5 ms·

Not sure whether a management decision to remove the author is helping or hurting the goal to create an environment that isn't intimidating. ..because - compare

by fwn 9y ago

Not sure whether a management decision to remove the author is helping or hurting the goal to create an environment that isn't intimidating. ..because - compared to what was written in the memo - this is a very intimidating thing to do.

cdubzzz 9y ago
This is a tough one. I think it effectively does both (help and hurt), including all the positive and negative fall out of each decision. Intimidating is a strong word for this, I think. I would call it intimidating if the original memo was a challenge to the code of conduct, as opposed to a violation of it. Either way, I agree that other employees could see this as intimidation and that makes the whole situation much more complex. I suppose that ultimately I would not stand 100% in defense of the course of action, but I am also not grabbing my pitchfork over it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tchaffee 9y ago
> this is a very intimidating thing to do. It should be. If violating the CoC has no consequences then there should be no CoC in the first place. The CoC makes it clear that some actions and some types of speech are entirely unwelcome at the company. The memo also makes it clear that if you have a minority viewpoint that does not violate the CoC, then you should be encouraged to express those viewpoints. It even gave specific examples of the parts of the original memo that do not violate the CoC.
- fwn 9y ago
  I do not know their full code of conduct. However, the part referenced by Pichai did not help to decrease uncertainty at all. This is problematic since the toxic effect of uncertainty and ideological supression at the work place is not mitigated by it being produced through arbitrary executives or an executives arbitrary interpretation of some given code of conduct. edit: If the purpose of the code of conduct is to create this uncertainty, than that alone should be reason enough for the code to be improved. edit2: And of course, this specific code of conduct did not generate the legitimicy it should have created, which is why we are talking about this incidence.
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    '...our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”' What's confusing or unclear about that? It's crystal clear to me that Google prioritizes a workplace free of harassment over your individual ideology. If your ideology makes other employees feel harassed or intimidated, you'll have to leave your ideology at home. And if you're not clever enough to understand that a statement in a widespread memo like "women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)" could cause one gender to feel intimidated or harassed, then perhaps you're not clever enough to work at Google.
    - fwn 9y ago
      It could not be much more unclear and I can assure you that this has nothing to do with some googlerian "cleverness". Science is not an ideology or opinion; in a diverse environment, reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play. Exercising an executive bias to intimidate the employees into subscribing to a specific ideology is nothing this code of conduct were able to prevent. The coc could not perform worse measured by it's own goal. It's no service to any code of conduct intention if a code of conduct is treated as some chilling orthodoxy that is used to prevent a communities open dialogue and self awareness.
      - tchaffee 9y ago
        > reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play. "Women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." isn't a reasonable position at Google, or any other big company. If for no other reason, to protect the company from being sued for gender discrimination. Neither are any of the following statements reasonable: "Blacks on average are... [insert some negative]". "Jews on average are... [insert some negative]". If an employee can't figure that out, you should fire them with zero hesitation. Open dialogue at a place of employment has many limits, and it will never be the top priority. If you say something that offends enough other employees, you're going to get fired, and that's not going to change no matter who you work for.

by fwn 9y ago

cdubzzz 9y ago

This is a tough one. I think it effectively does both (help and hurt), including all the positive and negative fall out of each decision. Intimidating is a strong word for this, I think. I would call it intimidating if the original memo was a challenge to the code of conduct, as opposed to a violation of it. Either way, I agree that other employees could see this as intimidation and that makes the whole situation much more complex. I suppose that ultimately I would not stand 100% in defense of the course of action, but I am also not grabbing my pitchfork over it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tchaffee 9y ago

> this is a very intimidating thing to do. It should be. If violating the CoC has no consequences then there should be no CoC in the first place. The CoC makes it clear that some actions and some types of speech are entirely unwelcome at the company. The memo also makes it clear that if you have a minority viewpoint that does not violate the CoC, then you should be encouraged to express those viewpoints. It even gave specific examples of the parts of the original memo that do not violate the CoC.

fwn 9y ago
I do not know their full code of conduct. However, the part referenced by Pichai did not help to decrease uncertainty at all. This is problematic since the toxic effect of uncertainty and ideological supression at the work place is not mitigated by it being produced through arbitrary executives or an executives arbitrary interpretation of some given code of conduct. edit: If the purpose of the code of conduct is to create this uncertainty, than that alone should be reason enough for the code to be improved. edit2: And of course, this specific code of conduct did not generate the legitimicy it should have created, which is why we are talking about this incidence.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  '...our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”' What's confusing or unclear about that? It's crystal clear to me that Google prioritizes a workplace free of harassment over your individual ideology. If your ideology makes other employees feel harassed or intimidated, you'll have to leave your ideology at home. And if you're not clever enough to understand that a statement in a widespread memo like "women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)" could cause one gender to feel intimidated or harassed, then perhaps you're not clever enough to work at Google.
  - fwn 9y ago
    It could not be much more unclear and I can assure you that this has nothing to do with some googlerian "cleverness". Science is not an ideology or opinion; in a diverse environment, reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play. Exercising an executive bias to intimidate the employees into subscribing to a specific ideology is nothing this code of conduct were able to prevent. The coc could not perform worse measured by it's own goal. It's no service to any code of conduct intention if a code of conduct is treated as some chilling orthodoxy that is used to prevent a communities open dialogue and self awareness.
    - tchaffee 9y ago
      > reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play. "Women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." isn't a reasonable position at Google, or any other big company. If for no other reason, to protect the company from being sued for gender discrimination. Neither are any of the following statements reasonable: "Blacks on average are... [insert some negative]". "Jews on average are... [insert some negative]". If an employee can't figure that out, you should fire them with zero hesitation. Open dialogue at a place of employment has many limits, and it will never be the top priority. If you say something that offends enough other employees, you're going to get fired, and that's not going to change no matter who you work for.