Hacker News Reader

Honestly, I think many of the dismissive reactions to these things have a similar basis. It can look like people excusing this behavior, but I think in many cases they've just never seen this behavior.

If the worst you've seen at work is friendly teasing and maybe some racy language, it's easy to assume that's what happened and someone is overreacting.

If you've seen someone truly corrosive, that assumption changes. There's a world of difference between teasing and toxicity, even if the person doing it is careful enough to use language that could fall into either category. I can only imagine the frustration of writing down someone's comments and thinking "that doesn't look so bad on paper" when context made it clear (often to everyone present) that the exchange was terrible.

And on a related note, I think companies that handle these things poorly have misunderstood their incentives. Yes, avoiding lawsuits is important to them, and yes, I can even see why they wouldn't admit there was a problem. But to not take action is terrible - as your story indicates, a sufficiently toxic employee can destroy the functioning of an entire team. Burying an incident may be easy, but it's not a good business choice when you're going to lose good, valuable staff over the issue.

(I believe The Dilbert Principle suggested this was the single most important thing a manager could do: make sure this kind of hostility never, ever persisted on a team.)

Except its almost never teasing, its bullying.

I learned the difference between teasing someone and bullying in elementary school, directly via the education system (ie. the teacher).

Repeated 'joke' on/about the same subject? Bullying.

Is it mutual fun between/with different subjects, and can the subject themselves laugh about the joke? Teasing.

Telling someone to 'shape up' after they heard a joke regarding their race, sex, or something else the umptieth time is nigh annoying, and they will explode internally if they're introvert. People do notice this, and it gives bullies (ie. narcissists) fuel. The extroverts will more clearly defend their boundaries, so bullies tend to stick away from those. I don't know if the subject in this story is introvert, but I do know -and this is a generalisation- Indian women are rather courteous.

I would argue that if the repeated joke is agreed upon by all involved, it doesn't have to be bullying. Friends have inside jokes that only they enjoy and get repeated constantly. Why can't an inside joke be about someone?

I'm the worst dresser on my team and i commonly (not daily, but monthly) get "hey nice clothes!" comments. We all laugh and move on. if the comments bothered me, i could say something, or dress like an adult. The issue only occurs if it truly bothers me and im too afraid to say anything. it's pretty easy to say "are people saying things because they dont like me or because we're friends bantering".

I think the real difference is mutual fun with the subject also being involved. The repeated subject matter shouldnt matter. If someone can't tell that the subject isn't involved, the problem isn't their bullying/teasing, it's the fact that the person is a jerk. it's all subjective and some people can read it better than others.

> I would argue that if the repeated joke is agreed upon by all involved, it doesn't have to be bullying.

True, and this can occur on work, but by default it does not. See my comment hereunder on the different social rings.

There is also the argument that one needs to accept criticism, or "take some flak". People take much better criticism 1 on 1. So if your boss finds that you clothe yourself badly he could address that during a meeting. Another way is by addressing a whole group without mentioning individuals. I suppose at a small company the likelihood you're on close terms with your direct superior is higher, making a situation where a boss just casually mentions your clothing style more fitting.

> If someone can't tell that the subject isn't involved, the problem isn't their bullying/teasing, it's the fact that the person is a jerk.

I'd say a bully is a jerk (and very likely, worse, suffering from personality disorder(s)), but also there is the autism spectrum which meddles with the point you make. A normal person learns this in their childhood but there are people who simply lack the social skills to read their joke is inappropriate. Although even then, it is a spectrum, not a binary 0/1.

I agree. no one has a problem with how i dress. it isn't brought up in a "fix this" sort of way. it is brought up in a "oh look, another new ninja turtles shirt" way. My clothing choices aren't inappropriate, but many of my coworkers prefer dressing more formal, which makes me stand out. I don't view it as teasing of any sort so I'm ok with it... but I'm aware that other people might be hurt by being called a poor dresser.

