An anonymous commenter on Mini patronizingly critiqued me for “airing dirty laundry” about Microsoft on a public forum under the guise of a “helpful” warning me that “my new employer” might have second thoughts about me because I’d presumably “do it to them as well”. (See the thread for the full language and context — it’s near the end.)
Especially in context, it’s one of those comments that’s fascinating on so many levels, and representative of certain kinds of thinking that it’s well worth analyzing. Where to start?
First of all, it’s kind of bizarre and very amusing to critique me for “airing dirty laundry” in a thread that starts with Mini’s saying “What does it take to be disappeared from Microsoft? We can only guess one day Stuart Scott was walking outside of his building when a black Escalade with VI0L8R plates pulled up, Ken DiPetrio swung open a door and said, ‘Get in.'” So no matter what the poster thinks of my argument, he’s shooting himself* in the foot by framing his critiques in this way. In an environment where people value transparency, “airing dirty laundry” is something that’s generally seen as a good thing. Putting me completely aside, showing his lack of understanding while unnecessarily dissing and devaluing whistleblowers and all the people who *do* see appropriate airing of dirty laundry as potentially in the company’s best interests (like Mini and his/her/their fans) isn’t a good way of starting an argument.
For his goal of criticizing my behavior, rather than using the vague and loaded term “dirty laundry” it would have been better for him to be more concrete about what he thought I had done that was against Microsoft’s interests. Making blustering and sneering implications like he did is easier but usually counter-productive, leaving him with a hard time responding when you’re challenged — for example, if he attempts to advance a more concrete argument now he risks looking defensive.
Lots more to cover, including the reason potential future employers at Microsoft and elsewhere would be likely to see this discussion as a positive rather than counting against me (quick summary: it embodies positive transparency and empowers employees by helping them understand existing processes), why the “let me explain” framing similarly backfires, the hegemonic effects of devaluing personal experience, and of course gender issues.
To be continued,
jon
* Or, potentially, if the poster’s a she, shooting herself in the foot. Since the communication style here has several pattern that are much more common among males, I’ll use male pronouns for simplicity; so whenever you see “he” in relation to the poster, please mentally translate to “the poster, whatever gender he and/or she might be” or something like that.
Sriram Krishnan | 09-Dec-07 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure who posted the MiniMSFT comment but I agree with the sentiment that you dissing Microsoft in public once you’ve left the company is definitely uncool.
– You accuse the anonymous poster of being vague but that’s exactly what you were. Quote – “and my own personal experience matches this as well”. I don’t agree with the conclusions you draw about Litebulb based on anecdotal data. Before posting this comment, I ran it past women I know at Microsoft – and a lot of them don’t seem to agree with you at all, Jon. Also, you fail to mention that the few times you brought this up internally on Litebulb, a lot of people vociferously disagreed with you.
I’m not saying gender issues don’t exist. I’m objecting to your lumping in Litebulb and other parts of ‘Microsoft culture’ in with real issues that face women at Microsot and the IT world in general. This is a disservice to not only Microsoft but the deep gender issues themselves.
– In one of your MiniMSFT comments, you spoke of “learned helplessness” and unwillingess to take personal responsiblity. You were a partner at Microsoft – one of the “elite”. You had all the power and resources to take concrete steps and fix these issues. It doesn’t strike me as fair that you leave the company and beat up Microsoft for the very issues you could (and should ) have fixed.
– And finally, I think its rude of you to talk about litebulb knowing fully well that the folks who make up that alias probably won’t see your comment and respond to it (or) won’t be comfortable responding in public. In fact, they may not be able to respond to you in public since a lot of the counter arguments draw upon internal information.
I’m sure you recall that a lot of Litebulb regulars don’t agree with you and there have been several long email threads on this. The folks who are reading MiniMSFT are seeing only your side of the picture – and *that* is a disservice to MSFT.
Jon, I have huge respect for you and what you did at MSFT. AdAstra and the Mashup Days are great. The code analysis tools you’ve built are great.Unlike the BobT on MiniMSFT, I’m very familiar with your work at Microsoft.
But this is definitely not cool. There are tons of us here, working day and night, creating great products. You are disparaging them unfairly in a forum where they can’t respond.
p.s Before you stereotype this comment as falling into ‘typical MSFT male patterns’, I know of several women here who agree with me. I don’t want you to make this a gender issue – it really isn’t.
very well.
– Sriram Krishnan
jon | 09-Dec-07 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the long post, Sriram. I don’t agree with your position but I think you do a good job articulating it. (For those who are wondering, I referred to Litebulb here as an illustration of the indirect effect of uncivil speech.
There certainly are people of all genders on and off Litebulb who strongly disagree with my position. And there have indeed been several previous discussions; people at Microsoft who care can find several threads both on the DL (members-only) and the openly available Ad Astra blog documenting the controversy as well as the a series of posts with experimental data and research citations that support my position.
I’m not sure who posted the MiniMSFT comment but I agree with the sentiment that you dissing Microsoft in public once you’ve left the company is definitely uncool.
i honestly don’t see what in my comments in these various threads are disrespectful of Microsoft as a whole or disparaging of most of the employees. Yes, i’m being critical of bullies and assholes (at Microsoft and elsewhere), and of people who ignore or tolerate that behavior. Are you and the other poster defending them? Or is there something in my posts that I’m missing?
I’m not saying gender issues don’t exist. I’m objecting to your lumping in Litebulb and other parts of ‘Microsoft culture’ in with real issues that face women at Microsot and the IT world in general. This is a disservice to not only Microsoft but the deep gender issues themselves.
In my view, norms of discourse and attitudes that marginalize women are integral parts of the overall gender issues in the IT world and society: when women (or any marginalized groups) don’t participate equally in discussions, their voices are shut out. While not specifically focusing on gender, Edelman’s Construction of the Political Spectacle and the excellent interview with Sandra Harding Starting with Marginalized Lives are two good places to better understand this dynamic.
I know of several women here who agree with me. I don’t want you to make this a gender issue – it really isn’t.
A 2000-person DL has 98%+ male participation, and has repeatedly declined to make adjustments that will change this — and you don’t think it’s a gender issue? Of course you’re entitled to your opinion; I disagree, and think that the facts support me.
Here’s a thought experiment to show why the “I know women who agree with me” argument doesn’t hold up (and by the way a lot like the classic “some of my best friends are Jewish”, rubs a lot of people the wrong way). Because of their different standpoints and experiences, some but not all women and transfolk are likely to observe and report the issue; say for the sake of argument that 50% of women see that it as a problem. If you talk about it with a dozen women, even assuming that they trust you enough they’re willing to be honest with you, you’re still likely to find at several who haven’t observed the problem.
While their personal experiences matter a lot, and are solid evidence that the problem isn’t universal and doesn’t fall only on gender lines, your generalizing from their experiences ignores the voices of others who do see this as a gender problem.
My experience over the last year of me bring variations on this issue up (again, at Microsoft and elsewhere) is once again consistent with others’ experiences and most of the research out there.
Typically most women and men who venture opinions agree, often with quiet postings or in email. Some men (and sometimes a few women) disagree; some of them voice their opinions very loudly and aggressively. [Many people don’t voice an opinion at all.] This kind of disparity is very common, and there are a lot of potential reasons for it. Privilege and (a culture where mentioning gender issues lead to hostile repsonses are two good ones.
(For those who aren’t familiar with privilege, Feminism 101’s excellent What is male privilege? is a great introduction and has several other worthwhile links.)
jon
PS: One specific point I disagree with Sriram on is that it seems to me that by suggesting I’m excluding people I think he’s being a little unfair to the Litebulb crowd. He or anybody else can forward the link to list and anybody who wants to participate in the discussion is welcome.
jon | 09-Dec-07 at 7:55 pm | Permalink
Also, I should point out that the specific comments I was trying to discuss in this thread were posted on Mini by an anonymous poster of indeterminate gender who may or may not be a Microsoft employee. Sriram brought up the Litebulb connection here, not me 🙂
Sriram Krishnan | 10-Dec-07 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure whether I’ll respond here since I’m of the belief that this is a discussion better carried on elsewhere. I think Jon disagrees so I guess we have to agree to disagree.
However, I do want to say one thing.
Jon and I had a private mail exchange and he pointed out a few things which I wasnt aware of. I apologize for my second bullet point (about his being a partner and having the power and the resources). My understanding of Jon’s role was incorrect.
jon | 10-Dec-07 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
Sriram, where do you think is a better place to carry on the discussion?
In terms of my role at Microsoft, while I was in fact in the elite class (GM, “partner-level”) and certainly did my best to act empowered, in practice like most lot of senior people at Microsoft there were a lot more constraints than one would expect. This is frighteningly the case for many VPs and even Corporate VPs as well; I was constantly surprised at the limited flexibility they had with their resources. As for me, well, my executive support evaporated, and my budget got cut in half in FY07 — and then I couldn’t find a role at the right level working on culture change FY08. So while I agree that I was a lot more empowered than most employees, I don’t really think it’s fair to imply that since you didn’t solve the problem I shouldn’t talk about it after leaving the company.
Bob | 12-Dec-07 at 11:47 am | Permalink
I caught the original comment and thought it was a prime example of management-speak – says effectively nothing and at the same time tries to negatively impact your future and/or leave a veiled threat. Agree that Sriram makes a case for the other perspective, but seriously, who is more likely to speak to what is clearly wrong at MSFT, an existing employee or a recently departed one? Folks should concentrate on the message, not the messenger.
Liminal states » Archive » Notes on quotes | 17-Dec-07 at 8:08 am | Permalink
[…] pointed out to me in email that my repeating the characterization of me as “airing dirty laundry” looks like an example of something that politicians (and persuasive communicators in general) are […]
Joshua Allen | 18-Dec-07 at 9:52 am | Permalink
Sriram,
I myself am sometimes guilty of blunt, direct, and confrontational e-mail exchanges. I think this communication style can be very effective among people who trust and respect each other, and are accustomed to such communication.
But such a communication style most certainly excludes women. There are boatloads of research that show that women and men have different communication styles in co-ed environments. It’s a primary reason that Bill Gates daughter goes to an all-girls school.
The fact is, many of the common communication patterns in business (not just MSFT) tend to exclude women. We are all adults here, so there should be no need to separate us by gender the way that we sometimes do with schoolkids. Men have been telling women to “grow some balls” for far too long; and that’s really what the response of “no problem here; stop complaining” amounts to.