5 ms·

> Apple has agreed to drop all employee gagging clauses related to workplace harassment How long before Apple and an employee start disputing about whether an

> Apple has agreed to drop all employee gagging clauses related to workplace harassment How long before Apple and an employee start disputing about whether an employee’s public comments relate to “workplace harassment” (now allowed) or other matters (still prohibited)? I’ve heard a number of stories about situations in which an employee says they are being harassed/bullied/etc and the employer insists “no, this is just performance management” or “no, the employee just lost some internal argument over business strategy/technical decisions/policies/etc”. Maybe sometimes the employee is right, maybe sometimes the employer is right, maybe some cases are more grey and it is harder to say.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
josephg 4y ago
I think this stuff will always come down to messy judgement calls. Some people come from cultures which see “abrasive” behaviour as totally normal. Sometimes, being blunt with someone is a sign of intimacy. (We’re close enough to “skip the BS”) This will always be in uneasy tension with modern “positive vibes only” office cultures. One person’s “bullying and harassment” is another person’s “intimate honesty”. There are no easy answers.
- spritefs 4y ago
  > One person’s “bullying and harassment” is another person’s “intimate honesty”. There are no easy answers. No. You can be honest with someone about something without being an asshole. What exactly do you mean here by "intimate honesty"? You should give a concrete example
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    You’re making a very black and white assertion about something that seems quite obvious: that there’s a grey area to communication, especially between people with different expectations, communication styles, etc. I don’t think you’re entitled to an example after being so reductive about the topic.
    - isodev 4y ago
      When one is working as part of a team (in a professional context), it’s one’s responsibility to ensure the delivery of one’s message doesn’t “clash” with others in a way that may feel as harassment or bullying. If that’s unclear, most companies introduce etiquette and guidelines on what constitutes acceptable forms of behaviour and communication at the office/during work hours. It’s also a topic one can bring up with their therapist for additional tips and guidelines.
      - josephg 4y ago
        I agree that this is the rule in polite society, and I agree that its a reasonable goal 95% of the time. But its an impossible standard to meet 100% of the time. Alan Watts makes this point - we can only guarantee that we're inoffensive when we're dead. Or when we act like we're dead - taking up no space and sharing no opinions. Walking boldly in the world will necessarily elicit reactions in other people. We don't get to control the reactions other people have to us. If the only thing you're allowed to do when someone hates you is shrink into yourself, then you cannot ever be noteworthy or famous in any way. (Because you'll get haters if you're noteworthy, no matter how lofty your goals are.) You can also swing this argument the other way around. Nobody knows the exact shape of our childhood traumas. Growing up requires that we revisit those places that still hurt in us to be able to heal our wounds. I don't want anyone trying to protect me from that process, because I need to go through that pain in order to grow into the healthiest version of myself. Shying away from telling me something because you're afraid I'll get hurt also blocks any possibility of deeper intimacy. Kim Scott's Radical Candor is another take on this for the workplace. 6 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLBDkz0TwLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLBDkz0TwLM
      - skissane 4y ago
        > When one is working as part of a team (in a professional context), it’s one’s responsibility to ensure the delivery of one’s message doesn’t “clash” with others I think communication involves mutual responsibility, for both sender and receiver. When it goes wrong, sometimes the sender has failed to meet their responsibility, sometimes the receiver, sometimes both, and sometimes it is just one of those regrettable misunderstandings which is neither's fault. > etiquette and guidelines on what constitutes acceptable forms of behaviour and communication It is impossible to craft guidelines which explicitly cover every possible circumstance. Guidelines may reduce the incidence of cross-cultural misunderstandings (although one may be sceptical about how