|
There are a lot of posts in BFC and in SA in general about lovely bosses, getting strung along with false promises, etc. The general consensus is to ‘burn all that poo poo to the ground’ which isn’t unreasonable. On the other hand, it's nice to get promoted and get lots of money and whatnot. I figured I’d write up my own thoughts and how I’ve learned to, for better or for worse, learn to play the game and deal with (and be) a manipulative rear end in a top hat. A lot of this isn't that ground-breaking but it helped me when I laid it out in my head in this way. My experience is as a consultant – I’m sure plenty of other goons might pitch in as well for this. Over-all my philosophy boils down to:
1. There is no “Company” I don’t think any goons would disagree were I to say that no company deserves your loyalty. And if you do believe your company deserves your loyalty, you should probably want a different perspective about corporate philosophy – I hear there’s an excellent motivational video about fish. On the other hand, it’s impossible to get ahead at a company without alliances. So how do the current crop of VP’s and C-suite executives get to where they are, most of whom are various types of sociopaths? They will form loyalties and connections with other people within a company – and those friendships and partnerships can drive upward growth at companies that none of the people actually care about. So at any company it is vital to determine who the actual decision makers are – these are the people who can actually deliver or withhold promotions, resources, or staff. This can be, but isn’t always, similar to your organizational structure. For example, your manager might be a lame duck and not able to get you a promotion. Decisions might be made by a group of 20 people but they might all defer to a single VP. Your boss’s boss’s spouse might carry a lot of sway. Or maybe your leadership deem themselves some sort of benevolent leaders who will promote people who are well liked at the company. Whatever the organizational dynamics are at your company – it’s important to track them and understand who really matters. 2. Identify people’s goals based on their actions We often like to joke about companies being run by crazy sociopaths. For the most part, these jokes are funny because they are true. That said - nobody thinks of themselves as bad or evil. Every staff member, manager, and executive at your company will think of themselves as a good worker or leader, with some sort of goals, philosophies, and worries that keep them up at night. For the decision makers that matter for you, you’ll need to understand what those goals are. Obviously, you can’t learn about people based on the words they say. The people best at self-promotion are the ones who do well in corporate environments and are best trained at obfuscation through language. Like with dating, it’s important to ignore words and instead track people through their actions. Do these people constantly work late, or go on lots of golfing trips? Do they promote staff who work hard, who schmooze well, or who talk him up to VP’s? Are they lonely and genuinely looking for friends? How does your target think of themselves? Do they regularly buy beers for their staff? Do they pretend to be friends with their team? Do you think they believe that they are actually friends with the team? Do they often invite people to hang out outside of work hours? Do they yell at cab drivers and waiters? Are they focused on “empire-building” and unnecessarily increasing their head count? On the other hand – what are their main worries? Will they get fired if a project goes the wrong way? Do they hate Bob from accounting? Are they getting flak from higher-up about something? Are they worried people will think they are stupid? Old and bad at technology? One bit that is often missed as simple obfuscation, is what perception they are trying to instill about themselves. Does this person regularly talk about ethics and morality? About efficiency? Making friends with coworkers? About donating to charity? It might all be bullcrap, but does let you know the type of perception they are trying to instill, and often, they will believe it themselves. As I wrote above – nobody thinks of themselves as a bad person. Usually, the type of obfuscation someone uses will indicate deeply personal hopes or insecurities which are hugely relevant. On the other hand, we often overemphasize how much people care about doing a good job. It turns out that most managers aren’t looking at doing a job quickly, accurately, and speedily. If anything, this is secondary to whatever image they are trying to create around themselves – i.e. an “ethical” boss vs. an “efficient” boss. 3. Align with those goals Now that you know what people want, you want to make clear that you can help with that. Does a boss often talk about ethics in the workplace? Talk about how ethical that boss is. Describe situations where they did ethical things and how comfortable you feel working at such an ethical company. Stick your nose deep into that rear end in a top hat. Does this person get flustered at detail on a project, or any talk about potential risks or failure points? Don’t talk about those things. Mention risks sufficiently (ideally in email or other permanent medium) so you have some cover but then skim over those problems during meetings. This is where a lot of goons fail – we often have a “fact-based” mindset when going into meetings – i.e. “this is what we need to do to get this thing done and here is where we can fail”. To succeed at these meetings requires a more “emotion-based” mindset – i.e. “here is what you’re worrying about most right now and here’s how I, personally, am addressing it”. When in smaller meetings without the decision makers, or with peers who don’t contribute to important decisions, it’s ok to return to a fact-based mindset. Yes this is a terrible thing I am saying, and I’m a monster. You might ask – how much can you trust this totally “ethical” dude that you talked up into giving you a promotion? It’ll really depend on the person. I’ve worked with actually wonderful leadership who’ve just been at the same place for 40 years, never touched the poop, and eventually got to the top without playing politics. Other people will sell you out the minute you’re no longer helpful. Both types of people can be useful and if you did your homework at #2 above you’ll hopefully know how to handle these people. Conclusion: Congratulations! Now you’re a manipulative rear end in a top hat and can go work with other manipulative assholes! Enjoy the rest of your life 
