The guide of points to be vigilant in this 3D life

[Ellipse]

I open this topic in the hope others will contribute. This is about points very concrete situations, on which we can fail to be vigilant, like I did, especially I think, if you evolved in childhood and even later, in a trusted/safe family, school, previous works environment. Your learned about psychopathology and all that and even experience it, but it's a bit of extreme cases. Between the two there's less extreme cases, painful to learn anyway.

So the first point I would talk is about work and one-on-one interview done in big corporates on an annual basis.

For those who never gone through the exercice, basically, the idea is you enter, at the end of the year, in a system, the goals you achieved during the year and how you managed to make shine the values of the company through you work. Your manager review it before the interview and so it can be a base of discussion/negotiation. After the interview the manager enter into the system what was said to you, and the appreciation of others managers if your work include interaction with others services.

So now the points of manipulation I witnessed:
- The very first manipulation I failed for was the manager telling us "You know, nobody read the assessment. This is an exercice imposed by the corporate but there's no really importance of it".

In fact you don't know. Upper managers and even upper, upper, upper, upper managers have access to the system. So perhaps they have a look into it sometime to have their very own idea of you. Especially if there's a problem. And if you don't put much into it, you won't have much to defend yourself. All the benefit is for the manager. So fill the system with all you can. Not easy when you are in an intense environnement, barely able to your daily tasks and there is a lot of fragmentation in the tasks you did during the year.

- The second manipulation I witnessed is the manager filling the system after the interview with his own interpretation. In my case it was putting is own lack of management on my back. He completely miss to inform me on some action to do for an important project and simply stated in the resume that I missed to do this particular action in time so my bad notation. The manipulation especially being, as far I can remember, the point was not discussed during the review. And my fault to not check his report enough fast. A twist of the system being that you don't receive a mail when it's done. You have to lo into the system to check. So the point is, as en employee you have a kind of administration in front of you which have a lot of time while you are overwhelmed by very concrete actions to do for running the business. And some don't hesitate to take advantage of it.

All in all, the manipulation at a level corporate, is we are not lawyer but the manager in front of you, is certainly a kind of. He's certainly here because he took the time to know the tricks and use it if he tilt towards the STS pathway.

So the first two point to be extra vigilent in our very concrete Orwellian world.

 

[heinrich]

I open this topic in the hope others will contribute. This is about points very concrete situations, on which we can fail to be vigilant, like I did, especially I think, if you evolved in childhood and even later, in a trusted/safe family, school, previous works environment. Your learned about psychopathology and all that and even experience it, but it's a bit of extreme cases. Between the two there's less extreme cases, painful to learn anyway.

So the first point I would talk is about work and one-on-one interview done in big corporates on an annual basis.

For those who never gone through the exercice, basically, the idea is you enter, at the end of the year, in a system, the goals you achieved during the year and how you managed to make shine the values of the company through you work. Your manager review it before the interview and so it can be a base of discussion/negotiation. After the interview the manager enter into the system what was said to you, and the appreciation of others managers if your work include interaction with others services.

So now the points of manipulation I witnessed:
- The very first manipulation I failed for was the manager telling us "You know, nobody read the assessment. This is an exercice imposed by the corporate but there's no really importance of it".

In fact you don't know. Upper managers and even upper, upper, upper, upper managers have access to the system. So perhaps they have a look into it sometime to have their very own idea of you. Especially if there's a problem. And if you don't put much into it, you won't have much to defend yourself. All the benefit is for the manager. So fill the system with all you can. Not easy when you are in an intense environnement, barely able to your daily tasks and there is a lot of fragmentation in the tasks you did during the year.

- The second manipulation I witnessed is the manager filling the system after the interview with his own interpretation. In my case it was putting is own lack of management on my back. He completely miss to inform me on some action to do for an important project and simply stated in the resume that I missed to do this particular action in time so my bad notation. The manipulation especially being, as far I can remember, the point was not discussed during the review. And my fault to not check his report enough fast. A twist of the system being that you don't receive a mail when it's done. You have to lo into the system to check. So the point is, as en employee you have a kind of administration in front of you which have a lot of time while you are overwhelmed by very concrete actions to do for running the business. And some don't hesitate to take advantage of it.

All in all, the manipulation at a level corporate, is we are not lawyer but the manager in front of you, is certainly a kind of. He's certainly here because he took the time to know the tricks and use it if he tilt towards the STS pathway.