And I would agree with that about the spectrum. My point was more that the only issue arises when someone doesn't realize they are being offensive:

Trying to be offensive -> clear violation -> handle it.

Recipient speaks up -> clear violation -> handle it.

Trying to be playful, recipient offended but doesn't speak up -> unclear that it is in fact a violation -> may wind up unhandled resulting in issues.

Trying to be playful and everyone gets along -> no violation

If you're trying to be playful and the recipient doesn't respond well, they shouldn't have to speak up to end it. So if you cant read someone, the "dont keep pushing it" is a good default to have, but if its apparent everyone is having a good time, no biggie.

I agree with the distinction you're making, but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in. I'm making a general point, and there are plenty of workplaces where "different subjects and people laugh at themselves also" is a perfectly good summary.

I also agree that teasing really shouldn't tread on race/sex/etc - even if it's innocently meant it can easily be a topic too raw for human, and too similar to not-at-all-innocent comments.

Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!

> but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in

Agreed! Not sure where the theory I use is from but allow me to explain:

Ring 0: 0-5 people. Your best friends. Can be family members, too. Max 5 people, likely less. Ring 1: Your other family, and friends. (These are not your Facebook friends.) Ring 2: Everyone else you know, or think you know. Your co-workers are probably in ring 2. You barely know them, if at all, and you must stay courteous to them by default. Maybe you drink a cup of coffee with a few of them during a break, and eventually get close and get to ring 1 (or even 0, just don't dream about that).

[Note I am not sure if there is also a ring 3 to distinct further. I don't use it.]

So IOW I default co-workers in ring 2.

Those people in ring 0, you can say pretty much anything you want to them. I can make a very, very bad joke about something to people in ring 0 and they'll know I am joking. They can take the offence, and I can take offence from them as well, besides I know when they're joking and when not. It is because I know these people very well, for a longer period of time, and I love them. You don't make friends, you become friends; ie. you can't really force people to get higher in the ring. It kinda goes natural, over time.

The people in ring 2 require a professional attitude. Those are your co-workers. You don't insult them, you don't hurt them, you don't bully them, and... you don't tease them. Why not? Teasing belongs to those in ring 0, and perhaps in ring 1 provided you're careful.

> Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!

Oh, in such a situation I'd keep it before me, so that'd be some kind of thought crime. The reason why it matters in this context tho is because that detail makes it easy to envision how she became a victim of bullies. You see, bullies pick their victim like a leopard picks their pray. In this example they wouldn't pick a vocal woman who seems to stand up for themselves.

I like your explanation using rings, and I'd say there is a ring 3 which is new acquaintances. For instance, someone who you're introduced to by a ring 1 or 2, and end up hanging out with for the remainder of a night out. They're not as much a stranger as someone you pass on the sidewalk, but you only know about them based on what they've told you during this first extended encounter.

I think they way you know it's "almost never teasing" is that these people are not friends, they are co-workers.

I don't mean offense, but this comment seems completely insane to me - you are saying that in the majority of cases, anything insulting said among coworkers is meant as an insult rather than good-natured ribbing?

I look at the world today and despite an absolutely massive improvement in acceptance of diversity, many so called minorities seem to think things are even worse.

It makes me wonder if there is some sort of cultural misunderstanding in play here, whereby "people of color" (I despise that term) have finally achieved pure acceptance to the degree that people feel completely comfortable with them enough to not walk on eggshells in their speech, cultural harmony has finally been completely achieved, but then the informality of speech between close friends is mistakenly taken as an insult, the reaction is holy shit what a bitch, and we're back to where we started.

Somewhat naive, of course. Completely wrong - I doubt it.

Coworkers are not friends as a general rule. You get to choose your friends--you don't get to choose your conworkers. As a consequence, the inter-coworker relationship is a highly artificial and delicate one. Good natured ribbing has no place in it.

> You get to choose your friends--you don't get to choose your conworkers.

