5 ms·

And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a

And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a debate, 2) that everyone who supports a value or norm is educated enough on it to explain its technical merits to a skeptical audience and 3) everyone is capable of defending that idea against a hostile debate opponent in public. To me "we decided, it's not like that here" is firm and clear, communicates that this is a social norm that is not up for debate at this time in this venue, without necessarily declaring it's absolutely final or that there is no appropriate venue. There are not really any perfect solutions here but this is a quite good one.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
If you don't want to have the debate, then why say "we don't do that here"? That is a pretty confrontational thing to say. Why not let the comment you don't like go? Also, who is "we"? If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? Or should they be changed to make everyone maximally comfortable? These aren't questions that you should necessarily answer on the spot, but these are questions that have to be answered.
- em-bee 4y ago
  Why not let the comment you don't like go? because sometimes it needs to be made clear that such comments are not acceptable here. you could say it in different words, like for example: "in this company such comments are considered inappropriate" or "we don't make such jokes here" If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? initially yes. later when everyone knows each other better, there is time and room to reconsider and maybe debate the finer points of some specific rules.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. If you want to tell someone "don't say that," just say it. "Don't say that, I prefer to be called 'homosexual'" is even better (using the "gay" example). Also, the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else. What if the first 5 people were hyper-religious conservatives who hired 10 progressives and want to keep hiring progressives? Should it still only be the finer points of the rules that get discussed? Or should it be understood that their culture of prayers every day doesn't scale up, and that a lot of things need to be re-worked? This can also be true of hyper-progressive people. A culture of offense-taking at little things, language policing, and social justice book clubs is as non-inclusive as a culture of daily prayers. "We don't do that here" is exclusionary language, and so are the other two comments you suggested. Both use "we" to fabricate consensus (has the company really decided as a group that this particular speech pattern is banned?) and shame the other party as an outsider. That is not the right way to create respect.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. ok, i kind of agree with that. i was not responding to that part of the comment. the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else no, it suggests that when 10 individuals join an existing team, they ought to learn more about the team culture first, before they try to make changes, unless the existing culture is clearly hostile to some people. consider the difference between 10 new people joining all at once or one at a time, a few weeks apart. why should 10 new people get the right to dominate the culture that i am trying to build in my company? i am paying you, so you follow my culture. once we know each other better, then you may start pointing out problems that you discover. but if you come in and start being disruptive because you disagree with my company culture, then you better go look for another job. even if i am wrong, that's not the way to implement changes. the critical point is, that such issues are not a question of majority, but one of inclusiveness. we want to reject a culture that excludes some people. so if the original 5 people have a problematic culture, then the newcomers are good to try to change that (but being disruptive is unlikely to work), but if it is the reverse, then it's the newcomers that need to adjust. EDIT: added some clarifications.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

If you don't want to have the debate, then why say "we don't do that here"? That is a pretty confrontational thing to say. Why not let the comment you don't like go? Also, who is "we"? If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? Or should they be changed to make everyone maximally comfortable? These aren't questions that you should necessarily answer on the spot, but these are questions that have to be answered.

em-bee 4y ago
Why not let the comment you don't like go? because sometimes it needs to be made clear that such comments are not acceptable here. you could say it in different words, like for example: "in this company such comments are considered inappropriate" or "we don't make such jokes here" If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? initially yes. later when everyone knows each other better, there is time and room to reconsider and maybe debate the finer points of some specific rules.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. If you want to tell someone "don't say that," just say it. "Don't say that, I prefer to be called 'homosexual'" is even better (using the "gay" example). Also, the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else. What if the first 5 people were hyper-religious conservatives who hired 10 progressives and want to keep hiring progressives? Should it still only be the finer points of the rules that get discussed? Or should it be understood that their culture of prayers every day doesn't scale up, and that a lot of things need to be re-worked? This can also be true of hyper-progressive people. A culture of offense-taking at little things, language policing, and social justice book clubs is as non-inclusive as a culture of daily prayers. "We don't do that here" is exclusionary language, and so are the other two comments you suggested. Both use "we" to fabricate consensus (has the company really decided as a group that this particular speech pattern is banned?) and shame the other party as an outsider. That is not the right way to create respect.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. ok, i kind of agree with that. i was not responding to that part of the comment. the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else no, it suggests that when 10 individuals join an existing team, they ought to learn more about the team culture first, before they try to make changes, unless the existing culture is clearly hostile to some people. consider the difference between 10 new people joining all at once or one at a time, a few weeks apart. why should 10 new people get the right to dominate the culture that i am trying to build in my company? i am paying you, so you follow my culture. once we know each other better, then you may start pointing out problems that you discover. but if you come in and start being disruptive because you disagree with my company culture, then you better go look for another job. even if i am wrong, that's not the way to implement changes. the critical point is, that such issues are not a question of majority, but one of inclusiveness. we want to reject a culture that excludes some people. so if the original 5 people have a problematic culture, then the newcomers are good to try to change that (but being disruptive is unlikely to work), but if it is the reverse, then it's the newcomers that need to adjust. EDIT: added some clarifications.