5 ms·

Honestly, I think many of the dismissive reactions to these things have a similar basis. It can look like people excusing this behavior, but I think in many cas

Honestly, I think many of the dismissive reactions to these things have a similar basis. It can look like people excusing this behavior, but I think in many cases they've just never seen this behavior. If the worst you've seen at work is friendly teasing and maybe some racy language, it's easy to assume that's what happened and someone is overreacting. If you've seen someone truly corrosive, that assumption changes. There's a world of difference between teasing and toxicity, even if the person doing it is careful enough to use language that could fall into either category. I can only imagine the frustration of writing down someone's comments and thinking "that doesn't look so bad on paper" when context made it clear (often to everyone present) that the exchange was terrible. And on a related note, I think companies that handle these things poorly have misunderstood their incentives. Yes, avoiding lawsuits is important to them, and yes, I can even see why they wouldn't admit there was a problem. But to not take action is terrible - as your story indicates, a sufficiently toxic employee can destroy the functioning of an entire team. Burying an incident may be easy, but it's not a good business choice when you're going to lose good, valuable staff over the issue. (I believe The Dilbert Principle suggested this was the single most important thing a manager could do: make sure this kind of hostility never, ever persisted on a team.)

wccrawford 10y ago
I think part of the problem is that it's hard (or impossible) to tell how much someone is exaggerating on the internet. Sometimes the answer really is "toughen up" because what they're experiencing is really nothing. Other times, it really is a horrible situation and people should be fired for it.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  That's never the answer. Why is it that it's ok to not treat some people with basic human dignity and respect?
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    I'm not entirely sure if you're saying "toughen up" is never the answer, or "firing" is never the answer. Assuming the former: It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned. "Toughen up" is perhaps not quite the right phrasing here: It's asking people to perhaps extend the basic human dignity and respect you request of others, to others. Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice. Treating the other person as a person capable of mistakes or being misunderstood, instead of a gremlin to simply assume the worst of. Assuming the latter: Sometimes you simply can't work through the problem. They may be a toxic individual - they may simply be driven to toxic behavior at this job (perhaps they hate it) - perhaps it's simply a matter of deciding who you're going to keep between two people who simply cannot get along with each other, to the point of causing problems for the rest of the team. Assuming you can fix their issues when they can't isn't treating them with dignity or respect. Leaving the situation to fester and drag on isn't treating the rest of your team with dignity and respect. Firing one or both of them might not be treating them with dignity and respect either - but you've only so many options. But just because you're firing someone doesn't mean you can't at least strive to do so. Wish them well on their next venture, and mean it.
    - bisby 10y ago
      To add further to the former category: appropriate friendly ribbing or banter definitely fall under the category of basic human dignity or respect. People cry at weddings. Not because they are sad, but because they are happy (usually). Why cry when you're happy? Studies[1] suggest that crying lowers your defenses. Similar to how salutes and handshakes were ways of demonstrating you weren't armed, you form a lot of social bonds when you are comfortable enough to be defenseless. Friendly banter is exactly that, on an emotional level. Sure, crying may make me physically less defended, but allowing some friendly coworker banter makes me emotionally less defended. This encourages bonding. it's the difference between laughing at and laughing with. Targeting someone maliciously is never acceptable. But friendly banter is sometimes not acceptable. Different people have different tolerances. Calling someone a fat worthless piece of garbage. Probably not ok. saying "geez, another donut?" to a coworker may trigger a group laughter (the subject included: "I start my diet tomorrow, i swear!") or it may cause a reaction the exact same way calling them a worthless piece of garbage might. Discussing their weight might make them feel vulnerable in a bonding sort of way, or in a targeted sort of way, you really should know a person before making those kind of comments though. I had a young colleague who quit recently. He missed our weekly developer meeting (because he was new, and forgot) and when we got back, another colleague said "Yeah, since you weren't at the meeting, we spent the whole time talking about you" in a clearly joking way, trying to include the new guy in the banter. In fact, he said it to 3 different people who missed the meeting (man, a lot of people missed the meeting that