|
|
|
|
|
|
by jgilbertson47
1536 days ago
|
|
|
Hi, the author here. Thank you for reading! And yes, it is tough to prove increased inclusion. I used the results from quarterly team and company surveys to test and learn what seemed to increase management trust, clarity of expectations, and inclusion in my organization. (We did ask about inclusion.) I can't share the exact numbers, and there isn't enough sample to make any statistically rigorous conclusions even if I could. Anecdotally, I monitored the frequency of when people spoke up, and I tried during discussions to ask for someone's opinion if I felt like they had something to contribute but weren't speaking up. Over time, as I increased trust with my team, they were proactive in raising instances where it felt like they were excluded. The best part was when they started giving each other feedback. Those six words were the most frequent offenders in my experience. My primary reason for writing the article is to hear about others' experiences. For context, my organization was composed of machine learning and analytics folks. Thanks again, and I'm looking forward to hearing what works for others! |
|
|
I used to wince at maths textbooks that began with a riot of arcane symbols then the words "Obviously, from equation 1....". But as I became a more accomplished mathematician the word "obviously" took on a less abrasive meaning. In this context "obviously" means that something follows naturally from, without requiring substitution or reconfiguration of ideas. It isn't really a judgement on the reader's mathematical skill. When used in this domain/profession specific sense, if a student is offended/excluded (in the common-sense way of it not "seeming obvious"), then they aren't at a level to be reading that text and need to step back a level before approaching.
Again, in the case of "just works", although a bit pompous and presumptuous (because often technology that claims to "just work" fails spectacularly), the context makes it fairly benign. Here it's synonymous with "simply" or "without elaborate operational steps".
Us engineers have a clumsy way of prefixing minimisations to indicate that a step should not present problems (or there may be a fault/error).
But as you say, and where I also draw the line is in more colloquial deployments of "just" and "obviously" as power qualifiers. It's not that they're neutral judgements of another's skill or the task fit.
"Could you just pass me salt" plays down the ask, and almost succeeds in being diminutively polite, but with a tiny shift of tone it also undermines the status of the person addressed - there is a silent "... if you can be f-king bothered you lazy toe-rag" at the end of it.
It's a very classist British device to use understatement in a withering way.
"Obviously I wouldn't agree to that" is more than just a little haughty, it's a (perhaps insecure/defensive) way to elevate ones status rather than only disagreeing. If you listen carefully you can hear "Obviously a person of my standing would never deign to entertain something so ridiculous."
In many cases we find these uses of "just", "clearly", "obviously", performing the function of "minimisation", to downplay the value of the other, their lived experience or status.
Sometimes you need to listen carefully for which one is being used.