InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 19:38:29 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]mtillman-921105 (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]TravisDBA (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]mtillman-921105 (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote]With the stiff competition coming from off-shoring of American jobs to places like India where they literally work around the clock for 1/4 the pay of an American worker, we must streamline our operations and expect more from our workers here states-side if we want to continue to compete in the global workplace and economy. That's reality folks!. [/quote]Actually, I have to respectfully disagree. That's happening anyway. So you work yourself to death for what? To be outsourced anyway. It's a sucker's game.:rolleyes:[/quote]With double digit unemployment and millions currently out of work, if someone does not want to put in the extra hours you can bet that most companies will find someone out there fast very willing to replace them that will! I see it everyday.:-D[/quote]Well, the flip side of that is that there are also jobs out there where they don't push people too hard. So, if a company expects insane hours, it's limiting it's talent to only those who are willing to put up with it. And they may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer.By the way, TravisDBA, I'm not saying that I'm against some extra work. The lady you talked about sounded too spoiled as a matter of fact. After all, you're trying to run a business, you have to be able to count on people being there.I just get upset when I hear of people having to work 70 or more hours a week. That's rediculous and surely you're more reasonable than that. :-)[/quote]70 hours! Brother, there was one week where I put in 80. The point is in this business it happens and you have to be counted on to handle it. Most IT shops are 24/7 these days so people shoukd know that going in, particularly DBA's. It's part of the territory. The woman was not spoiled, nor was she an anomaly. I have heard that a lot from women in this industry, they want the good money but don't want to pay the dues that many of us have had to do over the years. So, if you want a nine to five job, go sell flowers! :-DFri, 15 Oct 2010 14:00:18 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]mtillman-921105 (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote]With the stiff competition coming from off-shoring of American jobs to places like India where they literally work around the clock for 1/4 the pay of an American worker, we must streamline our operations and expect more from our workers here states-side if we want to continue to compete in the global workplace and economy. That's reality folks!. [/quote]Actually, I have to respectfully disagree. That's happening anyway. So you work yourself to death for what? To be outsourced anyway. It's a sucker's game.:rolleyes:[/quote]With double digit unemployment and millions currently out of work, if someone does not want to put in the extra hours you can bet that most companies will find someone out there fast very willing to replace them that will! I see it everyday.:-D[/quote]Well, the flip side of that is that there are also jobs out there where they don't push people too hard. So, if a company expects insane hours, it's limiting it's talent to only those who are willing to put up with it. And they may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer.By the way, TravisDBA, I'm not saying that I'm against some extra work. The lady you talked about sounded too spoiled as a matter of fact. After all, you're trying to run a business, you have to be able to count on people being there.I just get upset when I hear of people having to work 70 or more hours a week. That's rediculous and surely you're more reasonable than that. :-)Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:55:26 GMTmtillman-921105http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]mtillman-921105 (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote]With the stiff competition coming from off-shoring of American jobs to places like India where they literally work around the clock for 1/4 the pay of an American worker, we must streamline our operations and expect more from our workers here states-side if we want to continue to compete in the global workplace and economy. That's reality folks!. [/quote]Actually, I have to respectfully disagree. That's happening anyway. So you work youself to death for what? To be outsourced anyway. It's a sucker's game.:rolleyes:[/quote]With double digit unemployment and millions currently out of work, if someone does not want to put in the extra hours you can bet that most companies will find someone out there fast very willing to replace them that will! I see it everyday.:-DFri, 15 Oct 2010 12:45:51 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxI'd agree we need to do more here, butmore from workers != more hoursIt's a question of being more efficient and being more strategic.Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:00:05 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote]With the stiff competition coming from off-shoring of American jobs to places like India where they literally work around the clock for 1/4 the pay of an American worker, we must streamline our operations and expect more from our workers here states-side if we want to continue to compete in the global workplace and economy. That's reality folks!. [/quote]Actually, I have to respectfully disagree. That's happening anyway. So you work youself to death for what? To be outsourced anyway. It's a sucker's game.:rolleyes:Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:57:33 GMTmtillman-921105http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]mtillman-921105 (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]TravisDBA (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]iceheartjade (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]david_wendelken (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]So, if women who choose to enter the IT field aren't progressing equally (in pay or promotions), I'm interested in why. [/quote]I think the main reason for this is higher pay or promotions often comes with more responsibilities which require more time or energy. Men will take it more easily than women since career is their top priority. But women might not want the trade off (less time with family).