3 ms·

I'm not entirely sure I subscribe to this "behavior based" vs "merit based" look at job performance. Consider this criterion: > 1. After encountering the pers

I'm not entirely sure I subscribe to this "behavior based" vs "merit based" look at job performance. Consider this criterion: > 1. After encountering the person, do people feel oppressed, humiliated or otherwise worse about themselves? Bob and Mary are staunch members of <opposing political parties>. While they never discuss it at work, Mary deeply resents the views Bob posts on social media. During a code review, Bob is bluntly critical of Mary's code. Mary perceives this to be related to their political differences, and feels oppressed. Mary files a complaint with HR. Bob claims he is being objective, and targeted for his political views. Others are hesitant to criticize Mary's code, lest they be lumped into a "tolerance witch hunt". If you want to talk about performance, it should be objective, not subjective. Anything else opens the door to drama. Yes, "jerks" create issues. But making a rule that says "no jerks" will not solve those problems. It might even make things worse.

jhjwe888 9y ago
Yeah there's a question here that isn't being asked (probably many really): Are people feeling that way because of the interaction, or because of buried bias or unresolved emotional issues? I'd rather we advocate for improving our mental health benefits and access, and really bring these things to fore front. Not have armchair experts in the topic peddle half felt/considered examples simply because they want to be left alone to focus on their fetishes. These sort of things feel like a "us v them." Corporate wants to make money, so corporate is going to push casting emotional non-conformists aside. That might help corporate operate more efficiently, but it's not helping humanity. IMO, as a non-expert in mental health kind of disappointing that Brendan Gregg is saying these things. All these wonderfully successful people who have society as a whole to thank for a lot of it, want nothing to do with a conversation on improving society if it is a distraction FOR THEM.
sidlls 9y ago
Performance is rarely objectively measurable for anything but highly quantifiable, usually low-skill work.
sah2ed 9y ago
> Bob and Mary are staunch members of <political party>. While they never discuss it at work, Mary deeply resents the views Bob posts on social media. I'm assuming Bob and Mary are members of opposing political parties? Even if that is not the case, is it really mandatory to friend/follow co-workers' stream of consciousness on social media? Wouldn't it be more productive (from Mary's perspective) to segment professional from personal views by not actively following someone who's personal views she has disagreed with in the past, to keep all future interactions focused on work-related topics?
- bjt2n3904 9y ago
  Correct, I meant to say opposing political parties. I suppose my point is: criticism and being a jerk are orthogonal in theory, but in practice it's much more difficult. Making a rule that says, you can get someone fired if they hurt your feelings gives disproportionate power to anyone with thin skin.

jhjwe888 9y ago

Yeah there's a question here that isn't being asked (probably many really): Are people feeling that way because of the interaction, or because of buried bias or unresolved emotional issues? I'd rather we advocate for improving our mental health benefits and access, and really bring these things to fore front. Not have armchair experts in the topic peddle half felt/considered examples simply because they want to be left alone to focus on their fetishes. These sort of things feel like a "us v them." Corporate wants to make money, so corporate is going to push casting emotional non-conformists aside. That might help corporate operate more efficiently, but it's not helping humanity. IMO, as a non-expert in mental health kind of disappointing that Brendan Gregg is saying these things. All these wonderfully successful people who have society as a whole to thank for a lot of it, want nothing to do with a conversation on improving society if it is a distraction FOR THEM.

sidlls 9y ago

Performance is rarely objectively measurable for anything but highly quantifiable, usually low-skill work.

sah2ed 9y ago

> Bob and Mary are staunch members of <political party>. While they never discuss it at work, Mary deeply resents the views Bob posts on social media. I'm assuming Bob and Mary are members of opposing political parties? Even if that is not the case, is it really mandatory to friend/follow co-workers' stream of consciousness on social media? Wouldn't it be more productive (from Mary's perspective) to segment professional from personal views by not actively following someone who's personal views she has disagreed with in the past, to keep all future interactions focused on work-related topics?

bjt2n3904 9y ago
Correct, I meant to say opposing political parties. I suppose my point is: criticism and being a jerk are orthogonal in theory, but in practice it's much more difficult. Making a rule that says, you can get someone fired if they hurt your feelings gives disproportionate power to anyone with thin skin.