Now explain why it isn´t better to be a pain-in-the-ass totally useless Gamma soldier who is thrown into the stockade and survives the war than being a brave, loyal and obedient Bravo who dies in the first wave of the invasion.
Particularly if your country, after winning the war, is going to create a totally shitty world order, like the US did after winning WW2 and the Cold War.
That's kinda of incoherent. The Bravo in your scenario doesn't have to live in the hellish aftermath, but the Gamma does. Might want to think that scenario over a bit more.
The Bravo has lost the game by default by being, well, dead.
The bad outcome is the result of winning those wars, and the Gamma did his best NOT to make any contribution to such a win.
As far as that goes, neither of the two will live to see the terrible LONGTERM consequences of "victory", because by then they will be both dead. But from a moral viewpoint the Bravo is more to blame, isn´t he?
To put it somewhat differently for clarification:
From an egotistical viewpoint, the Gamma did better by surviving.
From a moral viewpoint, the Gamma did again better by not contributing to the dystopian final outcome of it all.
Should bother you much more how many people dngaf id they don’t fundamentally understand what they are partaking in who gives a shit about an opinion of some who had one but is going along to get along unflinching and indifferent to “cuz massa told me so” being an explanation for everything in life
Narcissist 20% who fail at becoming little eichmans acknowledging their limits and capability either was at once .
I’ll take them any day over little eichmans empaths
I have one issue with "the only thing that you should say when your boss says to do something is yes sir, right on it". What if your boss has got it wrong? What if you have spotted something they have noticed? When I tell a member of my team to do something, I expect them to tell me if they think I am making a mistake. Now, it might be that I know something they don't and that is why this is the right course of action but it is also possible that I got it wrong.
That isn't the same as someone questioning why we are doing something to the nth degree as in this piece but unquestioning obedience to a superior's orders is bad for the individual and the company.
As somebody who worked in corporate, for far too long, I can see why some are taking this advice as "bootstraps & firm handshakes" validation of all hierarchies.
Vox, on his other blog, is hyper critical of converged hierarchies & the clown world systems that are, in general, broken.
I must confess, that I don't yet anticipate how he intends to resolve this tension, but I suspect he has a plan for it
I guess it's down to each individual to decide when it's time to hit the road. Sometimes, that decision isn't entirely our making, but a reaction to our own challenging behaviours. In my own case, it involved a substantial sum, which was quickly spent & didnt compensate for the years lost in non acheivement.
Im liking that this blog is more focussed on the "what" than the "why", but cant help but notice irritation towards gammas & gamma behaviour, which may prevent useful analysis ofntheir proper societal roles - vox having made clear that he would not suffer to employ one, for any length of time.
I was, doubtless, a massive pain in the arse, for the managers who were happy to keep on inflating their project budgets, for less and less delivery. I'm sure that much of my feedback would have fitted into the gamma category, here, but am happy that there was nothing that I could have done, to turn around that particular ship, as the course was set for convergence.
However, large hierarchies clearly have a need for individuals to catalog their failings, weaknesses & vulnerabilities.
I would ask the dod accounts guy whether his efforts, rather than his approach, are misdirected. Can you fix anything, realistically, or will or always be a "complex" disaster? Is it even worth saving, given the way your leaders behave? Why not do something more simple, that aligns with your values, and do it well?
Maybe, just maybe, being able to observe the hierarchy where you are will allow you to exist in better obedience to it, rather than in rebellion to its authority.
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.
I also wondered about the poor soldier, questioning his lot.
Whether his gamma questioning might keep him alive, or whether he was posted to an indefensible position, because he was an insufferable gamma, in the first place!
In my line of work I often have to deal with people who ask completely unnecessary questions concerning their task at hand. Stuff that is totally unimportant for their performance.
What I found is that it usually is grounded in overthinking stuff that is obvious for very stupid people and very smart people. But to the midwit (the Gamma range) those things are not obvious. And since he cannot trust his (intellectual) superiors, he will start a discussion and annoy everyone around him.
To the guy being the reason for this article: Yes, Vox is right! Just STFU! I've encountered plenty of capable guys who I am not working with anymore, because they will give me a headache instead of just doing what I told them to. Trust your superiors! There usually is a reason they are your superiors!
