5 ms·

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.
        tptacek 11y ago
        You saw the word "micro-aggression" and implied it meant that a university's guide to micro-aggressions was to be enshrined in some company's policy. You have also missed a step. You think the policy under discussion is that if you comment on a coworker's earrings, you can be fired instantly. Nobody has said that. However, if you continually make remarks on the attire or appearance of a coworker after being asked by that coworker not to, you should be fired. That's toxic behavior. What's embarrassing is that teams could be so obtuse that they would even need a written policy to say that. But then: as far as we know, this company doesn't have that policy written down; they may just have the common sense policy of "if you make unwelcome comments about your coworkers after being asked not to, we will escort you out of the building". This doesn't seem at all complicated to me.
    - camelite 11y ago
      > I think I just did it in one sentence. Yeah it's almost like importing the lingua franca of a bunch of extremists into your organizational policy isn't necessary and that the actual sensible part of it can be easily summarised in simple and straight forward english. Hmmm...

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.
        tptacek 11y ago
        You saw the word "micro-aggression" and implied it meant that a university's guide to micro-aggressions was to be enshrined in some company's policy. You have also missed a step. You think the policy under discussion is that if you comment on a coworker's earrings, you can be fired instantly. Nobody has said that. However, if you continually make remarks on the attire or appearance of a coworker after being asked by that coworker not to, you should be fired. That's toxic behavior. What's embarrassing is that teams could be so obtuse that they would even need a written policy to say that. But then: as far as we know, this company doesn't have that policy written down; they may just have the common sense policy of "if you make unwelcome comments about your coworkers after being asked not to, we will escort you out of the building". This doesn't seem at all complicated to me.
  - camelite 11y ago
    > I think I just did it in one sentence. Yeah it's almost like importing the lingua franca of a bunch of extremists into your organizational policy isn't necessary and that the actual sensible part of it can be easily summarised in simple and straight forward english. Hmmm...