[/quote]Exactly, men tend to accept overtime as part of the job, while many women feel that cuts into their family time. I have heard many women say outright at the job interview when told there is off hours involved with this job " I have a husband and children to take care of, I cannot work alot of overtime and off hours." My response was "Well, then maybe you need to open a flower shop then. Overtime and off hours are part of the territory of the IT business, and we are a 24/7 shop here.." Well, you can imagine they were not chosen for the position.:-D[/quote]How did we get to the point where we talk about our time - our lives - as though they were just commodities? I like to work, but too much is too much. If I work overtime, it's expecting too much to get paid for it? A salary used to be a good thing, reserved for managers. Now, all too often in the US, it is no more than an excuse to abuse people by working them long hours. In my estimation, people in Europe, with their 35 hours work weeks and general attitude about working, have it right - you work to live, not viceversa.[/quote]With the stiff competition coming from off-shoring of American jobs to places like India where they literally work around the clock for 1/4 the pay of an American worker, we must streamline our operations and expect more from our workers here states-side if we want to continue to compete in the global workplace and economy. That's reality folks!. :-DFri, 15 Oct 2010 11:49:35 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]iceheartjade (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]david_wendelken (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]So, if women who choose to enter the IT field aren't progressing equally (in pay or promotions), I'm interested in why. [/quote]I think the main reason for this is higher pay or promotions often comes with more responsibilities which require more time or energy. Men will take it more easily than women since career is their top priority. But women might not want the trade off (less time with family).[/quote]Exactly, men tend to accept overtime as part of the job, while many women feel that cuts into their family time. I have heard many women say outright at the job interview when told there is off hours involved with this job " I have a husband and children to take care of, I cannot work alot of overtime and off hours." My response was "Well, then maybe you need to open a flower shop then. Overtime and off hours are part of the territory of the IT business, and we are a 24/7 shop here.." Well, you can imagine they were not chosen for the position.:-D[/quote]How did we get to the point where we talk about our time - our lives - as though they were just commodities? I like to work, but too much is too much. If I work overtime, it's expecting too much to get paid for it? A salary used to be a good thing, reserved for managers. Now, all too often in the US, it is no more than an excuse to abuse people by working them long hours. In my estimation, people in Europe, with their 35 hours work weeks and general attitude about working, have it right - you work to live, not viceversa.Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:38:44 GMTmtillman-921105http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]iceheartjade (10/15/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]david_wendelken (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]So, if women who choose to enter the IT field aren't progressing equally (in pay or promotions), I'm interested in why. [/quote]I think the main reason for this is higher pay or promotions often comes with more responsibilities which require more time or energy. Men will take it more easily than women since career is their top priority. But women might not want the trade off (less time with family).[/quote]Exactly, men tend to accept overtime as part of the job, while many women feel that cuts into their family time. I have heard many women say outright at the job interview when told there is off hours involved with this job " I have a husband and children to take care of, I cannot work alot of overtime and off hours." My response was "Well, then maybe you need to open a flower shop then. Overtime and off hours are part of the territory of the IT business, and we are a 24/7 shop here.." Well, you can imagine they were not chosen for the position.:-DFri, 15 Oct 2010 11:26:00 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]david_wendelken (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]So, if women who choose to enter the IT field aren't progressing equally (in pay or promotions), I'm interested in why. [/quote]I think the main reason for this is higher pay or promotions often comes with more responsibilities which require more time or energy. Men will take it more easily than women since career is their top priority. But women might not want the trade off (less time with family).Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:09:09 GMTiceheartjadehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]pjdiller (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I'm short. Don't tall people make more on the average? :discuss:[/quote]Thought 1: Depends on the Industry. eg: Horseracing; I speculate that short people earn more as jockeys than tall people. Thought 2: There is variance in all statistics. Rather than focus energy on "the average", consider putting all your energy into becoming much better than average. Remember "on average" men are stronger, more athletic & swim faster than women. Yet Leisel Jones & similar female Olympic Gold medal winners can swim faster than nearly all men on the planet. It rarely takes much effort to be much better than average.Mon, 11 Oct 2010 02:52:00 GMTDavid Leanhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jay holovacs (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]Sometimes you need to check the perspective.Years ago at another company there was a woman who made quite a bit of noise about being resented because she was a female and an engineer and not respected. She seemed to believe this. In actuality, it was because she would pass blame for problems to whomever was not in the room, basically she would stab anyone in the back if it were in her interest. She didn't seem to notice that none of the women (including our purchasing manager) trusted her either.After she left another woman joined the company in a similar job and was well respected by everyone.Discrimination happens, but not all cases are valid.[/quote]Ahhh! The old "throwing people under the bus syndrome..." never works anywhere in the long run, regardless of your gender or color. :-DWed, 06 Oct 2010 12:11:44 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxSometimes you need to check the perspective.Years ago at another company there was a woman who made quite a bit of noise about being resented because she was a female and an engineer and not respected. She seemed to believe this. In actuality, it was because she would pass blame for problems to whomever was not in the room, basically she would stab anyone in the back if it were in her interest. She didn't seem to notice that none of the women (including our purchasing manager) trusted her either.After she left another woman joined the company in a similar job and was well respected by everyone.Discrimination happens, but not all cases are valid.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:12:18 GMTjay-hhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I think lots of people don't want games, but some take advantage of them. Until we recognize that women are equal, and that they deserve fair treatment, regardless of the way they interact with us, this is an issue.[/quote]Completely agreed.The question then comes back to - how do you go about proving that they're not (or for that matter than any given group is not being afford those rights)? The statutes allow for equality of [u]opportunity[/u]. This means it becomes a lot trickier to show problems, since you can no longer just point to differences in the results to prove the point. What measure do you use?I am fully behind the need to look at this, but as of yet, there is nothing out there which accurately measures how fair the opportunities are.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:34:11 GMTMatt Miller (#4)http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]TravisDBA (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I think lots of people don't want games, but some take advantage of them. Until we recognize that women are equal, and that they deserve fair treatment, regardless of the way they interact with us, this is an issue.[/quote]ideally, I would agree Steve. However, in the real world, as long as human nature and office politics plays a role in the workplace (and it does) this might be a stretch. :-D[/quote]Perhaps. Race used to be more of an issue, and we've learned to make less of an issue with it. We have to learn to talk about this, and learn to recognize and know our prejudices. Then we can work to get past them and start to treat people fairly.Not all the same, but fairly.[/quote]I would venture to say that race is still an issue in the workplace too, it's just not as obvious as it once was, because of the litiginous society we live in today. My point is, we will never ever get rid of these things in the workplace as long as human nature and personal agendas plays a role. "fairly" is a very "fuzzy" term that is very different depending on who you ask and when you ask them.:-D[/quote]I don't think that fear of litigation is all that's going on here. People were not forced to vote for Obama by any law here in the U.S. :-)Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:42:19 GMTmtillman-921105http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]mtillman-921105 (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]pjdiller (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I'm short. Don't tall people make more on the average? :discuss:[/quote]From what I've heard on the news, more tall people become managers.[/quote]That's because we can see all the way to the back of the room.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:29:22 GMTGrant Fritcheyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]mtillman-921105 (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]pjdiller (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I'm short. Don't tall people make more on the average? :discuss:[/quote]From what I've heard on the news, more tall people become managers.[/quote]Numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between height and income... for both men and women.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:25:51 GMTjay-hhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]pjdiller (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I'm short. Don't tall people make more on the average? :discuss:[/quote]From what I've heard on the news, more tall people become managers.