It's goofy how off the mark you are, Vox. You're ascribing motives to me that are not there. I work a ridiculously complex defense department accounting job. I work in two accounting / reporting systems and on massaging the data in the interfaces between the two. And the training has been irresponsibly non-existent since I showed up. We're only now starting to address this. It's been a very rough six years on this job for me after my previous job, where I knew everything inside out. Massively humbling and I wish I had my brain from 20 years ago to do better.
When I have been competently instructed on something, I don't question things. But when someone tells me to do entries that seemingly will be wrong and create more work and embarrassment for my team, yeah. I question. If someone told you to put 2+2=68 into your checkbook, you'd probably be confused. And my bosses are sometimes wrong because I particularly work on the most complex set of balances and for the worst book-keeping agency in the DOD. (Still trying to figure out whom I pissed off to get assigned to this coal mine.)
But as one genius former boss of mine put it: "It takes a bad entry to fix a bad entry" so sometimes our fixes DON'T make any sense.
And I do prefer to ask my teammates for help; my boss is a super-busy guy and shoulders too much of our workload himself. But often they don't know and my boss is the brains of the outfit so, as often as not, I end up asking him anyway.
Adding to things, I was blinded in one eye as a kid and I think in person my bad eye and me centering people in MY field of vision create a cognitive dissonance thing where people's brains think something's happening with my body language that's not what I'm trying to project. That's a taxing mental thing to correct for. It's probably why my interactions improved under mandatory telework during the WuFlu.
So, no, I'm not looking to undermine my boss. I'm simply looking for a better way to steer my end of the conversations to convey my confusion and get me to get the answers quickly, without unintentionally and uselessly creating a conflict.
That's your problem, Michael. I'm not off the mark at all. You STILL think your motives matter, to me or to anyone else.
I, and everyone else, are aware that you don't think you're undermining or challenging your boss. You don't think you're the problem. You're "just trying blah blah blah".
"When I have been competently instructed on something, I don't question things. But when someone tells me to do entries that seemingly will be wrong and create more work and embarrassment for my team, yeah. I question."
And therein lies the problem. You still don't understand that YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY. You are not competent to decide if you have, or if you haven't, been competently instructed on something.
I have no doubt you're very good at your job; you must be for your boss to tolerate you. But I can assure you that I, and many other experienced and successful managers, wouldn't no matter how good you are.
"I'm simply looking for a better way to steer my end of the conversations to convey my confusion and get me to get the answers quickly, without unintentionally and uselessly creating a conflict."
That will never happen. The problem is that you are asking questions. As I previously recommended: Shut. The. Fuck. Up. For your own sake, just TRY it. Go two weeks at work without asking your boss a single question and see if that improves things for you.
.... okay..... but YOU chose to make me an example of "narcissism" that simply fucking does not remotely begin to apply. There's a gap in your perception. And something tells me that I really doubt you can begin to accurately apply that to your model.
You're literally the last person to be the correct judge of that. You're apparently blind to the fact that all of your concerns revolve around YOU. Not your boss, not the job at hand, not the co-workers who depend upon you.
Your primary concern is you, to such an extent that you literally spend most of your time not working if your psychological needs are not met. How do you not see that as being fundamentally narcissistic?
You posited my motives and then denied they're relevant when you're wrong about them after writing a 10K word article about them? You're baffling me with these posts.
My position is akin to hiring a programmer to write a subroutine in Pascal. Except you never ascertained they KNEW Pascal. And no one else on the team knows Pascal. And no one ever wrote the SOP on how to do write subroutines.
Or knew exactly what they even wanted the subroutine to do. However loony that sounds, I'm understating it.
But you're insane if you think that describes me or my work life. I said I know my place as a cog in the machine. Your problem is you're likely used to being in places that are WELL-RUN. You find capable people and hire and fire as needed. GREAT! That's not the DOD. I'm pretty sure we have a few 80 IQs on my team... processing books for audit.
It's all about the work on my end. I don't "not work". That's ridiculous. I might get flack for my approach to demanding answers but I don't sit around doing nothing.
