It is said that, "nice guys finish last", but what
assumptions are inferred within that adage? Firstly, who gets to judge the
totality of any individual to justly pass sentence on whether they are nice or
not so? Secondly, what are the criteria employed in the assessment and at what
stage in a person's existence is the measure taken and the label set? Thirdly,
where is the authority derived that establishes the standing of anyone
vis-a-vis anyone else that enables the claim to be made that a position as
"last" has been cast in stone for all eternity? Like many other
adages encountered in life, its premises don't progress coherently to its
conclusion without significantly more queries presented to test its
hypothesis.
Recently I saw Steven Page perform in a reasonably small concert
hall. At one time, as lead singer and co-founding member of the group, Bare
Naked Ladies, his popularity would have filled a large stadium. Now a small
concert hall is only two-thirds full. Yet, for those who were present he no
less performed well and received a standing ovation that preceded a three song
encore. Earlier in life he was married to my first cousin, and they share three
boys, growing now into young men, together. When Steven had his troubles back
in the day he lost his wife and his band, along with a fair share of respect
inside and outside the Clan as well. As I sat watching him sing and play, and
enjoying the evident talent on display, I pondered on that history shared in a
small way with the musician and song writer on stage before me, who I have
never actually met, much less talked with or come to know in the slightest way.
I found myself reflecting less on that debris from the path of the soul behind
the voice filling my ears and more about the powerful influence collateral
knowledge and insights can have. It struck me how genuinely prejudicial and
unjust they can be in shaping perceptions and attitudes toward fellow human
beings who are truly hardly known at all by the impressions other folks and
their experiences pursued on our memories and psyches. Steven is most certainly
not the same person he was two decades ago. While some of the songs he
performed were written back then, they too have been shaped in unique
ways since their origins to the present day. They may sound similar but are not
exactly the same as they once were or as they are popularly remembered.
There are some folks who do not have a high regard for me at all
either, based on our history and interactions together, as well as based on the
circumstances associated with our inter-relations. There are others who regard
me quite highly employing the same influences. Sometimes I have been a nice
guy, indeed I believe that to be so far more often than not, but there is no
question that sometimes I have not been nice as well. I feel there have been
good reasons for that on those occasions, whether the subject of it felt
likewise or, as is most often the case, not. The reality is that no one acts
and reacts identically in every circumstance and with every person one
encounters on the journey through life and through all of its stages. To do so
would be quite unnatural actually.
These
thoughts served to give clarity to an intellectual conflict I have had for
decades over the use, and reliance upon, references in the hiring process,
whether as the employer or as the prospective employee. I have often felt apprehensive
about allowing them to shape in any way a potential employer's impression of
me, or in relying on them when hiring someone to work for a company I was
responsible to employ someone at.
Despite how long one person has been acquainted with another or
in what environment they may have come to acquire a measure of familiarity with
another, what authority should they rightly have to influence the totality of
the future based on their piece of the past? Despite the longevity of the
association in that past or the title or stature of the referencer, how can
there be any certainty of their motivations for what they say?
A great deal of authority is granted to a referencer to speak
about another without ever knowing much of anything, if anything at all, about
the referencer's true knowledge, integrity and competency, and yet they no less
have significant power and influence in the hiring process. I wonder how many
fantastic people have not gotten a given job because of a marginal reference
from someone who was inadequately informed, ill-informed or malicious in their
opinions, and conversely how many unworthy people have been hired into roles
because someone over-stated their true nature and value?
There can be little doubt that personality politics in one form
or another impacts on the assessment any referencer gives. Accordingly, there
can be little certainty that they genuinely have the requisite holistic
experience with any given person to justify allowing them to impact the future
for any person based on their subjective thoughts and insights from perceptions
shaped by pieces of the past. For better or worse, the outcome is inherently
biased.
All
of this points to the reality that popularity and unpopularity are political
states and as such must always be considered as suspect when judging the worth
and value of another human being. It also points to the reality that reputation
is not static, nor should it ever be perceived in that manner. Life is about
change and no person is immune to it. Impressions informed by the views of
others should never be allowed to taint first-hand experience with any
individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment