Individuality and teamwork. Opposition?

[psyche101]

Hi all

 

@LightAngel put up a George Carlin quote and it got me thinking. I quite like a lot of what Carlin has to say, but I think some quotes are controversial and even anti social.

One such quote:

“I don’t like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: “Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you: ‘There is no “I” in team.’ What you should tell them is: ‘Maybe not. But there is an “I” in independence, individuality, and integrity.’”

 

Personally, I don't see team players as in anyway wrong, two heads are better than one and all that. And most people I have met without integrity tend to be outside of the corporate machine. Corporations are held to a lot of standards and laws, and are often held accountable for their actions. 

Flag wavers? How is that akin to arss kissing, team players site, that's patriotism, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'd there a context that makes sense of this quote? It sounds bitter I thought. 

What are your thoughts?

[Golden Duck]

20 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Hi all

 

@LightAngel put up a George Carlin quote and it got me thinking. I quite like a lot of what Carlin has to say, but I think some quotes are controversial and even anti social.

One such quote:

“I don’t like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: “Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you: ‘There is no “I” in team.’ What you should tell them is: ‘Maybe not. But there is an “I” in independence, individuality, and integrity.’”

 

Personally, I don't see team players as in anyway wrong, two heads are better than one and all that. And most people I have met without integrity tend to be outside of the corporate machine. Corporations are held to a lot of standards and laws, and are often held accountable for their actions. 

Flag wavers? How is that akin to arss kissing, team players site, that's patriotism, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'd there a context that makes sense of this quote? It sounds bitter I thought. 

What are your thoughts?

A comedian/comic espousing an ideological and stereotypical cohort that comprises comedians and comics.  Dave Chappelle says similar things, but says he's wrong in a way that portray's him to be right and ultimately can demonstrate that he walked away from 50 million dollars.  Here Carlin seems to be heaping praise on himself or kissing his own ass.

It's only the most rarely talented that can truly make it without the assistance of a mentor or sponsor.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Golden Duck

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

A comedian/comic espousing an ideological and stereotypical cohort that comprises comedians and comics.  Dave Chappelle says similar things, but says he's wrong in a way that portray's him to be right and ultimately can demeonstrate that walked away from 50 million dollars.  Here Carlin seems to be heaping praise on himself or kissing his own ass.

It's only the most rarely talented that can truly make it without the assistance of a mentor or sponsor.

Well said. 

I hadn't picked up on that, rather ironic that 

I think quotes like this send a very confusing message. 

The one lightangel posted

 

What do you make of that?

[Golden Duck]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well said. 

I hadn't picked up on that, rather ironic that 

I think quotes like this send a very confusing message. 

The one lightangel posted

 

What do you make of that?

It could easily describe someone who never finishes stuff.  But, I'd guess it's a salute to an idealised vision of his early life.  Does he really expect us to believe that he never bent his will during his film and television career?

These aphorisms from comedians are more just pithing in the wind.

 

[eight bits]

It is maybe an American thing. There is a balance to be struck between individuality and collective cohesion. That's the human condition. But there is no dominant monolithic shared culture here.

I would propose looking at Carlin as a skeptic who was madly in love with language. Skeptical of everything. So I look at

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

“I don’t like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: “Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you: ‘There is no “I” in team.’ What you should tell them is: ‘Maybe not. But there is an “I” in independence, individuality, and integrity.’”

and I don't read "avoid teamwork," I read "beware of individuals who exploit the ethos of teamwork for their own selfish gain."

There was plenty of teamwork in the cover-up of clergy sex abuse. It's hard to believe that everybody who went along with that was evil (and think how many people that had to have been, over and above the abusers, who went along). Maybe some of them even saw that the institution ("the team") would be better served by behaving lawfully. But, I suspect, more than once, somebody in the hierarchy suggested "We need to call the police," and somebody else in the hierarchy pointed out that there is no I in team. (Not an anti-Catholic example, we have a prominent Protestant denomination here in the US recently embroiled in the same crap ... and not a pass for the police, either; they've been known to "cover" for one another, too, for the "team.")

