Ethics do not logically fall into place magically because the ultimate goal is making money. It's easy to say "ignore those factors in favor of making money" but the reality of the world isn't that simple. Uber didn't tolerate a culture that got in the way of making money, and now they're here.
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
Reading the stories about uber, I keep hearing that the woman wanted to focus on work but the harassing person interfered. That is exactly what amorphid suggest that a company should work to prevent, fostering a culture that focus on making customers happier and getting people working together for that a common goal.
Developer turnover is very costly.
What I got from these womens' answers is that their motivations are pretty much exactly the same as men's. Maybe with the exception of serial harassment cases.
I'm not so certain. I agree, it should. But engineers don't like to talk about their salary; I have no idea what my peers earn, and it isn't easy to find out. Researching data such as discussion on HN, Glassdoor, BLS data, surveys from companies that are more open, etc. yield absolutely ludicrous ranges; I might ought to (depending on who and how you ask) be earning anywhere from 60k to 250k+ as an engineer; that includes throwing out some high & low figures. The situation is made worse by the huge disparities in cost of living between various geographies, making it hard to translate salaries in one area into anything sensible in the next. (You're lucky to get a breakdown to one of a geographical area, or actual line of work, but not both. I want to know what a backend vs. mobile vs. PM makes in Boston vs. NYC vs. SF; and ideally, along even more dimensions. Alas, it seems that blog-studies never release the data.)
All of those factors make some of your employees less productive.
Boss: "Hey, my partner and I would love it if you'd like to join us for drinks at my place on Saturday night."
Employee (replies & CC's boss's boss): "I'm here to work, and this is making me extremely uncomfortable."
^^^ strive for that.
I would have replied saying I will be coming with my partner and look forward having a good time.
Too much vague-ry here, which, on a sensitive topic, is asking for trouble.
A bit passive-aggressive for a friendly gesture isn't it?
Is your default position to assume there's an agenda behind every invitation?
For those genuinely unclear, it's a combination of things - the individual nature of the invitation, the private nature of the venue, the timing and explicit involvement of libations whose effects often include the lowering of inhibitions - all in all it's just a super sketchy thing to all of a sudden pop up in a previously professional relationship. Any one of those would be fine; any two would be a little questionable but probably okay; all three at once constitute a great big flashing neon sign that spells out "YOUR BOSS IS TRYING TO LAY YOU".
If he doesn't understand that, he'll be the kind of manager that creates liabilities by leaving e-mail trails of questionable invitations that might get caught up in discovery if/when something happens.
> Boss: "Hey, my partner and I would love it if..
So, you think the partner being there is just a premise?
Surely inviting a female employee, alone, is the unusual aspect that would make it appear suspect?
> the individual nature of the invitation, the private nature of the venue
also:
> You don't need to see an agenda behind every invitation to recognize the agenda behind this one.
How does "that guy" know what agenda there is?
If you can't explain any better then I can't accept your argument.
"Hey employee #333 want to sex"
See? No context necessary
They make it clear that it was sent to a woman, and that the scenario at the very least was interpreted by the recipient as inappropriate.
Yes, there are scenarios where it could be acceptable, but consider that they are (much) narrower than you might think:
* Men can be sexually harassed too.
* Sexual harassment is not the only problem with an e-mail like that. It may also create drinking pressure, or a feeling that you are forced to socialise with your boss. Of course that is context-dependent too, but for my part, as a man who doesn't enjoy drinking and doesn't want to spend my Saturdays with the boss, I'd fell put under inappropriate pressure by an e-mail like that as well, because I'd be concerned that a rejection could impact work.
A lot of behaviour like that is fine when it is not between subordinates, and can be fine with subordinates too if it is someone you know very well.
But even then you need to consider that e.g. it may negatively affect team dynamics or may be unintentionally discriminatory or become seen as discriminatory purely by e.g. including only those the manager knows well too.
Would you feel you'd be fired? Because sometimes getting to know someone is an appropriate pathway to success.
Scenarios like this are more common at start-ups, aren't they? If you just want to drone through work, with no social connections, the average american mega-corp might be more appropriate.
In larger companies, on the other hand, you get all kinds of weird little fiefdoms where getting on your managers bad side is potentially far more damaging because if your boss has sufficient support he will be able to musster a much bigger support system.
Eventually it's Versailles time and everybody has to have their heads cut off. So you need to balance this "focused" (i.e. ignore the problem) approach with a longer term plan.
Or rather someone needs to. Or maybe we should just accept getting our heads cut off.
It works well for delivering your MVP and maybe the first version of your product. But then you want your employee to be empowered, to feel relevant and be able to take matters into their hands. Otherwise it doesn't scale. But happy and satisfied worker could step up to this level. Unsatisfied and soldier like employees cannot do that, they will be just soldiers that fear for their position. And not having even patriotism (that is what bond soldiers) work for them, the best will leave your company, the worst will stay.
That's one of the differences between being a manager and being a leader. A leader takes the hard questions into his hands.
