What you're not supposed to know about "race" - genus - species - subspecies - variety (race) - form (ethnicity) [1479x839 - 26KB]

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (45).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Ah, there it is.

You believe I am attacking you. Okay, that is where you are reading my post incorrectly. This is going to read like I am talking down to you, but it isn't meant in that way at all. Here is what you need to be aware of:

1) I train all my staff to split them selves mentally into two people. One is the private person and the other is the professional person. The rule has always been that when in a conflict, ANYONE on staff can say absolutely anything (no matter how vile) as long as it is directed at the professional person they are talking to. Absolutely NO ONE except me and designated leaders can EVER criticize the private person they are talking to.

This is mostly for men, I don't hire women for tech jobs mostly so, have not had a chance to test that on them.

2) This works really well, and strangely the general effect it has on a team is that inexplicably all swearing stops and everyone starts collaborating for some reason. I'm not really sure why this is, but it does work.

3) There is a downside to this approach that I have had to deal with and that is that comments and critiques will HEAVILY weigh to the negative side of things and this is a problem for the cognitive load for staff. Males needs are based around knowing their place in the hierarchy and if they only hear critiques they end up thinking they are lower in the hierarchy than they really are. I have had to amend the rules to require people to sprinkle in recognition of accomplishments, but to do it sparingly to give everyone a way to judge if they are performing in a directionally positive or negative way.

4) The methodology sets up the following frame: insults cannot be given, insults can only be taken.

I was only ever addressing your professional person, not the private person. The professional person gets no mercy and will get good solid shots of critique. I did attack you personally towards the end there, because, frankly your assessment of my intent and analysis of my post was crap.

So, now addressing you the person, I have no opinion. I don't know you, but you don't seem to be trained in how to frame your understanding of your self in a way to make you impervious to all criticism of any kind.

It isn't my responsibility to baby sit you through a conversation. You had this one in public, let everyone read and judge accordingly.

Ah, there it is. You believe I am attacking you. Okay, that is where you are reading my post incorrectly. This is going to read like I am talking down to you, but it isn't meant in that way at all. Here is what you need to be aware of: 1) I train all my staff to split them selves mentally into two people. One is the private person and the other is the professional person. The rule has always been that when in a conflict, ANYONE on staff can say absolutely anything (no matter how vile) as long as it is directed at the professional person they are talking to. Absolutely NO ONE except me and designated leaders can EVER criticize the private person they are talking to. This is mostly for men, I don't hire women for tech jobs mostly so, have not had a chance to test that on them. 2) This works really well, and strangely the general effect it has on a team is that inexplicably all swearing stops and everyone starts collaborating for some reason. I'm not really sure why this is, but it does work. 3) There is a downside to this approach that I have had to deal with and that is that comments and critiques will HEAVILY weigh to the negative side of things and this is a problem for the cognitive load for staff. Males needs are based around knowing their place in the hierarchy and if they only hear critiques they end up thinking they are lower in the hierarchy than they really are. I have had to amend the rules to require people to sprinkle in recognition of accomplishments, but to do it sparingly to give everyone a way to judge if they are performing in a directionally positive or negative way. 4) The methodology sets up the following frame: insults cannot be given, insults can only be taken. I was only ever addressing your professional person, not the private person. The professional person gets no mercy and will get good solid shots of critique. I did attack you personally towards the end there, because, frankly your assessment of my intent and analysis of my post was crap. So, now addressing you the person, I have no opinion. I don't know you, but you don't seem to be trained in how to frame your understanding of your self in a way to make you impervious to all criticism of any kind. It isn't my responsibility to baby sit you through a conversation. You had this one in public, let everyone read and judge accordingly.

parent
link