5 ms·

My opinion on the matter is that RC was unfairly heavy handed. The cost (to everyone) of booting the individual out was greater than the cost of the RC buddy sa

My opinion on the matter is that RC was unfairly heavy handed. The cost (to everyone) of booting the individual out was greater than the cost of the RC buddy saying “hey, pay attention, these meetings are required; this is what you missed...” I don’t know the author’s disposition but I can imagine many personalities and circumstances where getting kicked out of this program would be devastating, emotionally or otherwise, especially if one planned for such a long “retreat” away from ordinary life. When I asked my friends about the article, I was surprised to find opinions ranging from matching my own, to the opposite (“minimal tolerance for rule-breaking is justified in university environments to deal with unruly”). I never really investigated RC’s values and mission too deeply, but I always imagined they wanted to attract participants from truly diverse walks of life—intellectual, emotional, and economic. While it’s clear the author missed the 7am meeting because he goofed, I could imagine other individuals who would have missed because (for example) they have children and didn’t sleep, or they have depression and slept too much. It seems to me that zero-tolerance negatively affects such individuals, and pushes them out of programs like these.

Mirioron 6y ago
This single anecdote would make me reconsider taking part in something like that. If you have to quit your job to reasonably participate in it and they run it this way, then why would you take the risk of joining? I'm quite surprised the author still had a positive view of them after that.
- lukevp 6y ago
  Agreed, this drastically changed my opinion of Recurse.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
detaro 6y ago
They're also asking "hey, go without a job/just find some income for another 6 weeks" (and if they instead were taking a "sabbatical" or time off, shifting that for 6 weeks might also not be easy with their employer). Requiring to delay is a pretty tall order for a full-time program that's running 6-12 weeks (so not something easily fit in holidays etc), and pretty likely instead throwing them out completely.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Some perspective is required to understand RC's decision here. If you only view this from the perspective of the author, it feels unfair that the RC would impose harsh consequences for not reading an e-mail. In theory, his situation could have been fixed by having the staff carve extra time out of their schedules to individually handle his onboarding at a later time and go through the work of bringing him up to speed with everyone else, right? Consider this from your own perspective: Have you ever had your manager stop by your desk with a last-minute requirement that they forgot to mention? Or a new feature they forgot to put in the requirements document? How does it feel when they ask "Can't you just take 5 minutes and do this for me?" even though you have other important priorities and you know it will end up taking 1-2 hours out of your already busy schedule? It's not fair that you pay the price for someone else not following procedure. It's not fair that your other work must be de-prioritized just because your boss wants this done ASAP for their own benefit. That's the problem. Catering to the author is not a zero-cost activity for the organization. The staff is likely already busy sticking to their schedules and working with all of the people who followed the rules and showed up on time. They'd be taking time away from the people who read their e-mail to give 1:1 instruction to the person who did not. There are second-order consequences to consider, as well. If you start granting exceptions to a new group of people on day 1 for missing meetings and not reading your e-mail, word gets around. You send a signal that meetings are optional, reading e-mail is optional, and skipping required events is okay as long as you follow up with the staff later. From experience, the reality of situations like this is that some people can't be bothered to follow the rules unless there are negative consequences in place. As soon as you send a signal to everyone that there are no consequences, some fraction of your team will start pushing boundaries in more places. Speaking from experience organizing similar situations: Granting exceptions and doing 1:1 catchup in a program like this is never as easy at it sounds from the other side. It's better to focus on delivering the best experience to the people who follow the rules rather than allocating disproportionate 1:1 time to the people who can't, unless you really have excess idle time or excess staffing. In reality, it's far more likely that everyone is already overloaded and overworked.
- wonder_er 6y ago
  Don't both sides have to be understanding of the other's? > Speaking from experience organizing similar situations: Granting exceptions and doing 1:1 catchup in a program like this is never as easy at it sounds from the other side. This is absolutely true! But forcing the author to drop out of the program because he missed a meeting is acting like his _life_ is of no importance to someone at RC's convenience. RC made a mistake in their onboarding. The author demonstrated good intent and a desire to fulfill his side of the obligation. For a variety of reasons, a message was not communicated. To say it a different way: RC failed to communicate effectively RC probably should apply an expensive band-aid fix to the problem (1:1 instruction to someone who missed a critical meeting) and then re-evaluate how they communicate going forward so it doesn't happen again. Acting like this is an individual failing instead of a system failing is a sign of ENORMOUS organizational ill-health. RC made a mistake, and instead of bearing some of the burden of the mistake, they're harming _the person who was harmed by their error_. When I make a mistake, I try to fix it. If I blamed the person who was hurt by my mistake, you'd consider me to be sociopathic. RC's behavior is sociopathic at an organizational level.

