5 ms·
What? you are saying only young single men are willing to work hard and actually function autonomously? That is so offensive I can't fathom you actually believe
by coloroftheskye 8y ago
What? you are saying only young single men are willing to work hard and actually function autonomously? That is so offensive I can't fathom you actually believe that.
- joshuahedlund 8y agoI read the comment not as saying that other people are not willing to work hard and function autonomously, but rather that they may have a harder time than the OP did transferring those capabilities into the right practical activities for the success of the company without review/feedback, and if that is not recognized, their lack of success could be incorrectly interpreted as a lack of willingness to work hard or ability to function autonomously, rather than a lack of the same background that allowed the OP to apply the same capabilities without review/feedback.
- nkassis 8y agoNo I think OP means that the stereotype for what managers expects it looks like usually match that profile. Not that, it's what that takes to "work hard and actually function autonomously"
- wongarsu 8y agoHe never said “only“. For his argument to be true it's enough that the features are more prevalent among young single men, and me didn't say more than that. The work ethic in question involves “long hours and self learning“ self learning implies that it probably also happens outside work hours. People who are in a relationship are obviously less likely to work long hours and self learn in their free time. Statistically, young people are also far more willing to do long hours. I'm a bit torn on bringing gender into it. Women are more likely to work half time, but I would expect them to be better at predicting needs (yes, I'm aware that's potentially sexist). So basically I find everything very reasonable if you assume he didn't mean the worst possible interpretation. I don't see the gender bias, but I'm sure there are arguments I'm not aware of.
- exelius 8y ago*she But gender is only a part of it; unconscious bias is intersectional just like identity. The fewer intersectional traits you share with someone, the greater the cultural gap you have to cover. More formality at work in terms of expectations and progress provides a clear way to cover that gap.
- exelius 8y agoNot that they’re the only ones willing; but they are overwhelmingly the only ones capable of operating in the way OP describes due to a variety of societal pressures, lack of family attachment, confidence/ego, etc. Other people are certainly willing and able to work hard and independently, but you do have to provide more formal guidance because you cannot expect someone living in a different cultural context to meet all the standards you hold yourself to. There may simply be a misunderstanding, and because I guarantee the employee would be acutely aware of the understanding gap, it’s on the manager to be aware of it as well. Informality has a lot of benefits, but it’s also necessarily exclusive to people who don’t know the unwritten, informal rules under which you operate. This can and will lead to a homogeneous team that seems productive from the inside, but may miss other goals because they’re just unaware of them.
- dokem 8y agoYou act as if others' opinions should not offend you. I happen to find you're misinterpretation of the parent comment offensive. See how it doesn't matter?
- Sir_Substance 8y ago>but forced myself to deliver results autonomously through self-teaching and long hours. He's saying that it's harder to compete on self-teaching and long hours if you also, say, have a child that you're trying to teach good values to and need to pick up from school at 3:30pm during the week. Which is a reasonable critique of the parent post, IMO.
- throwaway5752 8y agoI agree with you completely and am flabbergasted you're being downvoted on an ostensibly startup-oriented forum. The comment you replied to managed to be ageist and sexist, too.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago> am flabbergasted .... I'm not. HN is a sausagefest. Just remember to add in some virtue signalling every now and then, and it's OK.
- watwut 8y agoHe is saying that people with different background a.) won't be able to guess right what is the thing to learn that will give them advantage later on and would benefit feedback b.) have less free time to play around and thus will perform better if you don't expect tell them to figure via trial and error what is needed. Through, my experience with this organizational style was bad, mostly because people ended in quite ugly competitive behavior. Mostly due to rules being unclear, resentment being build up, people choosing highly visible tasks instead of needed tasks and so on and so forth.a lot of insecurity everywhere. There were also a lot of of random attempts by random colleguess to take control and micromanage random people+responsibilities in attempt to look like natural leaders. Did I mentioned insecurity? Someone tring to look like autonomous leader while being completely insecure about limits of his responsibilities and powers is highly unpleasant to work with. You deal with politics like 80% of time as result.
- andrei_says_ 8y agoI think the issue is that many managers and business owners do believe that and confirmation bias leads them to never challenging their own beliefs. It is an unquestioned, invisible belief, which may bring up defensiveness when pointed out, as it is no longer (as) politically correct. As we are sloooowly transitioning from institutionalized sexism, it becomes obvious how a premise which is offensive to someone who sees and values everyone’s contribution and dignity could be seen as naive or outlandish by people carrying unquestioned old beliefs. It sucks that this takes as long as it does.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- CameronBanga 8y agoI think the key in the OP's sentence is "who are otherwise unencumbered". There's a significant amount of privilege in our society for white males, which makes it much easier for the group to offer their employer long hours with initially less pay, etc.