In other words, if you feel a sense of moral revulsion when presented with what looks like hard-nosed, realistic advice, it’s quite likely that your visceral reaction is correct and the advice is wrong.
Nonsense. If you feel a sense of moral revulsion when presented with what looks like realistic advice then it is far, far more likely that you are naive, sheltered and yet to escape the moral programming used to keep the lower status folks in check. Or, for most people, the visceral moral revulsion is at the idea of publicly declaring pragmatic behavioural strategies when you are supposed to be speaking bullshit but acting practical.
For approximately the above reasons I consider rwallace’s advice in the parent to be outright toxic for a broad class of recipients. In particular, those that lack talent for keeping actual decision making divorced from signalling beliefs.
“Never outshine the master”? Wrong. A master worth having, would have it no other way. A master not worth having is, well, not worth having.
This isn’t about “Master Yoda”, the mentor. This is (obviously) advice about interacting with employers or equivalent leaders in other social contexts that are important.
A mistake that many intelligent people fall into is in thinking that making themselves look good is always the right thing to do. But a lot of the time that is reckless and short sighted. Most bosses like to look like the impressive ones. Your job is to make them look good in front of their superiors and peers in way that they feel inclined to reward you for. Outshining them is seldom the optimal way to do this.
But outside that, if you ever find yourself in a situation where it starts looking like good advice, that may be a warning sign you have stumbled into a zero-sum game. In that case, don’t spend your efforts on becoming good at it. Spend them on getting the hell out of it.
In general I share this attitude. I am willing to sacrifice some potential status and power in return for freedom from playing the game optimally. I also find that people underestimate the options they have for finding political situations which suit them.
I consider rwallace’s advice in the parent to be outright toxic for a broad class of recipients. In particular, those that lack talent for keeping actual decision making divorced from signalling beliefs.
This class can’t follow the Rules, either. We’re better off being idealists (and out as such, since we’re open books). We get suckered sometimes, but we attract allies because we’re trustworthy and non-threatening, and we can ally among ourselves.
Your job is to make them look good in front of their superiors and peers in way that they feel inclined to reward you for.
you are an idealist to the ingroup and a hard nosed realist to the outgroup. everyone else understands this, when you don’t do it they think there is something wrong with you and deny you ingroup status.
We’re better off being idealists (and out as such, since we’re open books).
So long as you can convey that you are the right kind of idealistic. That is, it is important to be clear that cooperation is conditional. Because it is just a pain in the ass to actually have to @#%# people over when they try to defect. (Even thought it is sometimes profitable!)
Make it obvious that you will not keep being nice to them regardless of what they do. If they ‘defect’ then ‘defect back if convenient’ is the ideal that you hope they will attribute to you.
Your job is to make them look good in front of their superiors and peers in way that they feel inclined to reward you for. Outshining them is seldom the optimal way to do this.
According to some people I know, you should also tell their bosses how much your bosses suck and how much get in the way of your work and how in spite of that your work is the awesomest and you should definitely be promoted to their level or over it.
To which I answered: “But then the climate at work must suck, everyone will hate each other! Plus, if it’s the Standard Operating Procedure on how to treat a boss, how come anyone wants to be boss at all?
To which they answered: “I know, but it’s stablized this way, and there doesn’t seem to be the incentive or impulse to change that”.
I have never actually seen this done in 5 years of experience in management. Yes, you occasionally signal this very subtly to your boss’s boss (mostly happens when you need to extricate yourself from some fix). But mostly you network with and depend on your boss simply because he has a lot more ways and opportunities of representing your work as stupid to his boss than you ever will of doing that to him.
I worked in a manufacturing set up though, where the number of managers in the whole country was about 200 and most of them, including the top management, knew you at least by name. I guess it could be different in a more competitive new economy/banking sort of workplace or a larger organization.
According to some people I know, you should also tell their bosses how much your bosses suck and how much get in the way of your work and how in spite of that your work is the awesomest and you should definitely be promoted to their level or over it.
I advise people against this tactic. Because there is a chance that it’ll work. Then you end up in middle management!
Nonsense. If you feel a sense of moral revulsion when presented with what looks like realistic advice then it is far, far more likely that you are naive, sheltered and yet to escape the moral programming used to keep the lower status folks in check. Or, for most people, the visceral moral revulsion is at the idea of publicly declaring pragmatic behavioural strategies when you are supposed to be speaking bullshit but acting practical.
For approximately the above reasons I consider rwallace’s advice in the parent to be outright toxic for a broad class of recipients. In particular, those that lack talent for keeping actual decision making divorced from signalling beliefs.
This isn’t about “Master Yoda”, the mentor. This is (obviously) advice about interacting with employers or equivalent leaders in other social contexts that are important.
A mistake that many intelligent people fall into is in thinking that making themselves look good is always the right thing to do. But a lot of the time that is reckless and short sighted. Most bosses like to look like the impressive ones. Your job is to make them look good in front of their superiors and peers in way that they feel inclined to reward you for. Outshining them is seldom the optimal way to do this.
In general I share this attitude. I am willing to sacrifice some potential status and power in return for freedom from playing the game optimally. I also find that people underestimate the options they have for finding political situations which suit them.
This class can’t follow the Rules, either. We’re better off being idealists (and out as such, since we’re open books). We get suckered sometimes, but we attract allies because we’re trustworthy and non-threatening, and we can ally among ourselves.
Upvoted.
you are an idealist to the ingroup and a hard nosed realist to the outgroup. everyone else understands this, when you don’t do it they think there is something wrong with you and deny you ingroup status.
Some of them, for sure.
So long as you can convey that you are the right kind of idealistic. That is, it is important to be clear that cooperation is conditional. Because it is just a pain in the ass to actually have to @#%# people over when they try to defect. (Even thought it is sometimes profitable!)
Your cooperation or theirs?
Make it obvious that you will not keep being nice to them regardless of what they do. If they ‘defect’ then ‘defect back if convenient’ is the ideal that you hope they will attribute to you.
According to some people I know, you should also tell their bosses how much your bosses suck and how much get in the way of your work and how in spite of that your work is the awesomest and you should definitely be promoted to their level or over it.
To which I answered: “But then the climate at work must suck, everyone will hate each other! Plus, if it’s the Standard Operating Procedure on how to treat a boss, how come anyone wants to be boss at all?
To which they answered: “I know, but it’s stablized this way, and there doesn’t seem to be the incentive or impulse to change that”.
Then I just shut up and put on a raeg face.
I have never actually seen this done in 5 years of experience in management. Yes, you occasionally signal this very subtly to your boss’s boss (mostly happens when you need to extricate yourself from some fix). But mostly you network with and depend on your boss simply because he has a lot more ways and opportunities of representing your work as stupid to his boss than you ever will of doing that to him.
I worked in a manufacturing set up though, where the number of managers in the whole country was about 200 and most of them, including the top management, knew you at least by name. I guess it could be different in a more competitive new economy/banking sort of workplace or a larger organization.
I advise people against this tactic. Because there is a chance that it’ll work. Then you end up in middle management!
Isn’t that the only way to get to upper management?