Weird.
So, we had a retirement party for a woman that was forced to retire for medical/age reasons (which is...awkward at best anyhow...), and during this, a previous co-worker, whom I help out on occasion with various problems, leans over and quietly remarks that she (and most of my previous team) thought that I should have gotten the promotion I wrote about not too long ago. Apparently, the one whom did is "not doing so hot" and I "seemed like the best candidate."
Now, this confuses me on multiple levels. For starters, I most likely didn't get the promotion because I told the truth; that, yes, I would have some social difficulties which might get in the way. Of course, I can't really say this to my co-workers, due to it basically sounding like I'm snooty or whatever (for some reason, humility-esque things are very seldom recognized in a "competitive" environment). Secondly, I thought all three of us were equally good candidates, some for different reasons than other; and honestly, I feel that the "winner" was chosen very well based upon (hopefully) the best characteristics. Thirdly, I really don't like "office politics" at all. It really seemed like this co-worker was sneaking around behind the "winner"'s back, and I was a bit put off.
As I did before, I responded with (hopefully) a smile, and a polite "thank you." without actually going so far as to voice my opinion on the matter (that the "winner" really was a good candidate).
The most unusual thing in all of this is that my honesty seems to be interpreted more as a negative thing than if I had lied. "Reality" isn't a negative thing. "Limitations" are limitations, and should be judged appropriately. I'm sure I could have done fine in the position, but the other two candidates really did possess a better grip on the primary focus of the promotive job ("communication"), and, for some reason, I don't feel it's appropriate to mention this publicly. I wonder if it's just the learned knowledge of the "typical" reactions speaking up, or something else--perhaps something similar to "human nature"?
Is "honesty" and "reality" really negative? Or, is it a social construct that we cannot ever admit weakness? It isn't that weakness, in and of itself, is a horrible thing. We all have it in differing quantities, just as we have strengths that we play upon each and every day. We'll typically attempt to "work on" weakness, in order to bolster it, but should it supercede some unquantified margin, it is no longer "weakness" and something else takes its place. The acknowledgment of said "weaknesses" isn't something we should be ashamed of, or punished for doing. It's difficult honesty such as this admission that could separate a good candidate (e.g., "truth") from a bad candidate (e.g., "liar"), and frankly, some jobs simply cannot tolerate some levels of weaknesses--they're simply much too important to exaggerate at all upon.
To this end, is essentially my modus operandi: I acknowledge my weak points rather freely, just as I accept my strengths. Somehow, that's less desirable, when, in fact, it should be more desirable. I sincerely doubt I'll ever be able to change this portion of my personality, in some deep-seated respects--it's simply a matter of some factoring of my various other traits in such a way that makes it virtually impossible (of, extraordinarily difficult) to lie in important situations.
I may have to settle on being "second best," but that honestly is not such a bad proposition. Good decisions are more important than personal aggrandizement.
Now, this confuses me on multiple levels. For starters, I most likely didn't get the promotion because I told the truth; that, yes, I would have some social difficulties which might get in the way. Of course, I can't really say this to my co-workers, due to it basically sounding like I'm snooty or whatever (for some reason, humility-esque things are very seldom recognized in a "competitive" environment). Secondly, I thought all three of us were equally good candidates, some for different reasons than other; and honestly, I feel that the "winner" was chosen very well based upon (hopefully) the best characteristics. Thirdly, I really don't like "office politics" at all. It really seemed like this co-worker was sneaking around behind the "winner"'s back, and I was a bit put off.
As I did before, I responded with (hopefully) a smile, and a polite "thank you." without actually going so far as to voice my opinion on the matter (that the "winner" really was a good candidate).
The most unusual thing in all of this is that my honesty seems to be interpreted more as a negative thing than if I had lied. "Reality" isn't a negative thing. "Limitations" are limitations, and should be judged appropriately. I'm sure I could have done fine in the position, but the other two candidates really did possess a better grip on the primary focus of the promotive job ("communication"), and, for some reason, I don't feel it's appropriate to mention this publicly. I wonder if it's just the learned knowledge of the "typical" reactions speaking up, or something else--perhaps something similar to "human nature"?
Is "honesty" and "reality" really negative? Or, is it a social construct that we cannot ever admit weakness? It isn't that weakness, in and of itself, is a horrible thing. We all have it in differing quantities, just as we have strengths that we play upon each and every day. We'll typically attempt to "work on" weakness, in order to bolster it, but should it supercede some unquantified margin, it is no longer "weakness" and something else takes its place. The acknowledgment of said "weaknesses" isn't something we should be ashamed of, or punished for doing. It's difficult honesty such as this admission that could separate a good candidate (e.g., "truth") from a bad candidate (e.g., "liar"), and frankly, some jobs simply cannot tolerate some levels of weaknesses--they're simply much too important to exaggerate at all upon.
To this end, is essentially my modus operandi: I acknowledge my weak points rather freely, just as I accept my strengths. Somehow, that's less desirable, when, in fact, it should be more desirable. I sincerely doubt I'll ever be able to change this portion of my personality, in some deep-seated respects--it's simply a matter of some factoring of my various other traits in such a way that makes it virtually impossible (of, extraordinarily difficult) to lie in important situations.
I may have to settle on being "second best," but that honestly is not such a bad proposition. Good decisions are more important than personal aggrandizement.