What is the treachery in business?
served as the Occasion to think of a phenomenon of treachery and to understand definitions several conversations from which in the form of dialogues I will lead excerpts by way of illustration to the subsequent reasonings.
From conversation of the shareholder of one average by the amount of business with the friend:
Shareholder : - You represent, he betrayed me, threw, it is possible to tell. Wrote the notice of resignation at the most inappropriate moment - I just found the potential buyer on the business, it to me will spoil all picture the leaving, Judas …
the Friend : - I did not understand about whom you speak? About the director, huh? He was your authorized representative …
the Shareholder : - About it, the traitor, and about whom? How many I for it made! And here his black gratitude?
Friend : - And he knew about your negotiations on business sale? And in general, from what you decided to step out?
Shareholder : - It does not concern it, it is my question. You know, everything bothered already, there is a wish for quiet life … to
So such treachery in business? If to generalize information which can be collected then the traitor offers to call such person who broke fidelity to someone or something. Following this logic, treachery is a violation of the assumed or assigned obligation or a debt.
One and all sources attribute a negative shade to treachery as an act and the traitor as the person who made it very often naming such person a symbolical name of Judas. From here - and a negative synonymic row: traitor, turncoat, veroly, renegade.
Impartial reflections allow to come, meanwhile, to other conclusions and testify to opposite estimates.
The concept “treachery“ is inapplicable to the individual. It is impossible to betray himself. It is possible to speak about changes in own preferences, in criteria of estimates and judgments, but it demonstrates development of the individual rather, than his “treachery“ of former preferences or estimates.
We will review a simple example. The person was a vegetarian, and then, having tried meat, refused so radical assessment and began to eat everything. Does he have to call himself “traitor“? No, it just passed to other step of the development. Therefore, conclusion No. 1 : the person cannot apply to himself the concept “treachery“.
While its environment can treat - and treats! - new actions of the person as treachery. Let`s review the same example. Adherents - vegetarians will condemn behavior of the person who solved there is a meat, will call him the turncoat, and more radical - even the traitor. On what basis? Only that of their expectation concerning this person - that it forever will remain the adherent of vegetarianism - not will coincide with its actions. Therefore, conclusion No. 2 : people around can apply the concept “treachery“ in case of a deviation of behavior of the person from the norms accepted in his environment.
And what is the norms accepted in some community? Generally is what distinguishes this community from others. For example, community of marketing specialists - commitment to bright and sonorous projects. The community of shareholders - aspiration to receive is more, having enclosed less.
Respectively, following to norm is considered the acceptable behavior in any environment, moreover - it is cultivated and supported by any ideological instruments of influence. Similarly - influence community of marketing specialists examples of the bright advertizing companies. And on community of shareholders - examples of those who could enclose “almost nothing“ and receive “almost everything“.
Here at last we also approached the main thing: the environment of the individual influences it, subordinating or inducing to submit to certain norms in actions and thoughts and if the individual dares to dump bonds of this influence, then an environment, protecting itself and members, loyal to itself, immediately calls such individual the traitor, the turncoat, verolomy, the turncoat.
By the way, you know in what the shocking duplicity of any community is shown? That, welcoming the new member, it prefers not to ask a question what environment that left for the sake of transition to their ranks! And especially does not call him the traitor or the turncoat of that environment. On the contrary, its act can be estimated “new convert“ words, “made the correct decision“, “apprehended truth“ and to that similar.
So it is possible to tell about treachery in business? Arguing similarly, we come to a conclusion that the shareholder, having called the director the traitor, thereby in the opinion of the friend admitted own powerlessness to continue to manipulate further the director in personal interests. By the way, I am familiar with this director, and on my question why it left the post, that answered that he in some timepoint felt uncertainty of the shareholder in the future and his unwillingness farther to develop this business.
Growth of the skilled seller from panties of the supervisor and leaving the company in search of a role, more adequate for itself is not treachery of interests of business or the shareholder of this company, and the testimony of discrepancies of its ambitions and restrictions imposed by his heads.
Departure of the director from not the person interested to develop the business of the shareholder and on the quiet it selling - the certificate that the director outgrew the shareholder. Performance of the famous member of marketing community with the report on need to be guided in advertizing campaigns by desirable economic effect, but not by shock value of a plot, means achievement of higher level of understanding of sense of marketing by it and in any way “turncoat“ does not deserve at his colleagues of an assessment.
Advice to the individual: not to be confused, having heard in the address an assessment “traitor“.
Council to community: always to seek to develop synchronously with development of individuals and to avoid estimates like “traitor“ in case of discrepancies of rates of development.