I don't like that you say this. For us introverted folks, that's the only way some of us meet. This is, in a way, questioning the sincerity of my friendship with my coworker... with whom I'm now connected with pretty intimately. I know I became close with this person because I was forced to be with her 7 hours a day every weekday for 3 years. No way I would have become so connected were it not for this weird scenario.

And besides, when choosing friends myself I'm probably going to find like-minded people... life is more exciting the other way... and that's more likely to happen when relationships are made without your choice.

Nobody is saying you can't befriend your coworkers. They're saying that you can't presume friendship with coworkers as an excuse to treat them unprofessionally.

Yet good natured ribbing between co-workers happens all the time. And many co-workers like each other and became good friends.

And many don't, but are provided with no effective way to avoid it. I'm not sure what your argument is here.

I think part of the problem is that it's hard (or impossible) to tell how much someone is exaggerating on the internet. Sometimes the answer really is "toughen up" because what they're experiencing is really nothing. Other times, it really is a horrible situation and people should be fired for it.

Why is it just hard "on the internet"? And why do people find certain things easier to believe while finding others easier to dismiss as likely exaggeration?

If we could find easily-actionable answers to those two questions... sigh.

I'd assume that "on the internet" means hearing only one side ant not witnessing the story yourself.

That's never the answer. Why is it that it's ok to not treat some people with basic human dignity and respect?

I'm not entirely sure if you're saying "toughen up" is never the answer, or "firing" is never the answer.

Assuming the former: It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned. "Toughen up" is perhaps not quite the right phrasing here: It's asking people to perhaps extend the basic human dignity and respect you request of others, to others. Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice. Treating the other person as a person capable of mistakes or being misunderstood, instead of a gremlin to simply assume the worst of.

Assuming the latter: Sometimes you simply can't work through the problem. They may be a toxic individual - they may simply be driven to toxic behavior at this job (perhaps they hate it) - perhaps it's simply a matter of deciding who you're going to keep between two people who simply cannot get along with each other, to the point of causing problems for the rest of the team. Assuming you can fix their issues when they can't isn't treating them with dignity or respect. Leaving the situation to fester and drag on isn't treating the rest of your team with dignity and respect. Firing one or both of them might not be treating them with dignity and respect either - but you've only so many options. But just because you're firing someone doesn't mean you can't at least strive to do so. Wish them well on their next venture, and mean it.

"Toughen up" is never the answer.

"It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. "

This is still entirely the fault of the one who mistakes ribbing for actual team building.

"To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned."

Telling them to knock it off is NOT censoring.

"Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice"

Because no one has ever faced retaliation for doing just this. No one, upon hearing this from a co-worker, has never ratcheted up the "friendly ribbing".

> This is still entirely the fault of the one who mistakes ribbing for actual team building.

When two people agree that they're engaging in friendly banter with/against each other, and an unrelated third party freaks out with their own misinterpretation of the situation, is it still the people engaging in banter who are to blame? Because I've seen this.

And what about the person who cannot handle having their code reviewed - no matter how softly and kindly the reviewer attempts to approach the topic? Despite making it very clear that minor suggestions for further improvements aren't some kind of slanderous attack against one's personal character?

Look: We agree sometimes someone's just being a dick, even if they weren't intentionally malicious about it, and it's their fault and they need to change their behavior. But it does not follow that absolutely every bit of miscommunication is completely and utterly the fault of the person attempting to convey something. If I misremember the meaning of a word, that's on me. If I willfully twist and misinterpret someone's words, that's on me. If I mistakenly do so, when the other party has communicated quite clearly and in good will? That's still on me. Communication requires the effort of two parties, and completely absolving one of them from any roll in doing so successfully isn't reasonable or helpful.

If I have a habit of ascribing malice where there is none - in an ideal world, someone sits down and we have a conversation where they can successfully convey that, no, pointing out a typo in a doc comment isn't a personal attack on my character, we all make the same mistakes, we're just trying to help each other out and get more stuff done better as a team - they mean to offer me a hand up, rather than to put me down. I'd call this a long winded way of saying: "toughen up." What would you call it, instead? Or do you even agree with me that this conversation should happen? Surely we shouldn't just fire the person giving me a code review, because of my own hangups and hypersensitivities?