This work is so complex that if I don't get every tiny stupid detail correct, I cause delays for my entire team. I hate letting my team down. And I praise others at every opportunity. I look for reasons to praise others and thank them. I choked up my lead (woman) praising her on a voice call a few months ago.
So you trying to tell me I only care about myself? Baffling, but I know you're dead wrong.
Apologies to Vox if my commenting here is unwelcome.
Per your original post "But I'm not arguing" is a phrase upon uttering; if you weren't arguing then you will be arguing now. You'll have effectively called the judgement of your boss into question and made yourself the topic of discussion. The general rule is to avoid defensive posturing, especially if you're protecting your ego. If you want to defuse a situation; accept the criticism and say you'll do better (and then do better).
If this is a case of lack of instinct on social interaction, I suggest you take an Asperger's test. If this is more about worrying that your boss has a poor view of you when you constantly find things to argue about, you might be a narcissist.
1: I think me and my boss are more similar than not. But I readily admit he's usually MUCH better at this mess than I am.
2: I FULLY admit that I am probably un-intentionally provoking a response that I am not intending to. That is probably on me! Not denying it! That's why I asked for a way to defuse things!
3: I want to de-fuse the situation and only address the very particular technical problem at hand. Because I want to fix the problem for our team to progress and accomplish the mission.
4: I have already been proven by events to (sometimes) possess more technical knowledge than my boss.
I am not at all disputing the existence of the problem. I am just seeking the practical way to get to the core of the problem and get it resolved and out of the way. Vox' description of the problem does NOT apply to me and my motives. I am only looking for a way to cut to the core and fix the problem, without unintentionally provoking a response that creates more problems than is needed.
My feelings about the fix are ABSOLUETLY irrelevant. I want the correct fix and I want it NOW so we can get the mission done on time.
"3. If you’re not entirely sure how to do what you’re supposed to do, then ask someone with experience who has done it before. Do not ask the person who gave you the order!"
This is probably one of the best pieces of advice you can follow to produce good results at work.
It both impresses your boss, as you'll get it done fast without any oversight, and it'll help bond with your coworker, because you thought of them first when encountering a hard problem.
The boss will ask for feedback from coworkers about your performance too. If you don't talk to them and ask questions on how to do your job right, you'll get the boot if you're not a team player, then you're annoying to the boss, and you're doing your job wrong. Ignoring the advice in this article will sting you financially, then you can't pay your rent or mortgage, then you're homeless.
Modern leadership "training" has exacerbated this "clarification" problem. Leadership training almost always addresses a co-ed audience, and it is verboten to address gender social topology differences (management style yes, but not audience styles). So they keep teaching managers to be "inclusive", soliciting advice, foster "ownership". That only encourages all smart boys and girls to keep speaking up, and not getting smacked down by the clueless managers.
All of the ex-mil officers teaching "leadership" has only made it worse, because they've all been PC-trained.
And the whole "Followership" idea just keep encouraging Gammas, Deltas, and women to keep trying to "manage up", glorifying manipulation techniques. This also feeds the conservative inclination to reform, to fix an organization.
Organizational history of innovations has proven that fixing organizations is a lost cause. Jumping ship is much more efficient than trying to fix a team.
Just had a meeting where everyone was arguing with the leader. Best thing I could do was say "yes, sir" to every request.
To all gammas, letting go of the need for why is incredibly liberating. Needing to know why is a trap.
Now explain why it isn´t better to be a pain-in-the-ass totally useless Gamma soldier who is thrown into the stockade and survives the war than being a brave, loyal and obedient Bravo who dies in the first wave of the invasion.
Particularly if your country, after winning the war, is going to create a totally shitty world order, like the US did after winning WW2 and the Cold War.
That's kinda of incoherent. The Bravo in your scenario doesn't have to live in the hellish aftermath, but the Gamma does. Might want to think that scenario over a bit more.
I am not sure it´s incoherent.
As I see it:
The Bravo has lost the game by default by being, well, dead.
The bad outcome is the result of winning those wars, and the Gamma did his best NOT to make any contribution to such a win.
