3 ms·

> systems Those are things. It’s kind of arguing that you don’t want flour in your salt. Purity is fine for things. > When collaborating: having a diverse arr

> systems Those are things. It’s kind of arguing that you don’t want flour in your salt. Purity is fine for things. > When collaborating: having a diverse array of cultural norms can cause friction when people interpret phrases as pleasant vs passive aggressive. This is a positive aspect if you get to learn from that and communicate in a way that is better understood in non-homogeneous groups. Think a space station shared between countries. Or a town office that needs to regularly communicate with the general public. You will also be saved from further issues if you were ready from the start to deal with an array of cultural norms, instead of assuming a single culture and later realize that people came from a much more complex background than you imagined. > corporate identity That’s an interesting one. It’s a thing, but then people are working for that corporation. Having an identity strongly anchored in a single specific culture (let’s go for the worst: your PR department shares articles of the CEO hunting elephants. Or your whole company site is in Rococo style) will be detrimental compared to a bland, very generic and more embrassing identity.

dijit 4y ago
> > systems >Those are things. idk, I feel like we're talking about "Diversity" as a concept, I accidentally answered without any context w.r.t. the rest of the discussion and just kind of left it (with a little disclaimer in parens). > > When collaborating: having a diverse array of cultural norms can cause friction when people interpret phrases as pleasant vs passive aggressive. > This is a positive aspect if you get to learn from that and communicate in a way that is better understood in non-homogeneous groups. This largely depends, if you want global domination of a product then sure, but if you're a bunch of tool makers and you all know your audience of tool users then there's no benefit at all to have someone offended by the word "tool" in your workforce. Regarding corporate identity: I've always been against the whole "bring your entire self to work" ideology that seems to have come out of Google. That only works if you have a heterogeneous idea of where things are going, otherwise you just lose yourself to infighting and disenfranchisement. Better: Have a strong corporate image, then people will self-select if they can stomach what your company stands for. To be honest I was talking about branding anyway, but since you mentioned people anchoring themselves to a corporate identity then it opened my eyes to a bigger need for heterogeneity in that environment.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > if you're a bunch of tool makers and you all know your audience of tool users then there's no benefit at all to have someone offended by the word "tool" in your workforce. It kinda reminds me of the factorygirl -> factorybot [0] story. It was a cute enough name for a technical tool that plays nice among bros, and down the line you end up renaming your package and deal with the drama. On brand image, I get your point. I think the corporations doing it best tend to juggle with multiple brands and segment their market accordingly. Then yes, an homogeneous, single focus brand will be more valuable, as it also help to push people outside of the target to your other brands. [0] https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot/wiki https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot/wiki

dijit 4y ago

> > systems >Those are things. idk, I feel like we're talking about "Diversity" as a concept, I accidentally answered without any context w.r.t. the rest of the discussion and just kind of left it (with a little disclaimer in parens). > > When collaborating: having a diverse array of cultural norms can cause friction when people interpret phrases as pleasant vs passive aggressive. > This is a positive aspect if you get to learn from that and communicate in a way that is better understood in non-homogeneous groups. This largely depends, if you want global domination of a product then sure, but if you're a bunch of tool makers and you all know your audience of tool users then there's no benefit at all to have someone offended by the word "tool" in your workforce. Regarding corporate identity: I've always been against the whole "bring your entire self to work" ideology that seems to have come out of Google. That only works if you have a heterogeneous idea of where things are going, otherwise you just lose yourself to infighting and disenfranchisement. Better: Have a strong corporate image, then people will self-select if they can stomach what your company stands for. To be honest I was talking about branding anyway, but since you mentioned people anchoring themselves to a corporate identity then it opened my eyes to a bigger need for heterogeneity in that environment.

makeitdouble 4y ago
> if you're a bunch of tool makers and you all know your audience of tool users then there's no benefit at all to have someone offended by the word "tool" in your workforce. It kinda reminds me of the factorygirl -> factorybot [0] story. It was a cute enough name for a technical tool that plays nice among bros, and down the line you end up renaming your package and deal with the drama. On brand image, I get your point. I think the corporations doing it best tend to juggle with multiple brands and segment their market accordingly. Then yes, an homogeneous, single focus brand will be more valuable, as it also help to push people outside of the target to your other brands. [0] https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot/wiki https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot/wiki