effective they really are in doing that), but they can’t possibly eliminate them. > It’s also a topic one can bring up with their therapist for additional tips and guidelines. I remember my father telling me about how, in the early 1990s, he got a job with a US-based company, and he started going on regular business trips to the US. He was rather struck by how some of his American colleagues would talk at work about having therapists - the way they’d talk about it, it sounded like they just assumed everyone had one (which is how you’ve talked about it here). Judged by the standards of Australian culture, it was rather odd - if someone felt they needed to see a mental health professional, they’d be unlikely to tell random people at work about it, and talking to work colleagues in a way which assumed they did have that need could cause offence. My father didn’t take offence, he was just amused by the strange ways of Americans-but someone else could have.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - josephg 4y ago
    > You should give a concrete example This isn't a perfect example, but - I was at a personal development workshop a couple of weeks ago. One of the participants was expressing a lot of fake positivity. I (and a lot of the other participants) got a bit annoyed by that - it felt to us like he was lying every time he opened his mouth. At dinner he asked for "honest feedback" on why other people didn't like him, and what he could do to be more appreciated by the group. He got what he asked for. Several people told him how they felt when he talked. He got really upset hearing that - saying he was being bullied by the whole group. Something he's experienced a lot of throughout his life. How can you be honest with someone like this without him being able to turn it into an attack? I don't know if you can. The shadow part of him is too clever. Should we have refused to give him the feedback he asked for? The same pattern played out in small ways a few more times over the next few days. Someone would say something in the group which related to him in some way. The next morning he'd try on a versions of the previous day's events in which everyone else's stories were about him. And he was always the victim. In a work setting where people don't have complete information, he'd be a menace. He could turn anything he didn't like into an instance of "bullying and harassment". I don't think he does it on purpose, but that doesn't make it any better. Even weeks after the retreat I'm still thinking about him - I have no idea how I'd deal with someone like that if they were in my life. A soft "believe all victims of harassment" approach would encourage his narcissism. But his pain still seemed real. It felt like I kept having to choose between self abandonment (staying small, lying about my feelings) or risking hurting this guy. I hated it.
    - kodah 4y ago
      > How can you be honest with someone like this without him being able to turn it into an attack? The solution is gray manning. Don't react to peoples emotional swings, controversial statements, and throw everything they say to the wind but the nuts and bolts. You don't know this person, you don't need to like them, you just need to exist with them for a bit. Some people from the corporate world I like and become friends; everyone else gets a git clone --depth 1 when I'm around them. --- There are a lot of plausible explanations for his behavior. In some he's a bonafide victim, in others he could have a personality disorder. To you, as a transient existence in his reality and vice versa, none of those matter.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - spritefs 4y ago
    I'll add (after reading some responses here), I'm not saying that someone should always be honest, I was just saying it's possible to be frank with someone without being a douche For example, instead of telling someone "this isn't good", tell them "use this technique instead" or "it's better to do it this way because X" I get that there are some people who'll take offense to everything. Those types have to be managed differently and are a headache to deal with. But if you aren't a dick and have a paper trail, there's nothing to worry about
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  There is a difference between "abrasive" and "so abrasive that you need to legally prevent your employees from mentioning it outside the company". Apple is apparently in the latter category.
KerrAvon 4y ago
It’s not that much of a gray area at this point. I’m not a lawyer, but there’s a lot of existing case law around this, so advocacy orgs could give guidance.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

