I hate chameleons. You know who else hates chameleons? Everyone on my team. The key is to back up what you say with actions. That way if you talk too much like I do, you don't lose credibility. Actually, every person on my team rolls their eyes to managers or leads from other teams who don't back up their words with actions.
Now that I'm in a higher roll, I notice a lot of people who chameleon their ways right up the chain. They eventually hit the wall and it eventually becomes clear that they cannot perform. I usually tell them directly, which may make me a bit of a jerk, but I prefer to receive direct criticism so I can respond by working on my skill sets. The article is telling its readers to play the game, but putting effort into being a manipulator is bad advice.
but putting effort into being a manipulator is bad advice.
And yet, I've seen many manipulators/jerks in high/very high positions in places I've worked (and nice people too). I've also seen people who've hit the wall simply move to other companies and rinse/repeat until they hit the wall in the new place.
Everyone knows manipulating is wrong, but some embrace it and make it work for them. It sucks, but it also works, otherwise so many people wouldn't doing it.
You are right. This is what gets me. There is way to be political without being a complete liar, which is what this article purports to be the correct approach. Honesty is rewarded with loyalty.
You are conflating "self-monitoring" with "not actually doing the work."
When you are a chameleon who actually does the work, you're a charismatic and effective employee/leader. When you're a chameleon who doesn't do the work, you're a bullshitter.
If you look at manuals on effective leadership, one of the first pieces of advice is to figure out each person's social style and engage them the way they prefer to interact. Being a chameleon of sorts is part of the skillset of an effective leader. (Specifically, referring to this: https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results)
In your classic case of a guy who tells one person one story and another person a different story, yeah, that's pretty disingenuous and makes that person untrustworthy.
However, for example, if you are a gay man in a community that isn't lgbt friendly, then misrepresenting your actual opinion on homosexuality becomes a matter of self preservation. As a minority, it's a pretty common experience to need to control your image carefully in small ways.
I personally wouldn't suggest pretending that your opinions are different for any reason. There is a way not to give your opinion without being disagreeable.
The article, however, suggests changing your deeds based on who you are interacting with. I see such behavior in management in my company here and there. I can't stand it. In my opinion, people who engage in such interaction are liars and impediments to success. I see them as a sort of optimized apathy. They say what everyone wants to hear and then they find a way to do almost no work. Or they promise things they never deliver. It creates bad culture because the people who actually do work watch and learn, then apply the same technique.
No, I am very neutral, but it's good to check myself. I just vent on HN. I believe the eye rolling is not just people in my group. It's a response to repeated promises that go unfulfilled. They are actually quite verbal about it too. I'm usually the one trying to calm the group, which is why I built up quite a bit of frustration about the topic.
"The key is to back up what you say with actions."
It sounds like you're describing someone who over-promises and under-delivers. Or manipulates.
The article is talking about someone who shifts social interaction styles depending on who they're talking to.
There might be some reason to bucket those things together because they both fall under the umbrella of being a people pleaser. But they're separable aspects of interaction.
In my own experience, people don't actually want other people to be authentic. They want people to simultaneously be a personality type they already like (or, in work environments, expect), and exude an aura of authenticity. I've acted exactly what comes naturally to me in the past, and after hearing through the grapevine what people thought of me realized I can never be myself at work.
Over the course of one meeting, I came across as a "turbo-autist" to one person, and a "brogrammer douche" to someone from a different team. Now I give people what they want, not what they say they want, and certainly never myself. I hate it, but it's the only successful work social strategy I've found for stuck-up offices. At least until I locate the other easygoing people.
"Tech" has become very tightly wound about acceptable personality types and professionalism. My roommate works a less-glamorous job in a industry that isn't full of itself. Unsurprisingly, they're much chiller people. We go to the bar with way more of his coworkers than mine.
I understand the behavioral part of the article. The part that gets me is "...call for acting and self-presentational skills that favour people who change their deeds to fit the situation." The part about changing your deeds to fit the situation looks to me like lying and manipulating to get what you want.
There's no such thing as "your true self". Personalities are naturally multi-dimensional and depend on context and who's present. But, we like consistent people because it means less guesswork.
I tend to play a role at work. I try to be professional (avoid politics, be polite, friendly, helpful, kind) because that's the context - you're there to work with other people so you put them first.
17 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 44.5 ms ] threadNow that I'm in a higher roll, I notice a lot of people who chameleon their ways right up the chain. They eventually hit the wall and it eventually becomes clear that they cannot perform. I usually tell them directly, which may make me a bit of a jerk, but I prefer to receive direct criticism so I can respond by working on my skill sets. The article is telling its readers to play the game, but putting effort into being a manipulator is bad advice.
And yet, I've seen many manipulators/jerks in high/very high positions in places I've worked (and nice people too). I've also seen people who've hit the wall simply move to other companies and rinse/repeat until they hit the wall in the new place.
Everyone knows manipulating is wrong, but some embrace it and make it work for them. It sucks, but it also works, otherwise so many people wouldn't doing it.
When you are a chameleon who actually does the work, you're a charismatic and effective employee/leader. When you're a chameleon who doesn't do the work, you're a bullshitter.
If you look at manuals on effective leadership, one of the first pieces of advice is to figure out each person's social style and engage them the way they prefer to interact. Being a chameleon of sorts is part of the skillset of an effective leader. (Specifically, referring to this: https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results)
In your classic case of a guy who tells one person one story and another person a different story, yeah, that's pretty disingenuous and makes that person untrustworthy.
However, for example, if you are a gay man in a community that isn't lgbt friendly, then misrepresenting your actual opinion on homosexuality becomes a matter of self preservation. As a minority, it's a pretty common experience to need to control your image carefully in small ways.
The article, however, suggests changing your deeds based on who you are interacting with. I see such behavior in management in my company here and there. I can't stand it. In my opinion, people who engage in such interaction are liars and impediments to success. I see them as a sort of optimized apathy. They say what everyone wants to hear and then they find a way to do almost no work. Or they promise things they never deliver. It creates bad culture because the people who actually do work watch and learn, then apply the same technique.
> Actually, every person on my team rolls their eyes [...]
Are you sure they're not just mimicking you?
... to fit in?
(Just in case it's somehow unclear, I'm being entirely tongue in cheek here, no hostility intended!)
It sounds like you're describing someone who over-promises and under-delivers. Or manipulates.
The article is talking about someone who shifts social interaction styles depending on who they're talking to.
There might be some reason to bucket those things together because they both fall under the umbrella of being a people pleaser. But they're separable aspects of interaction.
In my own experience, people don't actually want other people to be authentic. They want people to simultaneously be a personality type they already like (or, in work environments, expect), and exude an aura of authenticity. I've acted exactly what comes naturally to me in the past, and after hearing through the grapevine what people thought of me realized I can never be myself at work.
Over the course of one meeting, I came across as a "turbo-autist" to one person, and a "brogrammer douche" to someone from a different team. Now I give people what they want, not what they say they want, and certainly never myself. I hate it, but it's the only successful work social strategy I've found for stuck-up offices. At least until I locate the other easygoing people.
"Tech" has become very tightly wound about acceptable personality types and professionalism. My roommate works a less-glamorous job in a industry that isn't full of itself. Unsurprisingly, they're much chiller people. We go to the bar with way more of his coworkers than mine.
TLDR: Develop your eccentricities.
I tend to play a role at work. I try to be professional (avoid politics, be polite, friendly, helpful, kind) because that's the context - you're there to work with other people so you put them first.