Carlin knew first-hand how many people it takes to publish a book, press a record or produce a television or stage show. He knew the upside of teamwork.

A fanboy's 2 cents.

 

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Hi all

@LightAngel put up a George Carlin quote and it got me thinking. I quite like a lot of what Carlin has to say, but I think some quotes are controversial and even anti social.

One such quote:

“I don’t like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: “Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you: ‘There is no “I” in team.’ What you should tell them is: ‘Maybe not. But there is an “I” in independence, individuality, and integrity.’”

Personally, I don't see team players as in anyway wrong, two heads are better than one and all that. And most people I have met without integrity tend to be outside of the corporate machine. Corporations are held to a lot of standards and laws, and are often held accountable for their actions. 

Flag wavers? How is that akin to arss kissing, team players site, that's patriotism, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'd there a context that makes sense of this quote? It sounds bitter I thought. 

What are your thoughts?

Most people in management positions dont have high level business qualifications meaning they dont know what they are doing.

When it comes to recruitment a qualified manager assesses the personality type of the job applicant to make sure they will fit in the position they are trying to fill. A common approach is to use the OCEAN model which stands for the following:

Openness: Is the job applicant open or closed minded? 

Conscientiousness: Does the job applicant have low or high self-discipline?

Extraversion: Is the job applicant introverted or extroverted?

Agreeableness: Is the job applicant pro-social or anti-social?

Neuroticism: Does the job applicant struggle to regulate their emotions or perceptions?

Team players are people who can work with others effectively. Using the above criteria they are people with high agreeableness (they are pro-social) and low neuroticism (they can regulate their emotions and perceptions). Anti-social and neurotic applicants cause conflict in the work place, they damage their relationships with other people, they dont treat others correctly, and they bully people. It is these people that do not make good team players.

Individualism indicates high extraversion and low neuroticism (they have high self-confidence). It has nothing to do with whether a job applicant is a team player or not, but they usually are good team players because they dont project an inability to regulate their emotions and perceptions onto their work colleagues. With high extraversion a job applicant is also likely to get involved innovating and taking onboard projects to improve how things are done inside the workplace. With their high self-confidence they are likely to be able to stand out from the crowd too and resist group think. 

Hence individuals are normally leaders, rather than herd members.

I use the phrase herd members because when individualism is frowned upon at a business it usually indicates negative office politics going on to eliminate the people who might shine in their jobs. For people who are too weak to lead, to show any original thought, to stand out from the crowd, then in order to get somewhere they eliminate the actual talent. And when investigated from a psychological perspective, its actually them not the individuals that are the poor team players.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Cookie Monster

[Tatetopa]

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

and I don't read "avoid teamwork," I read "beware of individuals who exploit the ethos of teamwork for their own selfish gain."

That was my interpretation too.  Those that pretend gung-ho team spirit and those that are flag wavers may not be honest and sincere, just using the trappings to get what they want. 

I think that there is a Bible verse about those that pray loudly and beat their breast in public as often being hypocrits.

If someone tells me to take one for the team, I wonder if that means take one for them.

I like a lot of George Carlin, but not everything.  

[Tatetopa]

13 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Individualism indicates high extraversion and low neuroticism (they have high self-confidence). It has nothing to do with whether a job applicant is a team player or not, but they usually are good team players because they dont project an inability to regulate their emotions and perceptions onto their work colleagues. With high extraversion a job applicant is also likely to get involved innovating and taking onboard projects to improve how things are done inside the workplace. With their high self-confidence they are likely to be able to stand out from the crowd too and resist group think. 

Hence individuals are normally leaders, rather than herd members.