Mirioron 6y ago

This single anecdote would make me reconsider taking part in something like that. If you have to quit your job to reasonably participate in it and they run it this way, then why would you take the risk of joining? I'm quite surprised the author still had a positive view of them after that.

lukevp 6y ago
Agreed, this drastically changed my opinion of Recurse.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

detaro 6y ago

They're also asking "hey, go without a job/just find some income for another 6 weeks" (and if they instead were taking a "sabbatical" or time off, shifting that for 6 weeks might also not be easy with their employer). Requiring to delay is a pretty tall order for a full-time program that's running 6-12 weeks (so not something easily fit in holidays etc), and pretty likely instead throwing them out completely.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

Some perspective is required to understand RC's decision here. If you only view this from the perspective of the author, it feels unfair that the RC would impose harsh consequences for not reading an e-mail. In theory, his situation could have been fixed by having the staff carve extra time out of their schedules to individually handle his onboarding at a later time and go through the work of bringing him up to speed with everyone else, right? Consider this from your own perspective: Have you ever had your manager stop by your desk with a last-minute requirement that they forgot to mention? Or a new feature they forgot to put in the requirements document? How does it feel when they ask "Can't you just take 5 minutes and do this for me?" even though you have other important priorities and you know it will end up taking 1-2 hours out of your already busy schedule? It's not fair that you pay the price for someone else not following procedure. It's not fair that your other work must be de-prioritized just because your boss wants this done ASAP for their own benefit. That's the problem. Catering to the author is not a zero-cost activity for the organization. The staff is likely already busy sticking to their schedules and working with all of the people who followed the rules and showed up on time. They'd be taking time away from the people who read their e-mail to give 1:1 instruction to the person who did not. There are second-order consequences to consider, as well. If you start granting exceptions to a new group of people on day 1 for missing meetings and not reading your e-mail, word gets around. You send a signal that meetings are optional, reading e-mail is optional, and skipping required events is okay as long as you follow up with the staff later. From experience, the reality of situations like this is that some people can't be bothered to follow the rules unless there are negative consequences in place. As soon as you send a signal to everyone that there are no consequences, some fraction of your team will start pushing boundaries in more places. Speaking from experience organizing similar situations: Granting exceptions and doing 1:1 catchup in a program like this is never as easy at it sounds from the other side. It's better to focus on delivering the best experience to the people who follow the rules rather than allocating disproportionate 1:1 time to the people who can't, unless you really have excess idle time or excess staffing. In reality, it's far more likely that everyone is already overloaded and overworked.

wonder_er 6y ago
Don't both sides have to be understanding of the other's? > Speaking from experience organizing similar situations: Granting exceptions and doing 1:1 catchup in a program like this is never as easy at it sounds from the other side. This is absolutely true! But forcing the author to drop out of the program because he missed a meeting is acting like his _life_ is of no importance to someone at RC's convenience. RC made a mistake in their onboarding. The author demonstrated good intent and a desire to fulfill his side of the obligation. For a variety of reasons, a message was not communicated. To say it a different way: RC failed to communicate effectively RC probably should apply an expensive band-aid fix to the problem (1:1 instruction to someone who missed a critical meeting) and then re-evaluate how they communicate going forward so it doesn't happen again. Acting like this is an individual failing instead of a system failing is a sign of ENORMOUS organizational ill-health. RC made a mistake, and instead of bearing some of the burden of the mistake, they're harming _the person who was harmed by their error_. When I make a mistake, I try to fix it. If I blamed the person who was hurt by my mistake, you'd consider me to be sociopathic. RC's behavior is sociopathic at an organizational level.