In the same vein, you might consider telling someone they look fine, even if you're not a huge fan of what they're wearing — but only if they're not a close friend, and only when you're already out and they can't go change. Same goes for telling a sick friend they seem better. If it'll cheer them up and give them hope that they're horrible cold is, in fact, sounding better, why not say so? Let's say your friend has sat you down for coffee, and is excitedly chatting away about her new business idea.
But you hate it. Do you a say so, and ruin her momentum? Or b smile and say it sounds like fun? I'd go with b. Unless your partner expressly asks for the intimate details, it's almost never a good idea to be brutally honest about your affair.
In other words, coming clean is almost always more for you , than it is for them. So it's not worth it to say it. It's up to you to decide what to say when breaking up with someone. But do recognize that the truth is not always what they need to hear. Again, your personal life is yours. So if someone's hounding you for info, it's OK to lie to get them to go away. Answering them, or even fielding those Qs, might not be worth it if it's going to make you upset. All of that said, it's important to remember that honesty is usually the best policy, so don't make a habit out of fibbing your way through life.
Once you become happy with the person that you are, you will feel absolutely no need to lie. If you need to take better care of yourself to be content in your life, then start doing this. Things like eating well, regular exercise and finding a hobby that you enjoy doing can really make all the difference to your mental health.
Take care of your body and mind in whatever way you can, this will greatly help you in being the real person within and accepting yourself. Maybe you are lying about something in particular or a whole bunch of small things. If you are lying about smoking or drinking too much for example, do your best to change these bad habits and then you will no longer need to lie about them. This falls into the last point I made about being the best version of you possible.
Maybe you do not lie about yourself, maybe you are not honest when somebody asks for your opinion on something. Remember that you do not have to be overly nice to everyone you meet or try so hard to be a people pleaser. Most people would much rather you tell the truth if it stings slightly, than to sugarcoat a lie. One of the main reasons why people are not always honest is because they are constantly trying to be somebody else.
Having to always impress someone might make you exaggerate on the life you really have and this should not be the case. The only person who needs to genuinely like you, is YOU. The Wall Street Journal recently detailed how a year-old conglomerateur perpetrated a gigantic fraud on sophisticated financial institutions such as Citibank, the Bank of New England, and a host of Wall Street firms.
A Salomon Brothers team that conducted due diligence on the wunderkind pronounced him highly moral and ethical. A few months later…. Even with a fully disclosed public record of bad faith, hard-nosed businesspeople will still try to find reasons to trust. Lured by high yields, junk bond investors choose to believe that their relationship will be different: Wyatt had to break his contracts when energy prices rose; and a junk bond is so much more, well, binding than a mere supply contract.
Similarly, we can imagine, every new Pitino employer believes the last has done Pitino wrong. Their relationship will last forever. Ambiguity and complexity can also take the edge off reputational enforcement. When we trust others to and keep complexity their word, we simultaneously rely on their integrity, native ability, and favorable external circumstances.
So when a trust appears to be breached, there can be so much ambiguity that even the aggrieved parties cannot apprehend what happened. Was the breach due to bad faith, incompetence, or circumstances that made it impossible to perform as promised? No one knows. Yet without such knowledge, we cannot determine in what respect someone has proved untrustworthy: basic integrity, susceptibility to temptation, or realism in making promises.
We own the market. Then the company went on the skids. The funny thing is, afterwards he bought the business back from us, put a substantial amount of his own capital in, and still has not turned it around. He was independently wealthy from another sale anyway, and I think he wanted to prove that he was a great businessman and that we just screwed the business up.
If he was a charlatan, why would he have cared? Where even victims have difficulty assessing whether and to what extent someone has broken a trust, it is not surprising that it can be practically impossible for a third party to judge. That difficulty is compounded by the ambiguity of communication. Aggrieved parties may underplay or hide past unpleasantnesses out of embarrassment or fear of lawsuits.