So the first two point to be extra vigilent in our very concrete Orwellian world.

thank you. yes, the corporate world has nothing to do with fairness and honesty. you are discovering it. i deduce you might still be young. you have to watch after yourself because no other one will do it for you. you live in france. this country is ok, but beware of us owned companies. do not hide in your corner but have enough relations with colleagues. make good use of your coffee corner.
good luck

 

[palestine]

@Ellipse what topic would you like to discuss? I have some bits about work in case this is something you would like to discuss more in depth.

Thank you for the thread!

 

[Ellipse]

thank you. yes, the corporate world has nothing to do with fairness and honesty. you are discovering it. i deduce you might still be young. you have to watch after yourself because no other one will do it for you. you live in france. this country is ok, but beware of us owned companies. do not hide in your corner but have enough relations with colleagues. make good use of your coffee corner.
good luck

Not as young as all that. I worked in small compagnies with people with whom you could trust and we made great things. Bigger compagnies with normal managers and other ones with ones you cannot trust, clearly psychopath. It was very stressful but the situation was clear. The last experience is with someone with whom you think you can trust, who make friend with you but betray you to cover his ass if needed. It's a lot more subtle. A gray zone. I guess it's to let me see a good part of the spectrum.

Interesting what you say because, while the subsidiary where I work is indeed in France, the company is an US one. It can play a role because with colleagues we agree there is problem with the manager of my manager too. This is someone who worked at the US location of the company for several years and is of course regularly in touch with the US management. But no need to go over the Atlantic, we have a problematic gouv in France and sometime I got the sensation my manager is a reflection of how the country is managed. So perhaps it's both.

About your last point, I'm not alone, we don't know someone, others managers included, who have a good opinion of my manager. But no action is taken from the upper management. It's very strange.

 

[BlueKiwi]

In my experience, the larger an organisation is, the more STS oriented they are. I just left an American owned company in favour of a company owned by fellow countrymen. I couldn't be happier now.

Here in New Zealand there are employment laws which go against American style employment (No offence meant to Americans here) - You can't just be fired on the spot for no good reason.

What I've seen recently is a process employers use called PIP - or "Personal Improvement Plan" typically used by American owned companies operating in other countries. I'm seeing more and more people and close fiends being subjected to this process as a way of terminating their employment in a way that does not break local laws.

Not that it's very relevant to your case @Ellipse, but I'll put this summary here for anyone else's reference :

Here’s the thing about Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs): they’re not actually about improving performance. That’s just the branding, like how fast-food joints slap the word “fresh” on their menus as if the lettuce wasn’t harvested six months ago in a country you’ve never heard of. The PIP is less a rehabilitation program and more a corporate euthanasia protocol, designed to make your inevitable termination feel like something you had control over.



A PIP is a script, a ceremonial dance between employer and employee where the outcome is predetermined, but we all have to act like it isn’t. It’s like a bad breakup where one person insists they’re giving the relationship ‘one last shot’ while already swiping through Tinder. “We just want to help you succeed!” says your boss, while HR drafts your exit paperwork.

The Real Reason PIPs Exist​

Legally speaking, firing someone in America isn’t that hard. But what is hard is making sure that person doesn’t retaliate—either through a lawsuit, a public meltdown, or a vengeful LinkedIn post titled “A Tale of Corporate Betrayal”. Companies don’t want to deal with wrongful termination suits, so they roll out the PIP. This allows them to fire you while maintaining the illusion that this was your fault. The company tried to help you, but you just weren’t up to snuff, buddy.

That’s why most PIPs are impossible to pass. The goals are vague, the timeline is short, and the metrics are conveniently abstract. If they really wanted you to improve, they’d give you training, mentorship, or maybe even a chance to understand what the hell “raising the bar” actually means. Instead, you get something like:

• “Improve efficiency by 30%.” (Compared to what?)
• “Demonstrate stronger leadership skills.” (By overthrowing my manager?)
• “Take more initiative in ambiguous situations.” (Should I start making budget cuts myself?)

Your best bet at survival is to game the system—but even that’s risky. Some employees overcompensate, suddenly becoming the office equivalent of a manic contestant on a cooking show finale. They start volunteering for everything, drowning their boss in email updates, and showing up early to meetings like a desperate overachiever on the first day of school. Sometimes this works. Most of the time, it just makes everyone more certain that they should’ve fired you sooner.