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:46 GMTmtillman-921105http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxI'm short. Don't tall people make more on the average? :discuss:Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:20:17 GMTpjdillerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]TravisDBA (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I think lots of people don't want games, but some take advantage of them. Until we recognize that women are equal, and that they deserve fair treatment, regardless of the way they interact with us, this is an issue.[/quote]ideally, I would agree Steve. However, in the real world, as long as human nature and office politics plays a role in the workplace (and it does) this might be a stretch. :-D[/quote]Perhaps. Race used to be more of an issue, and we've learned to make less of an issue with it. We have to learn to talk about this, and learn to recognize and know our prejudices. Then we can work to get past them and start to treat people fairly.Not all the same, but fairly.[/quote]I would venture to say that race is still an issue in the workplace too, it's just not as obvious as it once was, because of the litiginous society we live in today. My point is, we will never ever get rid of these things in the workplace as long as human nature and personal agendas plays a role. "fairly" is a very "fuzzy" term that is very different depending on who you ask and when you ask them.:-DTue, 05 Oct 2010 09:18:32 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TravisDBA (10/5/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I think lots of people don't want games, but some take advantage of them. Until we recognize that women are equal, and that they deserve fair treatment, regardless of the way they interact with us, this is an issue.[/quote]ideally, I would agree Steve. However, in the real world, as long as human nature and office politics plays a role in the workplace (and it does) this might be a stretch. :-D[/quote]Perhaps. Race used to be more of an issue, and we've learned to make less of an issue with it. We have to learn to talk about this, and learn to recognize and know our prejudices. Then we can work to get past them and start to treat people fairly.Not all the same, but fairly.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:14:17 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]david_wendelken (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]That said, life isn't fair. It isn't fair that guys expect me to give a rat's hindquarters about professional sports teams. It isn't fair that I'm not "one of the guys" because I don't show the slightest interest in that clap-trap.Honestly, why anyone cares why one group of strangers carries a piece of dead pig across a field better than a different group of strangers is a complete mystery to me. I pay a price for that. I accept it....[/quote]Actually this problem is much bigger than gender.Two unrelated articles I recently read. One was supposedly tips for being a successfully interviewee and discussed things (based on a survey of HR interviewers) that turned interviewers off to a candidate. Some of the non-job things mentioned by a significant number of interviewers were nervous ticks like fiddling with hair, eye contact issues, even handshake. Significant numbers of interviews actually admitted to using these cues in their selection process.The second article dealt with aspergers syndrome people in the IT workplace, discussing some of the assets that they could bring to the team. As I read through this article, I thought about how few of them would even make it through an interview with the HR folks from the previous article.There are big problems in the system, and gender expectations are only one manifestation.[edit-- of course spelling correctly would probably help too]Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:11:45 GMTjay-hhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/5/2010)[/b][hr]I think lots of people don't want games, but some take advantage of them. Until we recognize that women are equal, and that they deserve fair treatment, regardless of the way they interact with us, this is an issue.[/quote]ideally, I would agree Steve. However, in the real world, as long as human nature and office politics plays a role in the workplace (and it does) this might be a stretch. :-DTue, 05 Oct 2010 09:10:02 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxI think lots of people don't want games, but some take advantage of them. Until we recognize that women are equal, and that they deserve fair treatment, regardless of the way they interact with us, this is an issue.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:31:19 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxMen want to stop playing these games and just do the job.Will that day ever come?Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:29:43 GMTGrant Fritcheyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxWomen want to stop playing these games and just do the job.Will that day ever come?Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:13:13 GMTcmcchttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote]However does that mean that women need to act like men because more men are in charge? Or that men aren't paying attention to valuable input from others because they are busy being alpha-males and it takes another alpha male to get their attention?[/quote]Actually I've witnessed the reverse. In these days of political correctness. Men seem to go out of their way to avoid doing anything that would leave them open to being accused of being sexist. Many women, on the other hand, are absolutely brutal on their female colleagues. I've never figured out if they are motivated by i) "killing off the competition", ii) "preference to be around men" iii) Belief the man is more suited to the task Or iv) some other option I've not thought of. But I find it interesting to watch. That said there is also a sizable group that like to create a "Womens club" & desire to promote other women & surround themselves with women in their team. So I guess it becomes the luck of the draw as to what sort of person your management is.Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:20:56 GMTDavid Leanhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxWhy do women not always make the same amount as men? The answer is one word, children. Young CHILDLESS women out earn young childless men.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:28:39 GMTCharles O'Halloranhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxmtillman,I agree with you. I've seen studies from back then, too. It's also possible that today's kids don't have that degree of expectation, but I'm not working with enough young folks to say one way or the other.That said, life isn't fair. It isn't fair that guys expect me to give a rat's hindquarters about professional sports teams. It isn't fair that I'm not "one of the guys" because I don't show the slightest interest in that clap-trap.Honestly, why anyone cares why one group of strangers carries a piece of dead pig across a field better than a different group of strangers is a complete mystery to me. I pay a price for that. I accept it.I pay a price for having unusual hobbies like armoured swordfighting, pottery and silversmithing.I accept that price, too.I compensate for it in other ways that have been able to mitigate those disadvantages.As for the rest, here are some sayings I've always found useful for guiding my actions:"Life is fired at us point blank. We don't get a rehearsal or a do-over." "Control what you can control, influence what you can influence, and don't confuse the two.""Improvise! Adapt! Overcome!"Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:48:44 GMTdavid_wendelkenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxmtillman wrote:[i]... in the workplace, women may have a double-bind going on: too soft and they're, well - soft: too aggressive, and they've got a problem. So women may have a very fine line to walk in that regard. [/i]You've identified a double standard which I think women have been struggling against for a very long time. But if it's any consolation, I think the problem engendered by it is slowly diminishing, as the 'old guard' is replaced by people brought up in a very different society than that of the previous couple of generations.Martin Luther King really said it best: that a person should be judged by the content of his or her character - period.I had a professor at university who had an earthier (and somewhat different) way of putting it: you don't have to be in love with the goose to enjoy pâté de foie gras. Whatever you think of the person (and some persons, male and female, do hiss in a rather convincing goose-like fashion), try to judge the person on the merit of what the person produces.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:47:13 GMTCraig-315134http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]david_wendelken (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]For the record, the article detailing differences in male/female speech had nothing to say about hostile behavior.Here are some examples they gave:Male: We should do X.Female: Perhaps we should consider doing X."Female" speech patterns added lots of "softeners" to the statement and used passive voice."Male" speech patterns were more imperative, action-oriented. Delivery showed confidence vs hesitancy, also.Let's face it. Example: Real world manager has absolutely zero clue about which technical approach to take. One person asserts they know exactly what to do. The other person hesitantly suggests something might work.Who does that manager pick?The one who clearly indicates they don't know what to do, or the person who clearly indicates they do? Experience shows that the one who is confident in what they say and how they say it gets picked more often. Correctness has little to do with it.Studies have shown that in person-to-person communication, verbal and auditory cues provide about 95% of the "meaning" that a typical person recieves. The actual logic of the message content is only 5% of the communication payload. The person who says, acts and sounds like they know what they are doing will communicate that fact to others better than the person who knows what they are doing but communicates in a hesitant, unconfident manner.ANY person, regardless of gender, can communicate in either mode if they so choose (and perhaps practice a bit). It's a matter of choice as to which mode they use, once they know there is a choice at all.[/quote]My psychology knowledge is dated by about 20 years, but I remember a study about psychologists and women that had a bearing on this. If the women acted forceful, they were more likely to be labeled by psychologists with a disorder of some type, while the same behavior in men was merely thought of as assertive (and OK). So in the workplace, women may have a double-bind going on: too soft and they're, well - soft: too aggressive, and they've got a problem. So women may have a very fine line to walk in that regard.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:25:09 GMTmtillman-921105http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxdavid_wendelken wrote:[i]Experience shows that the one who is confident in what they say and how they say it gets picked more often. Correctness has little to do with it.[/i]... but William Butler Yeats wrote:[i]The best lack all conviction, while the worstAre full of passionate intensity.[/i]Maybe Irish poetry should be required reading at Harvard Business School.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:02:52 GMTCraig-315134http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxGetting back to the initial question: "So, are men and women different?"The answer is obviously yes. That's why men are called men and women are called women.