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
If the purpose of doing this is to increase income, wouldn't the first plan of attack just be to jump companies until you reach a kind of career ceiling on earnings at your level? And if that's the case, wouldn't this ceiling in many cases already be such an absurdly high level of income that you wouldn't need to stay in the corporate hellscape for much longer than a decade before retirement? If the purpose of doing this is because you either somehow like it or because this is where you derive purpose from, wouldn't it be more satisfying to just find a local sex dungeon to get your rocks off at? Surprised you didn't mention The Gervais Principle at all for supported reading.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:If the purpose of doing this is to increase income, wouldn't the first plan of attack just be to jump companies until you reach a kind of career ceiling on earnings at your level? And if that's the case, wouldn't this ceiling in many cases already be such an absurdly high level of income that you wouldn't need to stay in the corporate hellscape for much longer than a decade before retirement? Not everybody has the opportunity to simply jump companies whenever they hit a career ceiling, especially now that the economy is in the dumps. And for those that do, being a brown-nosing rear end in a top hat can definitely speed up the process of early retirement (or retire with a solid gold rocket car). And for others, a bit of playing the game can help neutralize 1-2 lovely people at an otherwise ok place. Most importantly, local sex dungeons might not have the same quality and selection of nipple clamps available at fortune 500 companies. I generally avoid principles like the "Gervais Principle" or "Peter Principle" since they provide a level of reductionism that doesn't help you change your behavior. In the end the only thing that has worked for me is, ironically, treating every person (for better or for worse) as a unique individual.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a product. Don't ever think there is. There is only sex. Everything is sex. You understand that what I'm telling you is a universal truth.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
Moneyball posted:There is no such thing as a product. Don't ever think there is. There is only sex. Everything is sex.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
Oscar Wilde posted:
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
Not that I like what you are saying in the OP, but kissing rear end works. There's a guy I know who COMES RUNNING, almost literally, to kiss rear end whenever there's a manager around. They LOVE it.Hoodwinker posted:Surprised you didn't mention The Gervais Principle at all for supported reading. This is a fantastic series of articles. I used part of it to win Awful Survivor a while back.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
The guy that wrote the Gervais Principle series is not loving around at the beginning of it when he warns you that if you're not a sociopath you will probably have a happier life if you don't read it. If you want to understand why corporate hierarchies are structured the seemingly insane way they are, though, it's the best explanation I've yet encountered. There have been three distinct moments in my career in which I clearly saw an opportunity to advance myself by sticking a knife in the back of someone that trusted me. I couldn't do it, in any of those cases, and I can't bring myself to regret not doing it. I'm just enough of a selfish rear end in a top hat to usually be able to think like a sociopath, but not quite actually a sociopath. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 00:42 on May 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
I enjoyed reading about the Gervais principle but the last few sections I thought the author crawled way too far up his own rear end. The sociopath as someone beyond morality in a cold tragic unfeeling void is a silly mythology. I grew up around a lot of sociopaths (in the Gervais sense) and there was nothing superhuman about their ability to manipulate. They levers of power but most were not amoral and while some were tragically bereft of purpose it was not due to some realization about reality. They were petty, trapped in emotions, and could be manipulated just like anyone else. By the standards of the system I am a Loser. A few years back a manager came in and started a weird romantic relationship with a friend I have in the office. She would qualify as Clueless and she was cruel, petty, and was basically making everyone’s life a living hell (she made three of her employees break down crying in the office and I suspect more hid it. Then she tried to throw me under a bus. In a week I did three days of work that exposed her incompetence as a leader, made a friend of her direct report to collect information and give him a way to streamline operations, and used my relationships with higher management to subtly push the narrative of her morale destroying ways in casual conversations. I was not the sole reason she was fired within another