5 ms·

These are a set of games which in general I think can cause tremendous frustration in the people that "don't get it" or aren't naturally socially outgoing, good

These are a set of games which in general I think can cause tremendous frustration in the people that "don't get it" or aren't naturally socially outgoing, good corporate citizens by nature. This is a similar bucket as Win Friends and Influence People adherents - it's a methodology and an effective one, but there are parts to consider. You see this all the time in security. They're right, but because it's not packaged well, there are legions of bitter AF security engineers who don't understand why their messages aren't not getting through. At a minimum, it's really important that people know that things can work like this sometimes. If you don't follow it and maintain your soul or whatever, at least you won't be confused why Brian shot up the ladder so quickly. Promotions and success shouldn't only go to the socially outgoing, which is why I don't think Win Friends and Influence People is all that bad of a book. In a well functioning team, Brian and the talented Roberta can also climb. But if you're really pissed about Brian, stuff like this is probably why he's doing well. At least you know! If Roberta needs to learn to schmooze a bit by reading a book, or learn how to navigate a crappy team and save a career to fight another day by doing an 18 month jump as this article states, I think that's ok. We train our bodies and minds to try and even the odds in the job market and health context, so what's wrong with training our personalities and corporate strategies a bit so the good can rise up too? The only caveat with this genre of corporate how-to'ing is it only works if you never mention that's what you're doing. That's sort of obvious, but it's an interesting quirk because this is important stuff to pick up on for good, talented, non-A-Hole peopl who do want to find a way to do good in existing corporate structure. But it's naturally sort of a toxic underbelly of work culture, and many are opposed to learning it.

