W: How did your annual performance evaluation meeting with your manager go? Did you get much in the way of praise?
M: Next to zero. When we came to the part about discussing my areas for growth, he bluntly told me that I had an attitude problem. But he wouldn't really expand on that description. He said it's the little things I do and say.
W: Did you ask him for a specific example?
M: I did ask him a few more questions to try and narrow it down. He said my constant questioning of him and his decisions was the most obvious example he could give. Then our conversation was swiftly brought to a close.
W: I had a similar experience once. My manager told me I was too honest. In most cases, I thought my honesty was helpful, as did my colleagues, but my manager thought otherwise. Some managers really adopt manipulative language to disguise the unreasonable choices they have made. They don't use the rational power of arguments to resolve issues of conflict or complaints about unfairness.
M: Right. Some employ their persuasive vocabulary and influential communication style to win workplace arguments by compelling people to perform the intended action.
W: Exactly. Too honest? Isn't that a good thing? I thought that's surely something we should have covered earlier in the section discussing strengths and talents, but no. Honesty was deemed to be more of a sin than a virtue, since it made people feel uncomfortable, or at least it made the most powerful folks feel uncomfortable.
M: Indeed. Rhetoric is viewed by many philosophers as the method through which the powerful accumulate more power. By virtue of having the loudest voice, they're able to command greater attention and to further assert their dominance, even when what they're saying doesn't really make much sense.
W: And retaining their power and prestige is their priority.
M: It's what makes the most sense to a lot of them.