From time to time…
…it is necessary to remind readers – and Charlotte’s students – that everything described within these pages is true.
The events recounted happened to real people, were perpetrated by a very real Charlotte Kok, enabled by the very real individuals described, supported by a cast of real life useful idiots, and carried real consequences for those affected.
Really.
Apart from a certain artistic licence with the occasional adjective, the Editor’s habit of making the facts appear slightly more ridiculous than they already are, and a handful of entirely unnecessary jokes, the underlying events are substantially as described.
Indeed, one of the enduring difficulties faced by Charlotte’s defenders is that the facts generally prove more troublesome than the satire.
But what has this to do with Nietzsche?
Charlotte begins the lesson
Thank you, students.
Today’s lesson concerns a philosopher of considerable utility to the aspiring executive: Friedrich Nietzsche.
Many people misunderstand Nietzsche. They imagine he wrote about morality, self-improvement and personal growth.
Fortunately, I have not made this mistake.
What Nietzsche understood – and what Human Resources has spent generations attempting to conceal – is that life is fundamentally a struggle between the strong and the weak.
The strong impose their will.
The weak submit annual leave requests. Or resignations.
Thus, when confronted by an unsuspecting colleague standing between yourself and a promotion, one should not ask, “What is the right thing to do?”
One should ask, “What would Nietzsche have wanted?”
The answer, students, is surprisingly often, “Whatever benefits Charlotte. Kok.”
Consider the colleague. He arrives full of optimism, qualifications, industry accreditation and a touching belief that performance will be assessed on merit.
This is known in philosophical circles as a vulnerable prey animal.
The inexperienced executive may feel sympathy.
This is a mistake.
For every minute spent mentoring a subordinate is a minute not spent constructing a narrative concerning his deficiencies.
As Nietzsche almost certainly intended.
[The Editor wishes to clarify that Nietzsche intended no such thing.]
Charlotte continues.
The great philosopher taught us that suffering is an unavoidable feature of existence.
Why, then, should one deprive a colleague of the opportunity to experience it?
Indeed, by creating adversity, uncertainty and occasional professional catastrophe, we are arguably contributing to his personal development.
In this way, students, we discover that every setback inflicted upon another person can be reclassified as leadership.
Editor’s note
Readers and students alike may readily perceive the utility of a modern philosopher such as Nietzsche in justifying contemporary corporate predation etiquette.
The Editor is less persuaded.
For Charlotte’s philosophy of leadership bears only a passing resemblance to the works of Nietzsche and considerably greater affinity to a school of thought whose origins are lost to history but whose principles appear to have been rediscovered independently in boardrooms throughout the developed world.
Its central proposition is deceptively simple: Every success is evidence of Charlotte’s leadership. Every failure is evidence of somebody else’s shortcomings.
The practical advantages of such a philosophy scarcely require elaboration. Unlike conventional systems of ethics, it places no unnecessary constraints upon ambition. Unlike accountability, it is highly scalable. And unlike objective reality, it can be adapted to changing circumstances.
The Editor concedes that, from a purely career-management perspective, the approach possesses certain attractions.
For the aspiring executive, there are obvious benefits in occupying a position from which praise flows upward and blame cascades torrentially downward.
The difficulty, as several of Charlotte’s former colleagues eventually discovered, is that gravity tends to operate in only one direction.
Charlotte’s rebuttal to the Editor
An entirely unwelcome, uninvited and gratuitous excellent observation, Editor.
Indeed, many aspiring executives encounter difficulties with gravity.
Particularly when credit, recognition and successful outcomes insist upon flowing towards the individuals who actually produced them.
Students, this is neither natural nor sustainable.
The mature leader understands that gravity, like organisational charts, exists primarily to be managed.
Left unattended, praise has an unfortunate tendency to accumulate around competent employees.
This can create confusion.
Stakeholders may begin forming incorrect conclusions regarding the origins of success.
A subordinate delivers a major project. A client expresses satisfaction. A partner sends a congratulatory email. Before long, people begin asking entirely unhelpful questions.
Questions such as:
“Who actually did the work?”
Or worse:
“Who came up with the idea?”
The experienced executive recognises the danger immediately.
For if success is permitted to follow its natural course, it may eventually reach the wrong destination. Like the person who actually did the work. Or came up with the idea.
Accordingly, one must construct suitable channels through which recognition may be redirected towards senior leadership.
Or, where appropriate, oneself.
This process is known as Leadership.
[The Editor wishes to clarify that it is not.]
Charlotte continues.
Similarly, students, one must be attentive to the opposite phenomenon.
Failures, disappointments and strategic misadventures display a curious tendency to seek higher ground.
Should such matters be allowed to continue upward unchecked, they may ultimately reach senior executives.
This is highly undesirable.
Accordingly, effective leaders develop systems by which accountability may be encouraged to return to its natural habitat.
Namely, the people beneath them.
Thus we arrive at one of the foundational principles taught here at the Elite Altitude Finishing School for Lady Executives:
Success must be assisted upwards.
Failure must be actively encouraged downwards.
Only then can organisational gravity be brought into proper alignment.
Editor’s final words
The Editor thanks Charlotte for another enlightening lesson from the Elite Altitude Finishing School for Lady Executives.
Students should now possess a sound working knowledge of organisational gravity and the techniques by which its natural operation may be suspended, redirected or otherwise persuaded to favour senior management.
The Editor nevertheless feels obliged to offer one small caution. Gravity, unlike Human Resources, is not indefinitely negotiable. For a time, praise may be redirected. Credit may be appropriated. Accountability may be delegated. Narratives may be managed.
Reality, however, displays a regrettable tendency to reassert itself.
Eventually.
The precise timing varies. But history suggests that enablers who systematically elevate the undeserving, reward the manipulative and sacrifice the competent seldom escape the consequences forever.
Indeed, the final irony of Charlotte’s philosophy may be this: The higher one rises by ignoring gravity, the further one falls when it resumes its duties.
Charlotte dismisses the class
THANK you, you insufferable man Editor!
Class is dismissed.
Leave a comment