courtf 6y ago
My frustrations with this behavior are less about not getting it, or not being able to participate, and more about finding the exercise distasteful, dishonest and ultimately destructive. The absolute worst aspect of this game is how clumsy and obvious these machinations can be. Employee trust in the entire organization is damaged when dimwitted ass-kissers with the subtlety of a brick are rewarded in lieu of any actual contributions and at the expense of decent people. Too often these environments are constructed in such a way that good people cannot succeed without serious comprises to their integrity. They get weeded out by their own moral disgust. The hierarchy then functions as a reverse sieve, allowing only the slime and detritus to remain. It's also really less about being socially outgoing and schmoozing, and more about vociferously agreeing with everything that comes down from on high, and sniping at others for not immediately falling in line. I'm an introvert who generally enjoys going out for drinks, telling absurd jokes and making a fool of myself in public for cheap laughs, but unless I start puckering up and tonguing more asses, it won't help me navigate the corporate world. For someone like me, rather than forcing myself to be more extroverted, I actually need to do a better job at keeping my jokes to myself and limiting my self expression, so as to not threaten the fragile egos of those cursed with small amounts of power. I think your comment seriously underestimates the levels of animosity and petty one-upmanship that permeate the corporate ladder.
- dogman144 6y ago
  Haha I guess you don't fall into the bucket of knowing how the game works can bring some measure of inner peace. A cool related read, https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-..., sounds like you're referring to "posture talk" in that context. That whole series might be interesting to you as well, especially in relation to organizational trust expectations. I think for me, if I really did care about expectations of org trust and morality as must-haves vs. nice to haves, beyond must-have legality standards, the civil service calls, right? I wish the corporate beast didn't call for such pragmatism, and I'd be a lot less at peace if I didn't see really good operators make it to the top using their own tolerable measure of this behavior (as in personally, ethically, and competently good). Anyway, I feel you! I guess I can only cycle back to my last point: > it's an interesting quirk because this is important stuff to pick up on for good, talented, non-A-Hole peopl who do want to find a way to do good in existing corporate structure. But it's naturally sort of a toxic underbelly of work culture, and many are opposed to learning it.
  - courtf 6y ago
    > I'd be a lot less at peace if I didn't see really good operators make it to the top using their own tolerable measure of this behavior Fair points here, and I do think the amount of disgust generated by this environment varies considerably by individual. One thing that contributes to that feeling of disgust for me is that being authentic hasn't always come easily. If you are someone who has had to hide aspects of yourself for your own safety, or perhaps worked to overcome some mental illness, it can be a hard pill to swallow to go back in the metaphorical closest just to earn brownie points, but I digress :). I've read your link before as well, and unfortunately I must count myself among the losers, at least so far. I've been clueless and even attempted some minor stabs at sociopathy (as defined at the link), but without much success.
    - dogman144 6y ago
      That's a great point. There is a fair bit of encouragement leading towards behaving as one's authentic self.... but suddenly in the private sector arena, which really matters for life quality, it suddenly is the wrong advice. I've had some trouble navigating that turn as well, fwiw.
gavinray 6y ago
Being exposed to this as someone who was raised by a hyper-capitalist mother has forced me into therapy because of how badly it messed with me psychologically. It really put me in a dark place.
- dogman144 6y ago
  yeah probably a bad child-rearing approach
  - gavinray 6y ago
    Not my mother, ha. Entering the workforce. You get taught your entire childhood that the only thing that matters is how hard you work. That you're only as good as your word, and the path to success and happiness is paved by your work ethic. But that isn't how it works, is it? The people that wind up the most successfully aren't necessarily the people that had the most determination, that put in the most work. (Not that it doesn't help) It seems you can viably make a living by either working yourself to the bone, or by being really good at bullshitting and office politics. Having acquaintances that are much more successful than you, yet couldn't produce value if you held a gun to their head really makes you think. And that's not the worst bit -- many of them don't actually care about their work/job, or what they provide to a company. It's a means to an end, they do as little as possible. How do you live with yourself like this?
    - asciident 6y ago
      Because working hard is not important if it has no impact. I've had people work really hard, I tell them to make sure to do blah, and to focus on blah2, and to let people know that they did blah3. They ignore that and just work on what they think is important, and work super hard. Then eventually people realize what they did is a bit "offtrack" and doesn't connect to an existing system that everyone agreed is going to be the base platform going forward, and it's also not immediately useful because it didn't focus on blah2, and it doesn't cover this use case that everyone else cares about (but that they don't think it's a big deal), and other people don't ever figure out it does blah3 because they never documented it properly and used a less familiar term for it. Also, everyone is now stressed out, because what this person did now needs to be replaced in way less time. Well then, all that "value" they produced was just a waste of company money, frankly. So yeah, I would promote the person that worked less hard, but was well connected to figure out what others care about and is important to the company, and made sure that piece worked great. And the person that produced less, but enabled others to produce more (either from a technical standpoint, or a morale/assurance standpoint) so overall the output was greater. It's a no brainer. Also, people who are constantly thinking about their own productivity can be dismissive of others, creating a bad work environment. So you don't want to elevate those behaviors.

courtf 6y ago

My frustrations with this behavior are less about not getting it, or not being able to participate, and more about finding the exercise distasteful, dishonest and ultimately destructive. The absolute worst aspect of this game is how clumsy and obvious these machinations can be. Employee trust in the entire organization is damaged when dimwitted ass-kissers with the subtlety of a brick are rewarded in lieu of any actual contributions and at the expense of decent people. Too often these environments are constructed in such a way that good people cannot succeed without serious comprises to their integrity. They get weeded out by their own moral disgust. The hierarchy then functions as a reverse sieve, allowing only the slime and detritus to remain. It's also really less about being socially outgoing and schmoozing, and more about vociferously agreeing with everything that comes down from on high, and sniping at others for not immediately falling in line. I'm an introvert who generally enjoys going out for drinks, telling absurd jokes and making a fool of myself in public for cheap laughs, but unless I start puckering up and tonguing more asses, it won't help me navigate the corporate world. For someone like me, rather than forcing myself to be more extroverted, I actually need to do a better job at keeping my jokes to myself and limiting my self expression, so as to not threaten the fragile egos of those cursed with small amounts of power. I think your comment seriously underestimates the levels of animosity and petty one-upmanship that permeate the corporate ladder.

