As you might guess from my choice of user name, I tend to try to “fight the good fight” often ( the whole story is here ). One explanation I offer to bemused friends is that my opinions are neither poorly formed nor loosely held; I cannot abandon that which I feel is right because it may be convenient for the moment, or even beneficial to my career. I find myself in debates often with management types whose opinions I barely respect, trying to understand their point of view, and trying to explain my own. It’s very frustrating.
And yet, I cannot imagine a reality in which everything goes my way, every time; while seemingly pleasant, it sounds boring as hell. I think some level of adversity is necessary for growth, accomplishment, and happiness. But at what point does principle-bound behavior become self-parody? Where is the line between integrity and the guy who bangs his head against a brick wall because it feels so good when he stops?
I’ve been told I should learn to lighten up, that “it’s just a job,” but I don’t see it that way. I try to live up to my own view of what I believe is right at all times. Sometimes that means seemingly small things upset me. But somebody has to sweat the small stuff, right?
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
No, not really. I assure you I’m quite capable of enjoying myself when things are good.
What I’m getting at here is the borderline between idealism and realism. Specifically, when trying to pursue your own values, at what point do you resign yourself to not being able to do what you believe to be right?
All I know is that the world would be a better place if more people thought like I do.
Maybe you might disagree, but I think everyone thinks that way to an extent.
I’m pretty sure David B would think the world is a better place if people didn’t put their faith in myths, whereas, Navigator probably feels the world would be better if we all embraces Jesus.
It’s the vanity which comes from being human.
I personally do NOT get off on some differing opinion. I appreciate a good, fair debate as much as anyone, but that is me showing off my arguing skills. I don’t expect to change anyone’s minds on things. If I could, I would have gotten laid a lot more in HS…
Are we in a stasis? Were we all born believing as we do now? Have we all changed our minds for the final time? I wasn’t always a Libertarian. Nor was I always a Christian. Nor was I always an Objectivist.
But I think Satan is wise in these things, and he makes a good point. Before, I always felt like I was searching, but now I don’t. I feel like I’m at home. So then, I am in a stasis, at least philosophically.
It seems to me that your conception of “the right thing” is flawed if it involved impossible actions. For instance, if part of morality includes the requirement that you not allow anyone to ever die, then you’re going to fail. You should be always be asking yourself “what is the best thing to do given me current options?”.
Couple of misconceptions regarding the original post I think I should clarify:
Satan said:
I’ll agree that’s a common perception, and one I do share. But I’m interested in the real-world responses we have to adversity (and I don’t believe complete absence of any form of adversity would be a good thing).
Lib, I’ve been told I’m rigid in my beliefs also, but that (I believe) goes back to what I said regarding my opinions in the original post. And it’s not that I refuse to change my mind, it’s that I refuse to change my mind without sufficient reason. It sounds to me as if your views are similar.
AuntiePam, I appreciate your concern, but I’m not particularly down at all. I rarely “give up,” but I will compromise if I must. I just don’t think it’s best to do so (more on this below).
The Ryan advises:
Well, yes, I realize this. And I’m not necessarily talking about life and death issues. But what do you do when the best of your current options is still contrary in some degree to what you believe is correct?
In Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, he outlines a communication ideal he refers to as win/win (as opposed to win/lose). In this model, the solution to any problem is the best possible solution, using a synthesis of ideas from both (or all) sides. It’s a time-intensive way of communication, demanding an understanding of the others’ viewpoints from all involved. Ideally, all participants would be interested in resolving differences in this way.
In the real world, especially the business world, most aren’t. Compromise is a bastardization of the process; both sides may get part of what they want, but neither side is completely satisfied. And at some point, you may wind up compromising your principles. It is this particular shade of grey in which I am interested.
I think that this is a rather unrealistic ideal, and it’s people like this that make people like you feel quilty for not finding a win/win solution every time. You may consciously be aware that it’s not always possible, but like most people (me included!), there’s still that nagging voice saying “Couldn’t I have done better?”
This seems like a contradiction to me. If you are going to pick your battles, then sometimes you must resign yourself to letting your princeples slide. I think at least part of Quixotic’s question (correct me if I am wrong here) can be read as “How does one pick the right battles?”
It is a good question, and one I have no ready answer for. The only thing I can suggest is that you should “fight the good fight” only when the benefits of winning outweigh the disadvantages of fighting: the benefits of convincing a bunch of people that Albany is in fact the capital of New York is not worth making 20 people angry and bitter and frustrated. On the other hand, it is OK to make twenty people angry, bitter, and frustrated if you convince them that they should not take the bus down the windy mountain roads when a storm is coming and the brakes on the bus are known to be bad. These are extreme examples, and Quixotic seems interest in finding a way to judge closer calls. I am afraid I am not much help there.
You’re right - it is an unrealistic ideal. What’s frustrating about it, though, is it does work when applied earnestly. The problem is finding people who are willing to spend the time and energy to do so. Which brings us to Manda JO:
No correction necessary, Manda JO - that’s a concise summary of my rather long-winded semi-rants. And I’m well aware there’s no pat answer.
I’ll tell you what I’ve actually been doing (if you’re still interested) - my methodology at this point is laying the groundwork for future discussions. I’ll make my point of view known, and I’ll supply the reasoning for it. When disagreements arise, I make it clear that I am willing to discuss ideas, including those contrary to my own, but only in an open forum where all points of view are considered and qualified (sort of like GD ). At the very least I can say nobody should be surprised by either my opinion or my insistence on discourse.
Seems to be working fairly well (it never ceases to amaze me how much respect one can gain by voicing one’s opinion and backing it up), but I haven’t yet stumbled into a major disagreement.
Quixotic - I can’t tell from what you’ve posted what specific issue you are speaking of, what you have ever fought so I can’t be specific (all I saw in your link was you and your buddies bitching about the pointy-headed bosses). I can tell you one thing I have learned from my boss as he fights his battles however - and that is that you never fight them in the open. Never. All high-level managers know this, many of them instinctually. If you fight a battle in the open you can be ambushed, flanked or otherwise shanghaied.
I try to apply this myself. If we get started down some horrid group-think path in a meeting, I generally ask a series of questions of the acknowledged subject matter expert (a.k.a idiot) that will hopefully lead them to the conclusion that is correct. I never argue with people - I ask questions. If I hit a wall, I give it up immediately - there is usually another meeting or phone call or email that can get things back on the right track. I know that I’m not always right either, which means sometimes I have to shutup and stay shutup or (worse) stay quiet until I can do more research that proves I’m right (after the decisions have all been made and its moot). When this happens though I make sure I let a couple of relevant people know, and let the info percolate. Never make a big deal about anyone else being wrong, never do anything that could be perceived as putting other people down. When you finally win, make sure you are gracious about it, and make sure you are always fighting for the right thing (the company, the cause, whatever).
Honestly, if you feel you are fighting losing battles in the office all the time then either your tactics suck or you are actually wrong alot of the the time.
Good advice, thanks. Much of it I already follow (the discussions I referred to in my last post are closed-door meetings, for instance).
I guess the tone of my original post came through as more down than I meant. I don’t really have the feeling that I’m fighting a lot of losing battles, it’s just the adjustment that was necessary when I went from being outside those meetings to actually dealing with upper management in those meetings was somewhat jarring.
And, hey, I’m always fighting for the right thing!
). At the very least I can say nobody should be surprised by either my opinion or my insistence on discourse.