Honest Man @Work

How do we know who to dedicate ourselves to?

In order to find the right working relationships, and avoid as much waste as possible, we need to ask.

Scientists remind us: we don’t see objects, we see light bouncing off objects. Of course, that light is received by very human eyes and transmitted to human brains, which come with default settings that can’t be easily adjusted. As a result, in order to really know something…to be able to predict how it will operate or interact under different temperatures, pressures, impacts and so on…we must not simply look at it. Surely, to know something we must observe it in various (preferably extreme) settings, using not only our natural senses, but also more refined tools. Only in this way can we say we really know it, that we understand what it will do, that we can predict how it will interact.

How much more so for people? As Diogenes reportedly observed, “when we buy a jar or dish we try whether it rings true, but if it is a man we are content merely to look at him.” This while he was being sold into slavery!

We are not cogs and wheels, we require trust in order to work together. What is “esprit de corps” if not an expression of trust? And does not trust rest on virtue?

In most cases, it is workable and understandable to dodge the question. After all, walking among strangers on a crowded street does not demand careful understanding of each individual. Yet, as we interact closer and closer to home, do we not expect more and more understanding? More and more ability to count on those around us? How is this achieved if not by measuring virtue? That is to say, with more and more moral excellence, deeper and deeper trust is formed and a bond of trust can be formed and dedication realized. For if there is no virtue, there is no trust and without trust, no relationship – whether professional or personal.

In the course of our workaday lives, how often do we take virtue for granted? Leaving it untested and assumed? Do we attempt to fathom our co-workers? Or do we treat colleagues as strangers on the street, expecting nothing of them, allowing their and our virtue to ebb in an officious slipstream of “good enough”? On the other hand, how often do we apply our own dedication, only to find it neither recognized nor reciprocated? How often do we then project our own devotion to others’ work ethic? Bringing our own expectations, fairly or unfairly, to the workplace?

In order to find the right working relationships, and avoid as much waste as possible, it seems to me that the important, yet run of the mill questions are: how do we know who and what to dedicate ourselves to? How can we tell when someone is equally dedicated? If we find less than expected dedication, how can we adequately disentangle ourselves and start again? When a team of mutually dedicated people forms, what do they owe each other?

Thankfully, we are not likely to face the dire circumstances of Diogenes. Yet we do face the same “jar ringing” conundrum, starting with job interviews. Even though, we are not on the slavers’ selling block, we must still determine who we will work with after having merely looked at them. Yet, in comparison to light bouncing off an object, impressions gathered in an interview are even less reliable. Interviewer and interviewee are like two hooded lamps watching each other and their own reflections: doing their best to observe the direct light being emitted, yet are usually distracted by our own light being reflected back. Everyone recognizes that it is impossible to know in such short order how far trust can be taken, how much dedication will be applied, how much contribution can be expected. That can only take time, and mostly we all hope to merely be given the chance.

As we settle in and make our tasks and responsibilities commonplace, things become more difficult.

Take for a moment, honesty. Certainly it cannot simply be determined from its report. Truly, what can it mean if someone says, upon first meeting you, “I am only very honest”? If you are like me, and perhaps Diogenes with his lamp, you imagine they are convincing themselves more than they are reporting something to you. Is this not often the case? That in the course of conversation, statements directed outward reveal more about the inner dialogue of the speaker? Where the readily apparent outward behavior belies the inward message to themselves? The handwriting is on the wall, it is obvious to all – except those who are about to fall. Or, as a great friend of mine once put it, “they’re telling you more about themselves than they are of you.”

For another example, what can it mean when someone regularly reports they are a “live and let live” kind of person? I usually hear this kind of retort in situations where I have had to monitor and manage other people yet held little actual authority. For example when I have found myself with budget tracking responsibility. As a result, I must often demand forecasts and question expenses that go beyond allocated amounts. Likewise, when the figures do not add up, I must call attention to them and get them corrected. That is my job, my duty and responsibility. I take it seriously. It’s part of my work ethic, my virtue. Furthermore, I expect that everyone involved is equally dedicated to being accurate and achieving objectives within agreed means.