week but I was a major one and did it in a way most would not say I did much of anything. This is not the way I usually act. I am not even sure if I could replicate that mood if I wanted to. By that standard I was a Sociopath for a week but I do not feel existential emptiness or amorality. I don’t tell that story to friends much because the few I did share it with thought I was monstrous. I just thought it had to be done and I was angry and channeled it. I have done this a few times at varying scales but I leave it as soon as I can. It is not fun if done for too long. I think the model works well with everyone falling on a spectrum with parts of their character and conduct falling in the three spheres and most being predominantly in one state but the quasi-religious nature ascribed to the states seems fallacious. In particular casting the sociopath as a tragic but almost messianic figure is silly. Evil is generally banal and most of the Sociopath behavior is at least selfish. One of the things that fascinates people with evil characters is their (to most) almost magical ability to mute the impulses that ward off that behavior but muting those impulses takes its toll. To resist those urges not only dulls the joys of life (as the model suggests) but it also dulls the intellect and the ability to create. Everyone I know who has lived a self-absorbed and manipulative life is miserable as they grow older. At least that has been my experience.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
I have worked with a lot of unlikable and untrustworthy types in my career. (For example, I met a successful sales guy. One of the first things he told me, unsolicited, was how big his house was.) I've been told that these predatory types all eventually get issues with anxiety, insecurity, guilt, and self esteem. I can't say I've actually seen it, though that might be because I try to avoid those types once I've figured them out. I've been stabbed in the back, and been warned about people who would stab me in the back. This has led to my firm belief that the most important thing in the world is people you can trust.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
paperchaseguy posted:Not that I like what you are saying in the OP, but kissing rear end works. There's a guy I know who COMES RUNNING, almost literally, to kiss rear end whenever there's a manager around. They LOVE it. I'll have to check it out, especially if there were any Scattergories-relevant bits
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
This thread makes no sense, why would you want to increase your own personal income instead of working on the destruction of capitalism and slaying billionaires?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
Different goals.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
Money can be exchanged for weapons and body armor, or used to bribe urban warfare squadrons during our current apocalypse. I find that people in power generally get there through sincere and long-lasting relationships with other powerful people. The majority of them aren't sociopaths but just garden-variety assholes. Generally the truly unlikable people get to where they are because they are very good at a valuable and measurable thing (e.g. salesmen and engineers), or are proper bullies who can suck up to people in power while loving over anybody without influence on their career goals. EDIT: Just to be clear, I truly believe that most of the people in power are terrible people - but they can make lasting friendships and aren't sociopaths. Being able to properly rise through the ranks means being able to lie well, especially being able to pretend to like someone that you dislike. Tomfoolery fucked around with this message at 21:25 on May 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:I'll have to check it out, especially if there were any Scattergories-relevant bits 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
Thank you robert greene
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
To be fair, your advice for being a manipulative rear end in a top hat is identifying the thing your manager wants and then doing the thing they want (and making sure that they see it).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
I am "playing the game" but I would say it's manipulation My bosses goal is to be lazy, I am doing his project management work to 'gain access' to the higher ups as they will make the decision to give me a PM role when we can recruit again, this enabled me to break through the career ceiling I've currently hit, I feel like I have the capacity to manage a lot more than I currently do and that is where I want to go. This works for my boss as it means less work for him to to do himself. He is switched on enough to say "I'm awesome, I developed AA and you just hired him, aren't I awesome" So it's mutually beneficial. I am sure in most examples, if both parties are switched on enough in "management" then they can justify that whatever situation is probably a benefit they can take credit for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
You sound like the right person to promote!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_are_you_a_giver_or_a_taker?language=en You are trying to be the best "taker". Most data shows takers top out at middle management.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
No Wave posted:You sound like the right person to promote! Sycophant is probably the right word
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Slow Motion posted:https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_are_you_a_giver_or_a_taker?language=en
