3 ms·

Right, and the reason you went looking was because you felt wronged by your employer -- whether it be office politics, backstabby coworkers, a manager you did't

by gknoy 7y ago

Right, and the reason you went looking was because you felt wronged by your employer -- whether it be office politics, backstabby coworkers, a manager you did't like, etc, you would not have gone looking for another job (in the same way) had you felt valued, happy, and safe at your job. "shields down" is just Rands' way of saying "decided to even consider another job". It doesn't have to be defensive. It just means that that was the point where you realized that _maybe_ this job isn't the best one for you. You might come to that realization on your own (as you did), or after seeing things happen to other people, or even from a recruiter cold-calling you. The "shields down" moment was before when you started looking, or when you set LinkedIn to "I'm looking ...".

at_a_remove 7y ago
What I'm getting at is that Rand's "way of saying" is not simply a metaphor, but one which comes with certain implications and that those implications matter to the entire essay. The first implication is I, as an employee, should keep my shields up. It sounds dutiful. If Ensign Crusher didn't have the shields up, that's pretty bad news. The second implication is that it is defensive. It does not have to be defensive but if you select "shield" as your metaphor, you're bringing "defensive" along for the ride. To suggest the use of a shield without the defensive concept is disingenuous at best. Both of these implications are distractions from the "what did I do as an employer do wrong?" and the essay as a whole would be cleaner and more honest without the shield in the essay or the title. Listen to this part: "The moment happened a long time ago when you received a random email from a good friend who asked ..." No. That did not happen. He hits it again: "The moment happened the instant you decided, 'What the hell? I haven’t seen Don in months and it’d be good to see him.'" Again, that's not the moment. He does it again: "When you are indirectly asked to lower your shields ..." Blame again on the employee. All of this is a distraction from the actual moment of employers making that final poor decision. He keeps using "you" (as an employee) rather than "what did the employer do?" Cross out every bit about shields and refocus the essay on employer mistakes, it is fine. But he follows that hint of acknowledgement ("If I’m sitting here talking with you it means two things: I don’t want you to leave and, to the best of my knowledge, you didn’t want to leave either but here you are leaving. It didn’t just happen.") with an impulse to push it back on the employee (" You chose. Maybe you weren’t looking, but once your shields dropped, you started looking." It's a metaphor that leads to a dishonest way of thinking about the situation he, as an employer, is in. Someone else chose, they dropped their shields because they were indirectly asked, and maybe I as a boss was involved somehow but the choice was still the employee's and all because they, in a momentary lapse of vigilance, dropped their shields. That's what I find rather grating about this essay.
- mlyle 7y ago
  No, I don't think he ever makes it sound dutiful. There's a whole lot of other people reading this article and commenting on it both here and the original site and no one has read it the way you are reading it. In no single point does he talk about employee mistakes. The entire point of the essay is to analyze where and how the employee was actually lost. You know Star Trek, when an unknown ship pops up, and they raise shields, etc? Then they turn out to be cool bros and want to talk? That's the metaphor that I read it as. It's a little wonky but fits the situation.
  - greenyoda 7y ago
    > no one has read it the way you are reading it I didn't originally read it that way, but after reading @at_a_remove's comments, I think there's a lot of insight in them and I now see the original article differently. I don't think the Star Trek shields metaphor fits this situation very well, since someone trying to interest you in a new job isn't a hostile act that needs to be defended against.

by gknoy 7y ago

at_a_remove 7y ago

What I'm getting at is that Rand's "way of saying" is not simply a metaphor, but one which comes with certain implications and that those implications matter to the entire essay. The first implication is I, as an employee, should keep my shields up. It sounds dutiful. If Ensign Crusher didn't have the shields up, that's pretty bad news. The second implication is that it is defensive. It does not have to be defensive but if you select "shield" as your metaphor, you're bringing "defensive" along for the ride. To suggest the use of a shield without the defensive concept is disingenuous at best. Both of these implications are distractions from the "what did I do as an employer do wrong?" and the essay as a whole would be cleaner and more honest without the shield in the essay or the title. Listen to this part: "The moment happened a long time ago when you received a random email from a good friend who asked ..." No. That did not happen. He hits it again: "The moment happened the instant you decided, 'What the hell? I haven’t seen Don in months and it’d be good to see him.'" Again, that's not the moment. He does it again: "When you are indirectly asked to lower your shields ..." Blame again on the employee. All of this is a distraction from the actual moment of employers making that final poor decision. He keeps using "you" (as an employee) rather than "what did the employer do?" Cross out every bit about shields and refocus the essay on employer mistakes, it is fine. But he follows that hint of acknowledgement ("If I’m sitting here talking with you it means two things: I don’t want you to leave and, to the best of my knowledge, you didn’t want to leave either but here you are leaving. It didn’t just happen.") with an impulse to push it back on the employee (" You chose. Maybe you weren’t looking, but once your shields dropped, you started looking." It's a metaphor that leads to a dishonest way of thinking about the situation he, as an employer, is in. Someone else chose, they dropped their shields because they were indirectly asked, and maybe I as a boss was involved somehow but the choice was still the employee's and all because they, in a momentary lapse of vigilance, dropped their shields. That's what I find rather grating about this essay.

mlyle 7y ago
No, I don't think he ever makes it sound dutiful. There's a whole lot of other people reading this article and commenting on it both here and the original site and no one has read it the way you are reading it. In no single point does he talk about employee mistakes. The entire point of the essay is to analyze where and how the employee was actually lost. You know Star Trek, when an unknown ship pops up, and they raise shields, etc? Then they turn out to be cool bros and want to talk? That's the metaphor that I read it as. It's a little wonky but fits the situation.
- greenyoda 7y ago
  > no one has read it the way you are reading it I didn't originally read it that way, but after reading @at_a_remove's comments, I think there's a lot of insight in them and I now see the original article differently. I don't think the Star Trek shields metaphor fits this situation very well, since someone trying to interest you in a new job isn't a hostile act that needs to be defended against.