As far as that goes, neither of the two will live to see the terrible LONGTERM consequences of "victory", because by then they will be both dead. But from a moral viewpoint the Bravo is more to blame, isn´t he?
To put it somewhat differently for clarification:
From an egotistical viewpoint, the Gamma did better by surviving.
From a moral viewpoint, the Gamma did again better by not contributing to the dystopian final outcome of it all.
An incoherent moral outlook as well.
Perhaps you should lay off the black pills.
They aren't doing much for your reasoning.
And this is off-topic, so I'm going to tap the sign.
https://ibb.co/5BvJ6gh
Your second reply disappoints me.
I found your first reply rather thoughtful, even if I didn´t quite agree, but #2 is simply an arbitrary claim.
What do you even mean by my supposed incoherent moral outlook?
And, assuming your first reply was debating me in good faith, how can further explaining my position in answering it be off-topic???????
Should bother you much more how many people dngaf id they don’t fundamentally understand what they are partaking in who gives a shit about an opinion of some who had one but is going along to get along unflinching and indifferent to “cuz massa told me so” being an explanation for everything in life
Narcissist 20% who fail at becoming little eichmans acknowledging their limits and capability either was at once .
I’ll take them any day over little eichmans empaths
*limits and acknowledging their culpability either way sorry cracked screen
I have one issue with "the only thing that you should say when your boss says to do something is yes sir, right on it". What if your boss has got it wrong? What if you have spotted something they have noticed? When I tell a member of my team to do something, I expect them to tell me if they think I am making a mistake. Now, it might be that I know something they don't and that is why this is the right course of action but it is also possible that I got it wrong.
That isn't the same as someone questioning why we are doing something to the nth degree as in this piece but unquestioning obedience to a superior's orders is bad for the individual and the company.
Don't be retarded. That's my advice to you. Just don't be retarded.
As somebody who worked in corporate, for far too long, I can see why some are taking this advice as "bootstraps & firm handshakes" validation of all hierarchies.
Vox, on his other blog, is hyper critical of converged hierarchies & the clown world systems that are, in general, broken.
I must confess, that I don't yet anticipate how he intends to resolve this tension, but I suspect he has a plan for it
I guess it's down to each individual to decide when it's time to hit the road. Sometimes, that decision isn't entirely our making, but a reaction to our own challenging behaviours. In my own case, it involved a substantial sum, which was quickly spent & didnt compensate for the years lost in non acheivement.
Im liking that this blog is more focussed on the "what" than the "why", but cant help but notice irritation towards gammas & gamma behaviour, which may prevent useful analysis ofntheir proper societal roles - vox having made clear that he would not suffer to employ one, for any length of time.
I was, doubtless, a massive pain in the arse, for the managers who were happy to keep on inflating their project budgets, for less and less delivery. I'm sure that much of my feedback would have fitted into the gamma category, here, but am happy that there was nothing that I could have done, to turn around that particular ship, as the course was set for convergence.
However, large hierarchies clearly have a need for individuals to catalog their failings, weaknesses & vulnerabilities.
I would ask the dod accounts guy whether his efforts, rather than his approach, are misdirected. Can you fix anything, realistically, or will or always be a "complex" disaster? Is it even worth saving, given the way your leaders behave? Why not do something more simple, that aligns with your values, and do it well?
Maybe, just maybe, being able to observe the hierarchy where you are will allow you to exist in better obedience to it, rather than in rebellion to its authority.
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.
"Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die."
I think about that bit of The Charge of the Light Brigade a lot.
This.
I also wondered about the poor soldier, questioning his lot.
Whether his gamma questioning might keep him alive, or whether he was posted to an indefensible position, because he was an insufferable gamma, in the first place!
I’ve found value in Shutting the Fuck Up all my life.
It stated when I was … 6, maybe 7 …. And my aunt came to visit and … well first some background on my aunt, it’s funny she’s an agnostic but she…..
Wait. STFU. Got it!!!!
In my line of work I often have to deal with people who ask completely unnecessary questions concerning their task at hand. Stuff that is totally unimportant for their performance.
What I found is that it usually is grounded in overthinking stuff that is obvious for very stupid people and very smart people. But to the midwit (the Gamma range) those things are not obvious. And since he cannot trust his (intellectual) superiors, he will start a discussion and annoy everyone around him.
To the guy being the reason for this article: Yes, Vox is right! Just STFU! I've encountered plenty of capable guys who I am not working with anymore, because they will give me a headache instead of just doing what I told them to. Trust your superiors! There usually is a reason they are your superiors!
I actually have a talent for defusing tension on voice calls, so I really have to think something about my body language is a big part of the problem.
It's goofy how off the mark you are, Vox. You're ascribing motives to me that are not there. I work a ridiculously complex defense department accounting job. I work in two accounting / reporting systems and on massaging the data in the interfaces between the two. And the training has been irresponsibly non-existent since I showed up. We're only now starting to address this. It's been a very rough six years on this job for me after my previous job, where I knew everything inside out. Massively humbling and I wish I had my brain from 20 years ago to do better.
When I have been competently instructed on something, I don't question things. But when someone tells me to do entries that seemingly will be wrong and create more work and embarrassment for my team, yeah. I question. If someone told you to put 2+2=68 into your checkbook, you'd probably be confused. And my bosses are sometimes wrong because I particularly work on the most complex set of balances and for the worst book-keeping agency in the DOD. (Still trying to figure out whom I pissed off to get assigned to this coal mine.)
But as one genius former boss of mine put it: "It takes a bad entry to fix a bad entry" so sometimes our fixes DON'T make any sense.
And I do prefer to ask my teammates for help; my boss is a super-busy guy and shoulders too much of our workload himself. But often they don't know and my boss is the brains of the outfit so, as often as not, I end up asking him anyway.
Adding to things, I was blinded in one eye as a kid and I think in person my bad eye and me centering people in MY field of vision create a cognitive dissonance thing where people's brains think something's happening with my body language that's not what I'm trying to project. That's a taxing mental thing to correct for. It's probably why my interactions improved under mandatory telework during the WuFlu.
So, no, I'm not looking to undermine my boss. I'm simply looking for a better way to steer my end of the conversations to convey my confusion and get me to get the answers quickly, without unintentionally and uselessly creating a conflict.
Just like I previously said.
That's your problem, Michael. I'm not off the mark at all. You STILL think your motives matter, to me or to anyone else.
I, and everyone else, are aware that you don't think you're undermining or challenging your boss. You don't think you're the problem. You're "just trying blah blah blah".
"When I have been competently instructed on something, I don't question things. But when someone tells me to do entries that seemingly will be wrong and create more work and embarrassment for my team, yeah. I question."
And therein lies the problem. You still don't understand that YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY. You are not competent to decide if you have, or if you haven't, been competently instructed on something.
I have no doubt you're very good at your job; you must be for your boss to tolerate you. But I can assure you that I, and many other experienced and successful managers, wouldn't no matter how good you are.
"I'm simply looking for a better way to steer my end of the conversations to convey my confusion and get me to get the answers quickly, without unintentionally and uselessly creating a conflict."
That will never happen. The problem is that you are asking questions. As I previously recommended: Shut. The. Fuck. Up. For your own sake, just TRY it. Go two weeks at work without asking your boss a single question and see if that improves things for you.
.... okay..... but YOU chose to make me an example of "narcissism" that simply fucking does not remotely begin to apply. There's a gap in your perception. And something tells me that I really doubt you can begin to accurately apply that to your model.
You're literally the last person to be the correct judge of that. You're apparently blind to the fact that all of your concerns revolve around YOU. Not your boss, not the job at hand, not the co-workers who depend upon you.
Your primary concern is you, to such an extent that you literally spend most of your time not working if your psychological needs are not met. How do you not see that as being fundamentally narcissistic?
You posited my motives and then denied they're relevant when you're wrong about them after writing a 10K word article about them? You're baffling me with these posts.
My position is akin to hiring a programmer to write a subroutine in Pascal. Except you never ascertained they KNEW Pascal. And no one else on the team knows Pascal. And no one ever wrote the SOP on how to do write subroutines.