From time to time, some do not see it that way. To them, checking the figures is an attack.. After exceeding a budget, they feign insult and imagine my attention on them as some kind of assault on their person, their reputation. The strangest ones sit me down to loudly announce: I forgive you. “I don’t even mind that you’ve been bad mouthing and attacking me…despite numerous previous warnings about your behavior…I’m a ‘live and let live kind of person.’ I’m willing to move forward,” I’m told. From my perspective, there can be no assault where I’m merely performing my fiduciary duty. So, when the insult to them is merely supposed, it’s sting must be equally imagined. I find myself wondering: “Why confabulate the situation into being an attack?” If a mistake was made, it can be fixed. If no mistakes, wherefore their responsibility? Their mea culpa?

So what are they really saying? Outwardly they are admonishing me for calling attention to them, and pretending forgiveness for this pretended insult. Inwardly, they are noting the incident as a black mark that will not be forgiven. Indeed, in the strangest of cases, some will even treat the “forgiveness” as a favor to be repaid later. As in: “remember when I forgave you last time?” So, I can only guess that they are actually ‘ telling me more about themselves.’ Hiding their own guilty conscience behind a mask of aggressive forgiveness.

For yet another example, has someone you’ve been working with ever reported that “the pretending can stop”? I’ve seen this most often during reorganization or restructuring. When sitting down with a partner or colleague, and updating them on new roles, responsibilities or team members, they seem surprised at my acceptance of the situation and my willingness to move on. However, I view it merely as my duty, part of my work ethic. In order for the team to run smoothly, I remain clear and face facts. Yet from time to time in these situations, across the table I’m told “you must be glad the pretending can stop.” Alas, when there was no pretence, what is there to throw off?

So, what are they really saying? In the course of events I was not pretending at all. Outwardly, they are attempting to close ranks, inviting me reveal myself in an “esprit de corps” moment. Inwardly, they are preparing the next mask and fabrication. How paradoxical!

Or perhaps you’ve encountered someone who tells you “we’re working in a friendly way.” I usually encounter these types within larger organizations where the “internal” and “external” boundaries are not entirely clear. Perhaps they are partners from another department within a company that asks everyone to treat one another like “cusomters.” Or they have special relationships within the organization, feeling they have delivered more than their fair share to a situation. In any case, they prophetically tell you how friendly they are, and how working with them is going to be a party. Yet, at the first sign of trouble they start referring to the contract, and specifiying who is owed what. In extreme cases, they angrily write emails reporting that the siutation is the worst they’ve ever enoucountered, reporting that they are being taken advantage of or  are not being dealt with fairly. In the very most extreme situations, these frenemies are totally ignoring the free space and wide latitude they’ve been given.

So, what are they really saying? In the course of events, I was happy to be friendly and go above and beyond the contract and the special relationships. I figured: let’s work as friends, with some give and take, some mutual understanding and forgiveness. Why not? Outwardly, they want that friendliness, but inwardly they want to take every advantage. Ultimately, with friends like those, who needs enemies?!

Sadly, I’m afraid examples abound. I’ve been told “I’m all business” when they were anything but. “I’m all about research” where there was only lecturing and kowtowing. “I’m a team player” when they were instead all about themselves. “I’d do anything for this” where instead they would do nothing.  “You can count on me” when no one could. “I’m working so hard” when they were instead sitting in their jacuzzi. “We should work together, in a collaborative way” when they mean “you do it all.” “I’m not here to make friends; I’ll make the tough choices,” where they preferred a good story and schmoozing to facts. And so on. Indeed, you probably have a bunch of your own examples, and I’d be glad to hear them.  Meanwhile, let’s move on.

Taken all together, dealing with people of this sort is like being in a hall of mirrors. Conflicting reflections of their outward speech and action compound on their view of and attitude towards you. Without care, it is easy to get entirely confused and lost.  Ultimately, the speakers are in fact known not by their speech, but by the mismatch between their statements and their readily apparent opposite behavior. In Chinese this is referred to as “心虛” (xin1 xu1), akin to “protesting too much.” The Chinese literally means “weak” or “empty” heart, implying that the speakers’ own weakness conversely leads them to attack, attempting to put you off balance by introducing self doubt. Tellingly, it also means “guilty conscience.”

