner in the Transformation Practice at McKinsey & Company, where he worked with companies facing operational and financial challenges and undergoing “good to great” transformations. Before that, he was an Operating Partner at Silver Lake Partners, a global leader in technology and held a similar position at Cerberus Capital LP. Jeff started his career as a Manufacturing Team Manager and Engineering Project Manager at Procter & Gamble before becoming a strategy consultant at Bain & Company and holding executive roles at Dell EMC and Transamerica Corporation. Jeff earned a B.S. in electrical engineering at Kansas State University and an M.B.A. at Dartmouth College.

Peloton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year

2022 just started, and Peloton has already halted bike production and is talking about mass layoffs. How did the pandemic darling get here?

How did Peloton go from pandemic star to sinking ship? One answer is the classic problem of supply and demand.

Image: Peloton; Protocol

It’s been a hell of a ride for Peloton. The headlines have been practically nonstop, from 2019’s cringey wife ad to 2021’s series of unfortunate “Sex and The City” events. But in 2020, Peloton could do no wrong. The at-home fitness company saw a 172% spike in sales over the course of that year, buoyed by the pandemic forcing wealthy gym-goers to stay home.

But nothing is ever easy or certain when it comes to Peloton. In the past week, Business Insider reported that Peloton is considering laying off 41% of its sales and marketing staff and closing down stores. CNBC learned that the company has hired McKinsey & Co. to help cut costs. And yesterday, CNBC reported that Peloton is temporarily halting production of its bikes. Peloton shares promptly plunged 24%.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.


Netflix looks to expand gaming with major IP deals, Fortnite-like updates

Remarks made to investors and recent job postings hint at big ambitions for Netflix’s nascent gaming efforts.

Netflix may be taking some cues from games like Fortnite and Apex: Legends for its own video game initiative.

Photo: Cameron Venti/Unsplash

Two months after launching mobile games to all of its members, Netflix is looking to double down on gaming: The company told investors Thursday that it wants to expand its portfolio of games “across both casual and core gaming genres.” Recent job offers suggest that this could include both live services games as well as an expansion to PC and console gaming, and the company's COO hinted at major licensing deals ahead.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.


Tim Cook, Ted Cruz and the strange politics of tech antitrust

Democrats and Republicans have found the tech reform debate scrambles traditional party politics — and the Apple CEO and Texas senator have found themselves chatting.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill on Thursday that could remake the tech industry.

Photo: PartTime Portraits/Unsplash

Strange alliances formed ahead of Thursday's vote to advance a key antitrust bill to the Senate floor, with frequent foes like Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ted Cruz supporting the measure, and prominent Democrats including California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pushing back against it.

Ultimately the bill moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-6 after a surprisingly speedy debate (at least, speedy for the Senate). Even some of the lawmakers who called for further changes agreed to move the bill forward — a sign that the itch to finally regulate Big Tech after years of congressional inaction is intensifying, even as the issue scrambles traditional party politics in a way that could threaten its final passage.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories