Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Director in my last company told me that some very talented engineers fail miserably because of thinking that *politics* was not part of their job! He emphasized that politics was a very essential but *undocumented* part of any senior engineer, tech lead, manager and beyond. He said one can not expect to get ahead, grow or handle his/her job competently at senior level if had any aversion to playing politics. Many otherwise *great* engineers had this aversions and were thereby were bound to remain quite limited in their growth, impact and success and they had only themselves to blame for it! VP in the company before had said me things one similar lines. He had even talked about taking money and sending blank cd to meet the promised date - counting on the *fact* that most customers don't open the package immediately after receiving it. I was shocked to hear that and even more shocked to learn that he had done it many times before. A colleague in the same company said that I was incredibly naïve to think that I was going to go anywhere in my job by sticking to hard work, work skills, truth, honesty alone. Though, he was junior to me he said he fully realized that politics, cheating, lying was an integral part of the corporate world and rest of the life and was essential to play it well if one hoped to get ahead. Later, I watched a documentary on Reagan's life and heard him being greatly praised for the way he *bluffed* Russians in negations! Later, I heard high praise for FDR and other presidents for similar *skills*! I realized that perhaps a plain honest, truthful president would be considered a *disaster* even in views of majority of Americans and perhaps' such person wouldn't even make it to nominations! I realized that perhaps, I was indeed quite naïve and I was not sure from where I had got this lesson of honesty and truthfulness being a really valued, respected, dependable or desired quality. It didn't seem to match the reality as I was beginning to see. I realized perhaps, my expectation of honesty and truthfulness were very wrongly placed indeed. ----- *As I read advertisements after advertisements of product advertisements with some very important and crucial information buried in incredibly fine print or spoken with a speed that almost nobody could make out - I though perhaps, the intention was not " give " that information. These were being written or spoken simply to save the company from law suits. When I worked with a company that sold advertisements - our executives informed us that it was exactly the case and they counted on the *fact* that most consumers will not read it! **I read many " get rich " book preaching can I take advantage of tax, investment, and other law *loopholes* and why how the author and many other *rich* and *famous* people have already done that! I was quite shocked to see that what I had thought to be analogous to *cheating* was in fact a quite respected and valued *strategy*! One book went on to say that all laws are directly/indirectly written by rich and those *loopholes* are in fact designed on purpose and are kept complex so that only rich with *resources* and time can take advantage of them. Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > - It was a mistake to expect people to > be honest or truthful. In our > " civilized " , " cultured " , " educated " > society honesty and truthfulness were > no longer a 'norm' but rather an > 'exception'. > > Many people were so used > to being dishonest and lying now that > they didn't even realize it anymore. It > become part of who they are - and, by > expecting them to do something else was > akin to expecting a cat to bark! > > With this understanding, it was possible for > me to be pleasantly surprised and very thankful > and grateful for honesty, truthfulness whenever I > encountered it and be relatively fine with > dishonesty, lies as I understood it as the was part of > 'normal condition'. > > I discovered that this version was closer to reality and > honesty and truthfulness in the > " civilized " world was more a part of > fantasy and keeping that 'expectation' > largely hurt as it was against common > reality! > [...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: in my last company told me > that some very talented engineers fail > miserably because of thinking that > *politics* was not part of their job! Thoughts: what you write about is *generally* the case, but not always. If someone is, indeed, a star and can impact the bottom line significantly they can do *whatever* they please. If you look around in your company you will observe there are certain people who do. It is not about honesty, truthfulness, politics, or even hard work. It is about money. The moment a person does not either increase the bottom line or do work as well but for less than someone else, bye bye. Stars fade and new stars are born all the time. This is, however, organizational. For people who want to live life differently (spiritually) than do the masses (who don't live like, for example, Donald Trump, but want too) there other ways to earn enough money. It takes great courage to break away from the herd, the path is narrow and few travel it. Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Re: Honesty and truthfulness . . . Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: in my last company told me > that some very talented engineers fail > miserably because of thinking that > *politics* was not part of their job! >>Thoughts: what you write about is *generally* the case, but not always. If someone is, indeed, a star and can impact the bottom line significantly they can do *whatever* they please. If you look around in your company you will observe there are certain people who do. It is not about honesty, truthfulness, politics, or even hard work. It is about money. The moment a person does not either increase the bottom line or do work as well but for less than someone else, bye bye. Thanks for the response Noel! I did believe that it was about being *good* [profitable] for the company/organization and more profitable you were for the company more valuable you became which then translated to bigger pay, power, respect and job security. But, through my experience, from talking to others and from hearing form bosses an observing at other levels - I found out that even that it was much " narrower " than that. More *profitable* you were for your boos [or whoever was making decisions] better your chances became! It was mostly being *favorable* to those who were responsible for making decisions. And, it could be your boss or your boss's boss and so forth. I found out that in most situations, it was truer to see it as you are working for certain *person* or a group of people than for a company or organization. If you were being very profitable and effective for the company but your boss or his boss [or those who were responsible for making decision] saw you as a *threat* - they were very likely to work to remove you! On the other hand, if even if you were very mediocre in performing for company but worked as a great tool in the game that your boos [or his boss] was playing for his own personal interest - he was very likely to promote you, defend you! I saw it happen in my company. I heard it from my friends. Some of my friends too play this game very well. And, I think it happens on the national level too. When you are a *Collin Powell* you are not really working for USA - you are working for George Bush. If George