51–60 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a scale from "individual" to "collective", both blame and success can be attributed to either extreme (or middle) on a case by case basis. I don't believe it can be possible to claim a universal generalization for all cases.
Is there a single case where a company which practices blameless downside practices a collective upside?
I once worked somewhere that did blameless technical postmortems very well. Whenever something broke, we kept asking questions until we had uncovered what went wrong, and we constantly reminded each other that our failings were in the process, not the people. It worked great, and we ended up with much more robust systems than most other places I'd worked. Sadly, they didn't apply the same ideals to social faux pas. W…
I often hear about this stuff but I have never seen it myself. Do people really ostracize others for saying a sentence they don’t like? I can see it if somebody constantly says stupid or offensive things but not for a few mistakes (are they even mistakes?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often hear about this stuff but I have never seen it myself. Do people really ostracize others for saying a sentence they don’t like? I can see it if somebody constantly says stupid or offensive things but not for a few mistakes (are they even mistakes?).
I can't vouch for ostracism specifically, but we just had someone at our company add a Slack bot to correct anyone who says the word "guys", and let me tell you I did not feel like it would be appropriate to complain.
I saw another engineer get hit for talking about triggering a job since "using triggering improperly downplays the trauma of survivors".
Not sure what that means other than it is time to set the LinkedIn status to looking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't vouch for ostracism specifically, but we just had someone at our company add a Slack bot to correct anyone who says the word "guys", and let me tell you I did not feel like it would be appropriate to complain.
With everyone remote HR has sadly discovered a sudden love of policing slack. I saw another engineer get hit for talking about triggering a job since "using triggering improperly downplays the trauma of survivors". Not sure what that means other than it is time to set the LinkedIn status to looking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my guess is that nobody expected terms of comedy and theater at the workplace That's a bit of a stretch, metaphors are the grease for the engine of the English language. In fact I've even heard this specific phrase many times before, recently . It's a metaphor in active use. The company was probably looking for a reason to get rid of him.
In fact I argued it's a metaphor in active use! But I also guessed metaphors taken out of context are likely to be misinterpreted. I know plenty of native English speakers who don't know what "straight man" means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a single case where a company which practices blameless downside practices a collective upside?
It is rare (so sad) but yes, there is. I work in such a company and I am not the employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s so many reasons for Mercedes success, that the parent comment comes of as being a bit silly. As you mentioned, they have Lewis Hamilton, who a lot of people would argue is the greatest driver of all time. They also have a very clear pecking order, team orders for Bottas to lose to Hamilton are a meme in F1 (“Valtteri, it’s James”). After the season was underway, they really only let them race after Hamilton h…
It reminds me a little of the time when Berger and Senna were teammates. Two very good drivers but there was no dispute who was the number one and two driver. It’s much easier to keep peace in a team where the hierarchy is clear. It would be interesting if Mercedes hired Verstappen next to Hamilton. I doubt they could keep the peace then.
Is it fair? No. Drivers like Barrichello and Massa never got a title, while arguably they are champion-level drivers. I think Bottas is someone in that position right now.
The other question is would you rather be in Bottas' shoes of being on the top team but the number 2 driver, or like Ricciardo or Hulkenberg which are also top tier drivers but haven't had a clear shot to compete or even the chance to get a podium for the latter. Motorsports (and Formula 1) is a cruel world.
Only tangentially related but I have to get it out of my system anyway: I watched the latest season of the F1 documentary on Netflix, and what stood out beyond anything else to me was that every team pitted their own drivers against each other, had a "you win or you lose" mentality, screamed at people for messing up, and so on. All teams except one. One team iterated how they "win as a team and make mistakes as a tea…
Drivers will always be pitted against their teammate though. F1 is technically a team sport, but the real judgement for the drivers is how well they compare against their teammate. Each driver wants to win, that's why they compete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact I argued it's a metaphor in active use! But I also guessed metaphors taken out of context are likely to be misinterpreted. I know plenty of native English speakers who don't know what "straight man" means.
Not having everyone on the team be as familiar with English, especially its idioms and figures of speech, is a great reason to avoid using them and stick to (legalistically) simplistic vocabulary. Unfortunately it also makes its usage feel cold and dry which in turn affects the company culture. There have been plenty of times I wanted to use a phrase that was perfect for the situation at hand and all its connotations…
If someone doesn't understand an idiom, why can't they ask?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is rare (so sad) but yes, there is. I work in such a company and I am not the employer.
I would happily accept the blameless postmortems in such a company.
Edit: I use the word "radical" as in outstanding, outside of the box, noticeably different. It isn't meant as a derogatory term.