> Telling them to knock it off is NOT censoring.

Which is why I suggested it.

On the other hand, we see calls to disinvite people from conferences, ban their social media accounts, fire them, to 'dox' them and harass them off the internet entirely for perceived transgressions. These, perhaps, are attempts at censorship. This I suggest against.

> Because no one has ever faced retaliation for doing just this. No one, upon hearing this from a co-worker, has never ratcheted up the "friendly ribbing".

At which point, you've moved from assumptions of malice to evidence. Yes, there are assholes out there. It sucks. We should try to do something about it. "Doing something about it" should not be pretaliation based on thin assumptions, being an asshole before they can be an asshole.

To add further to the former category: appropriate friendly ribbing or banter definitely fall under the category of basic human dignity or respect.

People cry at weddings. Not because they are sad, but because they are happy (usually). Why cry when you're happy? Studies[1] suggest that crying lowers your defenses. Similar to how salutes and handshakes were ways of demonstrating you weren't armed, you form a lot of social bonds when you are comfortable enough to be defenseless.

Friendly banter is exactly that, on an emotional level. Sure, crying may make me physically less defended, but allowing some friendly coworker banter makes me emotionally less defended. This encourages bonding. it's the difference between laughing at and laughing with.

Targeting someone maliciously is never acceptable. But friendly banter is sometimes not acceptable. Different people have different tolerances. Calling someone a fat worthless piece of garbage. Probably not ok. saying "geez, another donut?" to a coworker may trigger a group laughter (the subject included: "I start my diet tomorrow, i swear!") or it may cause a reaction the exact same way calling them a worthless piece of garbage might. Discussing their weight might make them feel vulnerable in a bonding sort of way, or in a targeted sort of way, you really should know a person before making those kind of comments though.

I had a young colleague who quit recently. He missed our weekly developer meeting (because he was new, and forgot) and when we got back, another colleague said "Yeah, since you weren't at the meeting, we spent the whole time talking about you" in a clearly joking way, trying to include the new guy in the banter. In fact, he said it to 3 different people who missed the meeting (man, a lot of people missed the meeting that week). The guy demanded he not be a part of the "bro culture" and wanted to work remotely full time. The counter was remote 3 days a week, in office 2, and his desk could be on the opposite side of the building. He rejected that. If you were there, it was apparent that he wasn't being bullied. he had moved across the state for a job and was looking for any way to be able to move back home while keeping the job. His goal was not to get dignity and respect, his goal was to get his way. If he wanted dignity and respect (and honestly thought we spent a whole meeting talking about him behind his back), then any of the concessions offered to him should have worked. Everyone on the team tried to include this guy. Treating him with kid gloves really was kinda more segregating than a toxic individual (when its better to just not talk to someone about real problems than risk upsetting them, that's an issue too). The other guys who missed the meeting looked at the clock, said a profanity, then laughed about it.

[1]: http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html - "Crying is a highly evolved behavior," said researcher Oren Hasson, an evolutionary biologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "My analysis suggests that by blurring vision, tears lower defenses and reliably function as signals of submission, a cry for help, and even in a mutual display of attachment and as a group display of cohesion."

Bisby, I just can't understand how you go from a - very clearly to me - thought-through understanding of the nuances of response to targeted banter, to your apparent mind-reading of your colleague's motivations. I'm not saying that his motivations weren't bound up with a desire to move back home, but you state it with such dogmatic certainty it undoes any reasonableness your previous arguments so convincingly showed. "His goal was [...] to get his way". The assumption that your view must also be his view, and that if it is not he must be duplicitous, bespeaks a terrifying lack of imagination. Perhaps he's not the kind of guy to "say a profanity" and carry on working. Who knows? Perhaps you're right, but we just can't say. Why assume the worst of him?