week). The guy demanded he not be a part of the "bro culture" and wanted to work remotely full time. The counter was remote 3 days a week, in office 2, and his desk could be on the opposite side of the building. He rejected that. If you were there, it was apparent that he wasn't being bullied. he had moved across the state for a job and was looking for any way to be able to move back home while keeping the job. His goal was not to get dignity and respect, his goal was to get his way. If he wanted dignity and respect (and honestly thought we spent a whole meeting talking about him behind his back), then any of the concessions offered to him should have worked. Everyone on the team tried to include this guy. Treating him with kid gloves really was kinda more segregating than a toxic individual (when its better to just not talk to someone about real problems than risk upsetting them, that's an issue too). The other guys who missed the meeting looked at the clock, said a profanity, then laughed about it. [1]: http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html - "Crying is a highly evolved behavior," said researcher Oren Hasson, an evolutionary biologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "My analysis suggests that by blurring vision, tears lower defenses and reliably function as signals of submission, a cry for help, and even in a mutual display of attachment and as a group display of cohesion."
- majormajor 10y ago
  Why is it just hard "on the internet"? And why do people find certain things easier to believe while finding others easier to dismiss as likely exaggeration? If we could find easily-actionable answers to those two questions... sigh.
  - gedrap 10y ago
    I'd assume that "on the internet" means hearing only one side ant not witnessing the story yourself.
Fnoord 10y ago
Except its almost never teasing, its bullying. I learned the difference between teasing someone and bullying in elementary school, directly via the education system (ie. the teacher). Repeated 'joke' on/about the same subject? Bullying. Is it mutual fun between/with different subjects, and can the subject themselves laugh about the joke? Teasing. Telling someone to 'shape up' after they heard a joke regarding their race, sex, or something else the umptieth time is nigh annoying, and they will explode internally if they're introvert. People do notice this, and it gives bullies (ie. narcissists) fuel. The extroverts will more clearly defend their boundaries, so bullies tend to stick away from those. I don't know if the subject in this story is introvert, but I do know -and this is a generalisation- Indian women are rather courteous.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I agree with the distinction you're making, but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in. I'm making a general point, and there are plenty of workplaces where "different subjects and people laugh at themselves also" is a perfectly good summary. I also agree that teasing really shouldn't tread on race/sex/etc - even if it's innocently meant it can easily be a topic too raw for human, and too similar to not-at-all-innocent comments. Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!
  - optimuspaul 10y ago
    I think they way you know it's "almost never teasing" is that these people are not friends, they are co-workers.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      I don't mean offense, but this comment seems completely insane to me - you are saying that in the majority of cases, anything insulting said among coworkers is meant as an insult rather than good-natured ribbing? I look at the world today and despite an absolutely massive improvement in acceptance of diversity, many so called minorities seem to think things are even worse. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of cultural misunderstanding in play here, whereby "people of color" (I despise that term) have finally achieved pure acceptance to the degree that people feel completely comfortable with them enough to not walk on eggshells in their speech, cultural harmony has finally been completely achieved, but then the informality of speech between close friends is mistakenly taken as an insult, the reaction is holy shit what a bitch, and we're back to where we started. Somewhat naive, of course. Completely wrong - I doubt it.
FrancoDiaz 10y ago
I think it's sometimes important to get in a toxic person's/bully's face. It's a lot easier for a developer who knows she/he will not have a problem finding another job.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I agree - explicitly pointing out and condemning this stuff can make a big difference. I wouldn't focus on confronting the person, though, because I think that rarely influences the individual. What I've seen matter most is making clear in front of others that it's not something people will "let go" or ignore. I fortunately haven't been in this position since I became a developer, but better jobs do offer more leeway in regard to this. The other question, of course, is power dynamics. Calling out a coworker has more potential to help than calling out someone who can fire all their critics without trouble.
- thinkmassive 10y ago
  For sure, although probably more difficult when you're on a visa and not exactly free to walk if things go south.

