WotC Greg Tito On Leaving WotC: 'It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of *****'

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 11.21.33 PM.png

We reported earlier that WotC's communications director Greg Tito had left his 9-year stint managing the Dungeons & Dragons brand for a political appointment as Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington secretary of state's office.


In a surprising turn of events, Tito criticized his former employers, saying "It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of a**holes." He later went on to clarify "Sorry. I meant "shareholders".

Tito is now Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington Secretary of State office in Olympia, WA.

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 11.17.45 PM.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would not do business with any company that would publicly say that wouldn't hire someone for badmouthing shareholders.
Nobody's going to publicly say that. We're going to say we went with the candidate we best felt would fit in. It could be that I have two candidates, both of which are great, and I pick the one who didn't bad mouth their previous employer in a public fashion.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just so I understand,

For profit business wants to make money.
Disgruntled employee complains, publicly, about for profit business trying to making money.
People are mad at the for profit business for wanting to make money.

Maybe I'm weird. But this seems like normal, every day, behavior. Businesses try to make money, disgruntled employees complain about said businesses.
If we’re just supposed to accept the fact that “for-profit businesses want to generate profit”, then there’s no room to criticize them for any profit-seeking behaviours at all. That’s BS. “Businesses will be businesses” is as much of a cop-out excuse for bad corporate behaviour as “boys will be boys” is for bad children’s behaviour.
 
Last edited:

Probably since the 1980s, when someone uses the term “shareholders”, it’s unlikely they mean “regular people”.
So he is only talking about billionaires? Pretty idiosyncratic use of the term in my experience and I have a graduate degree in business in addition to my field.

I am probably not fluent in internet/economic outrage, which I admit.

Also, which year of his employment there did he have the epiphany they were profit driven?

Year 8 wakes in a cold sweat “oh my God! It’s been about money all along!”
 
Last edited:


People become disillusioned for a lot of reasons. Even employers ‘who treat their employees well’, whatever that means being that it is so subjective, have employees that become disenchanted or burned out.
It really, really, isn't subjective.
In my experience few companies have all happy employees. And I find that how companies treat their employees waxes and wanes depending on a lot of factors. My organizations was very flexible and employee friendly the past couple years when labor was being hoarded and employees were hard to come by. Now it is swinging the other way with less flexibility, more rules and some potential downsizing. A lot of it just depends on who has leverage at that moment in time.
"Now that I can replace any employee at a whim I'm using that leverage to treat my employees 'differently'. I used to treat them with flexibility and was very employee-friendly. Now? Not so much!"

Like. I don't know how to tell you this, friend, but that's the problem.

Just treat them with the flexibility and friendliness the entire time and you won't have the issue. Could you squeeze out a higher bottom line by being mean and inflexible? Maybe. Maybe not. But that's how you go from being a good employer to being a toxic one, -fast-.
It's not really about the shareholders though. If I see a candidate and they're talking smack in public about their former employer it's going to make me wonder if they'll do the same about my company. It's especially concerning if the candidate is seeking a marketing position. But like I said, the rebuke was relatively minor and I wouldn't automatically reject a candidate. And it's not entirely unfair to think that maybe a former employee wouldn't talk smack if management had treated their people with respect.
So you mostly get it, yeah.
No one is saying that those public statements are an issue because someone at Hasbro's feelings might be hurt. The problem with those public statements is that a future employer will wonder if that person has trouble interacting with others. The workplace is a social unit, with many personalities, where there is a goal set by an employer who pays the employees' wages. A manager looking to fill a spot is going to avoid folks who have any whiff of being hard to work with.
Always look at the former employer and ask "What did they do to have employees react like this" first. Because they had the power in the relationship and used it to push someone so roughly they couldn't remain quiet. Then avoid doing that thing.

If there's nothing there, then yeah maybe this particular employee is just a loudmouth who talks crap over nothing or is hard to work with.
If a former employee genuinely has an issue with their former employer, there are many other avenues they can take (filing a grievance, lawsuits, speaking to the press... with a case in hand, etc.). All that a random Twitter blast conveys to future employers is that the poster has little self-control and poor judgement. Especially if that Twitter blast has zero facts or details of what went wrong. If the poster has a legitimate case, there was a more adult route that they could have taken. If they don't have a case, then their reaction was childish, to be kind.
I have a giant rampaging "Meh" for this tone policing argument.