What It Feels Like to Be PIP’d​

Being placed on a PIP is the corporate equivalent of being told your spouse “needs space.” You’re not technically fired, but the writing is on the wall in bold Arial font. Employees react in one of three ways:

1. The Resigned Fatalist – They start packing their desk before the PIP meeting is even over. Maybe they had already been job-hunting. Maybe they were just tired of pretending to care about quarterly synergy goals.
2. The Scrapper – They treat the PIP like an actual challenge, working insane hours, delivering bulletproof reports, and acting like a corporate gladiator fighting for their life. Sometimes they make it. Usually, they don’t.
3. The Leave-of-Absence Gambit – This is the chess move. Some employees, upon receiving a PIP, immediately file for a medical leave or FMLA, stopping the termination clock. Legally, the company has to hit pause, and now HR is stuck in corporate purgatory, unable to fire them without looking shady. Some people ride this out, collecting paychecks until they line up their next job. It’s not elegant, but neither is corporate America.

Why PIPs Are More Popular Than Ever​

We live in an era where corporate efficiency is the new religion. AI is creeping into workplaces, and executives are convinced that the only way to remain relevant is to eliminate anyone who isn’t an overachieving cyborg. The post-pandemic workplace has also turned up the heat on accountability, and companies that once ignored performance reviews are now using them as justification to cut costs without announcing layoffs.

In places like Silicon Valley, PIPs are basically an industry hazard. You’re either getting a raise, getting equity, or getting a PIP. And with the way tech companies hire and fire people like they’re assembling an elite dodgeball team, it’s no surprise that employees see the PIP coming and jump ship before it even starts.

How to Outsmart a PIP​

If you find yourself the unlucky recipient of a PIP, you have two real choices:

1. Use It as a Free Pass to Job Hunt – Start applying immediately. If you land an offer before your PIP period is up, you can quit on your own terms and control the narrative instead of letting your company decide how your departure looks.
2. Flip the Script – Some employees document everything—every vague instruction, every contradictory piece of feedback, every impossible deadline—and weaponize it against HR. This won’t necessarily save your job, but it might get you a better severance package because companies hate dealing with paper trails that make them look bad.

PIPs Are Not About You​

Here’s the final truth: A PIP is rarely about personal failure. It’s about a manager needing to prove they’re managing. It’s about HR reducing risk. It’s about cutting costs without headlines.

If you’re ever placed on one, don’t take it personally. Just remember: The company that’s putting you on a PIP today is probably going to have layoffs in six months anyway. The real “performance improvement” you should be focusing on is your ability to navigate corporate survival.

 

[Natus Videre]

Bigger compagnies with normal managers and other ones with ones you cannot trust, clearly psychopath. It was very stressful but the situation was clear. The last experience is with someone with whom you think you can trust, who make friend with you but betray you to cover his ass if needed. It's a lot more subtle. A gray zone.

I am often surprised how long it takes for a corporate system to "expel" a psychopath—it can take many, many years! People under the direction of a psychopath slowly get burned out, then their cumulative output is progressively reduced. Then, the psychopath "reshuffles" the teams to simulate "progress." New people join the team, temporarily boost productivity, and conceal his mistakes. But, one day, key people leave and the real knowledge required to run the machine disappears. Then, the team lowers its delivery expectations, and becomes a prime target for a corporate "restructuring." If the psychopath has good contacts (which he normally does), he jumps to another sector inside the same company and pretends to have "greatly contributed" to the corporation's past projects. And the cycle repeats...

 

[Ellipse]

@Ellipse what topic would you like to discuss? I have some bits about work in case this is something you would like to discuss more in depth.

Thank you for the thread!

I can think of the education sector, administration/banks/hospitals and of course work, i.e. big structures accustomed to apply rules to small and vulnerable individuals we are, is a good field to exchange about the very important points to pay attention.

So yeah, put your first hand experience up! We will note important conclusions if needed.

 

[palestine]

I can think of the education sector, administration/banks/hospitals and of course work, i.e. big structures accustomed to apply rules to small and vulnerable individuals we are, is a good field to exchange about the very important points to pay attention.

So yeah, put your first hand experience up! We will note important conclusions if needed.

My own experience: I have been in the hotel & restaurant industry - and there is a strong hierarchy. A few places, let's say built from "a familial structure", can be more or less neutral in term of "the difficulty" of work - but for the rest it's pure "slavery". People not in touch with this sector never set a foot in this area and don't know about it. It is a caricature of totalitarism, OSIT.

I have a few quotes that I find relevant in regard of the work - it is from a French psy, Christophe DEJOURS:

His idea is that the organization of work in a company will never be perfect. Technically speaking, it cannot be, despite an "idea" that we may have.

... empirical analysis of contemporary work situations suggests that the gap between prescribed and actual work organization can only be rationally managed through the construction of compromises

And so, the above hints at the reality, which is that given the impossibility of a 100% perfect work organization, a sane company must go towards "compromises". The psy explains that it means talking with employees, listening to them, and find solutions from this level.

