Situation:
(Man in Amateur Radio Organization) behaves unprofessionally. He claims in writing that work doesn't exist when it clearly does. That work was done by ORI. ORI is Open Research Institute, a non-profit R&D firm I co-founded and work very hard for.
The organization in question is one that some of us at ORI have been involved with since 2010. An ORI-led team contributed a very large amount of work towards this organization's recent project attempts. We were told that this work was presented back to their funding agency. That now appears to be not the case, which is very disappointing.
What I want to talk about today is that ORI is facing a situation where an individual at the organization we were working with has hijacked the project. He is demanding to be in charge. He is centering his own unreviewed and closed source work. As if previously delivered and accurate open source work didn't exist.
We can put up with individual volunteers behaving oddly in clubs and organizations, but the lack of credit back to the funding agency is a serious problem. When organizations fail to credit significant contributions back to funders, then the only chance that contributors have to show the work is taken away. This was a deliberate choice on the part of the organization, since all of the work was communicated and explained and presented multiple times. We were told that our report was part of the report back to the funding agency.
What did this individual man do?
* Wrote rambling, self-aggrandizing manifestos
* Worked solo without peer review
* Made territorial claims ("I'm the Chief Scientist")
* Used emotional language and ALL CAPS
The Organizational Board's response? "We need to give him a title so he doesn't leave! He's so passionate!"
So we do what we do at ORI. We continued to behave professionally with the full support of our volunteers and board members.
What did this individual man do?
* Wrote rambling, self-aggrandizing manifestos
* Worked solo without peer review
* Made territorial claims ("I'm the Chief Scientist")
* Used emotional language and ALL CAPS
The Organizational Board's response? "We need to give him a title so he doesn't leave! He's so passionate!"
So we do what we do at ORI. We continued to behave professionally with the full support of our volunteers and board members.
The team I organized from the community, to support this organization, delivered peer-reviewed, collaborative work. The work is substantial, accurate, and useful. And, it continues. Current work is about the amateur communications products that will work for this particular recurring event.
What did we do at ORI?
* Documented everything properly
* Proposed formal partnership structure drawing in a competent and productive team
* Set clear boundaries and expectations
* Maintained professional standards
This organization's board-level response to an offer of a formalization of the existing relationship?
"This seems too formal. We're worried about what could go wrong. We need to think about it."
This sort of thing happens all the time.
It does not matter how good of a job you do in tech. If you are not a man, you will suffer a significant disadvantage. There is nothing you can do about this. Your perfect and professional work will be discounted down below a problematic man's work, every time.
Translation from what I've seen so far?
There's a long tradition in technical fields of giving men a pass for terrible behavior if they're perceived as "brilliant" or "passionate."
The bar for "brilliant" is remarkably low. This man wrote some Python scripts with ChatGPT help and hasn't had them peer reviewed, but sure, "Chief Scientist."
Meanwhile, I lead a large nonprofit technical organization. We have more members on one channel of our Slack than this organization has paid members. We delivered peer-reviewed work with an actual team of people that were invited, recruited, supported, and credited. The work was done by people and sources were properly cited.
And ORI's formal partnership proposal would be seen as "strong leadership", if it came from a man instead of a woman.
Their board would have no problem telling a woman spouting off in an undirected and emotional manner to work more collaboratively. They'd be eager to formalize the relationship with Michael's (instead of Michelle's) reputable and successful organization.
It's worth acknowledging that this sucks and it's unfair.
We did everything right and still got marginalized because a man with less professionalism and less expertise threw a tantrum and the organization we're trying to work with decided managing his feelings were more important than recognizing our substantial, public, and high-quality contributions. Yes, we've been privately thanked! But this dude has been repeatedly and loudly and publicly platformed and titled and rewarded. A quick private thanks while lavishing repeated public praise and titles on a dude is a really disappointing outcome. Do they really not think we can all see the difference?
It's okay to be angry about things like this.
We are making the right strategic choice by distancing ourselves away from trying to work this organization in this particular field.
Some fights aren't worth fighting because the system is broken at a foundational level. This organization's board has shown us who they are. We need to believe them.
What did we do at ORI?