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Armadillo sounds more like a giver who is learning to be a matcher. He's trying to do actual work, but also has an eye on making sure that work is appreciated/valued. You're right. I was mostly thinking of the OP. I did exactly what he is talking about a few years back. When one of those execs I had gained access to was poached to a different company he gave me my first director title, a department to run, and a bunch of money. It's been my experience that in being very giving with everyone on the regular you have a a stockpile of good favor to call in during those poo poo-hits-the-fan moments. I'll work a bit more to make 30 people's lives easier 364 days out of the year so that I can call in 30 favors and work a miracle on the one day a year we really need it. You don't *need* credit for all your work. But you do need a lot of support on that one day you *need* to be the hero.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Armadillo sounds more like a giver who is learning to be a matcher. He's trying to do actual work, but also has an eye on making sure that work is appreciated/valued. I'm a natural matcher. However, I terms of my progression, i want something and the people in control dont need anything, so I have to make them want me to turn my giving in to matching. I'll get there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Surprised you didn't mention The Gervais Principle at all for supported reading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I feel real bad for the kids who read this poo poo and think that the best way to live life is to get ahead in a corporation by being a manipulative sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:There's something to be said for being resistant to the kinds of social pressures that would cause you to work against your own self-interest, but there's also something to be said for not turning into a heartless robot while doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:The real issue is that the definition of "self-interest" here is "make tons of money and lie your way to the top of the corporate hierarchy at all costs," as opposed to the things that actually make living worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
I don't think Rao had an ultimate message besides that the clueless sector puts in a ton of hard work for not much reward. IIRC the losers don't inherently have it bad by his model (I last read this five years ago).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Naturally all of humanity is evenly divisible between losers, clueless people, and sociopaths, lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
Tomfoolery posted:To succeed at these meetings requires a more “emotion-based” mindset – i.e. “here is what you’re worrying about most right now and here’s how I, personally, am addressing it”. loving thank god, someone said it. In my experience, meetings are rarely "let's get together and solve a problem". They're almost always "let's get together and convince myself that everything is on track and will be okay". That's why you need to appeal to people's emotions during meetings, because if people knew how to solve a problem and had a plan for doing so, there wouldn't be a loving meeting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
I know this thread is both semi-serious and satirical, but I am so far behind in my career that I need to find a way to catch up. I'm going to have to treat it like it's 100% serious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Naturally all of humanity is evenly divisible between losers, clueless people, and sociopaths, lol. This is basically true of that part of humanity that spends their careers in the corporate world. Well, except the 'evenly' part. It's like 3% Sociopaths, 15% Clueless, 82% Losers. Rao's central insight is that the sociopaths in the C-suites aren't dumb enough to operate by the Dilbert Principle ("the least effective employees become middle managers to minimize the direct harm they can do"), but rather that they promote useful idiots into middle management where they're easily manipulated into getting failures hung around their necks, and most of the people at the Individual Contributor level are smart enough to know they're stuck in a bad deal, and are being rational when they deliver the minimum effort required to not get fired. There are exceptions, overgeneralization, etc. etc. but it is a broadly accurate and useful insight. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jul 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:loving thank god, someone said it. In my experience, meetings are rarely "let's get together and solve a problem". They're almost always "let's get together and convince myself that everything is on track and will be okay". That's why you need to appeal to people's emotions during meetings, because if people knew how to solve a problem and had a plan for doing so, there wouldn't be a loving meeting. 95% of the time people hire consultants they are doing it purely because they want an outsider to pitch their opinion for them to give it some weight
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
I feel like I'm in a spot where the only way I could ever move up is if my boss quits. Downside of being in a small company I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
