Last night I finished reading chapter 2 of the book that Ima recommended ("Give and Take" by Adam Grant). The chapter compared network building strategies of givers, takers, and matchers. The most prominent giver profiled in the chapter was ... drumroll ... Ken Lay. The description of his rise to power was enlightening and appalling, all at the same time. Here's a somewhat intriguing bit of trivia: George W. Bush apparently saw through Lay and steered clear of him. Lay threw lots of financial support behind Ann Richards for Governor of TX until it became obvious that Bush was going to win - then he gave money to Bush. The donation had the effect of allowing Bush to see Lay for what he was.
Interesting bit of trivia: you can use a company's prospectus to tell if the CEO is a giver, taker, or matcher. If the prospectus features at least one very large picture of the CEO, that person is likely a taker. Taker CEOs also tend to make a salary that's significantly greater than anyone else's in the company. They're entitled, you know.
I was completely sucked in and fascinated by the description of how takers build networks. Here's a quote from the section that really struck me: "Although takers tend to be dominant and controlling with subordinates, they're surprisingly submissive and deferential toward superiors. When takers deal with powerful people, they become convincing fakers. Takers want to be admired by influential superiors, so they go out of their way to charm and flatter. As a result, powerful people tend to form glowing first impressions of takers."
Now, why did this whole chapter, and the section quoted above, strike a chord? The answer is simple: the quote above is a frighteningly accurate description of The Minion. My former boss and Pushy PI thought The Minion was sweet and submissive, because she was always deferential to them. However, to the rest of my coworkers, she was dishonest and manipulative. Interpretation: she viewed us as her subordinates. The description applies somewhat to Supervisor Barbie as well - again, remember that Pinhead Former Boss thought she was wonderful and was "grooming her" for an even more powerful position than the one she held. He eventually figured out her ways, though, and she left to find a new job. It fits BarMinion as well, but her boss (RoadRunner) mostly sees through her. Pushy PI is most definitely a taker, based on the passage above and on other discussions throughout the chapter. "Dominant and controlling with subordinates" fits him to a T, and it also fits my former boss. So, Pushy PI would be at the top of the power structure, bullying people in order to get his way. PHB was submissive to Pushy PI (and others of similar ilk) in order to be in a position of power himself. The Minion is below both in the structure but uses her association with Pushy PI to bully others around. All in all, a fun group of people.
I had an interesting conversation on this topic at lunch with MacGyver, Road Runner, and Daughter of Road Runner. Road Runner lived in Sweden for several years, and her daughter lives there now. According to them, culturally speaking, Swedish people are matchers that have very little tolerance for takers. In fact, takers are pretty much shunned according to them. According to the chapter I just finished, this is classic matcher behavior (shunning takers), so it all fits. This has several implications. First off, it means that my assessment of Road Runner as a matcher is probably correct. Secondly, it means that she's really going to tire of BarMinion's antics at some point and cut her off. It also means I need to really watch all the advice for dealing with takers, because that's what I'm dealing with. Thirdly, it also means that I have quite a bit of matcher in me, given my previously stated tendency to deal with takers by avoiding them.
I'm really enjoying this book. thanks for the recommendation, Ima!
Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.
-- Albert Einstein
.
). Prices were marked down to 75% off. Let's just say I stocked up. 