You're right, I can't for sure say that. I've left out some stuff, but it is sort of a "you had to be there" kind of things. A lot of small stuff added up.

He had been working 2-3 months at a job where it was clearly labeled as remote work is a one off privilege (Snowed in? Work remotely. Kid sick? Work remotely. In general, be in the office). Yet after the incident, his only demand was full time remote. He didn't care if people were reprimanded. He didn't care if he didn't have to see the people that offended him. Anyone who was actually bothered by the situation I feel would care more about having the situation corrected rather than just getting full time remote. "I don't like the culture in the programming area" - "we can move your desk so you aren't even within earshot of that area, and we'll make sure the programmers are more professional in their discussions" - "no, that won't do, I need to be full time remote"

We had previously invited this guy to partake in stuff on weekends with us. The one time he even said "maybe", he wound up going to visit his parents that weekend instead. This was not some sort of exclusionary tactic, and this was probably the first time he was "targeted" by something.

Also, I'm not going to say that the "bully" was in the right here. This was a person who was clearly not intending to be a friend. Keeping things limited to professional interactions only would have been just fine, I don't need to be friends with all my coworkers (though I could see being the only one in a department that isn't a friend as kind of intimidating, but again, that was by his decision, not anyone else's). This "bully" has a hard time determining when it is appropriate to make jokes or when he's pushing it too far. But this wasn't an exceptionally inappropriate comment in my mind.

I used a bit of hyperbole perhaps, but it truly did seem like a case of "straw that broke the camel's back." The incident very possibly did bother him, but it was an isolated incident, and any of the reparations offered to him should have worked. This was not a scenario of him being bullied constantly. In my mind, in any other scenario, this event could not have triggered the response it got. Quitting your job because they won't let you work remotely after someone says "we were talking about you when you weren't around" seems like an extreme response.

To that extent, I'm not assuming "the worst of him." He was a young homesick guy who was having an off day. Unfortunately, that off day was the day someone decided to include him in the office banter, and in that moment, he made a decision to go back home and made a last effort to keep his job while doing it.

Edit - point being that someone being constantly harassed for sexual, gender, religious, racial or whatever reasons, I can totally see making a "fuck this I'm out"... Maybe I'm too close to the situation to see why this guy was bothered so much, but his situation to me doesn't seem anything like the woman in the article's.

I think it's sometimes important to get in a toxic person's/bully's face. It's a lot easier for a developer who knows she/he will not have a problem finding another job.

I agree - explicitly pointing out and condemning this stuff can make a big difference. I wouldn't focus on confronting the person, though, because I think that rarely influences the individual. What I've seen matter most is making clear in front of others that it's not something people will "let go" or ignore.

I fortunately haven't been in this position since I became a developer, but better jobs do offer more leeway in regard to this. The other question, of course, is power dynamics. Calling out a coworker has more potential to help than calling out someone who can fire all their critics without trouble.

For sure, although probably more difficult when you're on a visa and not exactly free to walk if things go south.

I don't mean to discount your experience, but honestly I don't feel like this is the whole story.

At least from what I've seen these sorts of things are systemic issues, and it is extremely rare for such problems to be caused by a single bad apple.

Again, not trying to discount your personal experiences or lessons, but I'd just be very wary of assigning scapegoat status to a single person for what is clearly a toxic workplace in general ("Management stayed quiet and attempted to push it under the rug for a bit", "Workplace politics were on the rise", etc etc). Often times this mentality plays to the people in power who are responsible for the lack of safeguards, and when you don't fix the underlying causes you're essentially just relying on HR to filter the "bad apples" out of the hiring practice... and we all know how much of a crapshoot hiring in tech is already.

