5 ms·

As a Saudi I supposed I can comment on this. The minimum of polite language is higher. Profanity can get you in trouble like getting a written warning, and gra

As a Saudi I supposed I can comment on this. The minimum of polite language is higher. Profanity can get you in trouble like getting a written warning, and graphic profanity can land you in handcuffs, like insulting someone's mother. Saying son of a bitch is a misdemeanor. My experience in big corps is that the PDI is high but the power isn't so concerned with neutral formal phrasing. Phrasing in Saudi culture can be shockingly informal even at the highest level, since open tribal gatherings were the highest authority in the land until recently. The King and Princes still run open tribal gatherings where citizens can speak informally. Corporate speak is new and still seen as intrusive to how we do business. How PDI would express itself would be preserving face, I guess. You can't contradict superiors or even coworkers too openly and directly, you can't openly disrespect or be irreverent. All possibly disruptive feedback must be private or you're bringing shame to yourself and others. Startups are not like that at all. They're young, irreverent, and passionate. The young people really express themselves in those spaces with barely any hint of the old school social expectations. Guys and gals taking smoke breaks together and focusing on getting the job done.

jimkleiber 4y ago
I'm really curious how this interacts with display rules, or the emotions we're allowed to show/communicate in different contexts. When you talk of preserving face: > You can't contradict superiors or even coworkers too openly and directly, you can't openly disrespect or be irreverent. All possibly disruptive feedback must be private or you're bringing shame to yourself and others. Are you saying that you're not allowed to express anger to superiors or coworkers in public? Is it the way it's said, the emotion behind it, or something else that seems to matter the most?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Expressing anger anywhere is a business setting is a problem. Anybody can be angry anytime, but your feelings are your business. Stick to the facts.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    "I feel really angry that you said my colleague was lazy. As her manager, I know that she has been working late every day, including the weekends, to hit these deadlines." EDIT: Another example: "I feel quite angry right now and it probably has less to do with what you did and more to do with the fact that I haven't eaten yet. So before we do my performance review, could we get lunch so I might be in a better mood to hear it?" I think that would be a way to express anger connected to facts. Do you think that is still something people should keep to themselves?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      These seem defensible. But it's a slippery slope we are all better off not on.
      - jimkleiber 4y ago
        I'd say it could be a slippery slope. But so can passive aggression. I believe the emotion often leaks out in other ways regardless, whether thru our comments or our distancing or more distrust etc. I guess I believe that articulating it can stop the slope from slipping so much.
- seventhtiger 4y ago
  I'll give more details, but keep in mind Saudi society's norms are in massive flux. Even specifically the things I'm saying are changing. The new nationalism is bringing down a lot of old hierarchies. This might be more useful to understand the past than the future at this point. It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous. It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public. Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder. So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Wow I feel really grateful you wrote all this and also tremendously fascinated. I'll reply more later in an edit to this post. Thank you for now!
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      Oops, turns out I waited too long to edit it so I'll reply here. > I'll give more details, but keep in mind Saudi society's norms are in massive flux. Even specifically the things I'm saying are changing. The new nationalism is bringing down a lot of old hierarchies. This might be more useful to understand the past than the future at this point. I appreciate you saying this. > It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous. Ah, so then it's less about the delivery and more about the result? > It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public. I'm curious if this applies to not just flaws but a more general "don't share too much about one's own or another's internal/private life with strangers," because, I would think it would be hard to a priori determine what is considered a flaw or not. Would this concept equally apply to publicly sharing, for example, one's biggest dreams and hopes as well? Also, I've tried to search the internet for الستر but am struggling to find any links. Will you share some with me so I can learn more about it? > Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder. Ah, yeah, I wonder about the etymology of that phrase. I've read a lot about how excommunication historically could equal death, as being kicked out of the human group doesn't bode well for surviving in the wild. Yet, I think it still applies today in different ways, as being ostracized or losing one's job can really wreak havoc on our emotional lives, leading to suicide, murder, and many other mortal results. I'm curious, if one's reputation is tarnished in a part of Saudi Arabia, is it tarnished throughout? In other words, how quickly and pervasively do you think gossip spreads? I'm not trying to single out Saudi Arabia, more so to try to understand if it has that small-town feel, where if one person hears something, everyone will hear it, or more like a NYC, where a person could reinvent themselves in some way. Also, how easy/difficult would you say it is to choose a new career/profession? > So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place. I imagine this approach also works pretty well in the US (where I'm at). I think private 1-on-1 conflict resolution can be much easier than public 1-on-1 resolution, as in public, there are so many other people watching and listening and reacting in different ways. When I think of living in a place (again, not just Saudi Arabia, I'm talking of the dynamic which I think happen in many places) where people are constantly giving cover stories, I imagine I would start to distrust a lot of what people say. Do you think that most people 1) see through the cover stories and 2) get annoyed with hearing cover stories all the time but feel afraid to say they feel annoyed? I'm so grateful for you writing this and helping me reflect more, thank you.