So, how can we deal with these kinds of people? These kinds of situations? As the conflicting speech and actions add up, it is important not to become blinded.

Wittgenstein observed: “The truth can be spoken only by someone who is already at home in it; not by someone who still lives in untruthfulness, and does no more than reach out towards it from within untruthfulness.” Ultimately a decision to leave the hall of mirrors must be taken, and a way out found.

I’m afraid the best advice I have is: straightforward forthrightness. Indeed, taking it to a “fault.”  Notably, forthrightness has no superiority implied. It is not arrogant or conceited. Indeed, I offer this advice in the spirit of learning. Since it literally requires non-evasiveness, being simple and direct of you, there is no pretending. If you don’t know, forthrightly say so. If you do know, give forthright evidence. Humility is a best friend when you are forthright.

Sadly, some will take offence at forthrightness. Their inner dialogue prefers obscurity. They mistake blunt with rude, outspoken with arrogant, surety with rigidity, conviction with conformity, assurance with presumption, above-board expectations with pushiness. They prefer not to fathom you, but to strike up conversation with their version of you, the shadowy reflection of their own hooded lamp. Assuming you must be doing the same. Perhaps it is best to simply stay out of range then, allowing no reflection and therefore no conversation to be misinterpreted. If nothing else, it will save you time. As Diogenes observed: “What you’ve taken away, you can never give me.”

Happily, the majority will find a lack of ambiguity from a confident and knowledgeable source refreshing. A worthy few will be inspired. And from that, true opportunities to gauge others, whether strangers, colleagues, friends, spouses, siblings… will blossom. Rewardingly.

As a result, forthrightness becomes a powerful tool in determining who to work with because checking for it takes much less time than testing for other virtues. For instance, simply ask yourself: am I getting the full picture or are details being kept hidden? Is there a univocal approach or are interpretations ambiguous and open ended? Is it backed up with plain explanations and clear facts or with complex anecdotes and metaphors? Are you seeing direct simple expressions with eye contact, or is the person waving their hands around like a magician, misdirecting you? Are observations distinguished from facts, and opinions clearly denoted or are personal preferences presented as truth?

Good company on the forthright path:

Diogenes

• “I am looking for an honest man.”
• “Those who have virtue always in their mouths, and neglect it in practice, are like a harp which emits a sound pleasing to others, while itself is insensible of the music.”
• “We have two ears and one tongue so that we would listen more and talk less.”
• “The sun, too, shines into cesspools and it is not polluted.”
• “It takes a wise man to discover a wise man.”
• “Blushing is the color of virtue.”
• “I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance.”
• “It was a favorite expression of Theophrastus that time was the most valuable thing that a man could spend.”

Wittgenstein

• “Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself”
• “If you use a trick in logic, whom can you be tricking other than yourself?”
• “What stands fast does so, not because it is intrinsically obvious of convincing; it is rather held fast by what lies around it.”
• “Like everything metaphysical, the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language.”
• “When one is frightened of the truth then it is never the whole truth that one has an inkling of.”
• “An inner process stands in need of outward criteria.”
• “Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgement.”
• “The human body is the best picture of the human soul.”
• “One can mistrust one’s own senses, but not one’s own belief. If there were a verb ‘to believe falsely’ it would not have any significant first person, present indicative.”
• “A confession has to be part of your new life.”
• “The logic of the world is prior to all truth and falsehood”
• “If someone asked us ‘but is that true?’ we might say ‘yes’ to him, and if he demanded grounds we might say, ‘I can’t give you grounds, but if you learn more you too will think the same.’
• “It is not by recognizing the want of courage in someone else that you acquire courage yourself.”
• “A hero looks death in the face, real death, not just the image of death. Behaving honorably in a crisis doesn’t mean being able to act the part of a hero well, as in the theater.”
• “For heaven’s sake, don’t be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense.”
• “If  person tells me he has been to the worst places I have no reason to judge him; but if he tells me it was his superior wisdom that enabled him to go there, then I know he is a fraud.”

Images##

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blub_and_languages_of_the_fire.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Candle-flame-and-reflection.jpg