4 ms·

I think the wording you used was "non-work related" - it was very much related to something that happened at work.

by tomlockwood 6y ago

markmark 6y ago
The name list was, but that comment calls out "repeated, worsening incidents".
- tomlockwood 6y ago
  If I was a manager trying to justify a disproportionate decision, I may very well say that there were other incidents - that will remain confidential - that also supported the same decision. Of course, like DHH says, there may have been other incidents. I am very keen to hear about those ones, too, since initially the response to the names list seemed disproportionate.
shagie 6y ago
> In fact, reviewing the original list in question, the vast majority of names on it fall into the category of the two specific examples above. It's not a list of, say, primarily Asian names. Out of the 78 names listed on the last version we were able to recover, just 6 names appear to be Asian. > So connecting this to the shootings in Atlanta, because the Asian victims of that atrocity had their names misspelled in news reports, is exactly the kind of linkage I'd like us to avoid when we analyze our mistakes together at work. It needlessly creates this extremely high-stakes environment where inappropriately making fun of a name like [customer name of nordic heritage] can be rendered as part of some larger narrative of colonialism and racism that it just does not merit. Discussing the shootings in Atlanta is not work related. Trying to connect the misspelling of the names of the victims in Atlanta to the name list and "some larger narrative of colonialism and racism" is something that doesn't belong in work. Which brings us to: > This was the second such discussion in a few months that had to be closed out following an acrimonious devolution that pitted employees against each other, and stressed these complicated power dynamics between managers and reports, all on a company-wide stage that invariably pulled everyone into the spectacle. Arguing about colonialism and racism on company boards stemming from an act of violence that the company was not involved in in any way, shape, or form - that doesn't belong on company related discussion forms. Using the 'best name list' to try to make this linkage just makes things worse when HR is finally called in to say "cool it." It is not work related. When HR is called in to say "cool it" repeatedly in more and more acrimonious subjects, it is the place for the leadership to do something to change the tone of discussions at work and put limits on what work related politics is.

I think the wording you used was "non-work related" - it was very much related to something that happened at work.

markmark 6y ago

The name list was, but that comment calls out "repeated, worsening incidents".

tomlockwood 6y ago
If I was a manager trying to justify a disproportionate decision, I may very well say that there were other incidents - that will remain confidential - that also supported the same decision. Of course, like DHH says, there may have been other incidents. I am very keen to hear about those ones, too, since initially the response to the names list seemed disproportionate.

shagie 6y ago

> In fact, reviewing the original list in question, the vast majority of names on it fall into the category of the two specific examples above. It's not a list of, say, primarily Asian names. Out of the 78 names listed on the last version we were able to recover, just 6 names appear to be Asian. > So connecting this to the shootings in Atlanta, because the Asian victims of that atrocity had their names misspelled in news reports, is exactly the kind of linkage I'd like us to avoid when we analyze our mistakes together at work. It needlessly creates this extremely high-stakes environment where inappropriately making fun of a name like [customer name of nordic heritage] can be rendered as part of some larger narrative of colonialism and racism that it just does not merit. Discussing the shootings in Atlanta is not work related. Trying to connect the misspelling of the names of the victims in Atlanta to the name list and "some larger narrative of colonialism and racism" is something that doesn't belong in work. Which brings us to: > This was the second such discussion in a few months that had to be closed out following an acrimonious devolution that pitted employees against each other, and stressed these complicated power dynamics between managers and reports, all on a company-wide stage that invariably pulled everyone into the spectacle. Arguing about colonialism and racism on company boards stemming from an act of violence that the company was not involved in in any way, shape, or form - that doesn't belong on company related discussion forms. Using the 'best name list' to try to make this linkage just makes things worse when HR is finally called in to say "cool it." It is not work related. When HR is called in to say "cool it" repeatedly in more and more acrimonious subjects, it is the place for the leadership to do something to change the tone of discussions at work and put limits on what work related politics is.