But don't trust me, there are years of research in company organization saying that. Go out and read any article on HBS on the topic of leadership, workplace organization or CSR and you'll see that.
So, your mentor was wrong, sorry about that.
I think generally work places should be much more well rounded. We spend a considerable amount of time there, so why not allow it to be a place where we expand our lives instead of a place where we only "make money, save money, save time, and make customers happier"?
Generic "Engineering" is just as bad as CS. In fact, CS is slowly approaching the Engineering level (from the top).
What's interesting is that the graph that's often bandied about left off engineering, to show CS as the sole outlier.
Things that make you go "hmmm...."
I think engineering is probably worse than CS because there is discrimination from technical as well as non technical peers.
Among non technical peers (Operators, fitters, boilermakers etc) side of things there is a tendency for people to assume female engineers lack physical capabilities I see it out on mine/construction sites etc workers will refuse to let female engineers carry tool bags etc. They won't look twice when I heft a bag full of Stillson wrenches around yet I've seen on occasions they'll almost snatch the bags out of female colleague's hands.
As a male I'm pretty much left to my own devices when I'm out on site the workers assume I'm competent. For females there is a tendency for workers to "hover" they won't trust her ability until she demonstrates it. The culture out on construction sites etc is not really all that female friendly in general. I mentioned it to my sister once and she was pretty dismissive her response was something along the lines of "That's just the way things are they assume I'm just a clueless girl until I prove to them I know what I'm doing".
On the technical side I see it a lot with external clients when they visit the office sometimes they'll do things like assume a female engineer is a secretary.
Most of the diversity efforts are focused on technical side of things around inclusive office culture and things like that. There are not a lot of initiatives targeted towards non technical peers other than very token stuff like "Don't put up pornography in site sheds and crib rooms".
My sister ended up quitting her job at a power plant and works in government now she seems much happier there.
Maybe men are more trying to be polite than hostile when they won't let women carry heavy loads?
It might be, as is repeatedly suggested; but it probably isn't. If it was, we'd see more women study STEM in the first place.
That extends to even the most well-meaning diversity initiative. If nothing else, diversity initiatives create implicit filters for the types of people that are excited-to-ambivalent about diversity initiatives.
That's not a solution, it's what most places are already doing.
The problem is that it only takes one idiot to cause a problem... And the odds of at least one manager being an idiot approach 100%, as your company grows.
(In a place like Uber, though, the problem seems systemic.)
SV encourages people to move fast, be aggressive, don't be afraid to break things, ignore regulations, disrupt all the things, etc. There are substantial similarities to the way a VC-funded startup operates and the way a pick-up artist operates.
You'll notice that Susan Fowler's blog post also goes into detail about the Game of Thrones-esque culture with middle managers constantly and openly plotting to overthrow their superiors and take their jobs. A culture that encourages you to figuratively fuck your boss also encourages you to literally fuck your subordinates. It's a culture of aggression and proving your dominance.
Big traditional conservative companies on the other hand... well, they just don't have that culture. Their culture discourages people from taking risks at every level. In order to get anything done, you have to go through several layers of bureaucracy, put everything in writing, make sure your is are dotted and your ts crossed. It discourages aggressive, disruptive risk-takers from coming near the company. And without aggressive, disruptive risk-takers, you don't have nearly the amount of sexual harassment. Yes, it still happens on occasion, but it isn't nearly as systemic or as blatant as in a VC-funded startup.
So it leads to the seemingly-paradoxical situation where the best companies for women and LGBT people to work at are the kind of "conservative" companies that you can imagine Ned Flanders working at. But culturally conservative isn't the same thing as politically conservative; I've said this before, but I have a lot of politically liberal friends (most of them enthusiastic Clinton voters) who live in the suburbs, work 9-5 at traditional large corporations, and have traditional families.
also, this sort of "extrapolate to the absurd" list ("religion, sex, gender, age, height, phase of the moon (maybe you employ werewolves), etc.") is a classic red flag for someone not caring about the very real inequalities in the system - the most common variant is "i don't care if you're white, black, green or purple...", but what it really works out to is "i think we can just brush any black-person-specific problems under the carpet and everything will be fine".
To be perfectly honest, that sounds like a recipe for a dull ass, penny pinching, unenjoyable work environment. The kind where you're treated as a cost center.
A mentor once told me that business fundamentally revolves around making money, saving money, saving time, and making customers happier. I like thinking about work that way, as it has nothing to do with religion, sex, gender, age, height, phase of the moon (maybe you employ werewolves), etc.
Focusing on work can be hard though, because it might mean you will encounter a conflict when it comes to supporting a cause with good intentions. Say the MinorityCodingClub wants to host an event in your office. Personally, I think promoting diversity is generally a healthy thing. But what if MinorityCodingClub doesn't allow people not in that minority to participate in the event? You may find part of your staff wants to allow it, and part of your staff opposes it (perhaps silently).
Staying focused on making money, saving money, saving time, and making customers happier. It's hard enough to get people to come together on doing that, so don't tolerate a culture that gets in the way of making that happen.