Hmm, we might be trying to use âcommunity normsâ differently? For example, if I thought we should have a norm that managers should abstain from alcohol at social events with people they manage I wouldnât approach this by trying to get a group together to shame drinkers. Instead Iâd talk casually with other EAs about whether this was a good norm to advocate for, ask in the EA Managers Slack, maybe write up something for the Forum (âAvoid Drinking With Reports?°â). Then if that got broad support (which it wouldnât, but continuing) Iâd try to convince orgs to have policies on this.
For a norm to be a norm, it needs to be enforced via social pressure (most commonly using shame, but other forms too) or else it is not really a norm. What would it mean to have a norm against drinking with reports if someone repeatedly and publicly got drunk with reports and proceeded to receive no social sanction of any kind? If by ânormâ you strictly mean âadvocacy for organizational policyâ and not âexerting social pressureâ then I am with you. However, that is not how most people use the term. Personally, I would react much more positively to a post that said âorgs should have policies against drinking with reportsâ vs. âavoid drinking with reportsâ (and for the record I fully support orgs having policies of not drinking with reports).
Maybe I should be saying âmeta normâ or something? For many of these where Iâd like it to be is something like âwe agree that organizations should have policies against their employees from doing Xâ. So these would be norms about what policies EA orgs should have?
But there are also cases where I do think norms among individuals make sense (and should have included this in my comment above). For example, norms against people at EA meetups, especially organizers, hitting on first-timers.
Yes. Iâd agree with that. Strong push for organizations, competitions, grant-makers and events to have norms addressing certain set of issues (i.e. we could have a âmust address listâ). Norms should be adjustable to a group character and stuff like the countryâs culture. Plus some gentle community norms (itâs not ok for an event organizer/âspecial guest to hit on first-timers). Plus empathetic helpline and even resource center for those, who ended up being in an ambiguous situation with regard to those norms, or have trouble setting them due to i.e. pre-existent interpersonal dynamics or even personal traits. So they are encouraged to be mindful, address problems, acknowledge mistakes and seek best solutions instead of being ashamed and try to sweep things under the rug. Would you agree? :)
While I agree that itâs good for this not to happen, a guest is probably the person there who has the least information about who the first timers are.
Yes, Iâd agree. It wasnât a very well thought-through example. If we remove a âspecial guestâ part, would it make the whole comment more solid and understandable?
Hmm, we might be trying to use âcommunity normsâ differently? For example, if I thought we should have a norm that managers should abstain from alcohol at social events with people they manage I wouldnât approach this by trying to get a group together to shame drinkers. Instead Iâd talk casually with other EAs about whether this was a good norm to advocate for, ask in the EA Managers Slack, maybe write up something for the Forum (âAvoid Drinking With Reports?°â). Then if that got broad support (which it wouldnât, but continuing) Iâd try to convince orgs to have policies on this.
For a norm to be a norm, it needs to be enforced via social pressure (most commonly using shame, but other forms too) or else it is not really a norm. What would it mean to have a norm against drinking with reports if someone repeatedly and publicly got drunk with reports and proceeded to receive no social sanction of any kind? If by ânormâ you strictly mean âadvocacy for organizational policyâ and not âexerting social pressureâ then I am with you. However, that is not how most people use the term. Personally, I would react much more positively to a post that said âorgs should have policies against drinking with reportsâ vs. âavoid drinking with reportsâ (and for the record I fully support orgs having policies of not drinking with reports).
Maybe I should be saying âmeta normâ or something? For many of these where Iâd like it to be is something like âwe agree that organizations should have policies against their employees from doing Xâ. So these would be norms about what policies EA orgs should have?
But there are also cases where I do think norms among individuals make sense (and should have included this in my comment above). For example, norms against people at EA meetups, especially organizers, hitting on first-timers.
Yes. Iâd agree with that. Strong push for organizations, competitions, grant-makers and events to have norms addressing certain set of issues (i.e. we could have a âmust address listâ). Norms should be adjustable to a group character and stuff like the countryâs culture. Plus some gentle community norms (itâs not ok for an event organizer/âspecial guest to hit on first-timers). Plus empathetic helpline and even resource center for those, who ended up being in an ambiguous situation with regard to those norms, or have trouble setting them due to i.e. pre-existent interpersonal dynamics or even personal traits. So they are encouraged to be mindful, address problems, acknowledge mistakes and seek best solutions instead of being ashamed and try to sweep things under the rug. Would you agree? :)
While I agree that itâs good for this not to happen, a guest is probably the person there who has the least information about who the first timers are.
Yes, Iâd agree. It wasnât a very well thought-through example. If we remove a âspecial guestâ part, would it make the whole comment more solid and understandable?