I use the phrase herd members because when individualism is frowned upon at a business it usually indicates negative office politics going on to eliminate the people who might shine in their jobs. For people who are too weak to lead, to show any original thought, to stand out from the crowd, then in order to get somewhere they eliminate the actual talent. And when investigated from a psychological perspective, its actually them not the individuals that are the poor team players.

Individuals may indeed not be good herd members, but often they are not good leaders either.

[psyche101]

On 5/7/2020 at 8:22 PM, eight bits said:

It is maybe an American thing. There is a balance to be struck between individuality and collective cohesion. That's the human condition. But there is no dominant monolithic shared culture here.

I have to say I've noticed a strong individual streak on some of the posters in the US section of the forum. I know it's not enough to call that a common sentiment, but I'm pretty sure I know what you mean. That's sort of what's prompting my curiosity here. I get the impression that a lot of people would fly that flag literally. 

On 5/7/2020 at 8:22 PM, eight bits said:

I would propose looking at Carlin as a skeptic who was madly in love with language. Skeptical of everything. So I look at

and I don't read "avoid teamwork," I read "beware of individuals who exploit the ethos of teamwork for their own selfish gain."

I'm honestly struggling to see that. Perhaps if I was more familiar with his shows? When he says he hates team players and champions individuals who buck the system, he seems to at least literally be advocating individual rebellion? 

On 5/7/2020 at 8:22 PM, eight bits said:

There was plenty of teamwork in the cover-up of clergy sex abuse. It's hard to believe that everybody who went along with that was evil (and think how many people that had to have been, over and above the abusers, who went along). Maybe some of them even saw that the institution ("the team") would be better served by behaving lawfully. But, I suspect, more than once, somebody in the hierarchy suggested "We need to call the police," and somebody else in the hierarchy pointed out that there is no I in team. (Not an anti-Catholic example, we have a prominent Protestant denomination here in the US recently embroiled in the same crap ... and not a pass for the police, either; they've been known to "cover" for one another, too, for the "team.")

That's true (  at the team)  but teams bring them undone too. 

On 5/7/2020 at 8:22 PM, eight bits said:

Carlin knew first-hand how many people it takes to publish a book, press a record or produce a television or stage show. He knew the upside of teamwork.

I'm also guessing my experience with big business in construction is pretty different to what he is referring to. I'm used to big business environments that rely on results and teamwork. My little sister worked for an international construction corporation and reflects the same literal sense I read Carlin's quote in, that being don't trust large companies, yet I've found the very opposite in my experience. I suppose I hear a fair bit about it, so I took it to mean what I'm hearing in real life and on these boards. 

On 5/7/2020 at 8:22 PM, eight bits said:

A fanboy's 2 cents.

Appreciated bro. Cheers.

[Duke Wellington]

@psyche101

Businesses benefit the most when they give their employees enough freedom to innovate in their jobs and make improvements to existing operations. Obviously, some controls need to be maintained to keep what emerges being aligned with an organisations best interests and goals.Therefore businesses need and benefit from employing individuals who can stand out from the crowd instead of following along and agreeing with everyone else.

Individualism itself isn't a bad thing and doesnt mean someone cannot work with other people. Yes some are morons, but many are normal, and some an organisations future leaders. When a business has morons working for it then its a failure of their recruitment procedures and an inability of the management team to have in place those controls needed to prevent their dysfunctional behaviour.

You can spot if an organisation has problems with this the moment you start there and see what the managers are like. The wrong people in management positions have to make everything about them so they overly control their workers. As a result they dont keep their talent.

Individualism is why Western Economies are wealthier than their counterparts. Our societies do what businesses do in that they give their peoples enough freedom so they can innovate and decide what they want to do in their lives. When a business doesnt give its employees that freedom, and when a state doesnt give its population that freedom, you end up with an economically backwards nation. This is why liberal democracies are economically the most successful.

They have the highest levels of innovation.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Cookie Monster

[Timothy]

On 5/7/2020 at 6:53 PM, psyche101 said:

Hi all

 

@LightAngel put up a George Carlin quote and it got me thinking. I quite like a lot of what Carlin has to say, but I think some quotes are controversial and even anti social.

