4 ms·

I say "no" a lot, or at least "I don't recommend that", and it's usually not appreciated in the USA either, even if I carefully justify it. Related: https://ne

by tabtab 7y ago

I say "no" a lot, or at least "I don't recommend that", and it's usually not appreciated in the USA either, even if I carefully justify it. Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19078308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19078308 For example, our org has been sued twice over ADA issues (accessibility), and my recommendations are still ignored because bosses want pretty eye-candy UI's. The org deserves to be sued again, but then there's no money for servers I need. Stupid humans follow the shiny red ball over the cliff (cue grumbling sounds). Can I try chimps instead?

pkaye 7y ago
I think that is different from what is being talked about. I think it is something called high context/low context culture. I'm no expert of this stuff but I was educated about it in many jobs. Its not like any one way is right. http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html
- tabtab 7y ago
  Okay, I can see that, but it's related in my opinion because even in low-context cultures, the average person is "medium context", using social interactions and concerns as their primary way to communicate and coordinate. Us "logic-striving" (LS) people are really the low-context people in that we wish to clarify and debate assumptions and choices instead of let "the flow of the group" determine that organically and/or socially. Medium context people may make a passing suggestion, but won't challenge it further if the boss says "no". Us LS-ers are more likely to ask for specifics regardless of rank. We believe the merit of an idea should trump rank. High-context: don't challenge authority, except via subtle hints. Medium-context: lightly challenge authority, and quickly back down if counter-challenged. High-context: authority is secondary to idea merit. I do realize a group can waste too much time debating, but even important/common issues often get flattened by social concerns in a typical US office.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Having direct exposure to low and high context cultures, I consider that approach to shallow at best. At worst, it reinforces stereotypes.

by tabtab 7y ago

pkaye 7y ago

I think that is different from what is being talked about. I think it is something called high context/low context culture. I'm no expert of this stuff but I was educated about it in many jobs. Its not like any one way is right. http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html

tabtab 7y ago
Okay, I can see that, but it's related in my opinion because even in low-context cultures, the average person is "medium context", using social interactions and concerns as their primary way to communicate and coordinate. Us "logic-striving" (LS) people are really the low-context people in that we wish to clarify and debate assumptions and choices instead of let "the flow of the group" determine that organically and/or socially. Medium context people may make a passing suggestion, but won't challenge it further if the boss says "no". Us LS-ers are more likely to ask for specifics regardless of rank. We believe the merit of an idea should trump rank. High-context: don't challenge authority, except via subtle hints. Medium-context: lightly challenge authority, and quickly back down if counter-challenged. High-context: authority is secondary to idea merit. I do realize a group can waste too much time debating, but even important/common issues often get flattened by social concerns in a typical US office.
hef19898 7y ago
Having direct exposure to low and high context cultures, I consider that approach to shallow at best. At worst, it reinforces stereotypes.