Last, I'd re-examine your impulse to go out and celebrate when this guy was fired. I obviously don't know the details here, but it definitely sounds like an "us vs him" mentality was being fostered, and that could have very well contributed to the exacerbation of this guy's toxic behavior. Often times these sorts of people are just desperate for attention or social contact, and the only way they've figured to get a consistent response from people is to piss them off. Disengaging and relying on "management" to solve these issues very often can make a problem worse. Other times these people can be simply responding to being bullied themselves, often simultaneously, by other groups within the company, or are reacting to problems in their personal lives. These explanations are not absolving them of responsibility for their actions, but it's important to realize that most assholes aren't genuinely bad people, they're just normal humans like you and I who respond to stress and stimuli in a poor way.

Going to the guy as a group and discussing his behavior, while uncomfortable, often can be very illuminating and solve issues that would have just festered until someone was forced to be fired or leave. Worst comes to worst you'll immediately realize the situation is untenable at that point, and the solution will be quite obvious.

Again, disclaimer, I don't know the specifics here and I don't want to indict the parent, but let's make sure we don't use the above example as a primer on how to deal with toxic colleagues in general.

It's not the whole story, as I can't speak on behalf for the toxic employee, nor on behalf of the manager's. However, there's not much use dissecting it, as it serves to represent many months of multiple employee altercations with this individual summarized into a paragraph.

To be frank, I was part of and witnessed a smaller role compared to others, as I prefer to keep my head down and work, and not participate in office politics. Regarding the lunch, it was something we often did when we were feeling cheerful. Most, if not all had a reason to be plenty cheerful by the time lunch hit, but I digress. It turned out to not differ from a normal outing. It was the defining topic of discussion, of course.

In this case, I think catering to the notion of trying to "fix" someone this toxic who is bringing others down in hopes of rehabilitating their work behavior is a lost cause. He had numerous chances and it was unanimously understood that work life would be easier for all without his presence. I believe you are very right in stating that this shouldn't be a primer. Thanks for your response.

I believe it's a pit of success vs pit of doom matter. Without a toxic employee, everyone is focusing on work, team cohesion is high, people are encouraged to emulate the good behavior of everyone else, etc. Once you introduce the toxic employee, all of that changes - at first people simply learn to ignore them, but the tension introduced in the atmosphere slowly moves you towards the pit of doom. The stress from having to deal with their toxicity leads to you reacting negatively in a situation where you would have laughed it off; Low-friction problems that used to be oiled by the team's happy outlook now suddenly turn into arguments.

The team can definitely beat this trend, self-organize, ostracize the toxic employee and distance themselves from them. This however requires a conscious effort and active participation from everyone. For some teams, that might work, and you might say "they were not just a great team in a well-managed workplace". For others, the influence might degenerate into a spiral of negativity, and you might say "well it was a toxic workplace in general".

I'm not sure it's easy to make the determination whether the workplace was "toxic in general" or not, but I know that humans are fallible. Following the pit of success mantra, you don't really want to test whether your team is really resilient and cohesive, instead, you want to make sure that in most cases they don't even have to exhibit conscious effort to work together effectively.

Of course, the pit of success takes a lot of behind-the-scenes effort from management. I would be happy to place the blame on them here, although sometimes "the problem" is not obvious and easy to solve.

Good leadership can have the power to stop a good amount of squabbling between teammates, simply by spreading their view point and guiding people through tough situations.

You seem like a good leader. I felt more stressed after reading the original post, but I felt a lot less stressed after reading your comment.

I hope you use the way you think to lead and do good.

Exactly. It's hard to understand sometimes until you've witnessed it yourself. Albeit we are living in a "cry wolf" time, actual harassment is a true issue that needs to be taken seriously. Equality and respect aren't that difficult to achieve, I never understood why people are so corrosive towards others. It makes me happy hearing stories about them getting canned over their childish behavior.

> If I was back at the start of my career, I would of dismissed this article and told the author to "toughen up".

I think this is the problem, until one works in a toxic environment it's hard to truly sympathize with people that do. How do we broaden our understanding of this phenomenon as a society?

Felix Dennis talked about this type of management behaviour (petty abuse of power) in his book How To Get Rich. He said sick days in a department were a good indicator that a manager was doing this and had to be fired.