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:09:58 GMTMichael Valentine Joneshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxFor the record, the article detailing differences in male/female speech had nothing to say about hostile behavior.Here are some examples they gave:Male: We should do X.Female: Perhaps we should consider doing X."Female" speech patterns added lots of "softeners" to the statement and used passive voice."Male" speech patterns were more imperative, action-oriented. Delivery showed confidence vs hesitancy, also.Let's face it. Example: Real world manager has absolutely zero clue about which technical approach to take. One person asserts they know exactly what to do. The other person hesitantly suggests something might work.Who does that manager pick?The one who clearly indicates they don't know what to do, or the person who clearly indicates they do? Experience shows that the one who is confident in what they say and how they say it gets picked more often. Correctness has little to do with it.Studies have shown that in person-to-person communication, verbal and auditory cues provide about 95% of the "meaning" that a typical person recieves. The actual logic of the message content is only 5% of the communication payload. The person who says, acts and sounds like they know what they are doing will communicate that fact to others better than the person who knows what they are doing but communicates in a hesitant, unconfident manner.ANY person, regardless of gender, can communicate in either mode if they so choose (and perhaps practice a bit). It's a matter of choice as to which mode they use, once they know there is a choice at all.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:48:20 GMTdavid_wendelkenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]wendyp (10/4/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Craig Farrell (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]...Bottom line here is that women aren't bitching and moaning (don't recall who used that phrase...but it's up there in the commentary). There truly is a stereotype out in the workforce and if we all just let it ride and never make anyone accountable, then it's never going to change..[/quote]The problem is that this is affecting the next generation. Girls make up the majority of undergraduate students - are they 50% of the IT department? No. The job is gender-neutral (it's just logic) but somehow they're not interested. Something is stopping them at the door, when the women in the job right now can tell them that it's no big deal. So, if we just dismiss the topic, we're saying that we can do without the talents of 50% of the population. Surely there are some worthy women in the class of 2014 that we want to reach?We can't give up. We need to know what the differences are so this becomes an equal-opportunity field.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:43:53 GMTcmcchttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jay holovacs (10/4/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Craig Farrell (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]I would counter, however, there are women who do that. At the same time, these women, by their own gender(!) are called 'butch', 'alphagirl', ... etc. Any number of derogative, and sometimes sexual preference based, nicknames. It's not even the guys. It's a cost, and it shouldn't be.[/quote]I would disagree. Good negotiation is not about hostility. It's about getting as much of what you want while at the same time providing your counterpart what is most important to them. Only in dysfunctional organizations does it involve hostility.[/quote]We have different experiences, or perhaps perceptions, of the women who usually get these derogatives. I find these women to be competent, team-effective, strong women who just don't bend over for someone simply because they asked. Hostility isn't usually started with, or even considered a last resort, but they certainly aren't willing to take "Oh, you're worth this" for granted without consideration and negotiation... and being willing to walk away.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:26:29 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Craig Farrell (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]I would counter, however, there are women who do that. At the same time, these women, by their own gender(!) are called 'butch', 'alphagirl', ... etc. Any number of derogative, and sometimes sexual preference based, nicknames. It's not even the guys. It's a cost, and it shouldn't be.[/quote]I would disagree. Good negotiation is not about hostility. It's about getting as much of what you want while at the same time providing your counterpart what is most important to them. Only in dysfunctional organizations does it involve hostility.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:11:25 GMTjay-hhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]wendyp (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]Craig, I completely agree that there has been a great outpouring of comments about the subject. Sorry it sounds like you wasted your time reading my commentary. I don't profess to be an authority on the subject, just someone who is involved and wants to promote awareness. I'm just a regular day by day DBA like everyone else. The goal was to get people talking and in that it's a success.[/quote]My apologies, then. This line from the article:[quote]I am currently co-chair of the Women In Technology Virtual Chapter for the SQLPASS organization and also a member of IGNITE and the Chicago Chapter of Girls In Technology (GIT). I also hold [b]a degree in Psychology[/b] and have spent time in many roles from [b]Counselor[/b] to Administrative Assistant to Instructor to Database Administrator, and most recently, Consultant.