4 ms·

This didn't ever really get to the "Why?" part. It just basically says that the opposite is stupid. My theory: humans behave differently, and generally more

by wheels 15y ago

This didn't ever really get to the "Why?" part. It just basically says that the opposite is stupid. My theory: humans behave differently, and generally more civilly, in environments where they (subconsciously) believe they have a chance of meeting a partner. Heck, part of the reason I went to a liberal arts school instead of a technical school was the fact that 4 years in an 80% male environment (which was the case at the specific school that was in the front-running) sounded rather drab. What's actually unclear to me is if those social dynamics, as opposed to the, let's call them "football team" dynamics, objectively produce better results in a startup. It may be that the sort of bravado that emerges in football-team-ish environments is useful to a startup. But then to swing the hypothetical pendelum again, it might be easier to hire for a company that's more enjoyable to work at, even if the things that made it enjoyable would be a net minus in isolation. I'd posit that it is somewhat variable on the specific set of folks working there; i.e. some employees would flourish in one environment and others in its converse.

americandesi333 15y ago
Sorry to hear that you chose your 4 years of school based on meeting someone from the opp gender. Hoped that worked out for you :) Have to say that your theory seems shortsighted to me and does not apply to top performers of either genders, especially if you look at professional environment. I have met quite a few women who go into certain educational path to meet partners (medical school is a good example), but they are not passionate about the field and therefore, never become the top performers. On the other hand, if you look at top performing women in startups, they are passionate about their work and are not there to find partners. A startup should hire talent regardless of their gender... being a woman myself in the tech field, I dont want to be hired because a startup is trying to cultivate a 'enjoyable' work environment. Its about who brings the chops to the table.
- wheels 15y ago
  That's a straw-man. I didn't say that: • I, or anyone should go into a particular field to meet potential partners • That the women or men whom are at the top of their field chose those fields to meet partners • That people should be hired because of their gender irrespective of their qualifications I said that people behave differently in environments where the subconscious flips a switch that says, "You are now in an environment where you may meet a potential partner." Which is quite different. Do you genuinely believe that universally top-performers behave identically in mixed vs. single gender environments? The basic thesis of the article was that work cultures can be structured in such as to produce a more egalitarian environment without compromising on the quality of employees. The question asked is then why a company would want to do so. Again, my proposition is simply that given that assumption, that a more egalitarian environment is a more pleasant workplace, at least for some subset of employees which includes folks like myself.
  - americandesi333 15y ago
    I don't think you are propagating that others should follow the path you chose to take, but your theory does sound flawed to me. Here is a better way to put why a company should promote egalitarian work culture: Men and women generally (not always) bring different perspectives in approaching similar problems. If you are a startup launching new products, this provides you an ability to take in different view points and collaborate to figure out the best path. Therefore, its in best advantage to have top notch women on your team, not just because it creates a 'pleasant' workplace environment, but it will help you succeed. To answer the top-performers behavior question, I am sure there is a difference in behavior in mixed vs. single gender environment and I think the reason for that is they now have a set of individuals amongst them with different perspectives, thats it :)
- jcc80 15y ago
  "Heck, part of the reason..." "Sorry to hear that you chose your 4 years of school based on meeting someone from the opp gender." You have people skills. edit: quotes
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - americandesi333 15y ago
