Glass Walls: Partial Solution to The Glass Ceiling?

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/glass-walls-partial-solution-to-glass.html

by Mz • 12 years ago

66 41 12 years ago

micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com

Mz3• 12 years ago

I promised some follow up writing on the last thing of mine someone posted to HN, so here is a first installment on that promise.

facepalm5• 12 years ago

I must admit I don't understand why that guy couldn't be seen to be your friend in front of an audience.

If that is not possible (for whatever reason), how does it help women? Presumably men can be friends without problems, even in front of an audience. So there would still be an unsolved issue and disadvantage for women.

Mz3• 12 years ago

I plan to write more about this. Part of the problem was that two days earlier, another man in the department was fired over something having to do with an inappropriate relationship to a woman. The entire department was walking on eggshells. I felt it was just extremely bad timing. Another part of the problem is that I had an entry level job and he was very high in the department. So we had very little opportunity to work together, thus it would read as "social relationship" -- again, two days after another man was fired for his behavior towards women.

There were other factors. I plan to go into more details in future articles. In this case, I just wanted to talk about the fact that the glass walls of the stairwell fostered a sense of conversational privacy with zero fear of sexual or romantic intimacy occurring. You need conversational privacy to establish trust and do business. But you need a lot more than conversational privacy to pursue romance or sex. The lack of visual privacy mattered to our comfort levels. This man became someone who trusted me and likely would have done a lot for my career had I stayed with the company. That opportunity to talk freely (in the stairwell) without fear that one of us might misinterpret or misbehave was a key moment in the establishment of that trust.

facepalm5• 12 years ago

I can see how it would make feel women slightly safer as it would reduce the risk of touching. But it seems to me romantic feelings could still develop easily. On the stairwell, you could ask the other person if they want to go for a coffee or meet after work.

Actually the glass walls these days seem to be more necessary for the men who have to insure against accusations of sexual harassment. I've heard for example that professors at universities always leave their door open or try to have other people present when they meet students, to avoid any such accusations.

Of course that might help a little, if men need not be afraid of sexual harassment claims there is less need to avoid women in a professional context.

ph0rque• 12 years ago

Thanks Michele! As I was reading the Gray Zone post in order to see what the pretext for this post was, I kept thinking that something like google glass would prevent some of the problems. A less techy solution is the glass walls, as you discuss in this post.

rayiner• 12 years ago

One of the reasons I advocate that achieving an even mix of men and women in a workplace at all levels of the hierarchy is valuable for its own sake is because it diffuses the Gray Zone to a great degree. My hunch is that if there wasn't a pink collar ghetto and a systematic power dynamic favoring men, the awkwardness of having an unmonitored interaction would be diminished.

incision• 12 years ago

">It fostered a sense of being able to talk without worrying that it might be misinterpreted as romantic intimacy."

I'd never considered this in detail before, but I'm nearly certain that this is why I prefer those stylish glass-walled conference rooms wherever possible.

Though, I'm not particularly concerned about romance, rather the kind of paranoid / narcissistic managers who can't bear not to impose themselves on any (opaque) closed-door meeting.

bsder• 12 years ago

Glad to see this, but I always assumed it was fairly standard knowledge for anybody in mixed situations to avoid closed doors.

I know that when I taught college classes most of my fellow professors (male and female) were religious about this.

Spooky233• 12 years ago

I guess I work in a different universe where people behave themselves better.

If anyone talking to anybody in private front of a group of people is a potentially salacious event, the level of paranoia and tension in that place is out of control. At one point, all of my direct reports were women -- if they felt anxious to have a private conversation with me in my office or stairwell, that's a huge problem, and I couldn't have been effective at my job.

