This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What you're asking for is loyalty, but can the employees expect that loyalty to be reciprocated? You're asking them to be suckers, and when they refuse you replace them with people who don't have a choice.
It seems to me the best situation is one where you have a relatively homogenous high-trust but still individualistic society where employees and employers basically treat each other like second-cousins. They have some sense of loyalty, but not too much. A kind of nepotism occurs on the margins, but it's no big deal. Employees have a sense of obligation to their employer, and vice versa. Fundamentally, they still perceive each other as members of the same tribe with a shared fate. They won't ignore their own self-interest, but they won't actively try to screw over the other just for some marginal short-run benefit. This is the sweet spot where capitalism is compatible with evolved human psychology, but it's quite precarious and unstable. Very few human groups throughout history have been able to maintain these kind of social arrangements for long at the kind of scale necessary for industrial civilization. Jews are really good at it (though partly just because they're more often literally second-cousins).
Go too individualist, too diverse, and too low trust, then there is no loyalty. Everyone defects, and they're not wrong to. The employees do not see the training as a reason to be more loyal to the company, and they're right not to. The company will betray them for mere convenience, and the only thing possibly standing in the way are government regulators. It's really difficult to unscramble egg, and most people are still furiously stirring it up as much as possible.
That seems to be where line managers are incredibly important and influential. The differences I've seen (and felt) between "people are staying when they could leave for a slightly better offer because this manager is great to work for" and "people are leaving for a slightly worse offer because this manager is terrible" is... rather impressive.
I can speak from personal experience on this.
If my current manager ever retires(and he certainly has a plethora of opportunity to do so), I won't be out the door, but I'll definitely be hunting for a new job, given that the other managers in my company are less than stellar.
Well, unless they do something like spiral me off into my own department and let me manage everything on my lonesome(which I'm already doing, but, eh.)
And atleast one other person I work with feels similar, to the point where he's given me a scare moment when joking about looking for a new job.
More options
Context Copy link
You see a version of this internally in larger organizations. Some managers always seem to have an open requisition. I wouldn't want to work for most of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link