I think it is in terms of promoting in terms of publicity rather than advancement. I'd like a better word, but it seems to be in contrast to micro-aggressions.
I like the concept but the homophone makes it confusing. (Giving positive feedback in public regularly and in front of peers and management seems to be a good thing.)
Given that micro-aggression are arguably mostly created by the mentality of the receiver, and not the acts of the sender, I don’t think the comparison is entirely right.
The person above you was correct and they are real things that are called microaggressions. A micro aggression is defined as "A statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority."
I think because it's unrelated to the original comment. "Guys" was not in question, "attaboy" was. Using "guys" as an argument would be a strawman regardless if the rationale is correct.
WRT "guys"; I know of at least two companies (and I work at one) which try to encourage the use of other pronouns in place to "guys" in order to be more inclusive.
The point was, attaboy could be used in the same way that "guys" is. I don't see how that's a straw man fallacy.
Also, companies promoting switching pro-nouns is an ineffective way to get people to be more inclusive. It's a band-aid. You be inclusive by actually being inclusive.
Seems to me that respecting someone’s feelings of “exclusion” by using pronouns that make them feel included is “being inclusive”
Not every company need change, but if a pretty minor change can have a big impact on someone’s happiness and feeling of belonging, I’m willing to change.
That term could be used or taken pejoratively, as if people are being stiffed and only given "micro-promotions" when they're worth more than that.
This article has nothing to do with "promotions" from an HR perspective (although arguably being promoted to "Team Lead" ought to have resulted in a pay rise - whether it did or not isn't mentioned in the article). It's about a healthy team and its leaders treating someone fairly, honestly, and respectfully.
The 'micro-promotions' link in the article leads here: [1], to an arguably fairly ideological intersectional view of how people ought to behave in a company, and it mostly has nothing to do with 'nice little high fives' or 'micro praise' or anything like that.
It's a though the author is conflation two issues (that are of course related). One, a more generic 'nice nudges' culture, and another oriented specifically towards 'minorities in tech'.
