Monday, August 30, 2004

randomness from above

I wonder when I see my work place get scrambled up why certain people react in the way in which they do. Some can't deal with total change coming from above out of the blue. Some it doesn't seem to bother.

Does that mean that those that seem to cope are missing something? Jaded beyond caring. They have fallen all the way to cynical.

Does it mean, rather, that those who have significant trouble are over taxing themselves? Any change is a problem that has to be solved.

I don't think you've hit cynic if you are still contributing. A cynic cares so little that they can't contribute.

I know which camp I fall into. I keep coming to work. I keep contributing by doing what I think is important. I keep getting paid. Life is good.

1 Comments:

Blogger Star Girl said...

I think that there is no right way to react to change so I wouldn't say that either one is bad. There are people who take it to extremes, but I think each of us can or has been that person at one time or another. I think it is very situational as well as personality dependent.

I think those who aren't bothered by it are probably less emotionally invested in the status quo than others. That might mean they are really into their feature, really attached to stability, or what have you. Lacking that emotional attachment isn't inherently bad or good - it's a gray scale with a lot of detours and possible motivations.

Finally, I think one can be a cynic and not contribute. For me, that means not falling into the emotionally invested category (along with some other stuff). Here's an interesting definition of a cynic from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"A person disposed to rail or find fault; now usually: One who shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, and is wont to express this by sneers and sarcasms; a sneering fault-finder."

(from http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry_main/00056791)

11:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home