Are we done with championing "authenticity", then?
For many, cynicsm at work is the authentic expression of their relationship to work: it's required to make the world go around and pay one's bills, but a lot of the work that needs doing isn't glamorous, efficient, stimulating, or enriching. It just needs doing, by someone who's willing to do it.
Being "a cynic" can indeed hold one back from other opportunities, but maybe those other opportunities aren't that appealing to the "cynic" either?
Is it okay for people to just be themselves, do what needs doing, and then go home to a life one prefers?
Toxic positivity is just as bad as toxic negativity.
Cynicism seems to fall under toxic negativity, in that it presumes negative intent before even finding out if it's true.
I think the article suggests being willing to find out, and take a stand towards choosing to influence your immediate circle to be allies, comrades, amongst fellow "soldiers in the trenches together," rather than just assuming everyone's in it for themselves and therefore there's no point in giving effort to be human towards one another.
I do like what the author says at the end, that even if our influence may seem tiny and insignificant, that it has impact if we notice.
I do think cynicism can be cancerous. I don't equate cynicism with a realistic assessment of an actually bad situation (which is where toxic positivity will want to bypass, brush it under the rug, stick their head in the sand, etc.).
> Have we taken our cynicism at work too far?
> In some ways, our bad attitude makes sense. Many of us made work our church, only to end up laid off, burned out or underpaid. Now we check out, do less, gossip and snark.
To me, this fundamentally isn't cynicism - it's burnout. Perhaps one could argue, cynicism is burnout on a longer time scale.
If you call someone a cynic, most won't really understand; mildly offended. But when you identify it as "it looks like you burnt out 10 years ago in that project at XYZ and never recovered". I really identify with that.
Humans are weird creatures and "undoing" internal narratives we've built for ourselves is very hard.
you should be a cynic without being cynical (that means be pleasant, happy and indifferent to the outrages of fortune you will encounter) and understand where your company is in the MacLeod Life Cycle:
As long as corporate structures are set up to pit people against each other, the cynicism will be hard to abandon.
I understand that corporations rely on people collaborating and working together to generate output - but the onus is on corporations to set up the right structures, not on employees.
The title sounded condescending. But the overall theme seems to be that we must not lose trust in others since it may be better for us professionally. I think it is also better for us psychologically.
Readit News
For many, cynicsm at work is the authentic expression of their relationship to work: it's required to make the world go around and pay one's bills, but a lot of the work that needs doing isn't glamorous, efficient, stimulating, or enriching. It just needs doing, by someone who's willing to do it.
Being "a cynic" can indeed hold one back from other opportunities, but maybe those other opportunities aren't that appealing to the "cynic" either?
Is it okay for people to just be themselves, do what needs doing, and then go home to a life one prefers?
Toxic positivity is just as bad as toxic negativity.
Cynicism seems to fall under toxic negativity, in that it presumes negative intent before even finding out if it's true.
I think the article suggests being willing to find out, and take a stand towards choosing to influence your immediate circle to be allies, comrades, amongst fellow "soldiers in the trenches together," rather than just assuming everyone's in it for themselves and therefore there's no point in giving effort to be human towards one another.
I do like what the author says at the end, that even if our influence may seem tiny and insignificant, that it has impact if we notice.
I do think cynicism can be cancerous. I don't equate cynicism with a realistic assessment of an actually bad situation (which is where toxic positivity will want to bypass, brush it under the rug, stick their head in the sand, etc.).
To me, this fundamentally isn't cynicism - it's burnout. Perhaps one could argue, cynicism is burnout on a longer time scale.
If you call someone a cynic, most won't really understand; mildly offended. But when you identify it as "it looks like you burnt out 10 years ago in that project at XYZ and never recovered". I really identify with that.
Humans are weird creatures and "undoing" internal narratives we've built for ourselves is very hard.
Largely agree with the rest of the article.
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
Ahem. The preferred nomenclature is "Founder" and "Founding Engineers".
I understand that corporations rely on people collaborating and working together to generate output - but the onus is on corporations to set up the right structures, not on employees.
And actually, as I said, in another comment, I think it borders on telling people they need to become sociopaths.
Dead Comment