As a Saudi I supposed I can comment on this.

The minimum of polite language is higher. Profanity can get you in trouble like getting a written warning, and graphic profanity can land you in handcuffs, like insulting someone's mother. Saying son of a bitch is a misdemeanor.

My experience in big corps is that the PDI is high but the power isn't so concerned with neutral formal phrasing. Phrasing in Saudi culture can be shockingly informal even at the highest level, since open tribal gatherings were the highest authority in the land until recently. The King and Princes still run open tribal gatherings where citizens can speak informally. Corporate speak is new and still seen as intrusive to how we do business.

How PDI would express itself would be preserving face, I guess. You can't contradict superiors or even coworkers too openly and directly, you can't openly disrespect or be irreverent. All possibly disruptive feedback must be private or you're bringing shame to yourself and others.

Startups are not like that at all. They're young, irreverent, and passionate. The young people really express themselves in those spaces with barely any hint of the old school social expectations. Guys and gals taking smoke breaks together and focusing on getting the job done.

I'm really curious how this interacts with display rules, or the emotions we're allowed to show/communicate in different contexts.

When you talk of preserving face:

> You can't contradict superiors or even coworkers too openly and directly, you can't openly disrespect or be irreverent. All possibly disruptive feedback must be private or you're bringing shame to yourself and others.

Are you saying that you're not allowed to express anger to superiors or coworkers in public? Is it the way it's said, the emotion behind it, or something else that seems to matter the most?

I'll give more details, but keep in mind Saudi society's norms are in massive flux. Even specifically the things I'm saying are changing. The new nationalism is bringing down a lot of old hierarchies. This might be more useful to understand the past than the future at this point.

It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous.

It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public.

Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder.

So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place.

Wow I feel really grateful you wrote all this and also tremendously fascinated. I'll reply more later in an edit to this post. Thank you for now!

Oops, turns out I waited too long to edit it so I'll reply here.

> I'll give more details, but keep in mind Saudi society's norms are in massive flux. Even specifically the things I'm saying are changing. The new nationalism is bringing down a lot of old hierarchies. This might be more useful to understand the past than the future at this point.

I appreciate you saying this.

> It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous.

Ah, so then it's less about the delivery and more about the result?

> It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public.

I'm curious if this applies to not just flaws but a more general "don't share too much about one's own or another's internal/private life with strangers," because, I would think it would be hard to a priori determine what is considered a flaw or not. Would this concept equally apply to publicly sharing, for example, one's biggest dreams and hopes as well?

Also, I've tried to search the internet for الستر but am struggling to find any links. Will you share some with me so I can learn more about it?

> Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder.

Ah, yeah, I wonder about the etymology of that phrase. I've read a lot about how excommunication historically could equal death, as being kicked out of the human group doesn't bode well for surviving in the wild. Yet, I think it still applies today in different ways, as being ostracized or losing one's job can really wreak havoc on our emotional lives, leading to suicide, murder, and many other mortal results.

I'm curious, if one's reputation is tarnished in a part of Saudi Arabia, is it tarnished throughout? In other words, how quickly and pervasively do you think gossip spreads?

I'm not trying to single out Saudi Arabia, more so to try to understand if it has that small-town feel, where if one person hears something, everyone will hear it, or more like a NYC, where a person could reinvent themselves in some way.

Also, how easy/difficult would you say it is to choose a new career/profession?

> So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place.

I imagine this approach also works pretty well in the US (where I'm at). I think private 1-on-1 conflict resolution can be much easier than public 1-on-1 resolution, as in public, there are so many other people watching and listening and reacting in different ways.

When I think of living in a place (again, not just Saudi Arabia, I'm talking of the dynamic which I think happen in many places) where people are constantly giving cover stories, I imagine I would start to distrust a lot of what people say. Do you think that most people 1) see through the cover stories and 2) get annoyed with hearing cover stories all the time but feel afraid to say they feel annoyed?

I'm so grateful for you writing this and helping me reflect more, thank you.

I enjoy talking about Saudi culture so I'm glad you're interested.

> Ah, so then it's less about the delivery and more about the result?

Yes it's definitely about the result. The politeness of something is measured by the embarrassment it caused.

> I'm curious if this applies to not just flaws

So the origin of الستر is the Islamic command to conceal the sins of a Muslim, unless they're a known repeat offender. Here's an article about that: https://www.arabnews.com/news/480916#:~:text=If%20someone%20... So in Islam it's always worse to sin in public than to sin in private. This also leads to non-Saudis misunderstanding about rule of law and the penal code, because the punishment for drinking alcohol was whipping, but what it doesn't say is that no one was ever caught privately drinking alcohol at their own home. They get caught smuggling, producing, with alcohol in their car, at a large party, or publicly drunk. It is very rare for a victimless private crime to ever be investigated, and bringing it to public is itself a sin. You can apply that to apostasy, drinking, sex, homosexuality, etc.