    You are mixing my quotes with the previous commenter's
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deepGem 15y ago
  All said and done - it's fun to work with talented women :). Hiring women just for 'joy' factor is crap. There's one more quality - with the right input, women tend to foster team building and sharing qualities not only in themselves but in their fellow co-workers as well. In a high pressure work environment, this can work wonders.
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  Sorry to hear that you chose your 4 years of school based on meeting someone from the opp gender. Hoped that worked out for you :) I think you don't quite understand how "top-performers" function in human society. There are numerous formal studies that show that charisma and sex appeal have much more to do with one's career prospects than their skill and education. Not trying to say that skill doesn't matter - but social skills matter more than technical - we can bitch all we want, but thats how world works and we better adapt to the best of our abilities. I have seen from numerous anecdotal examples how top performing men tend to advance their careers through women in the workplace - be an ass to the ladies and you won't get anywhere. "Work" the ladies - and they will make you king of the world.
  - americandesi333 15y ago
    Just to clarify, I never said that top-performers are driven by 'skills and education'. I said that they are driven by 'passion' for their area of work. That means they will go above and beyond to learn more, they are innovators and are willing to take risks. And yes I agree that charisma does have a secondary role in making them a 'top performer' as you mentioned!
lwhi 15y ago
I'm sorry, but this is a sexist point of view. Your argument seems to be "hire women so the men have a chance of a date, they'll be much more well behaved as a result."
- erydo 15y ago
  Wait, why is that sexist? A proposition that mixed-gender groups behaved differently than homogeneous groups doesn't ring any alarm bells for me.
  - lwhi 15y ago
    Because women should be hired for their skills. Not because they provide a good 'mix' to compliment the men on a team. To think otherwise is patronising, condescending; and as a result, sexist. Edit: I'm genuinely shocked by the number of comments that contain a latent sexist pretext. Maybe I've been brought up in an overly liberal environment, but I find it pretty horrendous nevertheless.
    - jcc80 15y ago
      So, if we have a group of people that, are broadly speaking, all the same type and we think adding someone with a different set of characteristics will lead to the group performing better as a whole...we shouldn't do that? We should instead higher the "best" individual regardless of how it impacts the group? The goal is to get the most productivity from the team/group. Sometimes that means hiring for attitude over aptitude or ...oh yes, diversity - be it race, gender, degree, life experiences, etc.
    - wheels 15y ago
      That's because you're on a witch hunt. You put words in my mouth and then branded me a sexist based on that. So, here's the thing. I actually consider myself a feminist. I've been outspoken in the past on things like believing that the gender gap in computer science and IT is primarily a consequence of social conditioning and that people should be evaluated and valued within an organization based on their qualifications and not based on their gender. As such, I'm a bit uneasy with the premise of the article -- that work environments can and should be made more "girl friendly" (insofar as that goes beyond not tolerating overt sexism). But that premise came from the article, not from me. Personally, I'm conflicted there and could argue both sides. But, if we run with that premise, and try to answer the question in the title, I find it an impressive stretch to read sexism into saying, "I find mixed gender work environments more pleasant than single-gender environments."
lotharbot 15y ago
> "humans behave differently, and generally more civilly, in environments where they (subconsciously) believe they have a chance of meeting a partner." I already have a partner. That changes the dynamics, too. The "football team" and "singles bar" both have their own strengths and weaknesses. So does the dynamic you get when your whole team is married with kids -- some employees are going to really flourish in that environment, too.

