4 ms·

Wouldn't professionalism dictate that your management of your own feelings in the face of simple factual statements is your own responsibility? What's impolite

Wouldn't professionalism dictate that your management of your own feelings in the face of simple factual statements is your own responsibility? What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context. If the goal of an organization is to accomplish the objective in the most efficient way, doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Isn't it (much) more efficient to just communicate directly and clearly, an leave feelings-management to listeners? Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example?

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> Wouldn't professionalism dictate No, this is called being a grown up in all contexts, not just professional ones. > What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context. Professional contexts are subsets of social contexts. They aren't special. The only thing that can make any context special are the meanings of individual behaviors the actors within that context have mutually negotiated between them. > doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Of course not. A typical person can work more effectively when they personally don't have to actively manage their emotional responses to others. This is facilitated by non-superficial politeness all around. Because it is a natural response to ruminate, for periods of time that are disproportionate to the event, on how others have treated us (common in relatively social animals, and possibly non-animal organisms), it is far more efficient to manage politeness than to count on emotional self-management. > Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example? You can be rude, not just impolite, in particular instances in civilian life without getting most people het up about it. But these instances are few and far between. In militaries people are explicitly taught that their life absolutely depends on this rote learning and immediate response to shouted orders. Additionally, the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality, just basic functionality. Theoretically systems exist in the military to prevent cronyism and other forms of privilege; everyone is treated the same, or at least has the same opportunities. This itself minimizes the rudeness bias. More importantly, when off duty, or on duty but not actively engaged in an exercise, officers and senior non-coms are less direct and do a lot of feelings management. Military life is not boot camp. Even with all of that, in Vietnam at least, grunts did kill their officers at times. Active shooter situations are extraordinarily bad, and a lot of work goes into preventing and managing them. Being polite is one part of this management. And plenty of people don't have the mindset for the military, and know this, and purposefully avoid joining the military because of this. You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  > to ruminate .. on how others have treated us Right, but my initial point is that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If you are at fault, and are subordinate, then the communication was appropriate. If you're not, then a simple refutation of the factual claim is all that's needed. Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way, even if some people have a hard time with it? I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like. > the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality The military certainly does care about optimal functionality, since the price of failure (losing battles/wars) is cataclysmic. I'd say that (winning) militaries are among the most efficient human organizations out there. Vietnam was staffed by conscripts who, importantly (and rightly), didn't believe in the objective they were forced to fight for. It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation). > You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce. I'm not suggesting we do, only that we as an industry endeavour to elevate our standards of professionalism by emulating some of the most professional organizations out there (militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.). All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If everyone responded in a way you find reasonable we'd be a lot more monotonous. "It takes all kinds" is not just an idiom of tolerance, it's a genuine fact. We would not have as vibrant and productive a culture if we were monotonous. > Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way No. > even if some people have a hard time with it? Especially not then. > I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like. I would say that "striving for excellence" means it takes two to tango (I feel in the mood for idioms :P). To most effectively ameliorate impolite situations both parties need to respond, not just the one who felt that they received impoliteness. > The military certainly does care about optimal functionality Just like almost every other organization (other than NIST) optimality is not the priority, adequacy is. "Is this adequate to our needs? Great, we go with it." > It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation). And yet we still get active shooter situations in volunteer militaries and civilian corporations. > emulating some of the most professional organizations out there Why are these organization more "professional" than other corporations which practice professions? > militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.) Militaries typically don't have competition anymore, except for other militaries. And when they do face irregular forces they don't always outright win. There are very few non-military martial forces, and I would guess most of those follow a military cultural structure. We're a long way from bands of warriors (e.g. "The 13th warrior"). Even then, we have seen that volunteer forces function better than draft forces. As there is no more competition, has the effectiveness of these particular direct organizational cultures been experimentally validated against other organizational cultures? In which contexts (i.e. does the effectiveness universalize to all sorts of organizations and professions)? > All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed. And you know these traits are responsible for their success (and not their failures) because why? And that, even if so, the effectiveness of these traits will generalize to the success of other organizations?

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

> Wouldn't professionalism dictate No, this is called being a grown up in all contexts, not just professional ones. > What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context. Professional contexts are subsets of social contexts. They aren't special. The only thing that can make any context special are the meanings of individual behaviors the actors within that context have mutually negotiated between them. > doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Of course not. A typical person can work more effectively when they personally don't have to actively manage their emotional responses to others. This is facilitated by non-superficial politeness all around. Because it is a natural response to ruminate, for periods of time that are disproportionate to the event, on how others have treated us (common in relatively social animals, and possibly non-animal organisms), it is far more efficient to manage politeness than to count on emotional self-management. > Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example? You can be rude, not just impolite, in particular instances in civilian life without getting most people het up about it. But these instances are few and far between. In militaries people are explicitly taught that their life absolutely depends on this rote learning and immediate response to shouted orders. Additionally, the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality, just basic functionality. Theoretically systems exist in the military to prevent cronyism and other forms of privilege; everyone is treated the same, or at least has the same opportunities. This itself minimizes the rudeness bias. More importantly, when off duty, or on duty but not actively engaged in an exercise, officers and senior non-coms are less direct and do a lot of feelings management. Military life is not boot camp. Even with all of that, in Vietnam at least, grunts did kill their officers at times. Active shooter situations are extraordinarily bad, and a lot of work goes into preventing and managing them. Being polite is one part of this management. And plenty of people don't have the mindset for the military, and know this, and purposefully avoid joining the military because of this. You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.

thegrimmest 4y ago
> to ruminate .. on how others have treated us Right, but my initial point is that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If you are at fault, and are subordinate, then the communication was appropriate. If you're not, then a simple refutation of the factual claim is all that's needed. Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way, even if some people have a hard time with it? I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like. > the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality The military certainly does care about optimal functionality, since the price of failure (losing battles/wars) is cataclysmic. I'd say that (winning) militaries are among the most efficient human organizations out there. Vietnam was staffed by conscripts who, importantly (and rightly), didn't believe in the objective they were forced to fight for. It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation). > You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce. I'm not suggesting we do, only that we as an industry endeavour to elevate our standards of professionalism by emulating some of the most professional organizations out there (militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.). All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If everyone responded in a way you find reasonable we'd be a lot more monotonous. "It takes all kinds" is not just an idiom of tolerance, it's a genuine fact. We would not have as vibrant and productive a culture if we were monotonous. > Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way No. > even if some people have a hard time with it? Especially not then. > I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like. I would say that "striving for excellence" means it takes two to tango (I feel in the mood for idioms :P). To most effectively ameliorate impolite situations both parties need to respond, not just the one who felt that they received impoliteness. > The military certainly does care about optimal functionality Just like almost every other organization (other than NIST) optimality is not the priority, adequacy is. "Is this adequate to our needs? Great, we go with it." > It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation). And yet we still get active shooter situations in volunteer militaries and civilian corporations. > emulating some of the most professional organizations out there Why are these organization more "professional" than other corporations which practice professions? > militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.) Militaries typically don't have competition anymore, except for other militaries. And when they do face irregular forces they don't always outright win. There are very few non-military martial forces, and I would guess most of those follow a military cultural structure. We're a long way from bands of warriors (e.g. "The 13th warrior"). Even then, we have seen that volunteer forces function better than draft forces. As there is no more competition, has the effectiveness of these particular direct organizational cultures been experimentally validated against other organizational cultures? In which contexts (i.e. does the effectiveness universalize to all sorts of organizations and professions)? > All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed. And you know these traits are responsible for their success (and not their failures) because why? And that, even if so, the effectiveness of these traits will generalize to the success of other organizations?