However, I feel like I've been meeting more people in the workplace who read articles like this and implement it in a robotic, forced manner. Like they're using it as a tool to get what they want out of others, as opposed to a genuine expression of how they feel. Genuine gratitude goes much further than just going through the motions because an online article said it was a good thing to do.
It works so well for them because it's extremely hard to peak behind the curtain. You only notice that the other person isn't for real when you see a pattern of actions and results that somehow only ever benefits them. That's when I wisened up to people who use love/etc. as weapons. I think it's almost psychotic how it presents itself in people who subscribe to that because it's a total corruption of the original meaning of the word but on its surface it's the perfect mimic. They act loving, they act gracious 100% of the time. However here is the kicker: They lovingly and graciously evade the outcome or action if there is no benefit for them or work for them to do with no clear upside for them. Suddenly they have all kinds of good excuses why this isn't the right time right now. Suddenly when you realize this pattern, you realize that you are not dealing with a real loving person, you are dealing with someone that uses the skin of love as a mantle.
"1 Corinthians 13:4-8 NIV
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. "
I think 2 obvious bits of this missing when people fake it are "it is not self-seeking" (just like you said) and "rejoices with the truth". I don't think it's that hard to tell, or rather, if its hard to tell if someone is being loving or not, then unfortunately they probably aren't.
My 2p.. YMMV etc ...
Why the moral judgments on positive or negative? They both have their place. It’s the moralizing of positive or negative that causes problems in society.
And yes, I blame social media because advertisers love focusing on just the positive and not the negative.
But "we can't express negativity whatsoever, we must express that everything is totally fine even when we're wading through shit" is its own kind of horrible.
Toxic positivity is "all criticism is negative, therefore no criticism".
An excolleague of mine was a "happiness engineer" at a FAANG-esque firm, we discussed the pros and cons of ensuring positive communication is demonstrated in all echelons of the business. We were delighted knowing that although discontent existed in some engineers, the mandatory happiness messaging prevented them from gaining any real traction and material support from the rest of the business, since that goes against the business culture.
Thus, the problematic engineers could be dealt with and removed with minimal impact on the morale and reputation of the company.
I don't agree that a negative outlook should automatically dismiss someone or their ideas. That's seriously crazy toxic. Some of the best work comes from frustration and it's totally worth it to dig into that resource when you have problems being swept under the rug by maliciously cheery people.
From the FAQ. I'm entirely aware what I was replying to may have been satire, but I don't care. What's it worth to you?
Although at first it may seem awfully bleak, but one must consider the broader implication of maintaining a culture harmony and stability, especially for larger companies in the age of social media, where a small group of disgruntled individual contributors can cause significant reputation damage.
Happy to discuss this further, I am interested in your views too. There could also be a cultural difference as I've mostly worked in India and the Middle East.
In that case, the goal of the business or corporation or organization is not to make money, it's to create those services/products. Making money along the way is then seen only as an organization tool that allows you to build those services/products by coordinating technology, material, labor etc.
The reward is not the pile of money that you can run off to some Shangri-la with and enjoy a few more years of luxury or whatever, it's seeing the thing you built take form.
This notion might seem alien to our hyper-financialized modern economy (which seems suicidally foolish to me), but this is how industrialists in past eras often thought, and is not entirely unheard of today, either.
This is being stated as if it's some kind of universal law of physics, when it's as far from that as it can be. Modern society is built on past businesses, corporations and managers who did not have those end goals and objectives.
Can you give an example of "mandatory happiness messaging"? What does a structured program for that look like?
I’m pretty sure it’s what triggered an anxiety breakdown for me from having to pretend spending 6 hours a day dealing with broken backend systems and spreadsheets is sparking uncontrollable joy at all times.
"So, do you charge extra for single-sign on?"
Yea. Wow. Great question. Many of our customers have asked...
Atlassian: not even then!
By the time I had come up with some kind of answer they had already passed me by. I didn't realize I was supposed to answer by asking the same question from them, or some slight variation thereof.
I have a Peruvian friend who had a similar experience. He would relate that when you would ask someone in his country how they’re doing, it was expected that that would be the beginning of a (possibly brief, but probably not so brief) discussion.
I explained it means, essentially, what's up.
If you bumped into a pal and said 'sup and he then went on to explain his day at length that would be weird, right?
American and English, it's almost the same language.
Person C : "How's Person V doing?" Me : "Sadly he had to go back to India 'cos his Dad died" Person C: "Oh, cool, cool"
What the .... ? Person C clearly wasn't listening , I don't think he meant to be quite so uncaring.. maybe I wasn't meant to actually answer the question....
But I also suspect it's him building a framework for genuine connection, even if it's templated.
(That is an old-folks joke; you'll just have to duck-duck it.)