Mz3• 12 years ago

An extremely popular man was fired two days earlier (for either sexual harassment or an affair or both). Tensions in the department were crazy high that week. It was not a normal situation. That was a factor in my decision to not speak with him at that time.

facepalm5• 12 years ago

I hope it was sexual harassment, or can you really be fired for having an affair?

johnbm2• 12 years ago

So that's reason to treat employees like lepers and impose your paranoia on them? You weren't taking his feelings into a count, you simply declared them as something to be managed, and you as the authority. Did it ever occur to you that you might've been wrong?

tunesmith• 12 years ago

I agree... I don't tend to think anything of having break room or stairwell conversations with people that are far away in the organizational chart, and I don't worry that people will think there's an affair or conspiracy or something creepy going on if someone sees me talking to them. I don't really see the flaw in just taking everyone at face value, and making sure my business communications are restricted to saying exactly what I mean, no more no less. I generally expect others to take me at face value, too - if they don't, I see that as unprofessional since they could always ask me clarifying questions rather than attempt to read my tea leaves.

joe_the_user• 12 years ago

I think the problem being discussed is fairly start-up specific. And moreover, I think it kind of involves an assumption that start-up organization structures are the direction in which organizations in general should be going. As far as I can tell, start-up organization structure is as informal as possible. The aim is to leverage trust and flexibility that can be found in a group of close friends.

I would point out that moving in this direction is moving in a sort-of opposite direction to the direction that society went when we human made the transition to a modern capitalist/bureaucratic society. The reason you have bureaucracy, human resource, job descriptions and all the rest is that this allows a person to be separated from a job. There's lots of inveigling against "being a cog in a machine" but it should be remembered that a cog has clear obligations and clear rewards. And the cog is essentially a compartment - a person's social life, relationship involvement, cultural values and whatnot are kept at arms length. And it is a bit clunky, bureaucracy implies people aren't using these factors as means to make quicker decisions.

So in a sense, "chucking all the bureaucracy" sort of guarantees that you will have a situation where a monoculture of something will dominate. Because someone similar to the existing group can most easily "fit right in". And the aim is quick, unmediated action rather than any formal processes. (Edit: and the easiest monoculture is young white men but that would just be an example, not a PC inveigling again this particular group).

In the bureaucratic paradigm, a chat with a boss shouldn't involve implication of friendship and from there relationship interest - and in a well-function bureaucracy, it doesn't. In a start-up, the implications of a chat are totally informal and thus the implication of friend would be there and so the implication of relationship interest can easily appear - the bad part of "no walls" is clearest.

Spooky233• 12 years ago

That's bizarre to me. I guess I haven't had startup experience, so I don't get it. That sounds like high school cliquish ness to me -- the opposite of trust and flexibility.

PeterisP• 12 years ago

I hadn't wondered about the reasons, but in most recently built office buildings I've seen that almost all the small intra-office "meetingrooms" have glass walls. They insulate sound, so the meeting contents are private but it's very public about who is meeting whom and if anything other than talk is happening - say, escalated conflicts would also be visible.

cushychicken• 12 years ago

I find the notion of different kinds of workplace privacy an incredibly perceptive observation on Michele's part; I think the glass walls theory would solve a lot of problems by removing environments where bad behavior is enabled due to lack of observation.

Crito• 12 years ago

I think that opaque glass walls are the best. My office has opaque glass walls on two sides which, in addition to making good writing surfaces for dry-erase markers, allow me to see the fuzzy outline of people as they walk by my office and allow me to see when other people are in their offices (as the glass walls will light up.)

The opaque glass walls provide a sort of literal privacy that cubicles or open office spaces don't (such that I don't have to guard my screen when working on some projects, I don't need to excuse myself to the bathroom if I need to adjust my belt, and I can stretch out after sitting for too long without feeling self-conscious), but retain much of the general air or atmosphere of a more open work environment.

crazygringo• 12 years ago

The nice man from the stairwell appeared and was clearly making a beeline towards me to talk to me. Not good. Not good at all. This fool, who is still feeling all warm fuzzy over talking to me in the stairwell, is going to talk to me like I'm his best friend.

I'm completely confused. I rather enjoying making friends with people at work, male or female (and regardless of "rank"). If you've met someone before, and people are "milling about in an open space", why on earth wouldn't you give each other a warm friendly hi? Why is he suddenly "a fool" in a situation that is "not good at all"? And assuming he's still feeling "all warm fuzzy" (what does that even mean?) As a man, I almost feel insulted by all the assumptions being made here, and the idea that my own natural socialness might one day be so misinterpreted.

Maybe something's missing from the story, but I can't even begin to comprehend a place where a friendly hi between two people who met and chatted in a stairwell, or elevator, or lunch line, or any of the other 100's of places you run into coworkers at all levels, is somehow a bad thing. I mean, if the dude's some kind of a creep, then I get it, but the author says he's a nice guy.

