Dave Anderson has a good breakdown https://www.scarletink.com/p/the-hidden-advantage-of-sharp-edges that puts it into a 2 by 2 of takers, givers on one axis and agreeable disagreeable on another. I think it corresponds well to your framework but gives a bit of nuance - I think your position is disagreeable giver which is prosocial (idealist) but also focused on doing the right thing instead of focusing on themselves.
Well that was pretty dark! But not inaccurate. I tended to lean Idealist, but not entirely. And it didn’t necessarily work out as well as I would have liked.
I was once told by a friend at work (yes, it is possible to have friends at work, just don’t expect the kind who would support you over their own interests): you can’t avoid politics, just play “good politics”. Right. I agree. Just make sure to notice when good politics starts to inch towards bad politics. It is a moving line, and almost inevitably always moving towards the bad side.
This has been an interesting series of articles on work culture. Thanks. But I feel it has missed one important point. I’ve been fortunate in this life to live & work outside the US a couple times - three years in Sydney and twelve in London. On my return to the US both times I worked in the Corp. HQ. (different companies). The hardest adaptation was to the astonishing levels of hierarchy and sycophancy in US business culture compared to the Aussies & Brits. In less polite terms, I was appalled by the shameless arse-licking. And now I see these same behaviours in news everyday from the tech bros in DOGE and the Marx Bros in Trump’s cabinet. To quote Elvis Costello “I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.” But watching employees bend the knee and grovel before their master ain’t funny. The point I went to make is that any career strategy that does not recognize the hierarchical & sycophantic nature of US business culture is no strategy at all.
You’ve painted a bleak picture of two polarities, neither of which ultimately satisfies. Is there no middle ground? Perhaps some shade of gray, maybe even a slight shifting of shades over time with different situations, under varying circumstances? Quite the thought-provoking essay. Thank you.
My intent here was more to show the trade-offs when politics are looked at simplistically (i.e. only 2 parties), when in reality we must accept the ambiguous middle.
Where we land is dependent on the individual and situation - something that I think each person needs to figure it out. I’m sure (most) experienced professionals have seen this complexity play out.
So my goal was to poke at the answers, rather than trying to give an answer myself (or imply there is one “right” answer).
The real tragedy I see is that so many people fail to consciously pick a strategy--any strategy--for their own careers.
Very true! Thus they default to whatever unconscious biases they believed about work.
Dave Anderson has a good breakdown https://www.scarletink.com/p/the-hidden-advantage-of-sharp-edges that puts it into a 2 by 2 of takers, givers on one axis and agreeable disagreeable on another. I think it corresponds well to your framework but gives a bit of nuance - I think your position is disagreeable giver which is prosocial (idealist) but also focused on doing the right thing instead of focusing on themselves.
Thanks for sharing! It’s always good to hear a more buttoned-up version that matches one’s lives experience.
Well that was pretty dark! But not inaccurate. I tended to lean Idealist, but not entirely. And it didn’t necessarily work out as well as I would have liked.
To me, the ones who embrace politics and play the game, but don’t have a conscience, seem like the real winners here.
Oh, but that “don’t have a conscience” part is so rotten. I’m sure we’ve both known those folks and I’ll tell you, I don’t want to be them.
I was once told by a friend at work (yes, it is possible to have friends at work, just don’t expect the kind who would support you over their own interests): you can’t avoid politics, just play “good politics”. Right. I agree. Just make sure to notice when good politics starts to inch towards bad politics. It is a moving line, and almost inevitably always moving towards the bad side.
Yes! It’s hard to know the line!
I’d also say that one person’s “good politics” is another person’s “bad.” It may depend on who’s benefiting…
It’s an art, isn’t it? The difference is that being at it for too long exhausts you instead of enriches (the spirit). 😊
Very true!
This has been an interesting series of articles on work culture. Thanks. But I feel it has missed one important point. I’ve been fortunate in this life to live & work outside the US a couple times - three years in Sydney and twelve in London. On my return to the US both times I worked in the Corp. HQ. (different companies). The hardest adaptation was to the astonishing levels of hierarchy and sycophancy in US business culture compared to the Aussies & Brits. In less polite terms, I was appalled by the shameless arse-licking. And now I see these same behaviours in news everyday from the tech bros in DOGE and the Marx Bros in Trump’s cabinet. To quote Elvis Costello “I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.” But watching employees bend the knee and grovel before their master ain’t funny. The point I went to make is that any career strategy that does not recognize the hierarchical & sycophantic nature of US business culture is no strategy at all.
That’s a good point. This is a US-centric, and certainly individual-centric perspective.
For us folks stuck in middle of it, it can be quite a challenge to want to avoid it, but feel compelled to play the game.
No simple choices, isn’t it? Thanks for a nuanced and thoughtful piece.
Thanks for your support (and sharing)!
You’ve painted a bleak picture of two polarities, neither of which ultimately satisfies. Is there no middle ground? Perhaps some shade of gray, maybe even a slight shifting of shades over time with different situations, under varying circumstances? Quite the thought-provoking essay. Thank you.
Thanks for reading and a fair comment.
My intent here was more to show the trade-offs when politics are looked at simplistically (i.e. only 2 parties), when in reality we must accept the ambiguous middle.
Where we land is dependent on the individual and situation - something that I think each person needs to figure it out. I’m sure (most) experienced professionals have seen this complexity play out.
So my goal was to poke at the answers, rather than trying to give an answer myself (or imply there is one “right” answer).