The ’30-Year, Single-Elimination, Suck-Up Tournament’ or How America Selects Its Generals
To one day make general a US officer has to successfully suck up to about 60 superiors over the course of his career
John T. Reed https://www.checkpointasia.net/the-30-year-single-elimination-suck-up-tournament-or-how-america-selects-its-generals/
EWS - this is a great analysis of institutional, bureaucratic normal, workplace thinking. It's about the largest most SNAFUest bureau of institutional madness, the US ARMY. If you work in a public service job, the State, County , City, University type job, see if this article doesn't ring some bells.
Excerpts in italic, even a quote from Ayn Rand of all people.
***************************
...You will not like many of your superiors but you must make every single one of them love you. Plenty of your peers will do just that.
... That is obvious total bullshit and sends a ridiculous message to ambitious officers: avoid combat; bravery and success in battle count for nothing.
... So to be a top general in the U.S. military, you must win the 30-year, marathon, single-elimination, suck-up tournament. To do that, you must read about 60 immediate superiors, figure out what they want you to say, do, and convey by body language, dress, and lifestyle, and feed back to each of them what they want so well that they each love you and rate you accordingly. As difficult as that sounds, I assure you that there are officers out there who are pulling it off and if you want to compete with them, you have to do the same.
... The 8/13/07 BusinessWeek has an article titled “Profiles in Sycophancy.” It reported on a study done of members of 300 boards of publicly-traded corporations... Conclusion?
The most frequent flatterers, it turned out, got the most seats on other boards—specifically at companies where their original board mates served as CEOs or on board nominating committees. ‘Ingration had the strongest effect,” says [professor James] Westphal, who added that he was “surprised” it outranked advice and counsel as an influence. ‘We hypothesized that ingratiation would have some effect,’ he says, ‘but didn’t think the magnitude would be as much as it was.’
... The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity?
-Francisco, Atlas Shrugged
**********************
No comments:
Post a Comment