7 ms·

This is not a company where micro-aggressions will fly. This seems like such a toxic philosophy to me. One of the worst things you can do for a workplace is st

• tptacek 11y ago
  Businesses are not colleges.
  • escherize 11y ago
    Right, businesses collapse under their own weight when you stifle honest conversations.
    • tptacek 11y ago
      No, they don't. Go to the Fortune 500, start at the top, and spot the first company where you can have "open, honest conversations" in the manner of a college dorm.
      • beeboop 11y ago
        I don't think people are advocating for blatant sexism and harassment you see in dorms. They are advocating that a company shouldn't have an essay-length corporate policy on what their personal definition of a "micro-aggression" is and how you need to change your every day speech to remove vocabulary that 0.000001% of the population finds offensive and complains about on their tumblr page. I am frankly disappointed with how obtuse you are being about this. I expected more from someone like you.
        • tptacek 11y ago
          "Don't call team members names, and don't make jokes about their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or age." doesn't require an essay-length policy. I think I just did it in one sentence. I don't know what to do with your last sentence. What would disturb me is if someone here believed I was sanguine about gendered hostility in the workplace.
          • beeboop 11y ago
            I think you are missing the original point of the comment that started this discussion. We are discussing "micro-aggressions". Examples of micro-aggressions: "I like your new haircut" "Why are you so quiet?" "Where were you born?" "How did you get so good at math?" There is a huge list here: http://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf http://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggres... I am not discussing harassment, or jokes about any of the groups you listed. I am not discussing verbal discrimination. I am discussing micro-aggressions, the range of which varies drastically from person to person. Having a workplace that has to narrowly define what their definition of a micro-aggression is, to the point of saying "You are not allowed to comment on the appearance of a coworker in any way, even the smallest comment about their haircut or liking their shoes" is what I am, and presumably other people in this comment thread, are against. As you can see in the PDF I linked, it's two very dense pages of explanation. Having something like this included in a corporate policy is what I find to be a bad idea. Granted, there are very obvious things in the PDF that are just plain old harassment, but there are also plenty of things that are silly to expect to enforce in a workplace.
            • tptacek 11y ago
              What company are we discussing that has entered this document into their company policy? Don't comment on coworkers appearances. It's usually unwelcome and almost always creepy. You shouldn't need a policy document to tell you that. If you have a relationship with someone in your workplace that makes those comments kosher, you already know it.
              • beeboop 11y ago
                The article in the original post that prompted this entire discussion, and was quoted in the parent-most comment, was: >This is not a company where micro-aggressions will fly. This is implying that micro-aggressions are a fireable offense. Whether it is literally printed in policy is beside the point. The point is the "micro-aggression" concept is being enforced, the extent of which is barely touched on in that dense, two page PDF I linked you. If it isn't explicitly printed, it's frankly even worse. It's impossible to know what the scale of offensive micro-aggressions is for someone, and it probably changes from day to day. You are also conveniently ignoring the other micro-aggression examples I gave you, which are not nearly as clear-cut as commenting on appearances. I am frankly done with this discussion unless you want to actually address why asking "Where did you grow up?" during casual conversation, and without any sort of poignant tone, should be a fireable offense. It feels like you are being deliberately evasive of the actual conversation people are trying to have.
  • peterwwillis 11y ago
    Startups are more like colleges than businesses. You drink a lot of beer, play ping pong, get no sleep, and after 4 years you're broke and moving back in with your parents.
  • goodcanadian 11y ago
    True, but most environments will benefit from open and honest (and civil) discussion.
    • tptacek 11y ago
      No, most businesses will not in fact benefit from a venting of the open and honest feelings of people who strongly believe in prejudices against races, genders, religions, ages, ethnicities, and the like.
      • steverb 11y ago
        Neither do they seem to appreciate my honest opinion that coworker X is a complete and total moron who shouldn't be allowed to tie his shoe laces unsupervised, much less be writing code. I think that honestly is valued when we are talking about other people's ideas and efforts, but not so much when we just think the other person is an idiot/jerk/psychopath, etc.
        • tptacek 11y ago
          No, most employers would not appreciate an employer's earnest report that their coworker is "a complete and total moron who shouldn't be allowed to tie his shoe laces unsupervised". I think your problems may have less to do with principles and more to do with communications.
      • goodcanadian 11y ago
        To be fair, I specified "civil." The thread started by referencing "micro aggressions," so I don't think strong beliefs in prejudices really apply here. I agree that most spaces (college or business) should be free of most types of aggression, but it seems to me that there is a subset of people who perceive aggression (or even go looking for it) when it is not in fact there. There is a cost to being too careful in what you say just as there is a cost in not being careful enough.
