EOSM is upon us soon.

"The code phrase is 'Philomena Begley's fat arse' - have I got a
confirmation?"

 

That should thin it out.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'll be elsewhere...

 

Eeeh. Happy days. I remember being given some sort of remote dial-in
terminal thingy, way back when (20 years back, I guess) so's I could
fix them from home. Makes you think, nowadays the idea of connecting
into the company network is so much taken for granted it's difficult
to remember how difficult, or unsual, these things were not so long
ago.

Quite.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

in theory, there isn't a problem. Unfortunately, I'm a professional

 

I'm really quite a different person at work than you'd think from
reading the shit I post to Usenet, you know.

 

<small voice> I'm not.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

I wouldn't have thought you fell into either camp ..

... He said, suavely ..

P.

 

The false persona may be the work one?

 

How do you know which one's real and which one's false?

 

It comes out under torture usually

 

The false one stays the same shape when he's lying down.

 

Sili cont.

 

<very nearly coffee - keyboard>

--
Krusty.

http://www.muddystuff.co.uk
http://www.muddystuff.us
Off-road classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger (FOYRNB) '96 Tiger '79 Fantic 250

 

It's a serious point.

Working for a corporate company and climbing the greasy pole means (IME)
that one needs to subject certain aspects of one's personality and value
set, adopting parts which align with the corporate culture in order that
you progress. Of course you can retain some parts of 'you' so people
aren't complete clones but there is a very definite need to demonstrate
certain behaviours.

Where it becomes an issue is where there's a conflict between what's
expected and one's natural feelings/reaction.

A recent survey showed that 58% of people changed their 'identity' to
fit in with the work model. 67% of senior staff expected some level of
“identity change” from their workforce, whilst 1 in 10 fully expect
employees to change their personality inside work in order to fit in
with the organisation.

 

Utter bollocks, isn't it. I'm with the Swellers when it comes to working
environments.

 

Or they may both be false, be thay the same or different.

But as Verdi suggests, some of us have managed reasonably well without
trying, or pretending, to be someone we're not. I gave up doing that
after my first marriage split and have been nobody but myself ever
since.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

It's true to some extent in any social interaction, but certainly more
pronounced in the corporate work world - it's one of the reasons I'll
not work for a profit making organisation. I'm not prepared to
compromise myself for another's materialistic gain.

And a change in any of the affective, cognitive or behavioural
components of attitudes can alter the whole set. Persuasion by
behaviour modification.

The use of very clever psychological techniques by large corporations
on staff and customers purely for the profit of a few is one of the
many facets of the dominate force in society which I dislike intensely

Cognitive dissonance.

Do you have a source for that? I'd like to read the full article.

 

I don't believe either of you.

honesty isn't the issue. The issue is adaptability, flexibility and
knowing what is suitable.

 

I know most of my team quite well outside of work, and I do expect
them to behave differently in the office than out of it - if you think
about this from a reversed point of view, *not* wanting this would be
asking them to behave in a formal manner when we're in a social
situation.

 

none of my personae are false.