You are a Troublemaker
by JJ Tuan
There is a common but disturbing mentality which equivocates between a troublemaker and someone who points out existing trouble. The former is he who caused the trouble to begin with, whereas the latter is simply a messenger of the bad news. The confusion of the two is usually introduced by the troublemaker in an effort to shift the blame to the messanger. The messenger often ends up branded the troublemaker. He is frowned upon for pointing out existing problems, as if the problems were never there if it weren't for his impudence. Call it primacy of consciousness, call it evasion, but this type of confusion happens all too often.
Case in point is a real life incident that happened a few months ago. On 4/7/2006(Saturday), Loke Soon Choo, the president of EMC Greater China, went back to his office and realized that he forgot his key. After trying to contact his secretary for hours without success, he sent the following email in English, cc-ing a bunch of senior managers:
From: Loke, Soon Choo
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:13 AM
To: Hu, Rui
Cc: Ng, Padel; Ma, Stanley; Zhou, Simon; Lai, Sharon
Subject: Do not assume or take things for granted
Rebecca, I just told you not to assume or take things for granted on Tuesday and you locked me out of my office this evening when all my things are all still in the office because you assume I have my office key on my person. With immediate effect, you do not leave the office until you have checked with all the managers you support - this is for the lunch hour as well as at end of day, OK?
His secretary replied in Chinese, cc-ing a bunch of departments, which translates to:
From: Hu, Rui
Sent: 2006?4?10? 13:48
To: Loke, Soon Choo
Cc: China All (Beijing); China All (Chengdu); China All (Guangzhou); China
All (Shanghai); Lai, Sharon
Subject: FW: Do not assume or take things for granted
Soon Choo,
First, I have behaved correctly on this matter. I locked the door out of concern for security. We have lost things in Beijing in the past. I cannot afford to take the chance and be held responsible for missing articles.
Second, you do have a key which you forgot to bring, yet you are placing the blame on others. You are the main cause of your situation today, do not attribute your own mistake to others.
Third, you have no right to disrupt and control my private time. I work for 8 hours a day, please remember that lunch time and evening time belong to my private time.
Fourth, since my first day at EMC until now, I have been diligent in performing my job. Many times I have worked overtime and I've never complained. But if you demand that I stay overtime for tasks outside of my job, I cannot comply.
Fifth, even though you are my superior, please pay attention to your wording. It's a matter of common courtesy.
Sixth, let me stress that I did not guess or assume anything because I have neither the time nor the need.
She was fired as a result of this exchange. This email got passed around outside the company and quickly created a stir. Interestingly, while most people openly admired her for her courage and integrity, they felt that she should have responded differently by apologizing to her boss and complying with his request. As much as they felt she was right, they would be less willing to hire her as an employee. Even though his irrationality was apparent to all, it's her fault for pointing it out. She was viewed as the source of disharmony, not him.
Now imagine that we lived in an Objectivist society, how would Objectivists respond to her behavior differently? We would support her and praise her for standing up to irrationality. Her manager would be held accountable as the true troublemaker and punished. Companies would be more eager to hire her as a result. Justice prevails.
But in our current culture, the distinction between the troublemaker and the messenger is blurred, often by the troublemaker to shift the responsibility. And it does affect how we act in various aspects of our lives. People are careful not get mixed up with the troublemaker, so they refrain from pointing problems out or doing something when a messenger is wrongfully accused.
For example, when a couple announces that they are getting married, the usual reaction they get is "congratulations" without qualification. Most people, no matter how sure they are that the impending marriage is a disaster waiting to happen, would not venture to bring up any evidence for fear of being seen as the troublemaker. When someone says, "I'm having a baby.", again, congratulations are duly offered from all those around them. No one is foolish enough to ask questions about why she wants a baby, whether she's financially able, emotionally mature enough, or whether if she even has any knowledge of what life with a baby entails. Similarly, when a couple breaks up, their friends usually offer general sympathy without giving supporting evidence, just in case they get back together and brand the friends as the evil ones who broke them apart in the first place.
When the messenger is shot as the troublemaker, we are left with a culture where people fear opposing irrationality. It encourages evasion, irrationality, pretense over reality, and finger-pointing instead of individual responsibility. Making the effort to distinguish the two is one step we can make toward realizing a rational society.
Discuss this Article (77 messages)
|