by wheels 15y ago

americandesi333 15y ago

Sorry to hear that you chose your 4 years of school based on meeting someone from the opp gender. Hoped that worked out for you :) Have to say that your theory seems shortsighted to me and does not apply to top performers of either genders, especially if you look at professional environment. I have met quite a few women who go into certain educational path to meet partners (medical school is a good example), but they are not passionate about the field and therefore, never become the top performers. On the other hand, if you look at top performing women in startups, they are passionate about their work and are not there to find partners. A startup should hire talent regardless of their gender... being a woman myself in the tech field, I dont want to be hired because a startup is trying to cultivate a 'enjoyable' work environment. Its about who brings the chops to the table.

wheels 15y ago
That's a straw-man. I didn't say that: • I, or anyone should go into a particular field to meet potential partners • That the women or men whom are at the top of their field chose those fields to meet partners • That people should be hired because of their gender irrespective of their qualifications I said that people behave differently in environments where the subconscious flips a switch that says, "You are now in an environment where you may meet a potential partner." Which is quite different. Do you genuinely believe that universally top-performers behave identically in mixed vs. single gender environments? The basic thesis of the article was that work cultures can be structured in such as to produce a more egalitarian environment without compromising on the quality of employees. The question asked is then why a company would want to do so. Again, my proposition is simply that given that assumption, that a more egalitarian environment is a more pleasant workplace, at least for some subset of employees which includes folks like myself.
- americandesi333 15y ago
  I don't think you are propagating that others should follow the path you chose to take, but your theory does sound flawed to me. Here is a better way to put why a company should promote egalitarian work culture: Men and women generally (not always) bring different perspectives in approaching similar problems. If you are a startup launching new products, this provides you an ability to take in different view points and collaborate to figure out the best path. Therefore, its in best advantage to have top notch women on your team, not just because it creates a 'pleasant' workplace environment, but it will help you succeed. To answer the top-performers behavior question, I am sure there is a difference in behavior in mixed vs. single gender environment and I think the reason for that is they now have a set of individuals amongst them with different perspectives, thats it :)
jcc80 15y ago
"Heck, part of the reason..." "Sorry to hear that you chose your 4 years of school based on meeting someone from the opp gender." You have people skills. edit: quotes
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- americandesi333 15y ago
  You are mixing my quotes with the previous commenter's
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deepGem 15y ago
All said and done - it's fun to work with talented women :). Hiring women just for 'joy' factor is crap. There's one more quality - with the right input, women tend to foster team building and sharing qualities not only in themselves but in their fellow co-workers as well. In a high pressure work environment, this can work wonders.
JanezStupar 15y ago
Sorry to hear that you chose your 4 years of school based on meeting someone from the opp gender. Hoped that worked out for you :) I think you don't quite understand how "top-performers" function in human society. There are numerous formal studies that show that charisma and sex appeal have much more to do with one's career prospects than their skill and education. Not trying to say that skill doesn't matter - but social skills matter more than technical - we can bitch all we want, but thats how world works and we better adapt to the best of our abilities. I have seen from numerous anecdotal examples how top performing men tend to advance their careers through women in the workplace - be an ass to the ladies and you won't get anywhere. "Work" the ladies - and they will make you king of the world.
- americandesi333 15y ago
  Just to clarify, I never said that top-performers are driven by 'skills and education'. I said that they are driven by 'passion' for their area of work. That means they will go above and beyond to learn more, they are innovators and are willing to take risks. And yes I agree that charisma does have a secondary role in making them a 'top performer' as you mentioned!

lwhi 15y ago

I'm sorry, but this is a sexist point of view. Your argument seems to be "hire women so the men have a chance of a date, they'll be much more well behaved as a result."

erydo 15y ago
Wait, why is that sexist? A proposition that mixed-gender groups behaved differently than homogeneous groups doesn't ring any alarm bells for me.
- lwhi 15y ago
  Because women should be hired for their skills. Not because they provide a good 'mix' to compliment the men on a team. To think otherwise is patronising, condescending; and as a result, sexist. Edit: I'm genuinely shocked by the number of comments that contain a latent sexist pretext. Maybe I've been brought up in an overly liberal environment, but I find it pretty horrendous nevertheless.
  - jcc80 15y ago
    So, if we have a group of people that, are broadly speaking, all the same type and we think adding someone with a different set of characteristics will lead to the group performing better as a whole...we shouldn't do that? We should instead higher the "best" individual regardless of how it impacts the group? The goal is to get the most productivity from the team/group. Sometimes that means hiring for attitude over aptitude or ...oh yes, diversity - be it race, gender, degree, life experiences, etc.
  - wheels 15y ago
    That's because you're on a witch hunt. You put words in my mouth and then branded me a sexist based on that. So, here's the thing. I actually consider myself a feminist. I've been outspoken in the past on things like believing that the gender gap in computer science and IT is primarily a consequence of social conditioning and that people should be evaluated and valued within an organization based on their qualifications and not based on their gender. As such, I'm a bit uneasy with the premise of the article -- that work environments can and should be made more "girl friendly" (insofar as that goes beyond not tolerating overt sexism). But that premise came from the article, not from me. Personally, I'm conflicted there and could argue both sides. But, if we run with that premise, and try to answer the question in the title, I find it an impressive stretch to read sexism into saying, "I find mixed gender work environments more pleasant than single-gender environments."

lotharbot 15y ago

> "humans behave differently, and generally more civilly, in environments where they (subconsciously) believe they have a chance of meeting a partner." I already have a partner. That changes the dynamics, too. The "football team" and "singles bar" both have their own strengths and weaknesses. So does the dynamic you get when your whole team is married with kids -- some employees are going to really flourish in that environment, too.