8 ms·
Be careful of who you work for
- 13ren 18y agoI found this article thought-provoking (which is the best kind): it's about how we see. Our point of view is affected by where we are; and the lens through which we see is affected by the people around us, what aspect they pay attention to, and their values. Because the way we see is so fundamental to verification, changes in it can be insidious - and changes to values are often virtually undetectable.
- fallentimes 18y agoThe entire time I read this, all I could think about was "squidoo".
- robg 18y agoHow about: Be careful of who you work with
- adityag 18y agoDefinitely! Seth argument makes sense for all these three: who you work for, who you work with and who works for you. It’s more about the work environment. I have worked in great work environments as well as not so great ones...and I believe it is the single most important factor affecting your productivity and growth.
- edw519 18y agoAs usual, Seth has an incredible grasp of the obvious.
- fallentimes 18y agoThe way so many people blindly adhere to him is unbelievable. He's like the Joseph McCarthy or Emperor's New Clothes of marketing.
- helveticaman 18y agoI've found his posts have been getting better. This one in particular qualifies as the elusive obvious.
- fallentimes 18y agoSome are gold (the one about his breakfast for instance), but the vast majority are trash.
- bbgm 18y agoHe isn't always right, but experience has taught me that he is more often right than wrong.
- fallentimes 18y agoBeing right about the obvious most of the time isn't hard. It's like predicting a startup will fail. It's much more impressive when you're right when everyone else (at the time) thought you were wrong.
- Alex3917 18y agoIn Seth's own words, his job to remind people of what they already know. Even if you don't like it, I don't see why it's so hard to see the value of such a service.
- fallentimes 18y agoHis ego, coining of vapor words and other people's awe of him do not match that description.
- netcan 18y agoEgo is debatable. 'Coining of vapor words' is naming things, renaming things or creating concepts. These are very useful tools for assisting thought processes. We think with language.
- jyothi 18y agotrue. However the title seems stronger than the post.
- iamwil 18y agoIt's less obvious to those that don't have an idea of what they want to do, esp straight out of college with no work experience.
- pchristensen 18y agoI can't tell if that's a compliment or a slam.
- tomsaffell 18y agoDitto. Maybe that was the point? I'll give him a compliment, because whilst this advice maybe obvious, it is extremely difficult to follow, and it is useful. IMO that makes it a worthy post. I have followed this advice once, and it was really tough to do, but ultimately I'm very glad I did.
- netcan 18y agoActually I think it's the sort of a mark of a good salesman that you see in 'modern' self help from Seth to Robert Kiyosaki. Take some things that are trivial, true, powerful & seldom put into practice. Take the reader through the logical process of what can/will happen & sprinkle generously with motivational story telling. I think the secret sauce is in the chasm between trivial & seldom put into practice. You can say 'that's obvious' to which you/I can answer 'why haven't you done it.' 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' is the perfect example. Everything is either trivial or rubbish. Definitions & numbers are fuzzy & the writing feels like it was plagiarised from real estate flipping sales letters. The core 'message' is trivial, true, powerful & seldom put into practice. He delivers it by using accounting terms with his own definitions (I'm sure accountants like that) over several books, tapes, lectures board games & infomercials (coming soon I hope) but the ida can be represented in a sentence: "Spend your time & money accumulating revenue generating assets." You can probably apply that kind of formula to many a self help book dealing with marriage, self esteem, sexor any other popular topic.
- Allocator2008 18y agoOK, it's not "who you work for" it's "WHOM you work for". Pet peeve of mine, people saying "who" when they mean "whom" - if the "who" is the object of the action "work for" then it is "whom", like "To whom are you speaking?" NOT "Who are you speaking to?" Irks me no end.
- Allocator2008 18y agoHey to whomever down voted this comment: down voting it doesn't make "who" right when it should be "whom". Down vote this all you want, it does not change the Queen's english darling.
- foulmouthboy 18y agoTrue, but it does keep the irrelevant conversation out of the way of discussion of the actual news item.
- netcan 18y agoI'm not sure it's hers anymore.
- dmoney 18y agoYou should learn American. Dynamic typing makes it much easier to use.
- shiranaihito 18y agoWhoever? :)
- tomsaffell 18y agoI believe it's neither. Both end the sentence in a preposition, 'for'. If you want to be accurate (which I guess you do, since you posted) then it is "for whom you work".
- Allocator2008 18y agoTouche! :-)
- thisrealjob 18y agoSometimes people take bad jobs out of blinding need and over promising executives. At least that is what happened in my case. It is my fault for staying for so long though. At least I have something to blog about now.
- goodgoblin 18y agoAnother important question to ask yourself - Who does number two work for?
- gwsaines 18y agoI'm not entirely sure why everyone is always hating on Seth. His blog posts are hit or miss, but that doesn't mean he's an arsehole.
- michaelneale 18y agoWhilst I agree with your point, I am shocked at your courage to attempt to use the English spelling of "arsehole" in the internet. Haven't seen it written that way for too long a time ! I find myself giving up and using American spelling and terms. Even Firefox doesn't know how to spell, despite me telling my OS many times my locale to an alarming level of detail.
- 13ren 18y agoI think you're right, that it's simply US vs. British spelling, but I've always felt that the usage is slightly different (and that therefore maybe they are actually different words...). An asshole seems to be someone you are angry with (legitimately or not). It's about behaviour (or perception thereof); but to call someone an arsehole is a darker, earthier insult, and is closer to what they intrinsically are. It seems more literal to me. Maybe this is because I've mostly heard "asshole" on sanitized TV; but I've heard "arsehole" in uncensored RL. PS: Firefox then spellchecked in a way that was almost but not quite entirely unlike British English.
- michaelneale 18y agoThat sounds reasonable to me, it does seem darker in the British usage. Also - in US English, you could call someone an "ass" - its not really that bad an insult, like you said, more about their behaviour at a point in time. There is also the donkey meaning (ass) which makes it less insulting then it would otherwise be.
- 13ren 18y agoYes - the donkey meaning. I think actual donkeys might also have been more common in the USA.
- ig1 18y agoVault, Wetfeet, Glassdoor, etc. If he doesn't think there are sites with company reviews he hasn't been looking.
- cbrinker 18y agoOr just work for yourself? I guess that kind of requires the whole knowing what's best for you mentality as well, though.