“He who has a why can bear almost any how.” — Nietzsche

What if what you value is unimportant to others? And what if your “why” is entirely incongruent with your friend’s “why”? What helps you extract meaning from your relationships may be the very factor which plunders another.

Further, how are we to decide whose values are prioritized, and under what set of conversational “rules” do we govern our own behavior? Ultimately, if we’re of the belief that we must live by our values, we must respect that others should do the same, which may force the hands of our egos to tussle.

Thanks for reading honestly unorthodox.! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Yes, values are important. They serve as guardrails to guide our behavior, and they typically attract other likeminded people. If truthfulness is important, we will learn to speak honestly despite a greater likelihood of negative response than, say, compelled speech (e.g., political correctness). Our friends may be straight shooters with a particular penchant for offensive comedy (these are my type of people). Those who claim “connection” as a value will invest their energy and time into their relationships over other values, like innovation or self-reliance, values which perhaps interfere with or dilute a person’s need for social bonds.

On a group level, common values help people work in harmony towards a greater goal. At the very least, it keeps every interaction from becoming a debate of personal merit. Ray Dalio has become known for the unfettered, unfiltered environment he created within his investment firm, Bridgewater Associates, requiring all of his employees to speak bluntly regardless of the response. In turn, those wielding such loosened truths are equally responsible for receiving them from others. For example, Ray himself once received a bit of feedback from a junior colleague via email:

“Ray — you deserve a “D-” for your performance today … you rambled for 50 minutes … It was obvious to all of us that you did not prepare at all because there is no way you could have been that disorganized at the outset if you had prepared. … We can’t let this happen again.”

Ray’s response? It was not a passive-aggressive email riddled with “journey” or “transparency” lingo, nor did he lecture his colleague about how insulting management is disrespectful. Instead, Ray did the following:

* He forwarded the email to other meeting participants and asked them to rate his performance to confirm whether the feedback was fair.

* The meeting participants agreed with the “D-” rating. The feedback turned out to be supported by the group.

* Dalio then shared the entire email thread and the ratings with the entire organization.

What did Ray prove? That feedback, particularly constructive, often times harsh criticism, is not a top-down process. And if the leader him or herself is incapable of modeling how to both receive and apply it? Your employees will follow suit.

Conversely, while lively debate is essential to innovation and quality of thought, it would be terribly annoying for every interaction to become a negotiation of whose priorities reign supreme. Most people would crumble in environments where every moment is ripe for performance evaluation. To again refer back to the initial question of values, though; do all of your values have to align with the person you work for? Or the person you’re married to, friends with, neighbors with?

Despite widespread adoration, the mantra that is “always be true to yourself” comes with more cost than benefit. Do not be fooled by today’s egomaniacal young bucks that the world and those who occupy it must bend to the will of your truest, most authentic “you”, even if workplaces welcome and accept you “like family” or encourage you to “bring your whole self to the workplace.” These sorts of luxury beliefs are comforting, well-rehearsed lies. Which, ironically, prove the point that is being more strategic with impression management than “your whole self”: blending in and pretending tocomply with bullshit is how we gain traction, both professionally and personally. The twisted role-play that is attracting “authentic” employees, for example, is followed by cries for sameness, policy, and procedure, and punishment for behaving in ways that are unprofessional or deviating to far from “the norm”--- you know, like your actual self. Your actual self and your colleagues bringing their actual selves would ultimately result in what Ray has created with Bridgewater.

There is a middle ground, though, between scripted pettiness and Dalio’s doctrine, and it’s packaged in the word “compromise”.

Compromise is a necessity should we hope to make it through life. This means, much of the time, we must place our own, petty preferences aside in favor of what others like, approve of, or need. Other people matter---particularly their opinions of us. I realize this violates modern dogma which emphasizes the self, and it’s a kernel of reality we hope and pray cannot be true. But I shouldn’t have to pretend to be anybody but me! Another recited fib.

People are too busy focused on themselves, they don’t care what you’re doing and don’t even notice, we tell one another. This is only somewhat true. Yes, we’re self-focused. Perhaps now more than in previous generations. But we’re also neurotically attuned to what others are doing, what they’re wearing, and what they claim to be thinking. It’s become its own form of leisure to collect a stranger’s supposed-beliefs on any matter and track their every move to decide if they’re trustworthy. Not only do we notice when Olivia goes back to platinum blonde, but we zero in on the now-absence of pronouns in her email signature, making us question her political stance and therefore her values. I knew she was a Trump supporter, that’s why she sucks at writing behavior plans!

Other people have always been the yardstick we use in deciding how to behave. And changing what we say or how we behave around other people isn’t a sign we’re people-pleasing, but a blaring emblem of our adaptability and flexibility, two traits far more useful than authenticity.

We need to identify values, but prioritizing them above all else, no matter the context, is misguided. Not only will our values change over time, but they’re (typically) best appreciated via shared experiences with others. Sometimes changing our behavior against our best interest, just to preserve the joy that is a “valuable experience” to another person, is what it means to be an adult. Call it what you want: people-pleasing, “pouring from an empty cup”, altruism; it’s vital to our success and happiness. What good is being authentic if we’re unable to co-exist with anyone?

What if what’s valuable to us isn’t as high on the list as, say, our spouse? What if, over time, our work values shift while our employer’s values remain the same? Do we sever ties at the mere glimpse of difference or “red flags”? Is our belief in the human species that abysmal that we cannot foresee a future if our every need, every thought, every personal preference isn’t met with celebration?

To use a workplace example, my values have drastically shifted from what they once were when I was a newly minted analyst. My inquisitiveness would of course reinvent wheels long since rusted over with outdated policies and procedures! While my blunt nature and lust for friction have landed me some great professional opportunities, I’m not sure they’ve made me value my work anymore than if I’d simply kept my mouth shut. What’s valuable to me is my independence in workplace settings, which requires me to heavily follow the rules so as to keep any form of supervision or oversight to a minimum. I don’t like rules. But I’m also an adult who needs income.

In this respect, my employers and I have made marionettes of our values: I pretend I’m invested in my professional betterment while they pretend they’re invested in my career advancement. We commiserate, then, in this tandem bluffing.

If you’re an owner of a company or perched higher upon the totem pole in your work, I do have unsolicited advice. Nobody actually wants a transparent, “full-self” workplace. We want minimal friction with others and we want to be left alone, all of which require the opposite of transparency: counterfeit attitudes. Sure, parts of our real selves will occupy these avatars. But to assume the workplace is an infantilized play pen housed by how we ought to think about moral issues unrelated to work? That assumes you’re Mommy to all of your employees. And you let me know how that goes for you. Author of “Don’t Be Yourself” explains this far better than I can:

“Contrary to what the authenticity cult predicates, success is rarely attained through radical honesty or by always showing every single side of ourselves. Instead, it’s a function of carefully managing your self-presentation ---- adapting to situations and showcasing qualities that are best appreciated by others--- while making an effort to conceal negative, undesirable, and irrelevant aspects of your personality.”

Successful, self-composed, and truly confident people aren’t those who are unfiltered, brash with their “truth”, or “unapologetically themselves”. They simply know how to read a room and adapt their behavior to that which will be most acceptable in light of the goal. We have to be equally mindful of how we impact and influence others instead of focusing so excessively on others adapting to our quirks.

We can blame the world for not accepting us, or we can become person worth accepting. The choice is yours, as it always has been.

Thanks for reading honestly unorthodox.! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit honestlyunorthodox.substack.com