4 ms·

> "You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity... is acknowledged or valued in this company," she said in th

by akarma 6y ago

> "You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity... is acknowledged or valued in this company," she said in the email. "Stop writing your documents because it doesn't make a difference." This was the email she sent, as a manager at the company.

actuator 6y ago
She might be really great at her work but personally I would never want to work with someone like this. Even if the current issue gets resolved, this will just sow acrimony for future.
whimsicalism 6y ago
WOW what a misleading quote. Here's the full paragraph that that is from: > Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week, Nov. 27, the week when almost everyone would be out (and a date which has nothing to do with the conference process). You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity (let alone expertise recognized by journalists, governments, scientists, civic organizations such as the electronic frontiers foundation etc) is acknowledged or valued in this company.
- akarma 6y ago
  Thank you for the full quote, it does give it much more perspective! (It wasn't in the linked article). If a manager within the company wants to publicly express her frustration with leadership, then this is an alright message to send — leaving aside the very implicative final sentence. It still seems reasonable to fire anyone who sends such a message to their colleagues rather than working through the office's politics more quietly, but it also seems reasonable for staff to protest and rally behind that person in support of them.
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    It still seems reasonable to fire anyone who sends such a message to their colleagues rather than working through the office's politics more quietly Can you unpack this a bit? Several employers, past and present have encouraged employees to communicate and attempt to resolve conflicts (presumably, maybe ostensibly, giving them opportunities to work it out as adults and professionals) amongst employees first as the first actionable steps. In fact, current employer has this as a point of policy for interpersonal conflicts barring severe enough circumstances where a reasonable person would say "yes this requires intervention from on high". That said, why should it be any different in a situation such as this? I feel there may be context to your suggestion that isn't fully stated here-as to why it's reasonable to fire someone over this. Maybe there are implied parameters of just how egregious a situation has to be in your opinion that I didn't intimately tune into? To me the final sentence reads as a continuation of the hypothetical the author is asking the reader to consider, as a metaphor for the treatment she experienced, not a direct j'accuse to the reader/recipient.
    - akarma 6y ago
      > In fact, current employer has this as a point of policy for interpersonal conflicts barring severe enough circumstances where a reasonable person would say "yes this requires intervention from on high". I completely agree with you, but what happened here was that this manager sent this email to a large group of employees, not the specific employees she had the issue with (which would be fine!). This email wasn't an attempt at conflict resolution, it was sharing how upset she was, at her manager, with a bunch of coworkers. For the last sentence: in the event where one wants to complain to a large group of coworkers, I think it's pertinent to stick to the basic, unarguable facts of what occurred. Suggesting that you've been dehumanized by the company is adding fuel to a fire that you should instead be aiming to resolve privately, if you want to continue to work at the company.
      - dvtrn 6y ago
        And so then, this is immediately fireable? Not knowing Google's policy for corrective management, I then go back to my original question and taking in your response, why would it be reasonable to fire an individual over this? or Is it perhaps in fact more reasonable to fire them using this and other behavioral or disciplinary incidents? Of which-I must say, in terms this Googler, none of us are privy to
- laretluval 6y ago
  The context is helpful; it shows that her claim is even more unjustified. While it sounds difficult for her, I can't imagine how Google's behavior here amounts to not acknowledging someone's humanity.

by akarma 6y ago

actuator 6y ago

She might be really great at her work but personally I would never want to work with someone like this. Even if the current issue gets resolved, this will just sow acrimony for future.

whimsicalism 6y ago

WOW what a misleading quote. Here's the full paragraph that that is from: > Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week, Nov. 27, the week when almost everyone would be out (and a date which has nothing to do with the conference process). You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity (let alone expertise recognized by journalists, governments, scientists, civic organizations such as the electronic frontiers foundation etc) is acknowledged or valued in this company.

akarma 6y ago
Thank you for the full quote, it does give it much more perspective! (It wasn't in the linked article). If a manager within the company wants to publicly express her frustration with leadership, then this is an alright message to send — leaving aside the very implicative final sentence. It still seems reasonable to fire anyone who sends such a message to their colleagues rather than working through the office's politics more quietly, but it also seems reasonable for staff to protest and rally behind that person in support of them.
- dvtrn 6y ago
  It still seems reasonable to fire anyone who sends such a message to their colleagues rather than working through the office's politics more quietly Can you unpack this a bit? Several employers, past and present have encouraged employees to communicate and attempt to resolve conflicts (presumably, maybe ostensibly, giving them opportunities to work it out as adults and professionals) amongst employees first as the first actionable steps. In fact, current employer has this as a point of policy for interpersonal conflicts barring severe enough circumstances where a reasonable person would say "yes this requires intervention from on high". That said, why should it be any different in a situation such as this? I feel there may be context to your suggestion that isn't fully stated here-as to why it's reasonable to fire someone over this. Maybe there are implied parameters of just how egregious a situation has to be in your opinion that I didn't intimately tune into? To me the final sentence reads as a continuation of the hypothetical the author is asking the reader to consider, as a metaphor for the treatment she experienced, not a direct j'accuse to the reader/recipient.
  - akarma 6y ago
    > In fact, current employer has this as a point of policy for interpersonal conflicts barring severe enough circumstances where a reasonable person would say "yes this requires intervention from on high". I completely agree with you, but what happened here was that this manager sent this email to a large group of employees, not the specific employees she had the issue with (which would be fine!). This email wasn't an attempt at conflict resolution, it was sharing how upset she was, at her manager, with a bunch of coworkers. For the last sentence: in the event where one wants to complain to a large group of coworkers, I think it's pertinent to stick to the basic, unarguable facts of what occurred. Suggesting that you've been dehumanized by the company is adding fuel to a fire that you should instead be aiming to resolve privately, if you want to continue to work at the company.
    - dvtrn 6y ago
      And so then, this is immediately fireable? Not knowing Google's policy for corrective management, I then go back to my original question and taking in your response, why would it be reasonable to fire an individual over this? or Is it perhaps in fact more reasonable to fire them using this and other behavioral or disciplinary incidents? Of which-I must say, in terms this Googler, none of us are privy to
laretluval 6y ago
The context is helpful; it shows that her claim is even more unjustified. While it sounds difficult for her, I can't imagine how Google's behavior here amounts to not acknowledging someone's humanity.