> I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations.
Pretty much the #1 asshole behavior on the Internet is criticizing other people's books/studies without having read them. Chris is right, this reflects extremely poorly on Lyons.
I suspect the reason that Dan Lyons mentions "The Alliance" is that we cite some of HubSpot's programs in the book. Specifically, we mention HubSpot's "Learning Meals" program, which encourages employees to take smart people outside the company to lunch. HubSpot will pick up the tab as long as you share what you learn with the rest of the company on the intranet.
This is pure speculation. You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him.
Lyons worked for a company that has an abusive culture. They recently had two top people in management leave because of unethical behaviour - and you observed and promoted aspects of such a culture in your book.
I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking it quite badly.
I didn't criticize Dan's book, or say that his statements about HubSpot were inaccurate. (Note that I'm not saying they're accurate either; I haven't worked there!) What I did do was to point out that his op ed does not accurately reflect what I wrote on my book. I don't believe this constitutes mischaracterization on my part.
HubSpot fired two senior managers because they tried (foolishly) to use deception to obtain copies of Dan Lyons' book before it came out. You seem to be implying that our book promotes such unethical behavior. Again, I'm unconvinced that describing a program for allowing employees to expense networking lunches constitutes encouraging an abusive culture.
Dan Lyons didn't mention expensing lunches in that article. You are speculating why your book was mentioned. The issue you seem to have is the bit about your "tour of duty" concept, which it looks like was indeed mischaracterised (I have to read your book to know for sure). But apart from that I'm not sure what can really be stated as anything else than fair criticism in that article - and by which I mean he disagrees with your ideas and critiques them.
> You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him.
Not even close. Speculation is fine as long as it is labeled as speculation ("I suspect..."). It's nothing like what Lyons did, which is to misleadlingly paraphrase the contents of a book.
> I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking it quite badly.
I think his complaint is totally understandable, and I find the personal nature of your criticism bizarre.
Pretty much the #1 asshole behavior on the Internet is criticizing other people's books/studies without having read them. Chris is right, this reflects extremely poorly on Lyons.