wccrawford 10y ago

I think part of the problem is that it's hard (or impossible) to tell how much someone is exaggerating on the internet. Sometimes the answer really is "toughen up" because what they're experiencing is really nothing. Other times, it really is a horrible situation and people should be fired for it.

st3v3r 10y ago
That's never the answer. Why is it that it's ok to not treat some people with basic human dignity and respect?
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  I'm not entirely sure if you're saying "toughen up" is never the answer, or "firing" is never the answer. Assuming the former: It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned. "Toughen up" is perhaps not quite the right phrasing here: It's asking people to perhaps extend the basic human dignity and respect you request of others, to others. Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice. Treating the other person as a person capable of mistakes or being misunderstood, instead of a gremlin to simply assume the worst of. Assuming the latter: Sometimes you simply can't work through the problem. They may be a toxic individual - they may simply be driven to toxic behavior at this job (perhaps they hate it) - perhaps it's simply a matter of deciding who you're going to keep between two people who simply cannot get along with each other, to the point of causing problems for the rest of the team. Assuming you can fix their issues when they can't isn't treating them with dignity or respect. Leaving the situation to fester and drag on isn't treating the rest of your team with dignity and respect. Firing one or both of them might not be treating them with dignity and respect either - but you've only so many options. But just because you're firing someone doesn't mean you can't at least strive to do so. Wish them well on their next venture, and mean it.
  - bisby 10y ago
    To add further to the former category: appropriate friendly ribbing or banter definitely fall under the category of basic human dignity or respect. People cry at weddings. Not because they are sad, but because they are happy (usually). Why cry when you're happy? Studies[1] suggest that crying lowers your defenses. Similar to how salutes and handshakes were ways of demonstrating you weren't armed, you form a lot of social bonds when you are comfortable enough to be defenseless. Friendly banter is exactly that, on an emotional level. Sure, crying may make me physically less defended, but allowing some friendly coworker banter makes me emotionally less defended. This encourages bonding. it's the difference between laughing at and laughing with. Targeting someone maliciously is never acceptable. But friendly banter is sometimes not acceptable. Different people have different tolerances. Calling someone a fat worthless piece of garbage. Probably not ok. saying "geez, another donut?" to a coworker may trigger a group laughter (the subject included: "I start my diet tomorrow, i swear!") or it may cause a reaction the exact same way calling them a worthless piece of garbage might. Discussing their weight might make them feel vulnerable in a bonding sort of way, or in a targeted sort of way, you really should know a person before making those kind of comments though. I had a young colleague who quit recently. He missed our weekly developer meeting (because he was new, and forgot) and when we got back, another colleague said "Yeah, since you weren't at the meeting, we spent the whole time talking about you" in a clearly joking way, trying to include the new guy in the banter. In fact, he said it to 3 different people who missed the meeting (man, a lot of people missed the meeting that week). The guy demanded he not be a part of the "bro culture" and wanted to work remotely full time. The counter was remote 3 days a week, in office 2, and his desk could be on the opposite side of the building. He rejected that. If you were there, it was apparent that he wasn't being bullied. he had moved across the state for a job and was looking for any way to be able to move back home while keeping the job. His goal was not to get dignity and respect, his goal was to get his way. If he wanted dignity and respect (and honestly thought we spent a whole meeting talking about him behind his back), then any of the concessions offered to him should have worked. Everyone on the team tried to include this guy. Treating him with kid gloves really was kinda more segregating than a toxic individual (when its better to just not talk to someone about real problems than risk upsetting them, that's an issue too). The other guys who missed the meeting looked at the clock, said a profanity, then laughed about it. [1]: http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html - "Crying is a highly evolved behavior," said researcher Oren Hasson, an evolutionary biologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "My analysis suggests that by blurring vision, tears lower defenses and reliably function as signals of submission, a cry for help, and even in a mutual display of attachment and as a group display of cohesion."
majormajor 10y ago
Why is it just hard "on the internet"? And why do people find certain things easier to believe while finding others easier to dismiss as likely exaggeration? If we could find easily-actionable answers to those two questions... sigh.
- gedrap 10y ago
  I'd assume that "on the internet" means hearing only one side ant not witnessing the story yourself.

Fnoord 10y ago

Except its almost never teasing, its bullying. I learned the difference between teasing someone and bullying in elementary school, directly via the education system (ie. the teacher). Repeated 'joke' on/about the same subject? Bullying. Is it mutual fun between/with different subjects, and can the subject themselves laugh about the joke? Teasing. Telling someone to 'shape up' after they heard a joke regarding their race, sex, or something else the umptieth time is nigh annoying, and they will explode internally if they're introvert. People do notice this, and it gives bullies (ie. narcissists) fuel. The extroverts will more clearly defend their boundaries, so bullies tend to stick away from those. I don't know if the subject in this story is introvert, but I do know -and this is a generalisation- Indian women are rather courteous.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I agree with the distinction you're making, but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in. I'm making a general point, and there are plenty of workplaces where "different subjects and people laugh at themselves also" is a perfectly good summary. I also agree that teasing really shouldn't tread on race/sex/etc - even if it's innocently meant it can easily be a topic too raw for human, and too similar to not-at-all-innocent comments. Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!
- optimuspaul 10y ago
  I think they way you know it's "almost never teasing" is that these people are not friends, they are co-workers.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    I don't mean offense, but this comment seems completely insane to me - you are saying that in the majority of cases, anything insulting said among coworkers is meant as an insult rather than good-natured ribbing? I look at the world today and despite an absolutely massive improvement in acceptance of diversity, many so called minorities seem to think things are even worse. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of cultural misunderstanding in play here, whereby "people of color" (I despise that term) have finally achieved pure acceptance to the degree that people feel completely comfortable with them enough to not walk on eggshells in their speech, cultural harmony has finally been completely achieved, but then the informality of speech between close friends is mistakenly taken as an insult, the reaction is holy shit what a bitch, and we're back to where we started. Somewhat naive, of course. Completely wrong - I doubt it.

FrancoDiaz 10y ago

I think it's sometimes important to get in a toxic person's/bully's face. It's a lot easier for a developer who knows she/he will not have a problem finding another job.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I agree - explicitly pointing out and condemning this stuff can make a big difference. I wouldn't focus on confronting the person, though, because I think that rarely influences the individual. What I've seen matter most is making clear in front of others that it's not something people will "let go" or ignore. I fortunately haven't been in this position since I became a developer, but better jobs do offer more leeway in regard to this. The other question, of course, is power dynamics. Calling out a coworker has more potential to help than calling out someone who can fire all their critics without trouble.
thinkmassive 10y ago
For sure, although probably more difficult when you're on a visa and not exactly free to walk if things go south.