jimkleiber 4y ago

I'm really curious how this interacts with display rules, or the emotions we're allowed to show/communicate in different contexts. When you talk of preserving face: > You can't contradict superiors or even coworkers too openly and directly, you can't openly disrespect or be irreverent. All possibly disruptive feedback must be private or you're bringing shame to yourself and others. Are you saying that you're not allowed to express anger to superiors or coworkers in public? Is it the way it's said, the emotion behind it, or something else that seems to matter the most?

ncmncm 4y ago
Expressing anger anywhere is a business setting is a problem. Anybody can be angry anytime, but your feelings are your business. Stick to the facts.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  "I feel really angry that you said my colleague was lazy. As her manager, I know that she has been working late every day, including the weekends, to hit these deadlines." EDIT: Another example: "I feel quite angry right now and it probably has less to do with what you did and more to do with the fact that I haven't eaten yet. So before we do my performance review, could we get lunch so I might be in a better mood to hear it?" I think that would be a way to express anger connected to facts. Do you think that is still something people should keep to themselves?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    These seem defensible. But it's a slippery slope we are all better off not on.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      I'd say it could be a slippery slope. But so can passive aggression. I believe the emotion often leaks out in other ways regardless, whether thru our comments or our distancing or more distrust etc. I guess I believe that articulating it can stop the slope from slipping so much.
seventhtiger 4y ago
I'll give more details, but keep in mind Saudi society's norms are in massive flux. Even specifically the things I'm saying are changing. The new nationalism is bringing down a lot of old hierarchies. This might be more useful to understand the past than the future at this point. It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous. It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public. Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder. So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Wow I feel really grateful you wrote all this and also tremendously fascinated. I'll reply more later in an edit to this post. Thank you for now!
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Oops, turns out I waited too long to edit it so I'll reply here. > I'll give more details, but keep in mind Saudi society's norms are in massive flux. Even specifically the things I'm saying are changing. The new nationalism is bringing down a lot of old hierarchies. This might be more useful to understand the past than the future at this point. I appreciate you saying this. > It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous. Ah, so then it's less about the delivery and more about the result? > It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public. I'm curious if this applies to not just flaws but a more general "don't share too much about one's own or another's internal/private life with strangers," because, I would think it would be hard to a priori determine what is considered a flaw or not. Would this concept equally apply to publicly sharing, for example, one's biggest dreams and hopes as well? Also, I've tried to search the internet for الستر but am struggling to find any links. Will you share some with me so I can learn more about it? > Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder. Ah, yeah, I wonder about the etymology of that phrase. I've read a lot about how excommunication historically could equal death, as being kicked out of the human group doesn't bode well for surviving in the wild. Yet, I think it still applies today in different ways, as being ostracized or losing one's job can really wreak havoc on our emotional lives, leading to suicide, murder, and many other mortal results. I'm curious, if one's reputation is tarnished in a part of Saudi Arabia, is it tarnished throughout? In other words, how quickly and pervasively do you think gossip spreads? I'm not trying to single out Saudi Arabia, more so to try to understand if it has that small-town feel, where if one person hears something, everyone will hear it, or more like a NYC, where a person could reinvent themselves in some way. Also, how easy/difficult would you say it is to choose a new career/profession? > So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place. I imagine this approach also works pretty well in the US (where I'm at). I think private 1-on-1 conflict resolution can be much easier than public 1-on-1 resolution, as in public, there are so many other people watching and listening and reacting in different ways. When I think of living in a place (again, not just Saudi Arabia, I'm talking of the dynamic which I think happen in many places) where people are constantly giving cover stories, I imagine I would start to distrust a lot of what people say. Do you think that most people 1) see through the cover stories and 2) get annoyed with hearing cover stories all the time but feel afraid to say they feel annoyed? I'm so grateful for you writing this and helping me reflect more, thank you.