I guess I see the common viewpoint on SA that all corporate top-levels are sociopaths and I figured I'd challenge that, since even if your goal is to coast doing minimal work / retire early / etc. (all reasonable goals), considering all C-levels to be sociopaths just makes you way more stressed and is at best part-true. Most C-levels have families and I expect that some of them aren't secretly raping them when nobody's looking. The most valuable takeaway of "all C-levels are sociopaths" is that you should not trust them. This is 100% true. But occasionally it's important to be able to trust some people, sometimes, and there are ways to actually doing that. The Gervais Principle I believe is a bit of an overreaction, and by that I mean that a proper psychologist (I'm not one) would diagnose a different (but still severe) set of dysfunctions to C-levels at a corporation. So the same way you'd want to identify whether an infection is a bacteria or virus before prescribing medicine, I find it helpful to identify what those dysfunctions are. For example, earlier in my career I've gotten panned at consulting companies for not having "executive presence". "Executive presence" is a euphemism for acting like (or, better, being) an old white man. I happen to be white and a man, and as I get older, my issues with "executive presence" are mysteriously fading. So what often can come off as sociopathy is often just garden-variety racism, sexism, and age-ism (understanding, of course, women and minorities in the workforce suffer 100x what I've ever had to deal with). When I was younger, executives would under-value me because I was young; we also would not form friendships because we had little in common. These people generally had zero desire to give me promotions or added responsibilities that might rankle other members of the staff if they didn't have to. But to avoid causing any drama, I was never actually told "no" for anything since it was much easier to simply make vague gestures. Those vague gestures were terrible but weren't sociopathic manipulation, but simply learned behaviors from bosses and coworkers. Just like some idiot refusing to wear a mask at a restaurant will have some bullshit rationale, that boss of mine had an internal rationale for not promoting me that he was sufficiently self-aware not to share with me, and in his mind was making the right choice. As a goon, my ability to suss out truth from lies is inferior to my colleagues' ability to bullshit, and this seems to be the norm here as this seems to drive most of the advice on this forum. For example the common advice on BFC is to Always Be Looking for a job. When negotiating for a new job, it's harder to get lied to since you end up with a contract. I would argue that the advice to always be looking is less valid for a proper bullshit artist who can snake his or her way up the corporate tree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:This is basically true of that part of humanity that spends their careers in the corporate world. Well, except the 'evenly' part. It's like 3% Sociopaths, 15% Clueless, 82% Losers. I think the number of clueless is far higher than the number of losers, if a defining trait of losers is that they recognize their position in the organization. Most middle management for sure classify as clueless, but so do all of those Individual Contributors who do unpaid overtime and bring home mountains of stress because of feeling of duty or loyalty to a company that will fire them during a pandemic. Every company I've ever worked at has had tons of people like that. Tomfoolery posted:The most valuable takeaway of "all C-levels are sociopaths" is that you should not trust them. This is 100% true. But occasionally it's important to be able to trust some people, sometimes, and there are ways to actually doing that. For me the biggest takeaway was just recognizing the way the most effective leaders I work with use language, and in particular being more careful about using what leverage I have more effectively. I think it's important to shift your thinking a bit on what trust means in the context of work. There are absolutely people who are "trustworthy" at all levels of an organization. By that I mean that they will do what they say, but not what you think they said. They have their own responsibilities and priorities, and those are going to be different from yours. Too often people misread statements or actions to match up to what they want to hear. quote:I would argue that the advice to always be looking is less valid for a proper bullshit artist who can snake his or her way up the corporate tree. I still think that always looking / always moving is good advice for a proper bullshit artist, because it shields them from ever having consequences for their bullshit (which can actually happen if they stay in one place too long). In a really big org that have lots of places to move to, so this isn't as big a deal, but why do that when you can just jump around anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
I bend pipe for a living and this is all interesting but not even a little bit relatable. edit: I guess the Gervais principle does explain my position pretty well quote:They’ve given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability. Traded freedom for a paycheck in short. They actually produce, but are not compensated in proportion to the value they create (since their compensation is set by Sociopaths operating under conditions of serious moral hazard). They mortgage their lives away, and hope to die before their money runs out. Jesse Ventura fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jul 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Tomfoolery posted:When I was younger, executives would under-value me because I was young; Essentially, people thought I was left behind as some kind of spy for the company, haha. To resolve this, I became a lot more direct and good at challenging stupid people in a hilarious way, very quickly. Tomfoolery posted:As a goon, my ability to suss out truth from lies is inferior to my colleagues' ability to bullshit, Jordan7hm posted:For me the biggest takeaway was just recognizing the way the most effective leaders I work with use language, and in particular being more careful about using what leverage I have more effectively. Language is critical, I was terrible at English at school and I really have to work on it to make sure I am effective in my job - although, as time goes on, I start to think I can communicate just fine and people are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2020 17:30
|
|