        • goodcanadian 11y ago
  • beeboop 11y ago
    I think you will agree a tyrannical workplace that stifles honest conversation and criticism is a pretty shitty place to work, and perpetuates the unhealthy power imbalance between employers and employees. A workplace shouldn't be a kingdom of the CEO where his word is law, at least not as it applies to your everyday behavior and speech. Exceptions of course to expecting widely accepted professional behavior.
    • tptacek 11y ago
      I think you will agree that active serial rapists make bad receptionists. See how easy it is for us to meet in the middle?
      • drdeca 11y ago
        I am confused about what you mean by this. I mean obviously the first sentence makes sense but I don't understand the relevance. I'm not expressing anything against the point you are making, I just honestly don't understand what point you are making.
        • tptacek 11y ago
          I was snarkily refusing to have a discussion on the artificial terms of the parent commenter, about "tyrannical" workplaces.
    • coke12 11y ago
      No, I don't agree. Nobody should feel uncomfortable in their workplace, especially if the reason for discomfort has nothing to do with work. Comments about gender, sexual orientation, and race are almost never appropriate. College is a very different environment because people go there to learn holistically.
      • beeboop 11y ago
        I poorly worded the parent comment. I agree with everything you said. It's when you take "nobody should feel uncomfortable in their workplace" to the absolute extremes that things become difficult, which is what a discussion about "micro-aggressions" becomes. At what point does someone's uncomfortableness with something become invalid? It's obviously not limitless.
  • tomjen3 11y ago
    No, we make more money. But that doesn't mean being formal or faking professionalism is the best way to make money.
• BossHogg 11y ago
  If you can't have an honest conversation without being insulting or degrading, you're the problem.
  • kefka 11y ago
    "I'm offended so you need to shut up." Is no way to have proper communication. And that's the point with branding things as "micro-aggressions". Its an effective social construct to silence someone by branding them as discriminatory. Usually, without proof.
  • derptron 11y ago
    And you can put that in your corporate policy without attaching the hot SJW buzzword of the moment to it.
• jkyle 11y ago
  Microaggression is, by definition, to casually denigrate others by repeating or affirming stereotypes for the purpose of discounting contributions or establishing the dominate class as normal and the minority class as aberrant or pathological. It is the exact opposite of honest conversation and criticism. Some examples would be dismissing a woman's analysis because "women are bad at math". Turning to the one female colleague in the room and telling her to go get some coffee. Suggesting that a minority is unqualified and a diversity hire. Labeling LGBT coworkers as psychologically unsound. Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant. Having a policy against toxic environments is not, itself, toxic. Even if it makes some men who hold the above opinions feel "on guard". Because they should feel on guard about not spouting such vitriol.
  • kefka 11y ago
    > Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant. I'm for equality, and the area around FMLA is not equal, by any means. That issue is caused by the risk that women of child-bearing age have with regards to our laws on FMLA. Women (of child bearing age) are an inherent risk with strong legal ramifications if ignored. Once pregnant, they can effectively get up and leave their position. Depending what they were doing, can cause significant team problems. And the employer is required to provide their or a similar position back when they return. I'm sure the actuaries have calculated that risk appropriately. To fix that, all gov't needs to do is apply FMLA to all parties in a relationship when one in it is pregnant. Then the actuarial cost equals itself out. Equality is approached.
    • jkyle 11y ago
      You won't hear any dissent from me when it comes to improving our lack luster family leave support. However, telling a woman she doesn't take her career seriously is a different matter. You cannot assume to know that woman's situation, her commitment to her job, her resources for child care, etc. She may have a stay at home husband. She could have a full time nanny. Her commitment, as an individual, may be no more or less than any of her coworkers. Further, U.S. law (as abysmal as it is) on family leave is egalitarian. Both men and women may take up to 12 weeks leave in a 12 month period after the birth. Two states, including CA, extend 6 weeks of subsidized pay to both men and women. Most companies extend the same "bonding period" allowance to both men and women (generally taken out of their base vacation). The only exception I've seen that women get aside from men is an extra couple of weeks if they have a cesarean. But again, this is entirely up to the private company issuing the benefits. The state is equal in the benefits it allots. Thus, dismissing a woman through this verbalization is more about stereotyping than any reality with regard to disparity in benefits. And the perceived risk is as much about cultural and corporate biases on care taking. Which is why it is a microagression.
• mavus 11y ago
  > This is not a company where micro-aggressions will fly. This is a company where the first bedrock rule is that nobody gets interrupted, and the second is that everyone gets their say. If you take the whole quote from the article, it doesn't seem like it would stifle honest conversation at all, if anything micro-aggressions would reduce open communication by making people believe their input is valid or wont be heard.