Are you an introvert or extrovert?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by wegs, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    keeping it real...
    that is an emotional question
    there is only around 1 industry that is not corporate based from a point of basic contact and that is farm contracting where the farmer contracts to the farmer instead of working and selling to a corporate.

    black or white logic paradigms of cultural conformity... ? very American & very conservative.
    useful if you need to shove everything into a box to declare the job completed.

    not very useful if you want to half disguise your desire to ask what type of job i do and whom i work for

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Nah, you could have just answered, ''no.'' I wasn't asking you specifics about where you work.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Or sometimes it's true.
    Fear is a concern you will do the wrong thing.
    Lack of inspiration is having no idea what to do from the get-go.
    I've had employees with no fear whatsoever; I've had employees with crippling social anxiety. I've had employees who were brilliant but lacked inspiration. I've had employees that were raring to go and super enthusiastic but lacked the horsepower of some of the other engineers on the project.

    If you handle all these people the same way - that's a recipe for disaster.
     
    wegs likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    In this case, he (my manager) is right.

    Exactly.

    What ended up inspiring them?
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    For one it was an abstract "you could do this and be seen as really smart" sorts of motivation. That worked for him. One wanted to do nothing but publish papers; he was from academia where they have a 'publish or die' mentality but now he was in an environment where progress was more important. We worked out a compromise where he could still publish a fair amount as long as we were making progress on the primary job.
     
    wegs likes this.
  9. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    You sound like a good boss. Actually, you seem like a genuine leader. Some people manage and dictate, and some lead and inspire. It's important to understand what makes your team ''tick,'' as not everyone follows the same path towards productivity.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Notice he isn't "going with his gut" - he's not allowing his first reactions, which are bound to be negative toward some of those guys, to dominate his response.
     
  11. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Sounds about right to me.!!!

    Good luck

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    you question sounds like an emotively biased trick question based on the general topic.

    corporate structures serve a purpose
    those purposes can be psychopathic, sociopathic, narcissistic, negligent, benevolent and a few other variations.

    what al corporate have in common is 1 single thing.
    they are all run by people.
    this means the decisions made are made by people to enact on other peoples.

    i do not abide the moral ideology of labeling a corporate entity a justified psychopath or sociopath while people hide behind branding and corporate psychopothy.
    it is the same as telling a jewish customer who is making a complaint about some abusive customer service that the person was just following orders.

    it doesn't wash

    post legislative moral soap boxing does not fool me into thinking that same group of people are pretending to have morals while exercising that psychopathy through a company structure.

    if you want a community that doesn't care about each other then such moral abandonment of the human condition by a company that defines its nature of corporatism as being "just doing business" then fine.
    but those same people would never want to live in such a community.
    so the very human nature of the process is abusive and dehumanizing.

    it serves such sadistic empathy lacking manipulative types to claim corporate structure is to blame.
    it isn't.
    it is the people in those corporates running it.

    the air of grievance that you detect is my dislike for such people hiding behind corporate structure and blaming it on a company brand while they dehumanize people as a process to profit.
     
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    sure it is, i notice wegs agrees with her boss.
    that's great if that is helpful to her.
    regardless of if that is the actual real psychological situation.
    it is not uncommon for people to load fear as a pre-acceptable condition to use as an out for something that conveniently boxes something into another format for transference.
    it simplifys things greatly and changes the subject away from the real issue.
    that is also very common.

    i am not saying this is the case in this case...
    however, if your going to dig into your psyche and start messing around with stuff.
    you may want to be correct in what your tampering with.


    no
    applying fear to be a catch all labelled as a justifiable transference concept by asserting a process of failure is not fear.
    fear is an emotion.
    the failure exists with or without it.
    justifying fear by asserting its normal to feel it from failure is a false logic.
    such false logic is common so i do not expect you to comprehend it and i am not going to explain it.

    assertions toward material phsyicalisation of aspects of the inner mind rarely serve a accurate process to dynamically formulate the actual interactive components.
    however it does over simplify things to make them feel less burdensome and a feeling of getting better by pretending its something else.
    it gives a feeling of "getting over something" which is like a drug

    that is as far as i will go into(and on) the subject.

    note i am well aware of the negative tone this is being read in.
    that does not define the nature of the content to be of a negative direction.
    that assertion is your own ego seeking to justify its self.
    that's ok. that's fairly normal.
    i am not going to change how i say it just to try and make you feel better.
     
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    i agree in part.
    however.
    a "boss" is concerned with getting money.
    that money can be at the long term detriment to the employees personal development.
    the average boss doesn't care mostly.
    using office psychology of the managers grab-bag to approach and tinker with a persons psyche is just out right wrong.
    it is an ethical breach of the use of psychology as a medical profession.
    The patient must always come first

    wegs,
    while you may feel a need to disagree with me, take no personal depth in the potential implied assumed meaning of inferred egocentric disposition.
    take what you need. leave all the rest.
     