josephg 4y ago

I think this stuff will always come down to messy judgement calls. Some people come from cultures which see “abrasive” behaviour as totally normal. Sometimes, being blunt with someone is a sign of intimacy. (We’re close enough to “skip the BS”) This will always be in uneasy tension with modern “positive vibes only” office cultures. One person’s “bullying and harassment” is another person’s “intimate honesty”. There are no easy answers.

spritefs 4y ago
> One person’s “bullying and harassment” is another person’s “intimate honesty”. There are no easy answers. No. You can be honest with someone about something without being an asshole. What exactly do you mean here by "intimate honesty"? You should give a concrete example
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  You’re making a very black and white assertion about something that seems quite obvious: that there’s a grey area to communication, especially between people with different expectations, communication styles, etc. I don’t think you’re entitled to an example after being so reductive about the topic.
  - isodev 4y ago
    When one is working as part of a team (in a professional context), it’s one’s responsibility to ensure the delivery of one’s message doesn’t “clash” with others in a way that may feel as harassment or bullying. If that’s unclear, most companies introduce etiquette and guidelines on what constitutes acceptable forms of behaviour and communication at the office/during work hours. It’s also a topic one can bring up with their therapist for additional tips and guidelines.
    - josephg 4y ago
      I agree that this is the rule in polite society, and I agree that its a reasonable goal 95% of the time. But its an impossible standard to meet 100% of the time. Alan Watts makes this point - we can only guarantee that we're inoffensive when we're dead. Or when we act like we're dead - taking up no space and sharing no opinions. Walking boldly in the world will necessarily elicit reactions in other people. We don't get to control the reactions other people have to us. If the only thing you're allowed to do when someone hates you is shrink into yourself, then you cannot ever be noteworthy or famous in any way. (Because you'll get haters if you're noteworthy, no matter how lofty your goals are.) You can also swing this argument the other way around. Nobody knows the exact shape of our childhood traumas. Growing up requires that we revisit those places that still hurt in us to be able to heal our wounds. I don't want anyone trying to protect me from that process, because I need to go through that pain in order to grow into the healthiest version of myself. Shying away from telling me something because you're afraid I'll get hurt also blocks any possibility of deeper intimacy. Kim Scott's Radical Candor is another take on this for the workplace. 6 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLBDkz0TwLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLBDkz0TwLM
    - skissane 4y ago
      > When one is working as part of a team (in a professional context), it’s one’s responsibility to ensure the delivery of one’s message doesn’t “clash” with others I think communication involves mutual responsibility, for both sender and receiver. When it goes wrong, sometimes the sender has failed to meet their responsibility, sometimes the receiver, sometimes both, and sometimes it is just one of those regrettable misunderstandings which is neither's fault. > etiquette and guidelines on what constitutes acceptable forms of behaviour and communication It is impossible to craft guidelines which explicitly cover every possible circumstance. Guidelines may reduce the incidence of cross-cultural misunderstandings (although one may be sceptical about how effective they really are in doing that), but they can’t possibly eliminate them. > It’s also a topic one can bring up with their therapist for additional tips and guidelines. I remember my father telling me about how, in the early 1990s, he got a job with a US-based company, and he started going on regular business trips to the US. He was rather struck by how some of his American colleagues would talk at work about having therapists - the way they’d talk about it, it sounded like they just assumed everyone had one (which is how you’ve talked about it here). Judged by the standards of Australian culture, it was rather odd - if someone felt they needed to see a mental health professional, they’d be unlikely to tell random people at work about it, and talking to work colleagues in a way which assumed they did have that need could cause offence. My father didn’t take offence, he was just amused by the strange ways of Americans-but someone else could have.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- josephg 4y ago
  > You should give a concrete example This isn't a perfect example, but - I was at a personal development workshop a couple of weeks ago. One of the participants was expressing a lot of fake positivity. I (and a lot of the other participants) got a bit annoyed by that - it felt to us like he was lying every time he opened his mouth. At dinner he asked for "honest feedback" on why other people didn't like him, and what he could do to be more appreciated by the group. He got what he asked for. Several people told him how they felt when he talked. He got really upset hearing that - saying he was being bullied by the whole group. Something he's experienced a lot of throughout his life. How can you be honest with someone like this without him being able to turn it into an attack? I don't know if you can. The shadow part of him is too clever. Should we have refused to give him the feedback he asked for? The same pattern played out in small ways a few more times over the next few days. Someone would say something in the group which related to him in some way. The next morning he'd try on a versions of the previous day's events in which everyone else's stories were about him. And he was always the victim. In a work setting where people don't have complete information, he'd be a menace. He could turn anything he didn't like into an instance of "bullying and harassment". I don't think he does it on purpose, but that doesn't make it any better. Even weeks after the retreat I'm still thinking about him - I have no idea how I'd deal with someone like that if they were in my life. A soft "believe all victims of harassment" approach would encourage his narcissism. But his pain still seemed real. It felt like I kept having to choose between self abandonment (staying small, lying about my feelings) or risking hurting this guy. I hated it.
  - kodah 4y ago
    > How can you be honest with someone like this without him being able to turn it into an attack? The solution is gray manning. Don't react to peoples emotional swings, controversial statements, and throw everything they say to the wind but the nuts and bolts. You don't know this person, you don't need to like them, you just need to exist with them for a bit. Some people from the corporate world I like and become friends; everyone else gets a git clone --depth 1 when I'm around them. --- There are a lot of plausible explanations for his behavior. In some he's a bonafide victim, in others he could have a personality disorder. To you, as a transient existence in his reality and vice versa, none of those matter.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- spritefs 4y ago
  I'll add (after reading some responses here), I'm not saying that someone should always be honest, I was just saying it's possible to be frank with someone without being a douche For example, instead of telling someone "this isn't good", tell them "use this technique instead" or "it's better to do it this way because X" I get that there are some people who'll take offense to everything. Those types have to be managed differently and are a headache to deal with. But if you aren't a dick and have a paper trail, there's nothing to worry about
Viliam1234 4y ago
There is a difference between "abrasive" and "so abrasive that you need to legally prevent your employees from mentioning it outside the company". Apple is apparently in the latter category.

KerrAvon 4y ago

It’s not that much of a gray area at this point. I’m not a lawyer, but there’s a lot of existing case law around this, so advocacy orgs could give guidance.