"Take it to court or don't say anything!" is a ridiculous standard that relies on the employee having an actionable case and enough money to lawyer up. It -also- ignores that 48 out of 50 states are "At Will Employment" where people get fired without cause so that bosses can discriminate, freely, without ever getting caught since they don't have to list a reason.

Anyway... yeah. "Childishness" in this case rings really hollow.
Nobody's going to publicly say that. We're going to say we went with the candidate we best felt would fit in. It could be that I have two candidates, both of which are great, and I pick the one who didn't bad mouth their previous employer in a public fashion.
We literally had someone in this very thread publicly state they wouldn't hire someone who spoke out about a former employer.

Showing that that mindset does exist and that people will say it with their whole chest.
 

No one is saying that those public statements are an issue because someone at Hasbro's feelings might be hurt. The problem with those public statements is that a future employer will wonder if that person has trouble interacting with others. The workplace is a social unit, with many personalities, where there is a goal set by an employer who pays the employees' wages. A manager looking to fill a spot is going to avoid folks who have any whiff of being hard to work with.

If a former employee genuinely has an issue with their former employer, there are many other avenues they can take (filing a grievance, lawsuits, speaking to the press... with a case in hand, etc.). All that a random Twitter blast conveys to future employers is that the poster has little self-control and poor judgement. Especially if that Twitter blast has zero facts or details of what went wrong. If the poster has a legitimate case, there was a more adult route that they could have taken. If they don't have a case, then their reaction was childish, to be kind.
Seems like a cultural problem if saying “I don’t want to make money for rich a$$holes anymore” is seen as a career-limiting move. It’s the vaguest statement and the weakest profanity, but apparently it’s too much for some of you? In a sane culture, a person is rewarded for honesty and it’s considered noble to avoid working for destructive “a—holes”. If you disagree, consider that you sound like a hostage.

And your suggestion is that “He should sue them or go to the media, not say rude words!” Nevermind the absurd wasteful cost of American civil proceedings. I can only imagine what folks would be saying if Greg Tito did sue WotC/Hasbro for something.
 

Seems like a cultural problem if saying “I don’t want to make money for rich a$$holes anymore” is seen as a career-limiting move. It’s the vaguest statement and the weakest profanity, but apparently it’s too much for some of you? In a sane culture, a person is rewarded for honesty and it’s considered noble to avoid working for destructive “a—holes”. If you disagree, consider that you sound like a hostage.

And your suggestion is that “He should sue them or go to the media, not say rude words!” Nevermind the absurd wasteful cost of American civil proceedings. I can only imagine what folks would be saying if Greg Tito did sue WotC/Hasbro for something.
Remember the elderly woman with the 3rd degree burns to the bone in her thighs and genital region because McDonald's had ignored repeated demands by the state to reduce the temperature of their coffee machines..? How she sued for the cost of her medical expenses and to cover the work she lost and then was -given- a larger amount by the state because holy crap McD's had to be punished for the horrible thing they'd done?

I always hated how it got framed as "Silly woman spills coffee and sues for millions to try and get rich!"
 

People who refuse to hire people because they're scared they'd speak up about the bad treatment tells me their employees are treated badly and just haven't spoken up.
I agreed with most everything you'd written up until here. This part comes too close to "an accusation is evidence that the accused is guilty" in its sentiment, and that's not a mindset I can bring myself to agree with.
 

I agreed with most everything you'd written up until here. This part comes too close to "an accusation is evidence that the accused is guilty" in its sentiment, and that's not a mindset I can bring myself to agree with.
Fair enough.

Does it help that a little later he tells on himself that he uses the employment market as a lever to treat his employees worse when he's got the power to replace them at a whim and better when he can't immediately replace them?
 

Year 8 wakes in a cold sweat “oh my God! It’s been about money all along!”
Or, alternately, the company has become a worse place to work as later managers have become more focused on shareholder value over all other considerations.

It's not exactly hard to see a potential correlation with, let's say, products of increasingly mixed quality and other reports of WotC maybe not being the best place to work.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top