If not done, what happens is technically "a denial of reality";

the denial of reality, which implies an overemphasis on design and management, inevitably leads us to interpret the failures of ordinary work as the expression of incompetence, lack of seriousness, carelessness, lack of training, malice, failure or error, all down to man. This pejorative interpretation of human behavior is summed up in the notion of the “human factor”, used by specialists in safety, security, reliability and prevention. And this pejorative judgment has a painful impact on the experience [of work] of those who, as a result, are deprived of recognition, and are often even led to conceal the difficulties with which they are confronted by the real experience of the task.

Employees suffer and take the load on themselves - when in fact there is an impossibility - a megalomany, uphill.

The psy does not chew his words:

These obstacles to the appearance of truth have always been present in the organization of work, but the manipulation of the threat that silences contradictory opinions and gives the “official” description of work a hold over consciences is incomparably more widespread than it was twenty years ago.

He explains that at some point, there was room for solving this suffering, but that it went wrong:

Investigations into occupational psychopathology begun in the 70s were, at the time, met with union prohibition and leftist condemnation. Anything to do with subjectivity, subjective suffering, mental pathology and psychotherapeutic treatments was met with suspicion and even public disavowal, except in a few notorious cases (Hodebourg, 1993). The reasons for this reticence? Any approach to psychological problems by psychologists, doctors, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts was tainted by the cardinal sin of privileging individual subjectivity, leading to individualizing practices and undermining collective action. The analysis of psychological suffering was a matter of subjectivity - a mere fictitious and worthless reflection of subjectivism and idealism. Supposedly anti-materialist, such preoccupations with mental health were suspected of undermining collective mobilization and class consciousness, to the benefit of a fundamentally reactionary “petty-bourgeois navel-gazing”.

Not only was it not possible to develop research in the field of mental suffering, but those that were attempted were hindered, resulting in ignorance that deprived the aforementioned organizations of ideas and means of action in a field that was to become decisive.

And so, deprived from the basic scope that would have permitted to solve problems, a second-hand way has been adopted. The result is a second-hand "psychology" for work - and the developping of "human resources" (cannot make this up!):

At the same time, research into occupational psychology, psychosociology, stress at work and, more broadly, general psychopathology and psychoanalysis, has made its way into vast sectors of society (schools, justice, hospitals, police, political parties, etc.) and among many circles of practitioners, right up to and including specialists in commerce, management, the media, communication and management. But not in the field of occupational medicine, nor in that of the trade unions! This delay on the part of some, this growing gap with the concerns of the general public, this growing awareness on the part of others (among practitioners, executives, managers and the intelligentsia), has led to the gradual emergence (at a steady pace) of new practices: training for executives in group dynamics, psychosociology, facilitation, and so on.

The most tangible result of this vast movement, which took place outside workers' organizations, was the emergence in the 1980s of the new concept of “human resources”. Where unions refused to venture, management and executives forged new conceptions and introduced new practices concerning the subjectivity and meaning of work: corporate culture, institutional projects, organizational mobilization, etc., dramatically widening the gap between executives' and management's capacity for initiative (...).

But the most formidable consequence of this union reticence to analyze subjectivity and suffering in relation to work is undoubtedly that, at the same time, these organizations have contributed in an unfortunate way to the disqualification of the word on suffering, and, as a result, to tolerance of subjective suffering. The organization of tolerance to psychological suffering, to unhappiness, is therefore partly the result of the policies of trade unions, leftist organizations and left-wing parties. Therein lies the paradox.

This book hasn't been translated but is pretty precise on those matters. It's "suffering in France: the banalization of social injustice"



I think that Dejours highlights the generic condition. I have been working in many different places, but overall it's all for oneself. People are not happy, they work a lot and it's a big "factory" sustaining a failing bigger machine. While people, like in Switzerland, believe that they participate in a global good, I believe that those people tend to not consider all sectors, and that they are not any more feeding a positive bigger whole.

It's crazy that it continue like that without adjusting things.

I remember a great article by Pierre LESCAUDRON:

Post imperialism: A Template for a New Social Order​

Since 1972, wages are dropping while corporate profits are rising

Let's do our best! The above shows me that there is absolutely zero future in pursuing the same way and that a big conscious realization must occur. Otherwise, things are meant to go kaflooey.

 

[Martina]

I would just share that when I'm dealing with really difficult people either in workplace or I'm paying for some service that I need and the person doesn't do the job for which he/she is payed for, I get sick. My body just reacts that way. I lost couple of hundred Euros last year, the service wasn't provided, I got sick for 2 months and in a meantime the company fired that person but it costed me time, money and health. Now they got me a different reliable person and I got immediately better. Such people just ruin company's reputation or drive quallity employees away.

