The Communal Nature of a Filipino All-Nighter Revisited: Uncoordinated Coordination to Dream a Positive Corporate Dream
A corporate goodbye and welcome party seemed like an over-sized, yet subtly protocol-led version of the previous pool party described. Presence of similar activities means noting their socio-cultural significance will be redundant and thus omitted, but the different atmosphere and context for which it was held mean that the event, as a supposedly more casual yet dramatic extension of the regular workplace relationship espouses certain theories of how people of different levels and motivations may very much behave in coordination to satisfy their own self-interests.
A recent article from the Economist begins as such: "Bosses set too much store by their strengths. They also habitually overestimate their ability to win respect and support from their underlings. Somehow, on reaching the corner office, they lose the knack of reading subtle cues in others' behavior. At the very least, bosses might improve their chances of staying on top by being aware of this bias." Even in an entity with corner offices and cubicles, and for which a constant obsession with egalitarianism in a fast-changing environment is a norm, the sentiment still rings very true.
But perhaps we can take the statement from the Economist one step even further. Rather than losing the capability to read how the employees feel from their signals and behaviors, they choose not to, or at the very least, read when they like, what they like, and suppress the remaining. Such selective exercise, at the end, leads to a subjective cherry-picking of only those string of cues that fit the overall conception of the existing superior-subordinate relationships that the bosses already have in their minds and are unwilling to change.
Unfortunately, the two reinforces one another and creates a vicious cycle of a perpetual sort. Selective memories of a narrow impression seen through only one kind of lenses causes only the selection of only new incidents that supports that narrow impression with further concrete evidence. All else are ignored, no matter how strong the cues and signals coming from below may be. Only the most direct contradictory evidence, voiced by someone in serious distress and/or are also in very senior positions, can reverse those existing impressions through a sudden and surprising jolt.
The motivation for such selective memories is simple enough. As the Economist mentions, bosses tend to think of themselves as effective bosses, especially when the company is growing at a fast pace. They, of course, like to believe that their subordinates think the same way. Effective management makes for efficiency, and only a happy and motivated workforce is efficient, they would like to believe. Under such perception, any unnecessary straying away for the style of the boss could potentially be a cause of reduced happiness and efficiency.
This line of logic is simply enough that it can easily be felt and understood by the most ordinary employee. The employee's interest, at the end, is not the efficiency, productivity, or profitability of the company they work for like their bosses, but to keep their jobs, salaries, and grow within the corporate environment where they attain greater positions, along with higher social and financial positions. So they will not go out of their way to contradict the bosses' simple self-induced feel-good logic. As long as their interests are not hurt, they will not openly disagree with the boss' one-sided assessment.
Some will even go out of their way to provide further evidence to make the bosses confident in their self-assessed delusions of success and grandeur. The employees work to accentuate the good and hide the bad from the boss, perhaps motivated by their own sense of genuine gratitude, but also out of even more genuine self-interest to be noticed as facilitators for the bosses to make their positive grand visions realities on the ground. Certain emotions will be put to the forefront, while minor details of unpleasant nature will be shoved under the carpet.
Its a win-win situation under the best of circumstances. But as in any competitive corporate environment, for every winner, there has to be a loser. Some will inevitably rise to prominence for their effort at work and keenness to play's boss' self-delusion game, while others will be neglected and force to ring the alarm bell on the boss' dreamy self-congratulations. No one wants to cut short the big guy's sweet dreams, but in desperation, silence may no longer be an option. Desperate times calls for desperate measures, and play by the boss' rule will be a minus for the employee's self-interest.
A recent article from the Economist begins as such: "Bosses set too much store by their strengths. They also habitually overestimate their ability to win respect and support from their underlings. Somehow, on reaching the corner office, they lose the knack of reading subtle cues in others' behavior. At the very least, bosses might improve their chances of staying on top by being aware of this bias." Even in an entity with corner offices and cubicles, and for which a constant obsession with egalitarianism in a fast-changing environment is a norm, the sentiment still rings very true.
But perhaps we can take the statement from the Economist one step even further. Rather than losing the capability to read how the employees feel from their signals and behaviors, they choose not to, or at the very least, read when they like, what they like, and suppress the remaining. Such selective exercise, at the end, leads to a subjective cherry-picking of only those string of cues that fit the overall conception of the existing superior-subordinate relationships that the bosses already have in their minds and are unwilling to change.
Unfortunately, the two reinforces one another and creates a vicious cycle of a perpetual sort. Selective memories of a narrow impression seen through only one kind of lenses causes only the selection of only new incidents that supports that narrow impression with further concrete evidence. All else are ignored, no matter how strong the cues and signals coming from below may be. Only the most direct contradictory evidence, voiced by someone in serious distress and/or are also in very senior positions, can reverse those existing impressions through a sudden and surprising jolt.
The motivation for such selective memories is simple enough. As the Economist mentions, bosses tend to think of themselves as effective bosses, especially when the company is growing at a fast pace. They, of course, like to believe that their subordinates think the same way. Effective management makes for efficiency, and only a happy and motivated workforce is efficient, they would like to believe. Under such perception, any unnecessary straying away for the style of the boss could potentially be a cause of reduced happiness and efficiency.
This line of logic is simply enough that it can easily be felt and understood by the most ordinary employee. The employee's interest, at the end, is not the efficiency, productivity, or profitability of the company they work for like their bosses, but to keep their jobs, salaries, and grow within the corporate environment where they attain greater positions, along with higher social and financial positions. So they will not go out of their way to contradict the bosses' simple self-induced feel-good logic. As long as their interests are not hurt, they will not openly disagree with the boss' one-sided assessment.
Some will even go out of their way to provide further evidence to make the bosses confident in their self-assessed delusions of success and grandeur. The employees work to accentuate the good and hide the bad from the boss, perhaps motivated by their own sense of genuine gratitude, but also out of even more genuine self-interest to be noticed as facilitators for the bosses to make their positive grand visions realities on the ground. Certain emotions will be put to the forefront, while minor details of unpleasant nature will be shoved under the carpet.
Its a win-win situation under the best of circumstances. But as in any competitive corporate environment, for every winner, there has to be a loser. Some will inevitably rise to prominence for their effort at work and keenness to play's boss' self-delusion game, while others will be neglected and force to ring the alarm bell on the boss' dreamy self-congratulations. No one wants to cut short the big guy's sweet dreams, but in desperation, silence may no longer be an option. Desperate times calls for desperate measures, and play by the boss' rule will be a minus for the employee's self-interest.
Comments
Post a Comment