That's a hard one. I personally don't see that as a cultural issue. Startups are usually within small quarters. Big Co's typically have isolated "kitchen areas". I think it's important when working in small quarters organizations to be respectful of the workplace and sensibilities of your coworkers. It's somewhat analogous to BO when someone refuses to wear deodorant or the likes because of their convictions. Unlike noise that can be drowned out with headphones, you can't really drown out smells.

Didn't say it was. I was speaking on sensibilities.

> I sucked it up and got used to it. That's what cultural sensitivity is.

Cultural sensitivity is not telling people to "suck it up." That's how you create problems. We're speaking about the workplace, a professional environment that should be culturally neutral as possible so that cultural particulars do not affect the working conditions of others.

What happens when the cumulative dislikes of food smells makes it impossible to bring in most meals?

My partner is a vegetarian and doesn't like the smell of meat. Would you stop eating all your meat dishes in the office?

What happens when someone who was "banned" from eating or heating their food in the office fights back by suddenly banning other foods?

Maybe the same thing that makes big corp so safe is also what makes it so boring that your friend wants to work in a startup instead.

Maybe startups have so much potential because you're opinionated but otherwise rule-free, so the tradeoff there is that not everybody is compatible with the company culture.

Maybe I'm a white Mormon, and there are millions of us in the USA (more of us than there are Indians, btw) who don't drink either despite the pervasive American drinking culture, and get pressured to drink. all. the. time. But get along better with an office of mostly Indian Muslims because none of us drink or send porno pictures to each other over email, entirely by choice rather than by regulation. And we can do it all in a tiny company with few rules because we have a company culture.

Maybe startup culture needs more Indian (or Mormon...) founders.

Yes, America has its own culture. Yes, it's often different in many ways from what's typically found in India. But none of this is a secret.

Anyone who travels, whether for a short term or for much longer, to a country with distinctly different culture and customs should be prepared to adapt somewhat. Or at the very least, they should not be offended when the culture conflicts with what they're accustomed to.

I don't think it's unreasonable to request that one staff member not cook food that others in the office may find to smell bad. Such a request isn't about race or gender or anything like that, obviously. I don't doubt that the same request would be made to an American who chose to cook the same food.

The same goes for celebratory alcohol consumption after big events. It's just part of American culture in general. It happens when celebrating accomplishments of all sorts.

It's one thing to avoid overt, unjustified discrimination. But I don't think that American companies should have to bend over backward to accommodate people who don't want to accept, or at least tolerate, the basic aspects of American culture, either.

I say this as somebody who isn't even an American, by the way. This should hold true regardless of the company, where it's located, and where the foreign employees are from.

If you want to work in a foreign country, you should be willing to adapt to their established cultural norms. If you don't like American culture and customs, for whatever reason, maybe you shouldn't live there.

Drinking shots at work is not a 'basic aspect' of American culture.

Based on what the earlier commenter wrote ("her teammates pressured her to drink a Vodka shot after a major deploy"), it apparently happened after a major software deployment. For small startups with close-knit teams who've just put in a lot of effort, this can be a big event, and cause for such celebration.

This may not have even happened at the work place, mind you. The original comment isn't totally clear, but it's not at all unusual for an American software development team to go out for a few drinks at a nearby bar, especially after completing some important work.

To most of the Americans there, it was probably a very insignificant thing. I don't see how they should be at fault for encouraging somebody else to engage in a pretty typical, and generally harmless, American social activity.

They should be tolerant, inclusive and understanding of people's differences. What you're proposing is the complete opposite and quite frankly it's people like you that are the problem in our industry.

But do you think it's fair to force somebody to partake it this kind of thing? If somebody's a teetotaller, why shouldn't they be allowed to opt out of this kind of thing?

The earlier commenter wrote that "her teammates pressured her".

While I don't know the particulars of this situation, it sure doesn't sound like they physically restrained her, forced open her mouth and poured alcohol down her throat, or anything that extreme.

It was probably just verbal encouragement to try something she apparently hadn't done before, delivered in a friendly, although perhaps overt, manner. This is pretty common within American culture, when facing somebody who hasn't indulged in something that most Americans have. They'll encourage you to try it, and if you resist, they'll still encourage you to try it.

Yes, somebody who isn't used to this aspect of American culture may consider it to be a form of "pressure". But the intent is probably good-natured, and it's more about helping somebody try new experiences rather than control.

Most of the Americans I've dealt with, especially in a work setting, would not truly force the consumption of alcohol on somebody else, of course. Explaining to them that you don't drink, for whatever reason, will very likely put the matter to rest quickly. They may still playfully poke fun at you because of it, but that's just part of American culture.

That isn't professional. As far as you know the person has had alcohol issues in her family and doesn't want to carry it into her work persona. Or she may believe in a religion that forbids it and doesn't want to be known for her religious views at work.