A final factor protecting the treacherous from their reputations is that it usually pays to take people at face value. Assuming that others are trustworthy, at least in their initial intentions, is a sensible policy. Mistrust can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most respond to circumstances, and their integrity and trustworthiness can depend as much on how they are treated as on their basic character.
Initiating a relationship assuming that the other party is going to try to get you may induce him or her to do exactly that. Overlooking past lapses can make good business sense too.
People and companies do change. It is more than likely that once Borland International got off the ground, Kahn never pulled a fast one on an ad salesman again. Trust breakers are not only unhindered by bad reputations, they are also usually spared retaliation by parties they injure.
Many of the same factors apply. Power, for example: attacking a more powerful transgressor is considered foolhardy. Getting even can be expensive; even thinking about broken trusts can be debilitating. Businesspeople consider retaliation a wasteful distraction because they have a lot of projects in hand and constantly expect to find new opportunities to pursue.
The loss suffered through any individual breach of trust is therefore relatively small, and revenge is regarded as a distraction from other, more promising activities. It will take away from everything else. You will take it out on the kids at home, and you will take it out on your wife.
You will do lousy business. In general, our interviews suggested, businesspeople would rather switch than fight.
An employee caught cheating on expenses is quietly let go. Customers who are always cutting corners on payments are, if practicable, dropped. No fuss, no muss. Our interviewees also seemed remarkably willing to forget injuries and to repair broken relationships. A supplier is dropped, an employee or sales rep is let go.
Then months or years later the parties try again, invoking some real or imaginary change of circumstances or heart. What about the supposed benefits of retaliation? Game theorists argue that retaliation sends a signal that you are not to be toyed with. This signal, we believe, has some value when harm is suffered outside a trusting relationship: in cases of patent infringement or software piracy, for example. But when a close trusting relationship exists, as it does, say, with an employee, the inevitable ambiguity about who was at fault often distorts the signal retaliation sends.
Without convincing proof of one-sided fault, the retaliator may get a reputation for vindictiveness and scare even honorable men and women away from establishing close relationships.
Even the cathartic satisfaction of getting even seems limited. We would be guilty of gross exaggeration if we claimed that honesty has no value or that treachery is never punished. Trustworthy behavior does provide protection against the loss of power and against invisible sniping. But these protections are intangible, and their dollars-and-cents value does not make a compelling case for trustworthiness.
A good track record can protect against the loss of power. Long-suppressed memories of past abuses may then come to the fore, past victims may gang up to get you. A deal maker cited the fate of an investment bank that was once the only source of financing for certain kinds of transactions. The industry knew that this is what you had to expect; our people had no choice.
Now that the bank has run into legal problems and there are other sources of funds, people are flocking elsewhere. At the first opportunity to desert, people did—and with a certain amount of glee. They are getting no goodwill benefit from their client base because when they were holding all the cards they screwed everybody. There are parabola curves in all businesses, and people still supported me, even though we had a low, because they believed in me.
Trustworthiness may also provide immediate protection against invisible sniping. If a client tries to jerk me around, I mark up my fees. On occasion, sniping can threaten the power it rebels against. The high-handedness of department stores, for example, has created a new class of competitors, the deep discounter of designer apparel.
At the same time, the manufacturers have learned that we treat them right. We scrupulously keep our promises. Anyone can set up an outlet. What really matters is the trust of the suppliers. Neither of these benefits can be factored easily into a rational business analysis of whether to lie or keep a promise. Sniping is invisible; the sniper will only take shots that you cannot measure or see. How could you possibly quantify the financial repercussions when suppliers you have abused refuse your telephone orders or ship hot items to your competitors first?
Assessing the value of protection against the loss of power is even more incalculable. It is almost as difficult to anticipate the nature of divine retribution as it is to assess the possibility that at some unknown time in the future your fortunes may turn, whereupon others may seek to cause you some unspecified harm. The net present values, at any reasonable discount rate, must work against honoring obligations.
0コメント