One such quote:

“I don’t like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: “Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you: ‘There is no “I” in team.’ What you should tell them is: ‘Maybe not. But there is an “I” in independence, individuality, and integrity.’”

*snip*

My few cents. 

Integrity is the only important word in that quote.

Every job I’ve worked from McDonalds as teenager to ATC has had pockets of culture unwilling or resistant to change.

I’ve always pushed for things to be done right/more efficiently .

I’ve purposely worked many unpaid hours to improve efficiency/remove deficiencies etc. That’s Mcdonalds, Woolworths, ANZ, etc. etc. It’s been a similar experience with other more critical entities 

Team players and individualists can work in the right environments. 

Time for bed for now. But see how things go!

[littlebrowndragon]

On 5/7/2020 at 9:53 AM, psyche101 said:

One such quote:

“I don’t like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: “Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you: ‘There is no “I” in team.’ What you should tell them is: ‘Maybe not. But there is an “I” in independence, individuality, and integrity.’”

What are your thoughts?

"There is no "I" in team"?  What planet does that man live on?   I've played plenty team sports and worked in plenty of teams and one thing is for sure: there are always, ALWAYS plenty of "I"s - otherwise known as prima donnas - in teams!  There's the person who wont let anyone else get a word in edgeways during team meetings or there's the "team" player who hogs the ball and wont pass it to another team member, even if that team member is standing in a prime position to score and is unmarked.  

Actually, this man flatters himself if he thinks he, himself, is an individual.  He is a "disrupter", and there are plenty of such people about.  So, no individual he.  Indeed, a truly independent person may, in fact, choose NOT to buck the system.  On the other hand, they may chose to do so.  The point about being an individual is that one does not do knee-jerk reactions.  Being an individual means that one makes choices and that one does not always behave in the same way under different situations.

Quote

Flag wavers? How is that akin to arss kissing, team players site, that's patriotism, but I don't see anything wrong with that

I do not necessarily think that flag waving, or patriotism, is "arss licking".  People flag wave, I think, because the powerful in society encourage it; patriotism is a means of emotionally manipulating the masses.  For example, how else could the powerful in society get the masses to suffer conscription and possible death during war time?  How else could the powerful impose a covid-19 lockdown on citizens i.e. take away even more of their freedom, if not by using emotional manipulation e.g. fear?

 

[Duke Wellington]

On 5/8/2020 at 1:07 PM, Timothy said:

My few cents. 

Integrity is the only important word in that quote.

Every job I’ve worked from McDonalds as teenager to ATC has had pockets of culture unwilling or resistant to change.

I’ve always pushed for things to be done right/more efficiently .

I’ve purposely worked many unpaid hours to improve efficiency/remove deficiencies etc. That’s Mcdonalds, Woolworths, ANZ, etc. etc. It’s been a similar experience with other more critical entities 

Team players and individualists can work in the right environments. 

Time for bed for now. But see how things go!

You need to read up on a specialised business science topic called Change Management.

The aim is to create a sense of urgency for change (your jobs are at risk speech, etc), to constant be on it (constantly telling them that unless significant change happens their jobs are gone), and crucially to adopt an authoritarian leadership style.

If you watch Gordon Ramsey on his Kitchen Nightmares he is authoritarian. That is not the way to behave towards employees most of the time. The reason being is it makes them feel stressed, angry, and resentful. The way it makes them feel damages communication, team work, motivation levels, causes conflict, and ends up resulting in them quitting. But there are times as a manager/leader you have to be like that. 

To Drive Through Change: You have to lay down the law and show them who is boss. You dont take any BS, any excuses, its your way or the highway. With those still resistant shout and yell at them, give them warnings, and sack them. They either fall into place or they are gone.

To Establish Discipline: We have all worked in offices with negative personality types which have a manager that doesnt deal with it. It degrades the team over time causing poor communication, poor team work, conflict, and a high turn over of staff. What is crucial for the manager to understand is that its occurring because they let the negative side of human nature exist on their team. They have to lay down the law and show the culprits who is boss. No BS, no excuses, there are standards to behaviour to follow and if they dont they are for it. 1st time a speaking too, 2nd time a warning, 3rd time find a new job. Skip straight to number 3 if they threaten violence or become violent towards anyone.

[psyche101]

On 5/8/2020 at 9:37 PM, Cookie Monster said:

@psyche101

Businesses benefit the most when they give their employees enough freedom to innovate in their jobs and make improvements to existing operations. Obviously, some controls need to be maintained to keep what emerges being aligned with an organisations best interests and goals.Therefore businesses need and benefit from employing individuals who can stand out from the crowd instead of following along and agreeing with everyone else.

Individualism itself isn't a bad thing and doesnt mean someone cannot work with other people. Yes some are morons, but many are normal, and some an organisations future leaders. When a business has morons working for it then its a failure of their recruitment procedures and an inability of the management team to have in place those controls needed to prevent their dysfunctional behaviour.

You can spot if an organisation has problems with this the moment you start there and see what the managers are like. The wrong people in management positions have to make everything about them so they overly control their workers. As a result they dont keep their talent.

Individualism is why Western Economies are wealthier than their counterparts. Our societies do what businesses do in that they give their peoples enough freedom so they can innovate and decide what they want to do in their lives. When a business doesnt give its employees that freedom, and when a state doesnt give its population that freedom, you end up with an economically backwards nation. This is why liberal democracies are economically the most successful.

They have the highest levels of innovation.

Cheers thanks for your replies cm. 

I can see what you are saying, but I wouldn't call that a general rule. In every case, sure there's an exception, thats human nature, but I'm getting a bigger picture vibe from that quote. I have met a few people who do seem to think literally like that quote, and personally I see that as anti social and hindering the benefits of a collective. We made it this far because we relied on others. Using big business is an easy target for many to aim for as this sentiment exists that big business is just out for money. But that's why businesses exist in the first place. To get ahead, or just live a comfortable life. I think that's everyone's goal pretty much isn't it? We don't go to work to be nice, we go to work to pay bills. I'm fortunate in that I like my job, and being on the pointy end of the business where more money than I will ever see is negotiated, but margins are tight. The money is accounted for. It just seems like people taking that sentiment to heart are biting the hand that's feeding them? 

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

You need to read up on a specialised business science topic called Change Management.

The aim is to create a sense of urgency for change (your jobs are at risk speech, etc), to constant be on it (constantly telling them that unless significant change happens their jobs are gone), and crucially to adopt an authoritarian leadership style.

If you watch Gordon Ramsey on his Kitchen Nightmares he is authoritarian. That is not the way to behave towards employees most of the time. The reason being is it makes them feel stressed, angry, and resentful. The way it makes them feel damages communication, team work, motivation levels, causes conflict, and ends up resulting in them quitting. But there are times as a manager/leader you have to be like that. 

To Drive Through Change: You have to lay down the law and show them who is boss. You dont take any BS, any excuses, its your way or the highway. With those still resistant shout and yell at them, give them warnings, and sack them. They either fall into place or they are gone.

To Establish Discipline: We have all worked in offices with negative personality types which have a manager that doesnt deal with it. It degrades the team over time causing poor communication, poor team work, conflict, and a high turn over of staff. What is crucial for the manager to understand is that its occurring because they let the negative side of human nature exist on their team. They have to lay down the law and show the culprits who is boss. No BS, no excuses, there are standards to behaviour to follow and if they dont they are for it. 1st time a speaking too, 2nd time a warning, 3rd time find a new job. Skip straight to number 3 if they threaten violence or become violent towards anyone.

I find those sort of bosses have a high turnover of staff, which is something they in turn will have to explain down the track. 