So that's the Islamic origin, which is taught to grade schoolers. How it presents itself in culture is a lot more general. It's concealment of all flaws. So if you tell someone a story that makes you sound laughable, you might say استر علي (conceal me) which calls on this religious and cultural value to conceal flaws and therefore not retell this story. Or you called in sick and you coworker saw you taking a trip, etc. As far as what constitutes a flaw, it's anything embarrassing or puts you in a bad light. It could be anything.

I don't believe it extends to sharing any and all information. It's not a general tight-lipness. So it wouldn't apply at all to dreams and hopes, unless there's something specifically bad about them.

> Ah, yeah, I wonder about the etymology of that phrase.

It's not a religious text, but it's very popular to reinforces a religious and cultural value. It's also not literal in its comparison. It's an exaggeration to show how sacred livelihoods are. And in a sense there is a belief that they are sacred. Muslims believe livelihood (رزق) is granted by God, and so interfering with that is an ugly crime.

It present itself in a very funny way in today's world. You go to a small town baker's Instagram page, and then a customer would write a negative comment about stale goods or high prices, and the comments would gang up on the customer rather than the business! They would use that specific phrase, advise them to go private, if you don't like it don't buy, and so on.

> I'm curious, if one's reputation is tarnished in a part of Saudi Arabia

Yes reputation is very important. I don't have a concise description for it, but here's an example. If you're marrying outside of your tribe/community and proposing to "strangers", a lot of asking around will happen. Providing references is common. The bride's father will want to talk to your friends, your boss, and anyone in your circle. Before they ask them about you, they will remind them of integrity and honor, and tell them he's asking for his precious daughter, "imagine if he was marrying your sister or daughter would you accept him", and so on. People whose reputations are ruined, for example a man who's a known drunk or criminal, might not be able to marry any Saudi woman.

This kind of social investigation also happens for jobs to a lesser extent. What people say will be more important than the CV. It's commonly known that when you're asked such questions for a job seeker or marriage suitor, that the truth is a matter of integrity and honor, rather than concealment. After all they're asking in private.

In that sense it's not gossip. It's commonly practiced and formal. Gossip, of course still happens, but also seen as a sin against the value of concealment.

Although this all happens, I can say I don't know of anyone who's completely locked out of an industry that way, not for a small thing. I heard of a man who forged a contract at work once, and he got fired and became completely unhirable. He had to leave the country. But that case seemed exceptionally sensitive. Livelihood will always be more important than reputation.

Barring such glaring ethical issues, I think switching careers is not too difficult. The actual obstacle is that people kind of pigeon-hole you into your major/job like "you studied computer science we can't fund your agricultural business" kind of thing.

> Do you think that most people 1) see through the cover stories and 2) get annoyed with hearing cover stories all the time but feel afraid to say they feel annoyed?

It can be difficult when accountability is important. Everything can be systemized these days and information is abundant. I imagine it was extremely difficult in the past when your entire workforce colludes to hide their flaws, and the leadership colludes to hide the organization's flaws, and so on. But unless uncovering the cover story is of practical importance, you're expected to let it go.

Love your comments.

Separately, criticizing privately by default is simply a good foundational habit to adopt. (Speaking generally. I happen to be a US-American.)

It's simply a different environment. I've seen it play out for good and for bad.

Good kids caught by police doing dumb things being let go to cover for them, backstabbing and blackmail might hurt the person doing it more than the target, you feel safer because even your superiors cover for you, and so on.

But the incompetent, the lazy, the corrupt also abuse an environment where accountability is flexible. While a normal person with a conscience will appreciate the cover when they slip up, it's very hard to get rid of the people you need to get rid of. Everyone knows they're lazy but they keep their job to avoid scandal and cruelty.

For example, if a coworker is obviously and visibly missing, their teammates will still scratch their heads if asked about them. "I might have seen them. They're around." Saying they didn't come today when asked, out in the open, is as rude as it gets.

Expressing anger anywhere is a business setting is a problem. Anybody can be angry anytime, but your feelings are your business.

Stick to the facts.

"I feel really angry that you said my colleague was lazy. As her manager, I know that she has been working late every day, including the weekends, to hit these deadlines."

EDIT: Another example: "I feel quite angry right now and it probably has less to do with what you did and more to do with the fact that I haven't eaten yet. So before we do my performance review, could we get lunch so I might be in a better mood to hear it?"

I think that would be a way to express anger connected to facts. Do you think that is still something people should keep to themselves?

These seem defensible. But it's a slippery slope we are all better off not on.

I'd say it could be a slippery slope. But so can passive aggression. I believe the emotion often leaks out in other ways regardless, whether thru our comments or our distancing or more distrust etc. I guess I believe that articulating it can stop the slope from slipping so much.