zlacker

This is the "you may only effect change if it's pre-approved" argument.

Appeals to authority all the way down.

>>uoaei+(OP)
Not at all. This is the "adhere to the agreed upon decorum of negotiation or get treated like the child you seem so keen to act like" argument.

>>uoaei+(OP)
Right, that's part of working in a large organization. Sometimes the rest of the organization doesn't want to do what you'd prefer, and you need to either disagree and commit or disagree and leave. The idea that you have to get your way, that any strategy becomes appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, is incredibly toxic.

>>tengbr+O
The concept of "decorum" has historically been used as suppression from above of deviations from the status quo. Particularly to shut up women's movements, branding them as "hysterical" and "bitchy".

>>SpicyL+81
The rest of the organization, comprised almost entirely of workers, has almost no say in what is written in the "explicit company policy", so I don't see how your point is relevant.

>>SpicyL+81
Is it not toxic to allow a company to treat workers in the way that some firms do? Is it not toxic to defer to a corporation's actions over that of citizens? It feels like the word "toxic" is used in this context to whitewash degenerate status quo corporate behavior as acceptable.

Sometimes, any strategy does become appropriate and justified if you haven't yet achieved the changes you want, depending on the issue at hand. At some point, being reasonable may no longer be an effective strategy.

>>tengbr+O
And corporations are those who decide what the "agreed upon decorum" is.

>>toomuc+H2
It's true that companies also do toxic things sometimes, but I feel you're critically missing the point here. Effectiveness is not the appropriate metric. You generally should be reasonable even if it's not effective at getting your way.

>>uoaei+G2
I don't agree. Company policies are definitely influenced, although not fully determined, by what employees think the company policies ought to be.

>>SpicyL+w5
It's okay to burn bridges that lead to nowhere. Be reasonable if it helps your cause or improves the odds of arriving at your desired outcome; if not (and you have the leverage), be unreasonable. Winning > being polite.

>>toomuc+N6
I dunno what to tell you. Most people learn in early childhood that it's not okay to get what you want by throwing tantrums. If you missed that lesson, I'm unfortunately not sure how to guide you through it. But I'd recommend trying to find a way to learn; you should be aware that you're hurting both your organization and your personal reputation when you throw one.

>>SpicyL+D7
You choose the language you want to use. One person's tantrum is another person's negotiation. If it accomplishes your goal, that's all that matters. Objective success metrics will always trump feelings.

Don't trust internet randos, of course, but I preach what I practice and it has served me well in life.

>>toomuc+N6
This is such a terrible, terrible attitude to have and is exactly why many have started describing recent cultural shifts as "toxic". This attitude is very reminiscent of the GOP/Trump's tactics during his presidency, and is almost a direct endorsement of such actions.

>>tidepo+r8
I wish politeness counted for something (truly; I'm mostly a very polite person, too polite even). Looking back through history at those conquered, not so much. I'm unsure how to reconcile the need for politeness when the system (whether that be a political or societal environment) doesn't attribute weight to it. It doesn't count for much with a boot on your neck. "Do no harm but take no shit".

How much should one be willing to sacrifice for the high road? Everything?

>>toomuc+c8
Sure, you do you. But again, you should understand that many people will not listen to you because of the strategies you’re using. I try my hardest not to work with people who conduct themselves that way, and I don’t listen to anything they have to say because I can’t trust that they’re being honest.

>>SpicyL+G9
Which is why you should only use these strategies if you have the leverage necessary. If you don't (or if the situation doesn't dictate the need), you would opt for alternatives. Operating in such a fashion (if my comments did not make it clear above) is a last resort and calculated risk.

>>SpicyL+i6
In an era where everyone must earn wages to survive, employees sign on to companies' terms. Not so much the other way around, unless you're counting empty platitudes. If US history is any indication, the only way to reverse this trend is to enact laws protecting laborers.