zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
I predict people will claim "our culture isn't that toxic. Some of those things happen, but they don't bother me much."

If any non-zero subset of reasonable people are so offended by a behavior that they'd leave the industry because of it, we have to cut it out.

So don't ask "would this bother me?" Ask "would it bother someone?" And since you can't predict this from inside your head, you have to rely on firsthand accounts of people being bothered. This seems like a good overview of such accounts.

>>tlb+h7
>If any non-zero subset of reasonable people are so offended by a behavior that they'd leave the industry because of it, we have to cut it out.

I used to think like this. After years and years of refining my own behavior, a non-work, non-"tech" friend let it slip that my fiends though I had turned into a non-confrontational, lawyer-sounding, people-pleaser. He wasn't wrong, I had gotten in the habit of always walking on eggshells, navigating every conversation like a minefield and letting myself be treated like a doormat. I did. After all, if I hadn't, I'd be one of those "bros" that only people who have never met a bro say are filling up the engineering departments.

The very next day I got chided about not being empathetic enough or whatever the buzzword was at the time. Maybe I could have kept up the facade if I was simply guilty by association. But it was specifically my behavior that was "toxic." That was it. And I'm out. I'm done.

The never-docile-enough nature of "tech" is what's toxic. I hadn't been able to feel comfortable in my own skin for years out of fear of being off-putting to anyone else. The people who's behavior is worth changing aren't listening anyway, so I'm done letting it be my fault, and I'm never over-correcting to make up for it again.

edit: Want to complain about something in "tech"? Why don't you (not you, specifically, parent poster) start with the ethics of your employer's products/practices.

>>finnth+Wd
As a consultant whose client portfolio used to include F500's in health, insurance, and NY finance, and whose portfolio now includes nothing but startups, and having had the pleasure of whiling away many languorous afternoons in the cube farms of those companies, I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that the average startup tech employee is "walking on eggshells" and being performatively docile compared to the day-1 baseline expectations of, to a first approximation, every non-tech company with more than 1,000 employees in the US.

The idea that tech employees are docile compared to the accounts receivable group at a major US insurance company seems pretty hard to support with evidence.

>>tptace+ne
Having been around F500's and tech companies - one accusation of violating norms at a tech company can be a career ender - one accusation of same violation of norms at a Fortune 500, is usually deal with thru a discipline process.

>>Aloha+Gi
You've worked at a company that had a "must wear ties to the office" requirement (yes, those still exist) and came out thinking that their employees were less "docile" than those of the median SFBA startup?

>>tptace+Ui
Just my observations and opinion..

but, worked with, not at, but generally about equal in raw numbers - it really depends where the docility comes out - in fortune 500's being weird in general is strongly discouraged, but the penalties for stepping out of line are small usually, the big benefit is, cultural norms are clearly established, and generally followed - in a SV company, being weird is strongly encouraged, cultural values are somewhat more nebulous, and the penalties for stepping out of line are often much more harsh.

>>Aloha+Zj
So you're saying tech companies have vague 'cultural values' that encourage a certain degree of non-conformity and then harshly punish/fire non-conformists? That doesn't really make any sense, at least, not in the non-specific form you've put it. Right at a time of a fair bit of tech-company culture examination and critique, this particular complaint seems to come up mostly never. How do you explain that? The docility? It gets a little circular.

>>pvg+Em
The well defined Fortune 500 culture prevents identity politics from coming into play - the nebulous SV culture does not, there is no line other than 'be yourself' so the out of line issues can violate peoples concept of self, which is clearly bad, and therefor the punishments must be harsh.

To explain further - in F500 Culture, only a narrow band of self expression is possible - but what is and isnt is clearly defined - in SV Culture, a much wider band is acceptable - but the unacceptable is much less clearly defined.