[/quote]It implies more than just being a day to day DBA. As you mentioned, it has brought up a good discussion. If that was the goal, complete success. I had hoped for more detailed insight.[quote]Bottom line here is that women aren't bitching and moaning (don't recall who used that phrase...but it's up there in the commentary). There truly is a stereotype out in the workforce and if we all just let it ride and never make anyone accountable, then it's never going to change.[/quote]I would counter, however, there are women who do that. At the same time, these women, by their own gender(!) are called 'butch', 'alphagirl', ... etc. Any number of derogative, and sometimes sexual preference based, nicknames. It's not even the guys. It's a cost, and it shouldn't be.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:58:09 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Craig Farrell (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]That said, I read the article... um... Where's the beef? That was useless. I've seen more information and better discussion in this thread then in an article that was, in theory, thought about and researched by someone who leads an entire group that deals with the topic every day. Yeah, I agree. Yay equality. We all get the equal chance to screw up and get paid less. I've had women run rings around me technically, and they usually held higher positions then I did, and thus better paid. I learned from them. The majority I meet are better at the BA side of things then the hard-core coding though. I try not to stereotype but it's getting to be a pattern that's almost ingrained at this point.[/quote]Craig, I completely agree that there has been a great outpouring of comments about the subject. Sorry it sounds like you wasted your time reading my commentary. I don't profess to be an authority on the subject, just someone who is involved and wants to promote awareness. I'm just a regular day by day DBA like everyone else. The goal was to get people talking and in that it's a success.Bottom line here is that women aren't bitching and moaning (don't recall who used that phrase...but it's up there in the commentary). There truly is a stereotype out in the workforce and if we all just let it ride and never make anyone accountable, then it's never going to change.Thank you SSC for taking the time to open this up for discussion. If there were a Magic Formula or The Answer, there wouldn't be a need to ask these quesitons in the first place. Let's continue to spread awareness and work toward breaking those stereotypes.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:40:06 GMTwendyphttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspxdavid_wendelen wrote:[i]I still use ["female"] speech patterns in scenarios where I think they are more appropriate than "male" patterns. And they work very well for me. If I guess wrong, switching modes often gets me better results.[/i]Now that's quite an insight, and something I had never thought of before.But on reflection, it seems quite true: Good leaders sometimes have to be good actors, too (and I mean this in a most respectful way), and it appears you have come to appreciate this point - and to act upon it (pun intended).And with that, I shall return to the role I am used to playing - bit-twiddler. Thank you again for your insight.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:27:21 GMTCraig-315134http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic997234-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Craig-315134 (10/4/2010)[/b][hr]David_Wendelken wrote:[i]...I changed my speech patterns to match the "female" patterns described in the article.The results were astoundingly dramatic.I went from the alpha-male, coming up with the plans, getting people to agree to them, leading folks thru the plan, etc., to being totally unheard.[/i]Interesting. However, not necessarily a good thing - this quote from [url=http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-alpha-male.htm]http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-alpha-male.htm[/url]:[i]Though leaders in a company are excellent to have, alpha male characteristics in the workplace may not always be seen as positive. Aggression and disregard for others are not necessarily inspiring. Some people better lead by being “beta” and having good communication skills, sensitivity toward others, and downplaying their strengths so they can showcase the strengths of others.[/i]And the 'beta' personality as described above seems more in tune with the higher, more predominantly female 'Emotional IQ' which enables many women to be successful business leaders.It may be, then, it was your attempt at emulating a 'beta' personality which failed, rather than the beta personality itself.[/quote]Craig,You raise a very reasonable point. With the information I imparted, it's an equally plausible scenario.I mentioned that in different life scenarios, the "female" speech patterns outlined in the article were better solutions.I still use those speech patterns in scenarios where I think they are more appropriate than "male" patterns. And they work very well for me. If I guess wrong, switching modes often gets me better results.So, based upon other my life experiences with it, I would have to say I succeeded in emulating those speech patterns. It's probably one contributor to why I have so many intelligent lady friends, which, I might add, is why [b]Life is Good[/b] truly applies. :w00t: (The other is that I truly [b]appreciate[/b] intelligent, competent women.) It's one of the reason's I'm saddened that fewer women seem to be in technology-centric fields today, fewer interesting people to hang out with.Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:12:40 GMTdavid_wendelken