« Turning on my espresso machine from bed | The Odyssey » |
The following is extracted from my Hire me page - basically all the stuff there that doesn't pertain to my personal employment.
I promised myself I'd get better at identifying and contributing to healthy work environments.
I believe the thoughts and feelings presented here aren't singular or disruptive but I am publishing them because I think they are at least underrepresented in the tech sector and I want to do my small part to help change that.
To figure out whether an organization is a healthy work environment I thought of some questions as conversation starters.
How some of my previous bosses have or might have answered this:
Obviously some of these worked out better than others but just about none are inherently wrong.
Follow-up questions:
The answers don't need to be ideal, if there even is such a thing, nor do they need to be perfectly aligned (perfect alignment can well be a bad thing).
It's great if you have a cohesive view on this and if you're actively managing discrepancies in others' definitions of success.
There's a lot to unpack about organizational culture and I think this is a good, pointed question to get started with.
Why?
Specific examples would be awesome.
I believe that healthy organizations consist of people who complement one another. Nobody can be everything to everyone in every situation.
By extension, your group -- up/down/sideways -- would ideally have complementing and thus conflicting points of view and those should require y'all to say no to one another from time to time. If you don't, something's off. If you can't do that with ease, respect, and care (i.e. empathy), something's off.
Follow-up question: You may well have come across ideas that are technically or economically sound but have some ethical implications worth exploring. What happens then?
And if your culture is based on "how do we get to yes?", how do you get past bad ideas once you've identified them to be bad? In other words, how do you learn?
There's a lot to unpack here in part because good learning requires some dissonance.
Again, the answers don't need to be ideal, if there even is such a thing.
This is also a good time for a conversation about psychological safety, consent, and agency.
Whichever way you slice it, diversity is hugely important.
The more we as a group think, feel, and operate differently from one another, the more likely we are to come up with better and broader solutions that better the lives of more people.
Of course I'm curious about your diversity stats; I'm more curious about how readily we could do even better.
My previous conversation starter questions don't directly ask about diversity in terms of race/ethnicity/preferences/etc.; instead they try to determine whether we have what I consider to be prerequisites for a diverse organization.
If you don't know what success looks like, how do we value how much closer to success a more diverse team will get us?
In my experience, because it's the right thing to do lasts until the next hiring frenzy or the next round of budget cuts -- either can be just as bad.
If you don't know how to part ways with people, how will we take greater chances in hiring to improve our chances of diverse hiring?
No one in tech ever got fired for hiring a college kid, and yet that hiring strategy hasn't gotten our industry to where we want to be. So let's not just "blame the pool". Let's correct for structural inequities by expanding our notion of pools, writing better job ads, and taking some chances.
If you don't know how to intentionally identify and resolve conflict with empathy, how can we maintain a safe and supportive environment for people with diverse approaches to conflict?
If you don't know how to foster learning, how will we grow people from diverse points of origin?
Further reading that has informed my views and opinions:
« Turning on my espresso machine from bed | The Odyssey » |