dogman144 6y ago
Haha I guess you don't fall into the bucket of knowing how the game works can bring some measure of inner peace. A cool related read, https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-..., sounds like you're referring to "posture talk" in that context. That whole series might be interesting to you as well, especially in relation to organizational trust expectations. I think for me, if I really did care about expectations of org trust and morality as must-haves vs. nice to haves, beyond must-have legality standards, the civil service calls, right? I wish the corporate beast didn't call for such pragmatism, and I'd be a lot less at peace if I didn't see really good operators make it to the top using their own tolerable measure of this behavior (as in personally, ethically, and competently good). Anyway, I feel you! I guess I can only cycle back to my last point: > it's an interesting quirk because this is important stuff to pick up on for good, talented, non-A-Hole peopl who do want to find a way to do good in existing corporate structure. But it's naturally sort of a toxic underbelly of work culture, and many are opposed to learning it.
- courtf 6y ago
  > I'd be a lot less at peace if I didn't see really good operators make it to the top using their own tolerable measure of this behavior Fair points here, and I do think the amount of disgust generated by this environment varies considerably by individual. One thing that contributes to that feeling of disgust for me is that being authentic hasn't always come easily. If you are someone who has had to hide aspects of yourself for your own safety, or perhaps worked to overcome some mental illness, it can be a hard pill to swallow to go back in the metaphorical closest just to earn brownie points, but I digress :). I've read your link before as well, and unfortunately I must count myself among the losers, at least so far. I've been clueless and even attempted some minor stabs at sociopathy (as defined at the link), but without much success.
  - dogman144 6y ago
    That's a great point. There is a fair bit of encouragement leading towards behaving as one's authentic self.... but suddenly in the private sector arena, which really matters for life quality, it suddenly is the wrong advice. I've had some trouble navigating that turn as well, fwiw.

gavinray 6y ago

Being exposed to this as someone who was raised by a hyper-capitalist mother has forced me into therapy because of how badly it messed with me psychologically. It really put me in a dark place.

dogman144 6y ago
yeah probably a bad child-rearing approach
- gavinray 6y ago
  Not my mother, ha. Entering the workforce. You get taught your entire childhood that the only thing that matters is how hard you work. That you're only as good as your word, and the path to success and happiness is paved by your work ethic. But that isn't how it works, is it? The people that wind up the most successfully aren't necessarily the people that had the most determination, that put in the most work. (Not that it doesn't help) It seems you can viably make a living by either working yourself to the bone, or by being really good at bullshitting and office politics. Having acquaintances that are much more successful than you, yet couldn't produce value if you held a gun to their head really makes you think. And that's not the worst bit -- many of them don't actually care about their work/job, or what they provide to a company. It's a means to an end, they do as little as possible. How do you live with yourself like this?
  - asciident 6y ago
    Because working hard is not important if it has no impact. I've had people work really hard, I tell them to make sure to do blah, and to focus on blah2, and to let people know that they did blah3. They ignore that and just work on what they think is important, and work super hard. Then eventually people realize what they did is a bit "offtrack" and doesn't connect to an existing system that everyone agreed is going to be the base platform going forward, and it's also not immediately useful because it didn't focus on blah2, and it doesn't cover this use case that everyone else cares about (but that they don't think it's a big deal), and other people don't ever figure out it does blah3 because they never documented it properly and used a less familiar term for it. Also, everyone is now stressed out, because what this person did now needs to be replaced in way less time. Well then, all that "value" they produced was just a waste of company money, frankly. So yeah, I would promote the person that worked less hard, but was well connected to figure out what others care about and is important to the company, and made sure that piece worked great. And the person that produced less, but enabled others to produce more (either from a technical standpoint, or a morale/assurance standpoint) so overall the output was greater. It's a no brainer. Also, people who are constantly thinking about their own productivity can be dismissive of others, creating a bad work environment. So you don't want to elevate those behaviors.