The Courage to Displease: The inconvenience of living in the corporate world.

The Courage to Displease: The inconvenience of living in the corporate world.

?

The first time I took on a leadership role, I was still a teenager. And at that time all I thought was that good leadership was all about having empathy, charisma, and saying that everything was okay. It was difficult in my society at the time to take a stand. It was more convenient to live in a world of "never mind". For some reason it bothered me, but as an individual still in formation, it was easier to continue living in a class than to risk rejection.

The Faculty of Law brought solid political, social, ideological training and with that the first unpleasantness occurred. In part, because in public schools, if you profess ideologies that are anti-mass, there is a kind of false acceptance, almost flirting with the hypocrisy of accepting only what is convenient.

And it is quite difficult to live in this sphere of intellectuality, because the arguments and facts are reasonably good and acceptable. And although you have an antagonistic position, you must argue very well to be able to defend your point of view.

On the other hand, that's not what bothered me. Intellectual debates, effusive or not, have always appealed to me.

It was the kind of thing I felt there was blood in my veins for because people defended their views on something that seemed true to them, just as mine was. In some moments more, others less heated, but respecting the opponent with the best of respects: - the intellectual.

It is a kind of pleasure that has been abandoned nowadays or replaced by a rage to achieve small powers or personal advantages.

Continuing, later, came the corporate world, with its personal interests, jockeying for managerial positions, and the difficult art of dealing with inflated egos.

We all have an ego to watch over and at the same time drown it. And it is natural for any human to ask for value from their predicates and erase the defects in a janitorial understanding of what is most moral and ethical in their perspective.

This text is the one that generates a certain anguish and feelings of discomfort because we are a piece of it.

But in addition to pleasing the reader, I think the goal is to present a reflection on the tyranny of pleasure.

It is interesting how seductive it is for experienced professionals and managers to have a certain ability to determine the destinies of others, whether through the tip of a pen on a piece of paper, or by presenting an active voice, or in the fraternal embrace they offer.

And in this bias of pleasing everything and everyone, a certain disguised fraternity, the dilemma of attitudes arises passivity, omission and negligence of thought.

And if you look closely, you'll realize that we're all asleep or simply living inside a bubble about to burst.

It's as if professionals have their souls and perceptions sucked away for the sake of pleasing others, when in fact, they disagree.

And who says it's wrong to disagree? When have we been robbed of the sensibility to oppose and hijacked our genuine right of expression?

I see people upset, almost exploding because they don't know how the other person will react. They want to express themselves, but they sabotage themselves. It is clear that they are gagged, frightened.

And this isn't about the boss, the customer, or the employee. It's about how we're living together. It has to do with what they will think about you and your forms of expression. It is almost a hijacking of the identity of the human being, his emotions and reasons.

And the worst part comes next: "They kidnapped the human essence and then sold us that this type of anesthesia is a kind of emotional intelligence.

There is a caveat.

Emotional intelligence is a must-have. Nothing against functional relationships.

It is prudent that they should be.

However, when we are restricted to the expression that comes from our essence, from the vigor of what we believe, the theft is ours. The theft of the essence is the worst violence you can say against yourself and with society's intolerance for those who are different.

And here comes the main question: - How brave is you to displease? I'm not talking about becoming a champion of the rights of expression, of essence.

And I don't consider as a standard of sanity, that kind of (annoying) complainer who appropriates ready-made phrases from similar texts like this to defend stupid ideas.

I'm talking about ordinary people who are tired of fighting for what they believe in because they are hopeless in presenting their different points of view, because even if it can bring some real gain, they fear social condemnation, which has become a systemic practice and much seen in environments of digital influencers.

In the classification of interests, it is too inconvenient to be different. You are crushed when you decide to go your own way, when your relationships are not based on the political and social charter of the group to which you are a member.

And when it does, the conclusions are the worst possible. Or they make fun of you, get indignant, create fallacies and all those strategies and techniques to destabilize the opponent. Maybe they don't even know they do. It is a matter of survival to adapt to the environment, to be very quiet in the corner of the room, lurking, so that you do not disturb anyone so that at an opportune moment, you can receive some advantage or benefit.

But what do we build in this way? Political games. Interests. Business. We don't build humanized relationships, which go from passivity to visceral, from opportunity to failure, and we lose that movement as common as our own breathing. It is possible that we have become puppets of fear and the inconvenience of displeasing us. Our defenses have been lifted and the most powerful can no longer watch the ascents we once saw.

Because to rise the ruler it takes courage and daring, but the proximity of fear is present in corporate life and humans are crestfallen by rules of corporate etiquette that have hijacked thought and individuality.

Apparently, we want more humanized relationships, but we do not tolerate our own incoherence and failures.

We are more concerned with not having to apologize than with making mistakes and tolerating the many problems arising from the conscious human proposal.

It's something we can all reflect on. It's not about being good or bad. It's not about propagating magic formulas or identifying the ten biggest, best, concepts. It's about being human and aware that we need to recover what we've lost: essence and genuineness.

?

?