That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive.
There was a time when I didn't know how useful "being yourself" was. I don't believe I'm the only one. For instance, people substitute defining themselves by a contrarian viewpoint relative to others, until they work out who they really are. Case in point: the petulant teenager.
And when you don't know you don't know, the questions you ask and actions you take don't display an understanding of that -- so it works to address the non literal if you want to contribute to helping people with those requests.
No I don't think you're misreading. Maybe you're right and it is patronising and passive aggressive. I'm struggling with a response to this, and I meant every word. The rebuttal is very compact and I admire that. I'm often too verbose, and value clarity.
Anyway I'm trying to say something like:
Not everyone may know that. Being yourself is important, all decisions flow from your values works. Sometimes it works to address the substantive content of a question which may differ from the literal.
If you have any ideas how I can say this in a way that works, thank you :)
Know who you are then you'll know what to do. The question isn't about career impact. That's just like when someone's words are different to their body language. The question is different to the words in it.
Whether or not he feels that testifying would be the right thing to do isn't about career impact.
Looking for advice about what testifying could do to his career image in the long-term from a crowd that likely has relevant experience is about career impact. Explicitly.
Yes, you've correctly comprehended the literal explicit question, that's all there is to it, isn't it?
Except it really isn't about the explicit literal question, it's about the unasked real question.
What happens when you don't know you don't know something, or when asking what would be unacceptable?
A proxy question is substituted, and you hope someone hears what you're really saying.
Also, from a literal sense, I'd say whether you feel the choice is authentic is actually all about career impact. You're choosing to make your career something which isn't you, or something which is. What is the impact on you, and subsequently on your career, for each choice?
Thanks for saying that you're right and that my answer isn't addressing the question. I invite you to create an answer that addresses the question you see, so we can learn from you! :)
I agree with the sentiment but the issue I take with the original answer is that it is that it's completely unactionable. There's no litmus test defined for what "authenticity" to oneself is or how to achieve it, so there's no way for the OP to really take this information and tangibly apply it to their situation. In my personal opinion suggestion without actionability is not particularly useful and only convolutes the decision making process.
Of course it's actionable. Just because an algorithm can't do a cost/benefit analysis and come up with a deterministic solution absolving OP of all responsibility doesn't mean it's not actionable.
The solution does however dodge the question as stated. OP asked what the consequences are of testifying, so he can decide whether doing the right thing is worth the risk/consequences. The solution suggested is telling him to say damn the consequences, do what you know is right, whatever that may be. It's life advice, not factual information. It doesn't answer the question he was asking explicitly, it answers the implicit follow up question; once I know the consequences, what do I do?
You sound like a good listener, do you really think the real question is about the risks or is it about personal guidance? Hard to say, right? My feeling is personal guidance, because it just seems so overwhelmingly obvious to me the question is not about what it's stated about. That's just the packaging. Unwrap it -- real q inside! :)
It would depend very heavily on the nature of the charges.
In general, however, I don't think that I would want to work for a company that would hold a bias against me due to my participating in presumably honest testimony when a previous employer was brought to court for whatever reason.
Porpoise hi :) thanks for the chance to expand on this, I really appreciate that today :) I agree with your point, and it's a goodun: how can you action authenticity if you don't know what it is? and if so it only makes the process inefficient. Totally agree. It's a mess not knowing where you stand, which is precisely the point. It works when we choose from who we are. There is a way to be authentic - I guess we know it without realizing it. You answered what seemed right for you, and that was being authentic. Sometimes a strong conviction is what's needed for a decision, and that's something being sought here. A reliable guide each of us has for our own authenticity is our own values and our own feelings. Without these invaluable guides we're like travellers without a compass, so it works to cultivate them and deploy them much as we can. It's a process and it gets easier. Follow your heart and eventually you'll find what your values are and be able to say them to people. They're our most valuable guides, and they're ours. :)