Bush* saw you as a threat or against his own personal interests he was likely to seek to remove you irrespective what you did or could do for America. This was another lesson that I had to learn and learning it is still little hard as it kind of goes against the basic belief system that I was conditioned with and it goes against the *company documents* that I sign when I join a company. Yet, it is very much part of the *undocumented* reality of the office, organizations and country as I am beginning to see it! Love, ac. --- I am using George Bush and Collin Powel only as an example and not claim superiority of Republicans or Democrats. >>Stars fade and new stars are born all the time. This is, however, organizational. >>For people who want to live life differently (spiritually) than do the masses (who don't live like, for example, Donald Trump, but want too) there other ways to earn enough money. It takes great courage to break away from the herd, the path is narrow and few travel it. >>Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 > Nisargadatta , > " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming wrote: > > Re: Honesty and truthfulness . . . > > Nisargadatta , > " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Director in my last company told me > > that some very talented engineers fail > > miserably because of thinking that > > *politics* was not part of their job! > >> Thanks for the response Noel! > > I did believe that it was about > being *good* [profitable] for > the company/organization and more > profitable you were for the company > more valuable you became which then > translated to bigger pay, power, > respect and job security. > > But, through my experience, from > talking to others and from hearing > form bosses an observing at other > levels - I found out that even that > it was much " narrower " than that. > > More *profitable* you were for your > boos [or whoever was making decisions] > better your chances became! > > It was mostly being *favorable* to those > who were responsible for making decisions. > And, it could be your boss or your boss's boss > and so forth. > > I found out that in most situations, it was > truer to see it as you are working for certain > *person* or a group of people than for a company > or organization. > > If you were being very profitable > and effective for the company but your boss or > his boss [or those who were responsible for > making decision] saw you as a *threat* - > they were very likely to work to remove you! > > On the other hand, if even if you were > very mediocre in performing for company > but worked as a great tool in the game > that your boos [or his boss] was playing > for his own personal interest - he was > very likely to promote you, defend you! > I saw it happen in my company. I heard > it from my friends. Some of my friends > too play this game very well. > > And, I think it happens on the national level too. > When you are a *Collin Powell* you are not really > working for USA - you are working for George Bush. > If George Bush* saw you as a threat or against his > own personal interests he was likely to seek to > remove > you irrespective what you did or could do for > America. > > > > This was another lesson that I had to learn and > learning it is still little hard as it kind of goes > against the basic belief system that I was > conditioned > with and it goes against the *company documents* > that > I sign when I join a company. Yet, it is very much > part of > the *undocumented* reality of the office, > organizations > and country as I am beginning to see it! > > Love, > ac. > > > --- > I am using George Bush and Collin Powel only as an > example and not claim superiority of Republicans or > Democrats. /////// I know you are only using these as examples. It seems to me you are inquiring into honesty and truthfulness. I found no disagreement between what I wrote in response and your thoughts. Perhaps only one is a macro and the other a micro viewpoint. Would I be correct to consider that thus far the result of your inquiry is the view that honesty and truthfulness are relative? Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2006 Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 [...] > I know you are only using these as examples. > > It seems to me you are inquiring into honesty and > truthfulness. I found no disagreement between what I > wrote in response and your thoughts. Perhaps only one > is a macro and the other a micro viewpoint. > > Would I be correct to consider that thus far the > result of your inquiry is the view that honesty and > truthfulness are relative? > > Noel > Yes, I think meaning of truth and honesty is relative. On thinking it again, I realize that the word integrity describes what I want to convey... better. By it I mean someone who does what he says and says what he does. That is his/her behavior and words are aligned. For example, if Bush says he completely believes in Bible Values and will do all that he can to uphold them and then he acts accordingly - I will find that praiseworthy. Whereas, if Cheyney said he was going to work only for the best and direct interest of USA and its citizns - and, then went ahead did something just to benefit his company and harmed USA and its common citizen in the process - I will find it disigenuos. On the same lines, if my boss made me sign a docuemnt that I will work solely for the interset of company and then aksed me to do something for his " personal " interest that goes against the interest of the company - I will find it disingeneous. I hope that clarifies, what I am thinking here. With warm reagrds, ac. and as a result he/she can be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2006 Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 > Nisargadatta , > " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming wrote: > > Yes, I think meaning of truth and honesty > is relative. > > On thinking it again, I realize that the word > integrity describes what I want to convey... better. > > > By it I mean someone > > who does what he says > > and > > says what he does. > > That is his/her behavior and words are aligned. > <snip> > On the same lines, if my boss made me sign > a docuemnt that I will work solely for > the interset of company and then aksed > me to do something for his " personal " > interest that goes against the interest of > the company - I will find it disingeneous. > > I hope that clarifies, what I am thinking here. > > > With warm reagrds, > ac. > > and as a result he/she can be > Everything is in constant flux. How can it be that a fixed rule can apply? Ahhh, yes, why do we sign contracts Let us say the boss signed this same agreement. After some time in the company he sees the company is not honorable toward him. Is he still obligated to be honorable toward the company? Then, when, you are hired you must sign the same agreement only because the boss is required to have you sign it by the company. He does not lose anything by your signing and he satisfies a requirement of the company. Previously, in this discussion you indicated your belief that your primary commitment is not to the company but to your immediate work group, that they not the company are key to your success. You have already changed the contract yourself in considering your primary allegiance to the boss. Why would you be experiencing, apparently, cognitive dissonance because you are not living up to the contract with the company? Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.