4 ms·
I don't think this is as simple as you're suggesting. You mention talking over people and interrupting, but there are cultures like my own where that's just how
by SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't think this is as simple as you're suggesting. You mention talking over people and interrupting, but there are cultures like my own where that's just how you have a conversation. In order to fit the "inclusive environment" mold, I have to deliberately suppress my natural speech patterns, making sure I don't ever talk to my coworkers the way I would to my family.
I don't mean to claim this is the biggest problem in the world. If a company thinks they can be a lot more inclusive of other people by being a bit less inclusive of me, that's fine in my book. But it's frustrating to see these kinds of cultural impositions described as though they have no costs or tradeoffs. Cultural mismatches are hard to handle, and we do ourselves no favors by pretending that the solution is obvious.
- marcinzm 6y agoSure but the question was about how a small business can be more inclusive without spending a lot of money. Not how they can be more inclusive without doing anything or changing anything. In the end everything has a cost and it's up to them to decide if it's worth it. The largest cost is that certain people will simply not stop doing these things so you have to decide if firing them is worth the inclusion gains or not.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoMy point is that the idea of "more inclusive" as a unidimensional thing is wrong. Mandating a specific set of speech standards is more inclusive of some people and less inclusive of others. It can often be the right thing to do, but you've gotta bite the bullet and acknowledge the effects on both sides. It's a bit offensive, frankly, to dismiss any culture that's incompatible with the standards you'd prefer as "certain people will simply not stop doing these things".