The Agnostic Manifesto: If I don't know something, I don't say I know it.
I do not think that jumping to rigid positions quickly is a good strategy. I am probably talking more psychology than philosophy at this point. I have read that openness to new experience is actually a core trait, and it is hard to imagine this not being involved.
Essentially, if you're allowing your employer to walk all over you, that's on you.
Woo-hoo: no limits whatsoever on employer behavior. That should work out well.
Let me propose another idea: Both employer and employee are stuck together in a system. Neither should have their actions go unchecked. Both should bring reasonable behavior to the table. Occasionally the law can assist with this.
Sure, they can carry on like this for years but, at some point, they will look stupid and ridiculous. MS can't afford that.
Thanks, I just snorted my coffee.
FWIW, I have been conducting a lot of interviews lately and I always say I am looking for 49% technical skill and 51% interpersonal skills, because the hardest problems in software engineering are not technical.
You might try these: 1) Offer a max overtime guarantee or time off for OT. (if you can't do at least one of these, something is wrong)
2) Let them know you understand what it is like to work for narcissists and mentally unwell entrepreneurs, and you will put effort into making sure everyone is treated with respect.
1 Is there a lot of unpaid overtime ?
2 Does the management and team have a reasonable level of interpersonal skills ? (if you've been at this a while you know how important it ends up being)
So I tell them we have little OT, and an unusually high level of people skills and cooperation, base on my career experience. There is a lot more to think about than money,
Often we are forced to choose the lesser evil. And of course, I am in the vast minority, considering a company's behavior before my purchase.
>> It's too easy to point at successful people and call them liars, crooks and hypocrites
I acknowledge your opinion but I was addressing the question "do we have serious problems with organizational leadership ?" I included a link to research that seems to confirm what many have felt for a while.
>>At the end of the day the biggest hypocrite is the one that continues to buy their products.
You make a good point. If everyone shopped like me there would be less of a problem. But looking at developmental studies that is not likely to happen soon. So should I abandon any attempt to improve the system ? I say no.
The root of the problem is not just corporations, it is pretty much all large organization structures. Movement to the top is usually the result of being good at politics, or mentally ill. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/) Neither of which will direct a corporatiion to benefit both stockholders and customers.
Maybe one hundred years from now, those in positions of authority will get extra scrutiny, as they should, and be assesed for narcissm, psycopathy. The company I work for is still reeling from misadventures of the previous CEO. I sensed a serious problem the day I first met him, and every time after that.
My claim: Two o'clock comes before 5 o'clock.
Two o'clock: when concentration problems start with no noots
Five o'clock: when concentration problems start with noots
Tested daily. Of course you do not have phenomenological access to my mind.
Proof that this is somewhat related to Limitless ? Well you can watch the movie and see if you agree.
On Reddit you will see many people who use noots test themselves regularly on Lumosity or the Stanford tests, to try to rule out placebo effect, which is important.