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    amen to that!
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I don't see it that way.

    Employees make money for a company by doing a good job, which means doing a job they are good at, doing a job they want to do, and having all the tools they need (from office supplies to education) to get that job done. If that happens, then the company, overall, makes more money.

    If you are trying to decide between the company's well-being and the employee's - you are missing the whole point of employees.
    I don't think it's the role of any boss to "mess around" with someone's psyche. If I had a worker who really did need some "messing about" with their psyche - well, we've got pretty good medical coverage, and it includes mental health care. But that's up to them, not me, although I might suggest it.
    That sounds like feel good corporate BS to me.
    It is normal to have a fear of failure. Most people do. It's part of the mental "toolkit" that evolution has provided us - a way to motivate us to not fail at survival, mating and childrearing. It doesn't adapt perfectly to the office environment, of course - which is where the problems seep in.
     
    wegs and Seattle like this.
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Why are you quoting ''going with his gut?'' lol
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Or you are trying to balance the edicts of management against the realities of your working floor, with your job on the line.

    Because we see open plan offices - migrating up from open plan typist pools, which were gender adjunct to open plan manufacturing floors, which it took Federal law to make noise-isolated (from machinery) and ventilated wherever possible - all over town. And it was not that long ago on one job - couple of years - that I saw a guy from management there come down and take away the chairs that the truck dock unloaders were sitting in between Lucille Ball slam feeds on the conveyors. Apparently the image of guys sitting down on the job offended a new hire exec. So they stood around on a cement floor under fluorescent lighting doing no work, in the normal intervals between runs of course but also while the deferred maintenance consequences at the other end of the conveyor played out as they had all year: the mechanic they had rousted out of bed in the midnight hours of his nominal day off crouched under the belt feed machinery, working over his head on control circuitry and unlit gear assemblies without his low stool (it looked like a chair) to brace from and keep his tools off the floor.

    Somebody in the private equity firm now running the show didn't get the memo. (It's almost as if the extra layer of ownership that has emerged from thirty years of accumulation of tax cut capital in the pockets of people whose only expertise is in accumulating tax cut capital has been a burden on the American economy - as if having the ignorant and absentee superrich own everything actually harms, rather than helps, productive industry.)

    The memo that has been circulating since the 40s and up until about 1980, the last time that the hardcore scientific research (time&motion net productivity measuring discovery of the superior efficiencies and profits to be had by limiting work time to eight hours, providing good air and other comforts, not subjecting employees to disturbing noise or other interruptions of focus, etc,) appears to have been common management knowledge. Maybe it didn't make the jump to computers - too old fashioned, too slow on the uptake.

    At any rate, the trend toward degradation of upper level office work to the managed status of production line labor has followed closely on the heels of the trend toward reintroduction of pre New Deal bad management practices to production line labor, which followed closely on the heels of the reintroduction of pre New Deal tax policies and political regulation of the American economy. That is probably not what guys like Deming and Townsend meant by bottom up organization, establishing responsibility and decision at the lowest level possible, removing the bureaucratic division of jobs into "thinking" and "doing", etc.

    So what we seem to facing is a political issue - a matter of Marxist class consciousness, or something Veblen might have dealt with naturally - rather than economics. The "whole point of having servants employees" is maybe something that varies by economic class, in other words.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    The trope of the executive who does no work because he isn't swinging a wrench and getting his hands dirty (or perhaps Lucille Balling on the conveyor belt) no doubt has appeal to the lowest common denominators out there - but is fortunately disregarded by most intelligent people as populist tripe.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    However
    Not everyone in a management position belongs there
    peter principle
     
    wegs likes this.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Absolutely. Nor does everyone on the line belong there. A great many problems in employment come from people being in the wrong place for their skills.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's a quote, mutatis mutandis, from the Reagan/Bush/W administrations I wanted to invoke ( All Republican administrations since Nixon have bragged about that; take your pick - here's the best remembered source: https://www.dubyaspeak.com).

    Trump's similar - identical, even - brags will join them, of course, as soon as his administration is a memory only - being carefully edited and repetitively revised and aired out under the UV glare of Republican framed media, as those others have been, until it can be acknowledged in public without reminding people of why it was double bagged, air-seal filed, and diligently forgotten in the first place.
     
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Not to make this thread about my job, but think I'm going to look for something new. Don’t wish to get into it, but my boss stepped over the line with me, and I'm done. He doesn’t know that, but I’m going to send resumes out this weekend.
     

Share This Page