Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pyjug 1883 days ago
> I just never made a separate “work self”, and it’s been a deliberate decision

This is amazing self-awareness. I wish I had it earlier in my career.

>And in my opinion is why white men are so overrepresented in senior levels of companies: the psychological safety is there for them in the rest of their lives

This is interesting, but I don't entirely agree. I have seen both sides as an Indian male who has worked both in India (privilege) and SV (no privilege). It's not a matter of "fighting back" or "being open", it's just in-group mechanics at work. There is a tacit understanding among people in positions of power about who is the "in-group" that doesn't need to be expressed or acknowledged even. For example, in India, even as a junior engineer I would be invited to important meetings whereas more experienced female engineers wouldn't. If I'd simply shown up and done the bare minimum, I would have quickly risen up the ranks, IMO. I had the exact opposite experience in SV, being seen as the "out-group" of the "worker bee" class by default.

1 comments

Aren't you proving their point my admitting you're not part of the in-group by default in America?
Sorry if I wasn't clear - GP's thesis was that white men are overrepresented in senior positions _because_ they can more easily "fight back" and "be open" than others. In other words, they still believe in meritocracy, it's just that white men are afforded the chance to be more meritorious.

I'm disputing that thesis based on my experience. You don't need to be vulnerable or "be open" at all - you just need to be part of the in-group. I know "Senior Director of Engineering" who had no clue what the hell was going on. They never spoke up in meetings, or did anything useful at all - it was clear to everyone they added no value whatsoever. Turns out they were just floating from startup to startup moving up in seniority in the process. Presumably, nobody bothered to question them during the interview process as it was assumed they were "competent" based on their background and past positions.