3 ms·

I read Moral Mazes recently and what it describes is not a lack of communications skill, to the contrary, the incentives created by managerial social hierarchie

I read Moral Mazes recently and what it describes is not a lack of communications skill, to the contrary, the incentives created by managerial social hierarchies place very high praise on difficult communications skills such as the ability to fluidly support contradictory positions on different issues, the ability to manipulate symbols and euphemism to justify necessary actions, the understanding of what makes others in their management circles feel good.

bsenftner 2y ago
What you're describing is the opposite end of the spectrum, those that do understand communications and language to the degree they can appear to fluidly support contradictory positions, but they are in fact operating at a higher communications level and spinning circles around those less adept in communications. They are masterful language and perception manipulators, in a strategic game of corporate dominance.
- mlyle 2y ago
  But, there's a hyperparameter here; we culturally and organizationally get to choose how much of this game exists and how effective it is. And certainly some of these games are useful; abilities of this kind are highly correlated with other abilities, and having masterful language and perception manipulators act for the interest of your company or nation is valuable. But it's not the only useful skill at the upper tier of organizations, and emphasizing it over all else is costly. So are internal political games-- when your organization plays too many of them, the benefits one gets from selecting these people and efforts are dwarfed by the infighting and wasted effort. It can also result in severe misalignment between individual and organizational incentives.
  - bsenftner 2y ago
    There is a misunderstanding that being an effective communicator equals political gaming of situations. That is possible with or without effective communications, and largely misses the point that effective communications is not playing games, it's avoiding them. It is not trying "to win", it is seeking shared understanding and consensus. If one's management is playing political games, they are failing in their communications, trying to win in some personal game, not for the betterment of the company.
    - mlyle 2y ago
      > If one's management is playing political games, they are failing in their communications, trying to win in some personal game Is this not A) ubiquitous, B) rich with incentives, and C) not downright implied in "They are masterful language and perception manipulators, in a strategic game of corporate dominance." and "the understanding of what makes others in their management circles feel good."
      - bsenftner 2y ago
        This is the very difficult part: people adept at manipulation tend to be highly intelligent. Simply spending time with a good manipulator is dangerous. The only good metric I know here is the old saying "the key purpose of an education is to be able to recognize one in others." Good communicators also sort out weasels via their lack of distinct language and similar tells.

bsenftner 2y ago

What you're describing is the opposite end of the spectrum, those that do understand communications and language to the degree they can appear to fluidly support contradictory positions, but they are in fact operating at a higher communications level and spinning circles around those less adept in communications. They are masterful language and perception manipulators, in a strategic game of corporate dominance.

mlyle 2y ago
But, there's a hyperparameter here; we culturally and organizationally get to choose how much of this game exists and how effective it is. And certainly some of these games are useful; abilities of this kind are highly correlated with other abilities, and having masterful language and perception manipulators act for the interest of your company or nation is valuable. But it's not the only useful skill at the upper tier of organizations, and emphasizing it over all else is costly. So are internal political games-- when your organization plays too many of them, the benefits one gets from selecting these people and efforts are dwarfed by the infighting and wasted effort. It can also result in severe misalignment between individual and organizational incentives.
- bsenftner 2y ago
  There is a misunderstanding that being an effective communicator equals political gaming of situations. That is possible with or without effective communications, and largely misses the point that effective communications is not playing games, it's avoiding them. It is not trying "to win", it is seeking shared understanding and consensus. If one's management is playing political games, they are failing in their communications, trying to win in some personal game, not for the betterment of the company.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    > If one's management is playing political games, they are failing in their communications, trying to win in some personal game Is this not A) ubiquitous, B) rich with incentives, and C) not downright implied in "They are masterful language and perception manipulators, in a strategic game of corporate dominance." and "the understanding of what makes others in their management circles feel good."
    - bsenftner 2y ago
      This is the very difficult part: people adept at manipulation tend to be highly intelligent. Simply spending time with a good manipulator is dangerous. The only good metric I know here is the old saying "the key purpose of an education is to be able to recognize one in others." Good communicators also sort out weasels via their lack of distinct language and similar tells.