Total confusion.

delluminatus• 12 years ago

Not the OP, but I relate to the quoted comment. Maybe my experience will give you some insight.

Essentially, engaging in idle chit-chat is very stressful to me. It is far more stressful than anything else I do on a daily basis. In the past, I would feel physical fear when I saw someone I knew in a public place. Oh no, they're going to talk to me.

The reason for this is simple: I'm not good at enjoying conversation with people. I have trouble relating to people, so I have to struggle to be conversant. It becomes a game of "what should I say here", or "what do they mean by that", or whatever. I know that if I just said what I wanted I would seem antisocial, so instead I have to carefully mediate my responses. It's very tiring!

Having said that, this is really an issue with myself, not with the other person. I would never think to call someone a "fool" because they like to chat. The fool is the person who can't relax and enjoy a conversation.

pantalaimon• 12 years ago

I know that if I just said what I wanted I would seem antisocial, so instead I have to carefully mediate my responses.

This very thing will make you appear much more antisocial than any offhanded response you would come up with.

Tycho2• 12 years ago

Yeah seems very harsh.

pdonis• 12 years ago

Evidently you didn't read the part later in the post where it turns out the man was an executive and the author was an entry-level worker. That makes a big difference.

Also, the occasion was, as you are told in the post, two days after a supervisor was fired because of a sexual harassment scandal. That makes a difference too.

johnbm2• 12 years ago

"I'm worried people might think something's going on between me and So and So. So I'm going to act in the most suspicious way possible around them and assume nobody has my superior observation skills, especially not those men who keep perpetuating the glass ceiling by treating women differently."

Logic.

zhemao• 12 years ago

You have to read the context. A different male employee had just been fired for inappropriate behavior with a female employee. Since he is much more higher-ranking than she is, she is concerned about what their coworkers will think about his interaction with her. It's not that she doesn't like the guy. She's trying to shield his reputation.

nasmorn• 12 years ago

Yes it. reads like a scene from 1984 too me as well. Actually thinking about it the zero sum competition of most big corporations is exactly like 1984 as well.

wtbob• 12 years ago

Not just that, but chance meetings with powerful people are one key way in which to advance: one makes a good impression for a brief moment in the stairwell; one makes an even better impression at the business function; one is able to answer a few key questions; one performs well when given a small piece of greater responsibility; one advances.

Or one could make a good impression for a brief moment in the stairwell, then brush the powerful person off in public, where (rest assured) other people who know how the game is played (and how the metagame is played, and how the metametagame is played...) see--and not advance.

Tycho2• 12 years ago

I thought glass walks was going to be another metaphor... Ie about transparency of wages across employees (perhaps in an anonymous fashion).

trhway• 12 years ago

At some point, I felt kind of stupid standing in the hall talking for so long and asked if he wanted to come sit at the table in my room. He wisely declined.

WTF? worked at Sun where we had offices and never had any issues coming into women's office or with women coming into my office. Would close the door on many occasions, especially if were talking in general (read - critical about Sun) instead of specific work topic. Never heard other people, managers as well, being afraid of doing it. Some people of different sexes shared offices. Following the logic of the article it was Sodom and Gomorrah.

I mean, some hear man and woman laughing from behind closed door and think "they are at it again", and somebody, like article suggests, would think "they are doing _IT_"... Why would we allow the later people to rule our lives?

ericb• 12 years ago

I can't help but think of the law of unintended consequences.

I imagine entrepreneurs reading this and wondering "can I postpone hiring our first woman so I can avoid this source of awkward situations and liability for as long as possible?"

I have no idea how to fix this...

MattGrommes• 12 years ago

This kind of story freaks me out because I know that not in a million years would I be able to navigate these kinds of inter-personal situations. Knowing from eye contact and a shrug that somebody didn't want me talking to them but that we were cool and it wasn't personal. Wow.

I've had many jobs and I've always just talked to whoever of whatever gender or place on the org chart. I've had to make an intentional study of how to deal with people and still in 35 years I learn there's so much more to figure out.

Glass Walls: Partial Solution to The Glass Ceiling?

Related Stories