Drinking a shot when you deploy or explaining why you won't should not be a requirement for a job as a software engineer.

Bullying is done out of malice. Encouraging somebody to enjoy a celebratory shot of alcohol after a big event is, in America, a show of friendship and camaraderie.

Yes, Americans can often be assertive, especially in a playful or friendly manner. That's part of American culture. As a foreigner, it's best to understand this.

I also note that your argument could be applied almost verbatim to women working in predominantly male environments. Or any other case where there's a minority surrounded by a entrenched majority. "It's just how things are" is not a satisfactory approach imho.

As an American, it's best to understand this.

It doesn't matter whether they physically held her down and poured it into her throat, or that they cajoled her over an extended period into doing it. Either way, she was forced into drinking. Peer pressure is just another way of forcing people to do things they don't want to.

I'm Irish. I'm fully familiar with that kind of drinking culture.

> Explaining to them that you don't drink, for whatever reason, will very likely put the matter to rest quickly.

Obviously that didn't work in this case.

It probably was the typical, purely-verbal, friendly coaxing that oft persistent Americans can engage in. That's what I'd consider "pressure". Aside from a brief and harmless verbal interaction, nobody is coerced into doing anything.

You may have to say "No" a few times, since they'll try to convince you to reconsider in a friendly manner. But they'll respect your decision soon enough.

It's really no different than going to a market in a developing nation, and having to fend off street vendors. They can be persistent, for sure, but there's absolutely no obligation to buy from them, and any interaction with them is almost always totally harmless.

I think this is "incident" is probably being misconstrued and totally blown out of proportion. Had she better understood American culture, and had she merely said, "No, thanks!" a few times, it would've been settled without any hard feelings.

Instead of trying to truly understand American culture, I think you've just ended up injecting a lot of presumed malice that just isn't there in reality.

What you and your friend see as "pressure", many Americans would consider just being friendly and sociable.

What you see as an unreasonable request, many Americans would see as merely trying to be considerate of others and what they have to smell while at the office.

And as I stated earlier, I'm not even an American. But I do realize that American culture is unique in many ways, and it's far more enjoyable to interact with Americans if you put forth the effort to understand where they're coming from, and why they act the way that they do.

Is it really too much to ask for the same in return?

> It's one thing to avoid overt, unjustified discrimination

Right, the more covert, justified kind is really what's best.

I also hope you don't consider deploys a "big" event. I do this multiple times a day (and I know Github does it even more). I'd have liver damage if this was normal.

Aren't politically correct companies doing the same thing in the end except it's more like a non-culture than a monoculture?

Aren't Indians also Asians?

In the rest of the world Asians means Oriental and are separate from Indians.

If I were a Github employee happy with my job and current colleagues, I'd prefer the former solution.

Also, on another point, Github believes itself as a very much hacker culture. And if it's a hacker culture, shouldn't they believe in the Hacker manifesto, where they don't discriminate on religion, race, gender, but on their ability to code?

Certainly there are differences between highly motivated technical staff and many other professions, but it's not like most companies go around making rules and processes to make their lives harder.

>We’re in the planning stages of designing a diversity and communication training curriculum for GitHub employees with input from Hubbers and external experts. Topics will include diversity training, effective communication, giving and receiving peer feedback, and conflict resolution.

Communication is incredibly important at any company, but startups often fail to treat it as such, saying "we don't need meetings to get shit done" or "we hire great people so things will just work out".

Some people, through work or life experience, will have no problem giving constructive feedback at appropriate times, and working through differences of opinion. Others will suck at these things. The latter may otherwise be strong contributors - especially if you were hiring for ninja rockstar coding ability and not explicitly for communication skills - so it's worth helping them acquire those skills, both for their own career and for the company.

In particular, some people with conflict-avoiding personalities may have never experienced productive conflict resolution, unless you consider always backing down and feeling increasingly disempowered to be productive.

Now sure, if GitHub HR (or employees) treat this training as a box-ticking exercise, or use it to encourage bland, conflict-free discussion, the culture will nosedive. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

It seems like a lot of programmers, engineers, hackers, etc. have a strong case of Dunning-Kruger in these areas.

It is interesting to see how many of the failings they admit now are not really gender based but more job role based (although gender undoubtedly plays a part too)

Anyone have any experience with attending these kinds of things?

I would just point out that while there were obvious issues at Github, it's not clear to the public (and never will be) exactly what happened there.

"The investigation found no evidence to support the claims against Tom and his wife of sexual or gender-based harassment or retaliation, or of a sexist or hostile work environment.

...

As to the remaining allegations, the investigation found no evidence of gender-based discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or abuse."

Although they found no evidence of legal wrongdoing, they found enough general dirt to force a founding CEO to resign. Obviously the public will never know exactly what happened, but an explosive, highly publicized employee departure followed by a CEO's resignation makes you wonder how the company allowed things to go so wrong.