tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7598050329177872056.post868042538078472625..comments2009-07-15T14:57:33.836-04:00Linda Wilkinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169605697016362254noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7598050329177872056.post-66767439820188794892009-07-15T12:48:10.175-04:002009-07-15T12:48:10.175-04:00Hi Linda,<br /><br />Great post, I think I must be part Jamaican! <br /><br />When I see terms like moral integrity bandied about, it brings to mind certain groups of people such as priests, politicians and senior academics. Basically those that I instinctively and deeply distrust. We all have our motives upon which we act, and in business I ‘try’ to make my decisions based on a persons actions in relation to their work rather than my perception of their moral worth. For example, working in programming for over two decades, I have known many devious little bastards who consistently produce excellent results. Surely you pay people for what they do, not who they are. I’m with Machiavelli insofar as organising a large number of people to perform a complex task in a dynamic environment is often bound to require deception, not least through omission. IMHO, this doesn’t compromise ones self worth, any more than bluffing in a game of poker. Its just part of the game we play.<br /><br />Interesting that you talk about ‘Suck ups’ in your post. Are they people who have simply failed to deceive you as to their high moral integrity? How many others are out there who have succeeded? J <br /><br />In reference to the ISTQB point, for me the bigger evil has always been factionalism, leading in turn to favouritism and nepotism on one side, and discrimination on the other. Again there are compromises; we all belong to various professional clubs, but I often wonder do they lead to more harm than good? As for attacking a large organisation in a noble crusade to the possible serious detriment of ones career, that’s a battle I’d personally avoid without very good reason to engage. The difference between brave and foolhardy being the long-term outcome.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />ShaneShane MacLaughlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689548245515325855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7598050329177872056.post-61045900313244412762009-07-08T17:53:56.424-04:002009-07-08T17:53:56.424-04:00Hi Linda,<br /><br />Interesting musings.<br /><br />On your first point of sacrificing integrity (not pissing off executives) - I now use an indirect approach. Many years ago I paid financially for pissing off the wrong people - now I take what some can think of as a more &quot;manipulative&quot; approach - it&#39;s the indirect slowly-slowly-catchy-monkey appraoch. This usually involves planting the seeds for the alternative approach and nuturing...<br /><br />Some years later I discovered Dale Carnegie&#39;s classic tome that describes this more eloquently: &quot;The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it&quot; and &quot;Ask questions instead of giving direct orders&quot;. I interpret this as the suggestion plants the seed and your integrity and honesty carries the weight and momentum. <br /><br />The more you build your integrity (building by consistent honesty) the more weight it carries. Usually executives don&#39;t mind disagreement from someone with &quot;integrity&quot; - especially if it&#39;s private and not public (embarrassing.)<br /><br />Interesting about bloglinks - I removed mine a week or two ago after reading a post of yours on STC about advertising... I don&#39;t advertise but I had bloglinks which I didn&#39;t maintain and didn&#39;t see the point of - so I&#39;m with you on that train of thought.Simon Morleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10629592766073538811noreply@blogger.com