[Duke Wellington]

12 hours ago, littlebrowndragon said:

"There is no "I" in team"?  What planet does that man live on?   I've played plenty team sports and worked in plenty of teams and one thing is for sure: there are always, ALWAYS plenty of "I"s - otherwise known as prima donnas - in teams!  There's the person who wont let anyone else get a word in edgeways during team meetings or there's the "team" player who hogs the ball and wont pass it to another team member, even if that team member is standing in a prime position to score and is unmarked.  

Actually, this man flatters himself if he thinks he, himself, is an individual.  He is a "disrupter", and there are plenty of such people about.  So, no individual he.  Indeed, a truly independent person may, in fact, choose NOT to buck the system.  On the other hand, they may chose to do so.  The point about being an individual is that one does not do knee-jerk reactions.  Being an individual means that one makes choices and that one does not always behave in the same way under different situations.

I do not necessarily think that flag waving, or patriotism, is "arss licking".  People flag wave, I think, because the powerful in society encourage it; patriotism is a means of emotionally manipulating the masses.  For example, how else could the powerful in society get the masses to suffer conscription and possible death during war time?  How else could the powerful impose a covid-19 lockdown on citizens i.e. take away even more of their freedom, if not by using emotional manipulation e.g. fear?

You are confusing individualism with psychological problems.

If you read back up to my OCEAN criteria then people who dont obey social norms are disagreeable in nature (they have low agreeableness). People who cannot cope unless they are the one speaking, unless they are the centre of attention, unless they are the best at everything, have high neuroticism.

Those with high disagreeableness and high neuroticism dont make good employees. It has nothing to do with being a team player or individual. They have issues going on.

[Duke Wellington]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I find those sort of bosses have a high turnover of staff, which is something they in turn will have to explain down the track. 

If you actually read what I wrote it tells you that authoritarian leadership styles shouldn't be used most of the time because amongst other effects it causes a high turnover of staff. But that they are certain times when it should be used.

Driving change, establishing discipline, and also dealing with emergency situations where immediate compliance is needed to stop someone being seriously hurt (like the fire brigade or the military).

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Cookie Monster said:

If you actually read what I wrote it tells you that authoritarian leadership styles shouldn't be used most of the time because amongst other effects it causes a high turnover of staff. But that they are certain times when it should be used.

Driving change, establishing discipline, and also dealing with emergency situations where immediate compliance is needed to stop someone being seriously hurt (like the fire brigade or the military).

But do you think that applies to the quote? I'm not getting that specific direction from it. Note just a don't confirm, buck the system deal. 

I don't agree that authoritarian initiatives are required, or the best method. For instance, where I work we don't recognise a hierarchy, we recognise roles. I find involving others results in a better outcome every time. When all contribute to an idea, not only are parameters expanded but people are more open to that change having had input. 

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, littlebrowndragon said:

"There is no "I" in team"?  What planet does that man live on?   I've played plenty team sports and worked in plenty of teams and one thing is for sure: there are always, ALWAYS plenty of "I"s - otherwise known as prima donnas - in teams!  There's the person who wont let anyone else get a word in edgeways during team meetings or there's the "team" player who hogs the ball and wont pass it to another team member, even if that team member is standing in a prime position to score and is unmarked.  

Actually, this man flatters himself if he thinks he, himself, is an individual.  He is a "disrupter", and there are plenty of such people about.  So, no individual he.  Indeed, a truly independent person may, in fact, choose NOT to buck the system.  On the other hand, they may chose to do so.  The point about being an individual is that one does not do knee-jerk reactions.  Being an individual means that one makes choices and that one does not always behave in the same way under different situations.

Well yes, that's exactly where I'm heading with this. At face value, it looks like a statement to incite people. As I mentioned above, business exists to make money. Expecting more than a fair days pay for a fair days work is unreasonable I find. I've often enjoyed Carlin's quotes, this one rather surprised me. 

