Sunday, September 5, 2010

BUT WHY? That's Why!

You know how despite your keenness in exemplifying sense of responsibility that even encompassing circumstances could attest to such commitment, however, some people try to invalidate it just so to elude their own ineffectuality at the expense of your credibility? That sucks!

What’s worse is when you can’t seem to defend yourself when that person happens to be superior in position. Yet even worst is when such authority is used to rather gain on subordinates as a means to show who is boss…

This is one common occurrence in work places of which there are values we could learn from as well as do something about it. As normal as it is, we could be as natural in expressing disgust. That would similarly be understandable. With all the right and with circumstantial substantiation to back your claim, you could elevate the concern and refute the other party’s contention if only to point out your side of the story or perhaps even clear your name. BUT WHY?

Being vocal about it though could further put your correlation asunder, more so, be taken against you and most likely influence how your work performance rating could be partially affected. This puts intense pressure on anyone in such a predicament to just dismally keep mum about it instead. Besides, does anyone even listen? If somebody does, would there even be a sensible resolution? BUT WHY?

These pending questions make it all the more questionable and further align with one’s silence. From here on then, with weighty probability, hypocrisy ensues. In the name of professionalism, it would be more ideal for both parties to rather be civil to each other still. Then again, it’s easier said than done as the issue in the first place is the incapacity to be professional of the expected party that should exude with it more. Thus, unfortunately, hypocrisy proves to be more realistic and ironically more straightforward. BUT WHY?

Not to condone hypocrisy, but if that’s what’s happening, have the decency to somehow just conceal it with civility. Meaning: If venting one’s ire behind the despised person is likely, then limit it there without doing the opposite when fronting each other. BUT WHY?

Stepping up further, personifying levelheadedness, one should always think that redemption is sweet if results of your work would speak for your integrity. While your work could quite expectedly never measure up to the concerned person’s clouded standard, at least from a more rational (or rather from the rational) perspective, you are way better. Or to simply put it, you’re completely opposites however it does not attract. The difference could nevertheless be used for realization: If people like those made it to where they are, the better person that you are could most likely be more deserving to be there… If by some reason you don’t, the best advantage you have yet is that you did no wrong, at least…

Care to ask “BUT WHY?” Well, it’s better to be “under” though being better than “high-above” however being worst at it and faraway from the essence of the role and objective… That's why, “Better Under” Than “Worst High-above and Yonder”

The most fulfilling success one could gain is the ability to attain it without running over people. And by exuding professionalism, respect is earned not demanded.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Billie, yea right!!