So this article was published in the Globe and Mail today – or at least was on their website; I
don’t know if it actually made it into their print publication, but I can only hope
it didn’t, because it’s basically the worst advice ever, albeit a conveniently concise summary of what’s pretty much wrong with the world.
“Want to be the most interesting person around?” its author queries via
the headline; “start with these 7 steps.” He then basically proceeds to tell
you how to be an insincere, self-absorbed asshole.
That this would be the ultimate outcome is pretty much made clear by the
article’s fourth sentence: “In a noisy world where personal branding is a
professional imperative and where we constantly compete with equally qualified
rivals for clients, jobs, promotions, assignments or funding, not to mention
admiration and affection, being just a little more interesting and memorable
can be the deciding factor in our favor,” he writes – as if this presumption
that life is nothing more than one big, drawn-out pissing contest is just some
sort of axiomatic fact.
This gives a pretty clear indication of the author’s world view – i.e.
that only the fittest survive, that you have to eat or be eaten, that the big
dog rules the pack, etc. It’s basically jock logic: that life really isn’t much
different than [insert sport of choice here] – and therefore, by extension, those
with overactive pineal glands and a naturally adversarial demeanour are
inherently more likely to succeed at it (which is a rather self-serving, “when-all-you’ve-got-is-a-hammer-every-problem-looks-like-a-nail”
sort of thing).
That the author’s personal philosophy doesn’t seem to be more nuanced than
the sort of slogans you might find emblazoned on, say, a Nike t-shirt isn’t
that surprising though; those slogans, after all, are part of the way companies
position their brands, and that’s clearly how the author sees himself: as a
brand. This is just a “professional imperative”, after all – because reducing
yourself to something simple, consistent, and easily understood is apparently
what the market wants. I wouldn’t dispute that; but his uncritical implication that
this is somehow acceptable, even desirable, is completely insane.
Take, by way of illustration, what the author believes this must entail
– his seven rules “for those who want to up their game with some new skills and
behaviors” (there’s that sport metaphor again – and is it just me, or is it eerily
inhuman the way he refers to “behaviors” as if they’re some sort of accessory with
which you can soup-up your “product”?)
Number one, he writes: “Master conversational skills.” This “is a key
competency for successful client pitches, board room presentations, management
meetings and the myriad hallway conversations that influence major business
decisions”; “to get better at it, widen your interests and learn about anything
from current events to local issues. Keeping conversations balanced by showing
sincere interest in others is critical.” Yet this would seem to be a case of completely
insincere interest in others, since
it is ultimately only in aid of your own professional advancement. Nonetheless,
he appears to have actually written this without any trace of irony.
Bro-tip #3: “cultivate a reputation of expertise.” Why? Because “experts
are in demand. Turn on any television channel and you can watch a parade of
authorities in various domains give their perspective on healthcare, airline
security, the economy and climate change, to name a few.” In other words,
experts have high visibility; you can increase your visibility by becoming an “expert.”
This just seems to be another way of saying “promote yourself/your brand
[because the two are synonymous and inseparable] whenever you can.” Or, basically,
“get other people to be as into you as you are into yourself. Always think
about yourself and how you can get others to think about yourself. Be
self-absorbed.” Furthermore, he writes, “if you’re more of a generalist, find
ways to go deep into a subject matter that can benefit others, and share that
information where needed.” I.e., even if you’re not really an expert, work to cultivate the reputation that you
are, because that way it will be easier to manipulate people into supporting
your brand. This is the advice of a psychopath.
Bro-tip #4: “Build relationships and connect with people.” I have
nothing against this piece of advice, and it may be the sole redeeming
statement of the whole article. However, he then goes on to say that “in a
recent executive coaching survey, CEOs mentioned ‘conflict-management skills’
as their top priority. Being able to help others resolve disputes and
conflicting agendas is not just an asset in the C-suite”. Terms like “the C-suite”
are for d-bags and a-holes.
Rule #5 is “build relationships and connect with people.” Yet he somehow
manages to take this fundamental act of being human and perverts it into yet another
fiat of corporate pep-talk: “Being an interesting person helps in building and
managing relationships, but the reverse is also true. If we actively engage
others, by, for example, inviting someone to lunch, involving a co-worker in a
project, asking for a favor, offering support, or sincerely inquiring how
someone is doing, we not only become visible, we become relevant. That’s the
foundation of mutually gratifying relationships.” I have always been of the
impression that things like love or respect, not visibility and relevance, are
the foundations of mutually gratifying relationships. This sounds more like the
foundation of a mutually gratifying corporate merger.
His #6 rule: “Engage in active listening.” Much like tips #1 and 3, this
is not so much because active listening is good per se, but because the perception others may hold of you as an
active listener can be to your advantage.
#7: “Live and share experiences.” This, because “‘life is best lived
inside, behind a desk,’ said no one, ever” – and, of course, because your
stories about those experiences are really just another arrow in your quiver of
self-marketing strategies. It’s this kind of memetic, web-culture
referentiality, (w/r/t “said no one, ever”), along with the use of B.Comm
buzzwords like “decision-makers who
can green-light a project” (from tip
#2) and the aforementioned use of “C-suite”, that leads me to suspect this
whole piece was probably written by someone “cultivating the reputation of an
expert”, i.e. probably someone young enough to believe their own bullshit. In
fact, when you break it down, the whole piece is essentially premised on the
naive sort of idealized, ultra-rational models of “human life” you come across
in an undergrad business class – it reads like someone giving advice they feel should be true/applicable, but which
they in fact do not actually have the practical experience to verify as so. There’s
also such a strong emphasis on perception, image manipulation, and brand; this alone
suggests it was written by someone from the ultra-image-conscious Facebook
generation. The Dos Equis ad reference that the whole thing starts with would
also support that – it’s exactly the sort of click-bait that would appeal to a
younger demographic, i.e. the sort of people who are actually at risk of taking
this article seriously. As for the rest of us, well, I suppose we now have a
pretty good list of what not to do.