12 hours ago, littlebrowndragon said:

I do not necessarily think that flag waving, or patriotism, is "arss licking".  People flag wave, I think, because the powerful in society encourage it; patriotism is a means of emotionally manipulating the masses.  For example, how else could the powerful in society get the masses to suffer conscription and possible death during war time?  How else could the powerful impose a covid-19 lockdown on citizens i.e. take away even more of their freedom, if not by using emotional manipulation e.g. fear?

 

When I see crowds I see and feel an energy like no other. The atmosphere of a crowd is often enticing and intoxicating. I don't think patriotism is a bad thing at all. There might be hypocrites in the crowd as Taetopa printed out earlier, but I really dont see that being the common sentiment.

[Duke Wellington]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Cheers thanks for your replies cm. 

I can see what you are saying, but I wouldn't call that a general rule. In every case, sure there's an exception, thats human nature, but I'm getting a bigger picture vibe from that quote. I have met a few people who do seem to think literally like that quote, and personally I see that as anti social and hindering the benefits of a collective. We made it this far because we relied on others. Using big business is an easy target for many to aim for as this sentiment exists that big business is just out for money. But that's why businesses exist in the first place. To get ahead, or just live a comfortable life. I think that's everyone's goal pretty much isn't it? We don't go to work to be nice, we go to work to pay bills. I'm fortunate in that I like my job, and being on the pointy end of the business where more money than I will ever see is negotiated, but margins are tight. The money is accounted for. It just seems like people taking that sentiment to heart are biting the hand that's feeding them? 

What are you going on about? Its business science and behavioural psychology.

People with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) have low agreeableness. The low agreeableness means they are angry, aggressive towards others, rude, abusive, selfish, self-centred, exploitative, and think they can do what they want with no consequences. 

Being a team player or individual has nothing to do with ASPD. Individualism is caused by having self-confidence and a strong enough character to stand out from the crowd by resisting social pressure. ASPD is caused by being abused by ones parents combined with not being socialised properly as a child and some bad genetics.

Something you often find is that ASPDs hate individuals. The reason being is they are selfish, self-centred, and what it to be all about them. So those who are self-confident and strong (aka, the talent at an organisation) get targeted by them.

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

What are you going on about? Its business science and behavioural psychology.

I'm obviously referring to personal experience.

Quote

People with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) have low agreeableness. The low agreeableness means they are angry, aggressive towards others, rude, abusive, selfish, self-centred, exploitative, and think they can do what they want with no consequences. 

Being a team player or individual has nothing to do with ASPD. Individualism is caused by having self-confidence and a strong enough character to stand out from the crowd by resisting social pressure. ASPD is caused by being abused by ones parents combined with not being socialised properly as a child and some bad genetics.

Something you often find is that ASPDs hate individuals. The reason being is they are selfish, self-centred, and what it to be all about them. So those who are self-confident and strong (aka, the talent at an organisation) get targeted by them.

So are you indicating this is why Carlin has made the statement, or why some fly such anti social slogans as a flag? 

Edited May 13, 2020 by psyche101

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

But do you think that applies to the quote? I'm not getting that specific direction from it. Note just a don't confirm, buck the system deal. 

I don't agree that authoritarian initiatives are required, or the best method. For instance, where I work we don't recognise a hierarchy, we recognise roles. I find involving others results in a better outcome every time. When all contribute to an idea, not only are parameters expanded but people are more open to that change having had input. 

No one has suggested that an authoritarian approach to leadership is right in most circumstances.

If you actually read what I wrote (and I am now saying that for a 2nd time), it tells you its the correct approach to use when establishing discipline, dealing with an emergency situation, or driving through change when there are resistant employees. If you dont read what I actually wrote this time you are going onto my ignore list.

There are four leadership styles found in businesses. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The best managers know all four including when and when not to use each.

