The value of being manipulative

[David Randolph]

Another thread is drifting into motivational techniques and deriding manipulation. Allow me to defend being manipulative.

Being manipulative is to organize what others might choose to do so that the activities desired are more likely to happen. In kinder circles, this is called organizing the work place or "management".

The problem with being manipulative is not in the manipulation, but in the sharing of the rewards. When the sharing is not "fair", then the manipulation is harmful. When the sharing is more "fair", then the manipulation can be for the good of all.

For example, I was watching a show on a tribal hunt. The hunt required organizing so that some hunters were on one end and others would "beat" the bushes driving animals towards them. This took quite a bit of organization. At the end of the hunt, all the animals were butchered and the meat set out in the square. Every male in the tribe got to go forward and pick a piece of meat for his family. (Yes, that included the young boys who were not part of the hunt.) If the organizer had taken the best for himself, I suspect that he would not survive the next hunt.

When corporations forget that they exist for the benefit of the public, or when managers forget that they manage to help the workers get the jobs done, or when politicians forget that they govern by the consent of and for the benefit of the governed, the public will turn against them and kick them out. The harder they try to stay in power, the more violent the process but it will eventually happen.

[Walter Mitty]

"Manipulative" is a loaded word.  Regardless of whether or not you intend the overtone,  it carries the implication that the manipulation is underhanded and not transparent. 

When sombody is trying to manipulate me, and they are trying to substitute their preference for what is "good" for my preference,  I tend to feel betrayed when I find out about it.  Unless I  find out about it early.  I may still have a negative response, but it won't be betrayal.  If think this is true for most people.

In addition to the terms the participants have been using,  I'm going to throw another one is, namely "paternalistic".  A company, or a government, that is paternalistic is trying to superimpose its own judgements over the individual's autonomous judgement,  but isn't necessarily being sneaky about it. 

As an example,  DEC had a long program of trying to help employees who decided to quit smoking.  And they even eventually put in systems of selective rewards for non smokers,  things like special rates on health insurance.  They were trying to influence employee behavior.

They were acting for the good of the company,  and for the presumed good of the employee as well.  But they were pretty open about it.  They laid out in some detail why they thought that quitting smoking would benefit an employee, and why it was in DEC's interest to assist.

[The Gorn]

When sombody is trying to manipulate me, and they are trying to substitute their preference for what is "good" for my preference,  I tend to feel betrayed when I find out about it.  Unless I  find out about it early.  I may still have a negative response, but it won't be betrayal.  If think this is true for most people.

Walter, you and I are mostly in agreement.

Again - to say that a few business practices that one writer labels a cult are "manipulative" is overly dramatic. 

Again - and this is to answer I D Shukov's point: manipulation is the process of deceiving someone so that they agree to something that otherwise they would not. Paternalism and even "in your face" company culture and group practices are not manipulative unless they are used to mask an unpleasant truth. You can still go home and look at your paycheck and decide if the job is worthwhile.

Here is a specific instance of what should be termed manipulation that rises to this standard:

A broker once got me an interview at a company. I was also interviewing a few places directly and my resume was out there, floating around.

After I interviewed, the broker told me that an offer was imminent, and had me drive 30+ miles downtown to their office in a big fucking rush to sign their stupid paperwork, including a non compete. This was a big name in the recruiting business (still is, under a different name now.)

The day after I signed the paper, the bork calls and tells me that the job offer wasn't going to happen.

The pricks had simply toyed with me so that I would sign a non compete and so I would be neutralized if I ever attempted to approach the client directly.

That's manipulation.

I mean, Good God, how specific does one have to be? (Not with you, Walter, you get it.)

This story, by the way, is why I have never dealt with agencies again, and I got stupid a few weeks ago and almost allowed it to happen. Then I saw the same dynamics playing out again. People who slavishly use brokers never understand this...

[DarkHumour]

I think of the time I was waiting for an interview with a new recruiter in an office.  It was taking a while in spite of an appointment.  I was bored and decided to take a lesson from the North Koreans* and lower the chair she would be sitting in and raise mine.  I also planned to sit behind the desk and she would sit in the 'guest' chair.  I hoped there was some liminal/subliminal power play there. She was already kind of tiny so it was probably overkill.

That was moot as a senior recruiter was also included in the interview and we all sat on the same side of the room/desk.  That company sucked only marginally less than any other recruiter I've worked for but I never actually got a gig with them.  It was 2007 or 2008 and the sh*t was hitting the fan.

*I read/heard that during negotiations of the Korean war they sawed the legs off the chairs of the seats set aside for the Americans so that their height would be either at the same level or lower.

DarkHumour

PS.  The subject title sounds almost like that objectivist crap though - "Selfishness as a virtue".

[Walter Mitty]

Gorn,

What you said, plus...

As you and I both know,  the bork busuness is one where manipulation is an essential part of the core business model.  No sane client would agree to the markups they charge, unless they felt they were backed into a corner.

Likewise, no sane contarctor would agree to those markups, unless s/he felt s/he didn't have any choice, or unless they bought the fiction that the customer's expectations don't go up with the increased cost. So the whole business is one big manipulation, from one end to the other. 

How do they get so good at it?  Practice, practice...

(Again, I know you get it).

[The Gorn]

As you and I both know,  the bork busuness is one where manipulation is an essential part of the core business model.  No sane client would agree to the markups they charge, unless they felt they were backed into a corner.

I believe that clients were willing partners in this farce. 

I agree with everything else you said. But in this instance, I believe that brokers and clients are in perfect harmony, and a "compact" to keep the contractor low and controlled in thrall exists.

The client pays much higher than nominal rates in order to have an assurance that there is a boot on the face of the contractor.  "We'll pay you $X. Just - chuckle- make sure that the piece of human garbage who takes this job doesn't see most of it! Heh heh!" 

[Richardk]

There's a lot of truth in that across the whole temp agency field. I was looking to pick up a few extra hours and thought why not try a temp agency for some seasonal work. Most made it clear that I wasn't a 'fit' and one even asked if I was a 'trouble maker'. I asked him what did he mean and he said: 'The kind of person that wants to improve things or make suggestions. They don't want 'thinkers' but rather someone who is happy to work a mindless job for barely more than minimum wage.'

I wonder what do these people look like since apparently temp agencies can immediately classify me as a 'no hire - will suggest improvements' type of guy.