* Documented everything properly
* Proposed formal partnership structure drawing in a competent and productive team
* Set clear boundaries and expectations
* Maintained professional standards
This organization's board-level response to an offer of a formalization of the existing relationship?
"This seems too formal. We're worried about what could go wrong. We need to think about it."
This sort of thing happens all the time.
It does not matter how good of a job you do in tech. If you are not a man, you will suffer a significant disadvantage. There is nothing you can do about this. Your perfect and professional work will be discounted down below a problematic man's work, every time.
Translation from what I've seen so far?
This particular man's ego and entitlement = "passion" and "dedication"
ORI standards and boundaries = "difficult" and "risky"
This particular man's solo cowboy approach = "leadership"
My successful collaborative methodology = somehow threatening
This particular man's demands for recognition = gets a title
My request for appropriate attribution for all = "we'll think about it"
This is textbook double-bind. Women in technical fields face this constantly. If you're assertive and set boundaries: "Too aggressive, too formal, not a team player"
If you're accommodating and flexible: "Not leadership material, let the men handle the serious work"
If you have credentials and experience: "Intimidating, making people uncomfortable"
If you're collaborative and open: "Not confident enough, lacks vision"
You literally cannot win because the game is rigged.
Meanwhile, this man can write a manifesto that reads like a combination of a silly TED talk, a ransom note, and a product pitch ("Time flies pretty fast... NEVER GIVE UP!") and they call him "Chief Scientist."
ORI standards and boundaries = "difficult" and "risky"
This particular man's solo cowboy approach = "leadership"
My successful collaborative methodology = somehow threatening
This particular man's demands for recognition = gets a title
My request for appropriate attribution for all = "we'll think about it"
This is textbook double-bind. Women in technical fields face this constantly. If you're assertive and set boundaries: "Too aggressive, too formal, not a team player"
If you're accommodating and flexible: "Not leadership material, let the men handle the serious work"
If you have credentials and experience: "Intimidating, making people uncomfortable"
If you're collaborative and open: "Not confident enough, lacks vision"
You literally cannot win because the game is rigged.
Meanwhile, this man can write a manifesto that reads like a combination of a silly TED talk, a ransom note, and a product pitch ("Time flies pretty fast... NEVER GIVE UP!") and they call him "Chief Scientist."
No, he does not formal credentials or any job experience in science.
The organization's board isn't scared of this man leaving. They're scared of managing a man's feelings.
They've decided it's easier to give a man an undeserved title, let him claim credit he hasn't earned, platform his work over a really wonderful team, and then ask me to "be understanding".
The organization's board isn't scared of this man leaving. They're scared of managing a man's feelings.
They've decided it's easier to give a man an undeserved title, let him claim credit he hasn't earned, platform his work over a really wonderful team, and then ask me to "be understanding".
They would rather do this than to tell him "no, you need to work collaboratively and professionally."
This organization is treating him like a brilliant eccentric who needs coddling.
This organization is treating me like an HR problem that needs managing.
That's sexism.
This organization is treating him like a brilliant eccentric who needs coddling.
This organization is treating me like an HR problem that needs managing.
That's sexism.
It's related to the "Genius Asshole Pass", which we see a lot in engineering and open source work.
There's a long tradition in technical fields of giving men a pass for terrible behavior if they're perceived as "brilliant" or "passionate."
The bar for "brilliant" is remarkably low. This man wrote some Python scripts with ChatGPT help and hasn't had them peer reviewed, but sure, "Chief Scientist."
Meanwhile, I lead a large nonprofit technical organization. We have more members on one channel of our Slack than this organization has paid members. We delivered peer-reviewed work with an actual team of people that were invited, recruited, supported, and credited. The work was done by people and sources were properly cited.
We have successful partnerships with multiple international sites doing this particular type of work and we maintain professional standards with them. It's just not a problem.
And this organization is still "not sure" if a partnership with ORI is valuable?
If I were named Michael and this dude had a woman's name, I guarantee that the emotional, unprofessional manifesto that he/she posted to their membership would have been dismissed as "dramatic" and swiftly deleted by moderators.
And this organization is still "not sure" if a partnership with ORI is valuable?
If I were named Michael and this dude had a woman's name, I guarantee that the emotional, unprofessional manifesto that he/she posted to their membership would have been dismissed as "dramatic" and swiftly deleted by moderators.
And ORI's formal partnership proposal would be seen as "strong leadership", if it came from a man instead of a woman.
Their board would have no problem telling a woman spouting off in an undirected and emotional manner to work more collaboratively. They'd be eager to formalize the relationship with Michael's (instead of Michelle's) reputable and successful organization.
Understanding the sexism dynamic in technical hobbies like amateur radio results in some powerful teachings.
1. This cannot be fixed with better proposals or better work products
No amount of professional communication will work because the problem isn't our approach. It's their unwillingness to hold entitled men accountable while simultaneously taking women contributors seriously.
2. Staying would require accepting unacceptable terms
To stay engaged, we'd have to accept less credit than we deserve, watch a less qualified man get recognition for work already done, do emotional labor to manage everyone's discomfort, and compromise professional standards. That's not a partnership. That is exploitation with extra steps.
3. Walking away is the only move that preserves any dignity
ORI can't make this organization value the completed and ongoing work. But we can refuse to participate in a system that devalues what we do.
Organizations like this one think they're choosing the "easier" option by placating the man and avoiding conflict with a competent woman. They're actually choosing failure.
When the project hits technical problems (and it will), they'll discover that a mediocre, uneducated, unserious man's "passion" doesn't substitute for rigorous analysis. His solo cowboy approach means no one can validate or build on his work. His ego makes collaboration impossible. They've burned the bridge with the professionals who could have helped. He can steal the open source work and present it as if he did it, but he is not capable, and the lack of any interest in inclusion and credit kills the goose that laid golden eggs. This organization is not building the future.
So, the good news? ORI does have organizational relationships for this project that apparently don't have a problem recognizing competence regardless of gender. Four in fact. This organization we are talking about today is absolutely not the "only game in town". We don't have to put up with this bullshit.
That's the best possible outcome.
1. This cannot be fixed with better proposals or better work products
No amount of professional communication will work because the problem isn't our approach. It's their unwillingness to hold entitled men accountable while simultaneously taking women contributors seriously.
2. Staying would require accepting unacceptable terms
To stay engaged, we'd have to accept less credit than we deserve, watch a less qualified man get recognition for work already done, do emotional labor to manage everyone's discomfort, and compromise professional standards. That's not a partnership. That is exploitation with extra steps.
3. Walking away is the only move that preserves any dignity
ORI can't make this organization value the completed and ongoing work. But we can refuse to participate in a system that devalues what we do.
Organizations like this one think they're choosing the "easier" option by placating the man and avoiding conflict with a competent woman. They're actually choosing failure.
When the project hits technical problems (and it will), they'll discover that a mediocre, uneducated, unserious man's "passion" doesn't substitute for rigorous analysis. His solo cowboy approach means no one can validate or build on his work. His ego makes collaboration impossible. They've burned the bridge with the professionals who could have helped. He can steal the open source work and present it as if he did it, but he is not capable, and the lack of any interest in inclusion and credit kills the goose that laid golden eggs. This organization is not building the future.
So, the good news? ORI does have organizational relationships for this project that apparently don't have a problem recognizing competence regardless of gender. Four in fact. This organization we are talking about today is absolutely not the "only game in town". We don't have to put up with this bullshit.
That's the best possible outcome.
It's worth acknowledging that this sucks and it's unfair.
We did everything right and still got marginalized because a man with less professionalism and less expertise threw a tantrum and the organization we're trying to work with decided managing his feelings were more important than recognizing our substantial, public, and high-quality contributions. Yes, we've been privately thanked! But this dude has been repeatedly and loudly and publicly platformed and titled and rewarded. A quick private thanks while lavishing repeated public praise and titles on a dude is a really disappointing outcome. Do they really not think we can all see the difference?
It's okay to be angry about things like this.
We are making the right strategic choice by distancing ourselves away from trying to work this organization in this particular field.
Some fights aren't worth fighting because the system is broken at a foundational level. This organization's board has shown us who they are. We need to believe them.