Classical Approach: The leader is a strong, dominant, authoritarian character. They make the decisions, those decisions are implemented top down, and they expect everyone below them to follow. They take no BS and arent afraid of putting people in their place. Advantages: This type of leader is good at driving through change, establishing discipline, and dealing with emergency situations. Disadvantages: People on the receiving end of this approach to leadership experience stress, anger, and resentment. 

Evolutionary Approach: The leader is dominant, but gets their dominance through intellectual ability rather than strength of personality. As they have a superior intellect they make the decisions, they are implemented top down, and they expect everyone below to follow. Advantages: When a business has an intellectual in charge it leads to higher levels of innovation and better decision making. Disadvantages: Employees below the leader arent involved in innovation and decision making resulting in them feeling excluded and undervalued by the business.

Processual Approach: The leader has a weak personality type, seeks and needs approval from their employees, and therefore has to play politics in order to get things done. This makes it a bottom up approach to leadership Advantages: Those employees that belong to the `in favour` power block feel involved and valued by the business. They like the leader, enjoy working for them, and they have high levels of motivation. The leader is good at getting things done with the `in favour` power block. Disadvantages: Those out of favour feel excluded and undervalued. They perceive the leader as weak, incompetent, and corrupt, resulting in them becoming disillusioned. Decision making also suffers when good ideas are passed over to placate the `in favour` power block. And those `in favour` are often allowed to get away with bullying, dysfunctional behaviour, and BS.

Systemic Approach: This leader has a weak personality type where they seek and need approval from their employees. They are terrified of doing anything immoral, or upsetting anybody. This is a bottom up approach to leadership too. Advantages: Employees trust and have confidence in the leader to always do the right thing. They also like working for the business as they are looked after. Disadvantages: The leader cannot deal with discipline problems, drive through change, assert themselves, or handle emergency situations. They are too afraid of doing something immoral, or of upsetting someone.

So the best managers are those who juggle about all four approaches so they can use the best one for what they are trying to accomplish. We do not write off authoritarian leadership styles, there is a time and place for using the Classical Approach to leadership.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Cookie Monster

[Duke Wellington]

59 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm obviously referring to personal experience.

So are you indicating this is why Carlin has made the statement, or why some fly such anti social slogans as a flag? 

I`m saying that there is a cultural problem where the debate over team working versus individualism is seen as:

Team Working vs Personality Disorder

Individualism has nothing to do with personality disorder. Individuals are people who are self-confident and can resist social pressure to stand out from the crowd. A personality disorder is something completely different, and its actually the team players who have the highest chances of suffering from one.

[Timothy]

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

You need to read up on a specialised business science topic called Change Management.

The aim is to create a sense of urgency for change (your jobs are at risk speech, etc), to constant be on it (constantly telling them that unless significant change happens their jobs are gone), and crucially to adopt an authoritarian leadership style.

If you watch Gordon Ramsey on his Kitchen Nightmares he is authoritarian. That is not the way to behave towards employees most of the time. The reason being is it makes them feel stressed, angry, and resentful. The way it makes them feel damages communication, team work, motivation levels, causes conflict, and ends up resulting in them quitting. But there are times as a manager/leader you have to be like that. 

To Drive Through Change: You have to lay down the law and show them who is boss. You dont take any BS, any excuses, its your way or the highway. With those still resistant shout and yell at them, give them warnings, and sack them. They either fall into place or they are gone.

To Establish Discipline: We have all worked in offices with negative personality types which have a manager that doesnt deal with it. It degrades the team over time causing poor communication, poor team work, conflict, and a high turn over of staff. What is crucial for the manager to understand is that its occurring because they let the negative side of human nature exist on their team. They have to lay down the law and show the culprits who is boss. No BS, no excuses, there are standards to behaviour to follow and if they dont they are for it. 1st time a speaking too, 2nd time a warning, 3rd time find a new job. Skip straight to number 3 if they threaten violence or become violent towards anyone.

I apparently don’t need to read up on ‘change management’. 

[Timothy]

If you’re getting threatened with violence, that’s not normal.