 

[SOTTREADER]

I open this topic in the hope others will contribute. This is about points very concrete situations, on which we can fail to be vigilant, like I did, especially I think, if you evolved in childhood and even later, in a trusted/safe family, school, previous works environment. Your learned about psychopathology and all that and even experience it, but it's a bit of extreme cases. Between the two there's less extreme cases, painful to learn anyway.

So the first point I would talk is about work and one-on-one interview done in big corporates on an annual basis.

For those who never gone through the exercice, basically, the idea is you enter, at the end of the year, in a system, the goals you achieved during the year and how you managed to make shine the values of the company through you work. Your manager review it before the interview and so it can be a base of discussion/negotiation. After the interview the manager enter into the system what was said to you, and the appreciation of others managers if your work include interaction with others services.

So now the points of manipulation I witnessed:
- The very first manipulation I failed for was the manager telling us "You know, nobody read the assessment. This is an exercice imposed by the corporate but there's no really importance of it".

In fact you don't know. Upper managers and even upper, upper, upper, upper managers have access to the system. So perhaps they have a look into it sometime to have their very own idea of you. Especially if there's a problem. And if you don't put much into it, you won't have much to defend yourself. All the benefit is for the manager. So fill the system with all you can. Not easy when you are in an intense environnement, barely able to your daily tasks and there is a lot of fragmentation in the tasks you did during the year.

- The second manipulation I witnessed is the manager filling the system after the interview with his own interpretation. In my case it was putting is own lack of management on my back. He completely miss to inform me on some action to do for an important project and simply stated in the resume that I missed to do this particular action in time so my bad notation. The manipulation especially being, as far I can remember, the point was not discussed during the review. And my fault to not check his report enough fast. A twist of the system being that you don't receive a mail when it's done. You have to lo into the system to check. So the point is, as en employee you have a kind of administration in front of you which have a lot of time while you are overwhelmed by very concrete actions to do for running the business. And some don't hesitate to take advantage of it.

All in all, the manipulation at a level corporate, is we are not lawyer but the manager in front of you, is certainly a kind of. He's certainly here because he took the time to know the tricks and use it if he tilt towards the STS pathway.

So the first two point to be extra vigilent in our very concrete Orwellian world.

Hi @Ellipse it appears we have a somewhat similar situation with the difference you are based in France and I am based in the UK, but both our employers are ultimately American companies. I should clarify that the company, at least in my case, is operating in the British market and so it's not American roles being outsourced abroad.

Annual evaluations are an important part of the business cycle and they play a key role on your perceived value as an employee. This then usually translates to your pay and opportunities you are given within the business. Usually, what they say is that nothing surprising should come out of your end of year appraisal as there should usually be a culture of continuous feedback i.e. if there's something your manager doesn't like, he should let you know straight away and you should then make the necessary change.

In any case, what I have learnt from corporate existence is you need a thick skin, you need to understand chameleons exist almost everywhere, you need to know it's always a competition, you need to understand that you are replaceable and that your value is only linked to how well you do your job (or are perceived to be doing your job). It's important not to be under any illusions and not to be idealistic - I'd say what you want is a long-term strategy to guide your actions. If you are going to deal with all the sh*t, then you might as well be enduring it for a reason i.e. it should also serve you in some way. It's also important to recognise that almost everyone else is experiencing the same stress and dealing with the same sh*t but the game is that no one shows it because they all want to appear under control. Some people thrive in that environment and you need to recognise who these people are and basically navigate around them very carefully.

If your job and the people you have to deal with are super stressful (unfortunately I have very good experience with stress and difficult people), you need to look after your physical health. I mean you need a regular exercise regiment that you stick to like religion, to ensure your body is in an optimal condition. If your body is fit you can deal with the stress better. If you've got a fitness/smart watch you should also be able to track your stress levels and your sleep. Basically optimise yourself so that you then don't get overwhelmed by the insanity

My number one rule with workplace stress is I never let it impact my actual health. I need to train my psychological state and my body so that the strength I have is greater than the stress in the workplace. Look, people are surviving all sorts of situations out there in the world and that means you can survive office and corporate politics without compromising on your health and wellbeing.

Also, it's important and I see it a lot. Never go suicidal with your superiors. I have seen people get so annoyed after their end of year review or after they see how this has affected their pay that they basically just lose all control and say things they shouldn't. Of course it never ends well for the person in question. So never go suicidal