Or knew exactly what they even wanted the subroutine to do. However loony that sounds, I'm understating it.
But you're insane if you think that describes me or my work life. I said I know my place as a cog in the machine. Your problem is you're likely used to being in places that are WELL-RUN. You find capable people and hire and fire as needed. GREAT! That's not the DOD. I'm pretty sure we have a few 80 IQs on my team... processing books for audit.
It's all about the work on my end. I don't "not work". That's ridiculous. I might get flack for my approach to demanding answers but I don't sit around doing nothing.
This work is so complex that if I don't get every tiny stupid detail correct, I cause delays for my entire team. I hate letting my team down. And I praise others at every opportunity. I look for reasons to praise others and thank them. I choked up my lead (woman) praising her on a voice call a few months ago.
So you trying to tell me I only care about myself? Baffling, but I know you're dead wrong.
Apologies to Vox if my commenting here is unwelcome.
Per your original post "But I'm not arguing" is a phrase upon uttering; if you weren't arguing then you will be arguing now. You'll have effectively called the judgement of your boss into question and made yourself the topic of discussion. The general rule is to avoid defensive posturing, especially if you're protecting your ego. If you want to defuse a situation; accept the criticism and say you'll do better (and then do better).
If this is a case of lack of instinct on social interaction, I suggest you take an Asperger's test. If this is more about worrying that your boss has a poor view of you when you constantly find things to argue about, you might be a narcissist.
1: I think me and my boss are more similar than not. But I readily admit he's usually MUCH better at this mess than I am.
2: I FULLY admit that I am probably un-intentionally provoking a response that I am not intending to. That is probably on me! Not denying it! That's why I asked for a way to defuse things!
3: I want to de-fuse the situation and only address the very particular technical problem at hand. Because I want to fix the problem for our team to progress and accomplish the mission.
4: I have already been proven by events to (sometimes) possess more technical knowledge than my boss.
I am not at all disputing the existence of the problem. I am just seeking the practical way to get to the core of the problem and get it resolved and out of the way. Vox' description of the problem does NOT apply to me and my motives. I am only looking for a way to cut to the core and fix the problem, without unintentionally provoking a response that creates more problems than is needed.
My feelings about the fix are ABSOLUETLY irrelevant. I want the correct fix and I want it NOW so we can get the mission done on time.
This all seems like good advice to me. I to have noticed that “shutting the fuck up” is often the best tool in the box.
The only thing I would add is that when I stopped asking “why” and started asking “how” that is when opportunities started opening up for me.
"3. If you’re not entirely sure how to do what you’re supposed to do, then ask someone with experience who has done it before. Do not ask the person who gave you the order!"
This is probably one of the best pieces of advice you can follow to produce good results at work.
It both impresses your boss, as you'll get it done fast without any oversight, and it'll help bond with your coworker, because you thought of them first when encountering a hard problem.
The boss will ask for feedback from coworkers about your performance too. If you don't talk to them and ask questions on how to do your job right, you'll get the boot if you're not a team player, then you're annoying to the boss, and you're doing your job wrong. Ignoring the advice in this article will sting you financially, then you can't pay your rent or mortgage, then you're homeless.
Reading these 90 or so comments was almost as much fun as one of Vox’s boomer posts on Gab
You don't need to know everything. You just need to do your job.
^ reminder to self ^ 😳
I could have used blunt advice 25 years ago.
You and me both, Bubba.
Modern leadership "training" has exacerbated this "clarification" problem. Leadership training almost always addresses a co-ed audience, and it is verboten to address gender social topology differences (management style yes, but not audience styles). So they keep teaching managers to be "inclusive", soliciting advice, foster "ownership". That only encourages all smart boys and girls to keep speaking up, and not getting smacked down by the clueless managers.
All of the ex-mil officers teaching "leadership" has only made it worse, because they've all been PC-trained.
And the whole "Followership" idea just keep encouraging Gammas, Deltas, and women to keep trying to "manage up", glorifying manipulation techniques. This also feeds the conservative inclination to reform, to fix an organization.
Organizational history of innovations has proven that fixing organizations is a lost cause. Jumping ship is much more efficient than trying to fix a team.